FROM ARCHAEOLOGY TO IDEOLOGY IN NORTHWEST MEXCIO: CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA IN THE CASAS GRANDES RITUAL LANDSCAPE by Todd Pitezel _____________________ Copyright © Todd Pitezel 2011 A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the SCHOOL OF ANTHROPOLOGY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2011 2 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE As members of the Dissertation Committee, we certify that we have read the dissertation prepared by Todd Pitezel entitled From Archaeology to Ideology in Northwest Mexcio: Cerro de Moctezuma in the Casas Grandes Ritual Landscape and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 10/1/2010 Suzanne K. Fish _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 10/1/2010 Paul R. Fish _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 10/1/2010 Barbara J. Mills _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 10/1/2010 J. Jefferson Reid _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 10/1/2010 Thomas E. Sheridan Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate’s submission of the final copies of the dissertation to the Graduate College. I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement. ________________________________________________ Date: 10/1//2010 Dissertation Director: Suzanne K. Fish 3 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the copyright holder. SIGNED: Todd Pitezel 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Suzanne K. Fish chaired my dissertation committee. Paul R. Fish, Barbara J. Mills, J. Jefferson Reid, and Thomas E. Sheridan served as dissertation committee members. I am always grateful for their discussion and extraordinary willingness to help me across the line when the moment came. Dissertation research was supported by a National Science Foundation Dissertation Improvement Grant (BCS-0531262) and funding from the Emil Haury Educational Fund, the Raymond H. Thompson Fellowship Endowment, Reicker Grant, the Arizona Archaeological and Historical Society, and the Fred Plog Memorial Fellowship. Michael E. Whalen (University of Tulsa) and Paul E. Minnis (University of Oklahoma) generously shared settlement and artifact data; and Steve Swanson kindly shared hill site data to help make part of this dissertation possible. I alone am responsible for any inaccurate use or interpretation of their data. I am indebted to those who freely labored for me at Cerro de Moctezuma for one day or several weeks: Beth Bagwell, Michael Boley, Jessica Cerezo, Jeff Charest, James Clanahan, Karla Cordova, Daina Dajevskis, Jon Dowling, Jennifer Gutzeit, Emily Jones, Heather Kehres, Leonard Kemp, Lauren Kingston, Art MacWilliams, Dave Mehalic, Keith Mendez, Matt Pailes, Estee Rivera, Tom Robinson, Jennifer Sandretto, Kari Schmidt, Adam Searcy, Mike Searcy, Elizabeth Toney. From free labor in the field to countless lunches in Tucson where we considered what Casas Grandes meant and means and how Cerro de Moctezuma fits into that. Thank you, Art. I would be thoughtless if I did not thank Mike “Mago” Whalen, Paul “Sr. Ciencia” Minnis, and Paul Fish for the day of backfilling. I am sure that it is not often that your mentors become your willing slaves. Suzy, labored in other ways. Always encouraging and challenging, I have benefited from her deep reservoir of knowledge and remarkable, unending patience. Mago y Sr. Ciencia introduced me to Casas Grandes and gave me opportunities that few students are able to enjoy. There is simply no way to describe the circumstances of unparalleled generosity Suzy and Paul provided since I arrived in Tucson to start this journey. 5 to dad and mom 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ...........................................................................................................10 LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................13 ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................15 CHAPTER 1 – TOWARD A NEW UNDERSTANDING OF CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA AND THE CASAS GRANDES RITUAL LANDSCAPE .....................17 CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA .................................................................................................19 OVERVIEW OF THE INVESTIGATIVE APPROACH ..............................................................20 ORGANIZATION OF THE DISSERTATION ..........................................................................22 CHAPTER 2 – A VIEW OF THE PAST AND PRESENT STATE OF THE CASAS GRANDES MEDIO PERIOD .............................................................................25 CASAS GRANDES CHRONOLOGY ....................................................................................26 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.............................................................................................29 CASAS GRANDES SETTLEMENT ......................................................................................31 PREVIOUS CASAS GRANDES STUDIES .............................................................................33 Paquimé ....................................................................................................................33 Near and Far Organization around Paquimé ..........................................................37 The Near Hinterland ..............................................................................................37 The Far Hinterland .................................................................................................43 Shamans, Cults, Ball Courts, and Hilltop Features .................................................46 SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................49 CHAPTER 3 – SETTING THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .................................51 LANDSCAPE ....................................................................................................................52 RITUALIZATION AND RELIGION ......................................................................................55 CRAFTING AND MOVING THROUGH THE LANDSCAPE .....................................................59 Placecrafting, Trails, and Shrines of Engagement ...................................................59 Pilgrimage.................................................................................................................63 ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOGRAPHY OF HILL USE IN MEXICO AND THE SOUTHWEST UNITED STATES .........................................................................................67 ARCHITECTURE ..............................................................................................................71 A THEORETICAL FOCUS ON CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA .....................................................72 CHAPTER 4 – CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA’S UPLAND FIELDS, CORRIODORS OF MOVEMENT, AND CROWING PRECINCT .................................................................74 CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA’S FIELDS OF POWER .................................................................74 CASAS GRANDES TRAILS................................................................................................79 TRAIL SURVEY METHODOLOGY AT CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA .........................................80 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued CONNECTING PEOPLE AND PLACE: CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA’S TRAILS AND WAYSIDE FEATURES ......................................................................................................83 Two North Entrance Trails .......................................................................................85 Trail 112 with Wayside Feature 93 ........................................................................85 Trail 113 .................................................................................................................86 Five West Entrance Trails ........................................................................................87 Trail 114 with Wayside Features 100, 101, 121, and 137 .....................................87 Trails 116 and 138 with Wayside Features 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, and 128 ......89 Trail 110 and Wayside Feature 99 .........................................................................93 Trail 111 .................................................................................................................93 One South Entrance Trail .........................................................................................94 Trail 117 with Wayside Feature 102 ......................................................................94 The Atalaya Trail (Trail 106) ...................................................................................94 The Tunnel Trail and Hillside Tunnel.......................................................................95 MEDIO PERIOD USE OF TRAILS.......................................................................................96 CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA’S TRAILS AND WAYSIDE FEATURES IN CONTEXT ....................98 A UNIQUE INVESTMENT: THE ATALAYA ATOP CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA ........................99 Introduction and Research Methodology..................................................................99 Describing and Excavating the Ostentatious Ritual Precinct ................................101 SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................105 CHAPTER 5 – DISCOVERING AND EXCAVATING EL PUEBLITO ......................108 ARCHITECTURE OF POWER IN ADOBE ...........................................................................111 Estimating Number of Rooms .................................................................................115 ROCK-IN-ADOBE ...........................................................................................................116 ESOTERIC KNOWLEDGE IN RUBBLE CORE MASONRY...................................................117 Isolated Rubble Core Masonry Structures ..............................................................120 West-central Rubble Core Masonry Structures ......................................................121 North Rubble Core Masonry Structures .................................................................126 Northeast Cliff Rubble Core Masonry Structures ...................................................127 The Massive Ruble Core Masonry Wall .................................................................129 UNTYPICAL COMPONENTS OF SETTLEMENT COMPOSITION: EXTRAMURAL ROCK FEATURES ...................................................................................130 SURVEILLANCE AND ACCOMMODATION: PLAZAS ........................................................135 SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................138 CHAPTER 6 – THE ORDINARY AND EXTRAORDINARY: RESIDENCE AND RITUAL AT CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA ......................................................................141 SURFACE ARTIFACTS FROM EL PUEBLITO ....................................................................144 EXCAVATED ARTIFACTS FROM EL PUEBLITO ...............................................................146 THE ORDINARY: INTER-SETTLEMENT COMPARISON .....................................................148 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued THE EXTRAORDINARY ..................................................................................................151 Wood Preference and Differentiation .....................................................................151 Bird Wings and Elk Ribs among other Fauna ........................................................154 MISCELLANEOUS ARTIFACTS FROM CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA.......................................158 SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................158 CHAPTER 7 – EXPERIENCE AND DESTINATION AT CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA ................................................................................................................161 MOVING TO EL PUEBLITO ............................................................................................162 ENTERING EL PUEBLITO ...............................................................................................167 ENCOUNTERING EL PUEBLITO ......................................................................................171 Public and Private Gatherings: Plazas ..................................................................171 Beyond the Practical: Architecture, Placement, and Multiplicity ..........................172 THE ULTIMATE DESTINATION AT CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA ..........................................175 SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................177 CHAPTER 8 – FROM ARCHAEOLOGY TO IDEOLOGY: COMPILING AND CONCEPTUALIZING THE CASAS GRANDES RITUAL LANDSCAPE .................181 VISUALIZING RITUAL COMMUNITIES IN THE CASAS GRANDES LANDSCAPE.................183 Hill Sites ..................................................................................................................187 Hilltop Shrines .....................................................................................................187 Hill Shrine Communities .....................................................................................192 Ball Court Communities .........................................................................................194 Feasting Communities ............................................................................................198 THE RITUAL LANDSCAPE AT PAQUIMÉ .........................................................................202 CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................................................207 APPENDIX A – EL PUEBLITO ARTIFACT ANALYSES AND COMPARISONS ...215 SURFACE COLLECTIONS FROM EL PUEBLITO ................................................................217 General Surface Collection.....................................................................................218 Comparison of Controlled Surface Collection Units ..............................................222 Surface Collections from Plazas .............................................................................224 Surface Collections from Buildings and Extramural Rock Features......................227 EXCAVATED ASSEMBLAGES FROM EL PUEBLITO AND INTER-SETTLEMENT COMPARISONS ..............................................................................................................231 Comparison of Excavated Assemblages from El Pueblito......................................231 Inter-settlement Comparison of Excavated Assemblages .......................................232 Comparison of Excavated Ceramics from El Pueblito ...........................................236 Inter-settlement Comparison of Excavated Ceramics with Notes on Chronology ..............................................................................................240 Comparison of Excavated Chipped Stone from El Pueblito ...................................244 Inter-settlement Comparison of Excavated Chipped Stone ....................................252 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Comparison of Excavated Ground Stone from El Pueblito ....................................256 Inter-settlement Comparison of Ground Stone .......................................................256 APPENDIX B – NON-WOOD PLANT REMAINS FROM EL PUEBLITO EXCAVATIONS .............................................................................................................258 APPENDIX C – CERAMIC DATA FROM CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA’S TRAILS AND WAYSID FEATURES...........................................................................................260 APPENDIX D – CERAMIC DATA FROM EL PUEBLITO AND THE ATALAYA ..265 APPENDIX E – CHIPPED STONE DATA FROM CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA’S TRAILS AND WAYSIDE FEATURES .........................................................................270 APPENDIX F – CHIPPED STONE DATA FROM EL PUBLITO AND THE ATALAYA ......................................................................................................................272 APPENDIX G – GROUND STONE DATA FROM CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA’S TRAILS AND WAYSIDE FEATURES .........................................................................275 APPENDIX H – GROUND STONE DATA FROM EL PUEBLITO AND THE ATALAYA ......................................................................................................................276 APPENDIX I – A CASAS GRANDES PLAINWARE JAR ..........................................279 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................280 10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Imposing Cerro de Moctezuma fills the southwestern panorama of Casas Grandes’ capital town of Paquimé ...........................................................18 Figure 2.1 Location of the Casas Grandes world.......................................................30 Figure 2.2a-d Four excavated Medio period settlements showing variability in settlement composition .............................................................................40 Figure 4.1 Overview of Cerro de Moctezuma showing the locations of agricultural fields, trails, El Pueblito, and the atalaya .................................................75 Figure 4.2 Two upland rock agricultural fields and massive oven that are a part of a larger complex along Cerro de Moctezuma’s west side...........................77 Figure 4.3 Cerro de Moctezuma’s known trails and wayside features ......................82 Figure 4.4 Wayside Feature 93, a symbolic passage to El Pueblito and Paquimé ....86 Figure 4.5 Wayside Feature 101, a rock accumulation..............................................89 Figure 4.6 Wayside Features 124 and 126 .................................................................90 Figure 4.7 Wayside Feature 128, parallel rock alignments .......................................92 Figure 4.8 Plan view of the atalaya atop Cerro de Moctezuma ...............................102 Figure 4.9 Profile views of the atalaya atop Cerro de Moctezuma..........................103 Figure 5.1 El Pueblito on Cerro de Moctezuma showing the types and locations of features ...................................................................................................110 Figure 5.2 A 12-walled room in the adobe mound ..................................................112 Figure 5.3a-c Adobe wall profiles as revealed by looting and excavation ...................114 Figure 5.4 West wall profile of a rock-in-adobe structure, Feature 56 ....................117 Figure 5.5 West profile of two partially excavated rubble core masonry structures showing room floors and remnant and projected wall heights ...............119 Figure 5.6 A rubble core masonry structure, Feature 35 .........................................122 Figure 5.7 A rubble core masonry structure, Feature 36, with a platform hearth and T-shaped door .........................................................................................124 Figure 5.8 An adobe platform hearth (Feature 118) with ash retainer ....................125 Figure 5.9 A rubble core masonry structure, Feature 28 .........................................127 Figure 5.10 A rubble core masonry structure, Feature 15 .........................................128 Figure 5.11 Top view of the massive rubble core masonry wall, Feature 46 ............129 Figure 5.12 A rock feature, Feature 7 ........................................................................132 Figure 5.13 A rock feature, Feature 49 ......................................................................133 Figure 5.14 A rock feature, Feature 24 ......................................................................135 Figure 7.1 Below surface Trail 113 with rhyolite cliff of the El Pueblito mesa in the background .............................................................................................166 Figure 7.2 El Pueblito showing the south entrance trail and points of entry from the north and west ........................................................................................168 Figure 7.3 West entrance to El Pueblito ..................................................................169 Figure 7.4 North entrance to El Pueblito .................................................................169 Figure 7.5 First view of the atalaya from the atalaya trail .......................................176 Figure 8.1 Settlement survey areas and known settlements in the Casas Grandes heartland .................................................................................................185 11 LIST OF FIGURES – Continued Figure 8.2 Hill survey areas and known locations of hill sites in the Casas Grandes heartland .................................................................................................186 Figure 8.3 Hill sites in the Casas Grandes heartland and the types of features on them ........................................................................................................191 Figure 8.4 Distribution of ball courts in the Casas Grandes heartland ....................195 Figure 8.5 Distribution of massive “feasting” ovens in the Casas Grandes heartland .................................................................................................201 Figure A.1 El Pueblito on Cerro de Moctezuma showing the locations of test excavated features and controlled surface collection units ....................216 Figure A.2a-e Examples of chipped stone tools from the general surface collection at El Pueblito...................................................................................................220 Figure A.3 An unusually large axe from the general surface collection at El Pueblito ..............................................................................................221 Figure A.4 Proportional comparison of ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone from the surfaces of El Pueblito’s plazas ...............................................225 Figure A.5 Proportional comparison of plain and decorated ceramics from the surfaces of El Pueblito’s plazas ..............................................................226 Figure A.6 Proportional comparison of chipped stone from the surfaces of El Pueblito’s plazas .....................................................................................227 Figure A.7 Proportional comparison of ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone from the surfaces of El Pueblito’s buildings and extramural rock features ...........................................................................................228 Figure A.8 Proportional comparison of plain and decorated ceramics from the surfaces of El Pueblito’s buildings and extramural rock features ..........229 Figure A.9 Proportional comparison of chipped stone from the surfaces of El Pueblito’s buildings and extramural rock features .................................230 Figure A.10 Proportional comparison of excavated ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone from El Pueblito’s buildings and extramural rock features ...................................................................................................232 Figure A.11 Proportional comparison of excavated ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone from the adobe architecture at El Pueblito and four other Medio period settlements .......................................................................233 Figure A.12 Proportional comparison of excavated ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone from all contexts at El Pueblito and four other Medio period settlements ..............................................................................................235 Figure A.13 Proportional comparison of excavated plain and decorated ceramics from El Pueblito ..............................................................................................237 Figure A.14 Proportional comparison of excavated jar and bowl rims from El Pueblito ..............................................................................................238 Figure A.15 Range of excavated Plainware rim diameters from El Pueblito .............240 Figure A.16 Proportions of small, medium, and large Plainware jars ........................240 12 LIST OF FIGURES – Continued Figure A.17 Figure A.18 Figure A.19 Figure A.20 Figure A.21 Figure A.22 Figure I.1 Proportional comparison of excavated chipped stone from El Pueblito’s adobe architecture and all other contexts ...............................................246 Proportional comparison of excavated chipped stone from all contexts at El Pueblito ..............................................................................................247 Proportional comparison of excavated chipped stone from El Pueblito’s buildings and extramural rock features ..................................................248 Proportional comparison of excavated chipped stone from El Pueblito’s extramural rock features .........................................................................249 Proportional comparison of excavated chipped stone raw material types from El Pueblito .....................................................................................250 Proportional comparison of excavated chipped stone from El Pueblito and four other Medio period settlements ................................................254 A Casas Grandes Plainware bowl from El Pueblito ...............................279 13 LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Table 6.5 Table A.1 Table A.2 Table A.3 Table A.4 Table A.5 Table A.6 Table A.7 Table A.8 Table A.9 Table A.10 Table A.11 Table A.12 Table A.13 Table A.14 Table A.15 Table A.16 Table A.17 Chronology for the Casas Grandes world .....................................................27 Rubble core masonry structures at El Pueblito ...........................................119 Extramural rock features at El Pueblito ......................................................131 Test excavated features at Cerro de Moctezuma ........................................143 Volume excavated and counts of ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone from El Pueblito and four other Medio period settlements.........................144 Abundance, counts, and weights of wood remains from El Pueblito .........153 Wood abundance from El Pueblito and four other Medio period settlements...................................................................................................153 Faunal remains from Cerro de Moctezuma ................................................157 Test excavated features at El Pueblito ........................................................215 Ceramic counts from the general surface collection at El Pueblito ............219 Chipped stone counts from the general surface collection at El Pueblito...220 Ground stone counts from the general surface collection at El Pueblito ....221 Densities and ratios of ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone from controlled surface collection units at El Pueblito .......................................223 Densities and ratios of plain and decorated ceramics from controlled surface collection units at El Pueblito .....................................................................223 Densities of decorated ceramics from controlled surface collection units at El Pueblito...................................................................................................223 Densities of chipped stone from controlled surface collection units at El Pueblito .......................................................................................................223 Proportions of ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone from the surfaces of El Pueblito’s plazas ................................................................................225 Proportions of chipped stone from the surfaces of El Pueblito’s plazas.....227 Proportions of ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone from the surfaces of El Pueblito’s buildings and extramural rock features .............................228 Proportions of chipped stone from the surfaces of El Pueblito’s buildings and extramural rock features .......................................................................230 Proportions of ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone from El Pueblito’s buildings and extramural rock features .......................................................232 Proportions of excavated ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone from the adobe architecture at El Pueblito and four other Medio period settlements...................................................................................................234 Proportions of excavated ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone from all contexts at El Pueblito and four other Medio period settlements ...............235 Proportions of excavated jar and bowl rims from El Pueblito ....................238 Ceramic type proportions from excavations at El Pueblito and four other Medio period settlements ............................................................................242 14 LIST OF TABLES – Continued Table A.18 Polychrome proportions from excavations at El Pueblito and four other Medio period settlements ............................................................................242 Table A.19 Plainware jar and bowl proportions compared to all other types from El Pueblito...................................................................................................244 Table A.20 Proportions of excavated chipped stone from El Pueblito’s adobe architecture and all other contexts ..............................................................246 Table A.21 Proportions of excavated chipped stone from all contexts at El Pueblito...247 Table A.22 Proportions of excavated chipped stone from El Pueblito’s buildings and extramural rock features .............................................................................248 Table A.23 Proportions of excavated chipped stone from El Pueblito’s extramural rock features ........................................................................................................249 Table A.24 Proportions of excavated whole and broken flakes from El Pueblito’s extramural rock features .............................................................................249 Table A.25 Proportions of chipped stone raw material types from El Pueblito’s buildings and extramural rock features .......................................................251 Table A.26 Counts of excavated stone tools from El Pueblito ......................................252 Table A.27 Proportions of excavated chipped stone raw material types form El Pueblito and four other Medio period settlements ....................................................253 Table A.28 Proportions of chipped stone from El Pueblito and four other Medio period settlements...................................................................................................254 Table A.29 Counts of excavated ground stone items from El Pueblito .........................256 Table A.30 Proportions of ground stone items from El Pueblito and four other Medio period settlements .......................................................................................257 Table B.1 Ubiquity and number of identified charred plant remains from El Pueblito flotation samples .........................................................................................259 Table C.1 Ceramic types and counts from the surface survey of trails and wayside features at Cerro de Moctezuma .................................................................261 Table D.1 Surface and excavated ceramic types and counts from El Pueblito and the atalaya .........................................................................................................266 Table E.1 Chipped stone items and counts from the surface survey of trails and wayside features at Cerro de Moctezuma ...................................................271 Table F.1 Surface and excavated chipped stone items and counts from El Pueblito and the atalaya ...................................................................................................273 Table H.1 Surface and excavated ground stone items and counts from El Pueblito and the atalaya ...................................................................................................277 15 ABSTRACT The research presented here explores why a few people left their valley-dwelling neighbors to build and live at El Pueblito on Cerro de Moctezuma, the only hilltop settlement constructed during the Casas Grandes Medio period (A.D. 1200-1450) in what is today northwest Chihuahua, Mexico. These people also constructed the only currently recognized trails to a settlement, a massive rock agricultural system and subterranean oven, and an unparalleled crowning hill summit precinct. Comparative analyses of artifacts from limited excavations at El Pueblito to four other Medio period settlements shows that in terms of ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone, El Pueblito was an ordinary residence. However, other evidence demonstrates that El Pueblito, and more comprehensively Cerro de Moctezuma, was beyond the ordinary. Wood preference, bird wings, remains of elk, an impractical use of construction materials, an imposing use of buildings, a unique architectural style, and an untypical settlement composition support a conclusion of specialized, ideological interests. Trails and wayside shrines at Cerro de Moctezuma were physical and symbolic places that initialized perceptions of the hill. Theories of ritualization, architecture, pilgrimage, and community; ethnographic analogy; and archaeological parallels provide vantages to orient Cerro de Moctezuma within a broader ritualized landscape of interactions involving hilltop shrines, feasting ovens, ball courts, and Paquimé, the premier capital of Medio times. Cerro de Moctezuma and Paquimé each concentrated the trappings of specialization. Tangible reproductions of ritual in the hinterland, such as ovens and ball courts, are less elaborately expressed than at Paquimé. Likewise, hilltop ritual facilities are most elaborate at Cerro de Moctezuma 16 compared to those in the hinterland. Pilgrimage to both ritual centers as well as hinterland ritual leaders are envisioned. Within a trans-regional ideology and worldview of hill settlement and use, Cerro de Moctezuma was locally crafted from a ritual mandate to reinforce and maintain central beliefs and values emanating from Paquimé and was a physical and ideological part of that great center with ritual leadership residing periodically at both places. 17 CHAPTER 1 – TOWARD A NEW UNDERSTANDING OF CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA AND THE CASAS GRANDES RITUAL LANDSCAPE Around A.D. 1200 in what is today northwest Chihuahua, Mexico, a transformation from pit houses and red-on-brown pottery to above ground adobe architecture and polychrome pottery began. It culminated in one of the most distinctive and extensive cultural expressions in late prehistoric northwest Mexico and the southwest United States. Casas Grandes, as this cultural domain is known, is renowned in part because its namesake town, also referred to as Paquimé, is the largest and most elaborate settlement among related secondary sites and hundreds of significantly smaller and simpler ones. But there is another Casas Grandes settlement far more elaborate than most, and it too was an outcome of the transformation that occurred. Before the rise of Paquimé, only in the Archaic period were hills used for habitation (Hard and Roney 1998), and it was not until the 1200s during the Medio period that the people of this area again chose a hill for dwelling, and then it was only in a single instance. I refer to El Pueblito, a residential site on Cerro de Moctezuma that is a visually iconic landform in the Casas Grandes valley and an imposing southwest panorama from Paquimé (Figure 1.1). Understanding the overall settlement and landscape context of El Pueblito and how it is set within the entirety of Cerro de Moctezuma with its trails, extensive rock agricultural complex, and unparalleled summit feature requires a theoretical approach beyond what has been previously applied in the area to interpret settlement and societal organization. 18 Figure 1.1. Imposing Cerro de Moctezuma fills the southwestern panorama of Casas Grandes’ capital town of Paquimé. An emerging thread of inquiry among researchers in the southwest United States, northwest Mexico, and elsewhere asks how ritual can unify and organize societies where all-powerful leaders and bureaucracies are minimized or absent, which appears to be the case in the Casas Grandes world. A flexible and insightful theoretical approach that has not received wide application in the Casas Grandes region but has been pursued in other parts of the southwest, in both archaeology and history, is the concept of landscape (Sheridan 2006; Snead 2008; Snead et al. 2009; Snead and Preucel 1999; Van Dyke 2008; Varien 1999; Whittlesey 2009; Whittlesey et al. 1997; Wygant 2007). Combined with broadly drawn ethnographic analogies and additional theories involving ritual, pilgrimage, and architecture I adopt a ritualized landscape framework to formulate and refine a more comprehensive view of Cerro de Moctezuma and its role in the Casas Grandes world. I suggest that Cerro de Moctezuma was a prominent and ritually charged 19 component of the Casas Grandes landscape and an embodiment of broader trans-regional tenets associated with hills. CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA Although Cerro de Moctezuma has been noted for its unusual archaeological remains since the times of Adolph Bandelier (1890-1892:563-574) and Carl Lumholtz (1902:89-91), and despite visits to the hill by Blackiston (1906), Brand (1933, 1943), Sayles (1933), Di Peso (1974:2), Roney and Trumbal (1983), Whalen and Minnis (1995), and Swanson (1997) there had never been a systematic program of survey and excavation; a brief history of preceding documentation and interpretation is covered by Pitezel (2007). There is little wonder why the hill has drawn the attention of so many. Two principal architectural elements of Cerro de Moctezuma are El Pueblito, 200 m above the surrounding valleys, and its unique and preeminent walled summit feature, or atalaya, an additional 200 m higher circumscribing the hill summit. At 400 m above Paquimé to the northeast, the view from the summit is spectacular and unparalleled. In view of El Pueblito’s unique situation on a mesa jutting from the north end of the hill and the crowning walls on the summit, it is curious that Cerro de Moctezuma has figured so little in reconstructions of Medio period society (although see Swanson 2003; VanPool and VanPool 2007:130-132). But there is more to Cerro de Moctezuma than its summit and settlement. The hill also supports the only currently identified trails and accompanying features approaching a Casas Grandes settlement, the second largest set of agricultural fields on record, a 20 regionally unduplicated masonry technology, extravagant adobe architecture, a reservoir, and a massive wall or terrace. El Pueblito itself combines architecture and outdoor features in a configuration that is unrivaled outside Paquimé for its communal orientation and exclusive attributes. An inclusive consideration of Cerro de Moctezuma’s components has been absent in previous interpretations of this settlement. Generally, prior accounts of Cerro de Moctezuma have invoked assumptions about El Pueblito and the summit feature in suggesting reasons for El Pueblito’s unusual position, although these reasons are not necessarily mutually exclusive. According to one assumption, because El Pueblito is located on a hill it could have been a defensive installation (Blackiston 1906). Other interpretations have seen the summit feature as either a central node of communication because of visibility, a defensive lookout, or an element related to Casas Grandes religious beliefs. Following from each scenario, El Pueblito’s residents would have been caretakers of the summit feature (Bandelier 1890-1892:567-568; Blackiston 1906; Brand 1933; Di Peso 1974:2:362-365; Swanson 1997). Defense, communication, and religion are equally plausible possibilities, but none of these associations has rested on more than brief visits to the hill and conjecture coupled with a general failure to consider the relevance of Cerro de Moctezuma’s landscape context (although see Swanson 2003). OVERVIEW OF THE INVESTIGATIVE APPROACH El Pueblito is the notable exception to typical patterns of residential settlement type and location in the near vicinity of Paquimé. It is impractically located for access to 21 water or food in comparison to the many hundreds of other settlements in the valleys around Cerro de Moctezuma. Why, then, is El Pueblito improbably situated on a hill? Or, Why did El Pueblito’s residents choose to leave their neighbors on the valley floor and build this impressive and unique settlement? Prior documentation of El Pueblito existed at such an incomplete level that even beginning to address that question required initial survey and mapping. Pedestrian survey located features on El Pueblito that were subsequently mapped. The immediate outcome from the mapping phase was the first systematically produced map of El Pueblito that showed a number and variety of features unknown at other settlements, and it allowed the design of a test excavation program based on a stratified sample of features to maximize data collection from the diverse architectural and extramural elements of the settlement. The composition of the summit feature or atalaya is variably described and illustrated in the existing literature, including in the form of a spiraled tower with four interior rooms and an outermost wall, but those characterizations are not entirely evident today. Therefore, the summit feature was mapped to clarify the constituent parts of the precinct, and limited trench excavations were conducted in hopes of confirming the existence of an interior structure. Excavated contents were sought to shed light on the nature of activities in the summit precinct. Substantial trails linking prehispanic nodes and fields with arrays of stone features were known to be present at Cerro de Moctezuma, but only minimal documentation existed in passing references or as sketch maps, and it was clear that to better appreciate and recognize the complexity of the hill, each needed additional research. Each complex 22 of features was investigated as time, funding, and labor permitted with two primary goals being to document the extent of trails and agricultural features. More specific questions concerning trails address the similarities and differences among them and how they might have been used. Investigation of the agricultural complex focused on the variety of features present, what crops they might have supported, and how they might have provisioned the settlement of El Pueblito or beyond. ORGANIZATION OF THE DISSERTATION A selected review of past and current research in the Casas Grandes world is presented in Chapter 2. Most researchers today challenge the original, highly influential, interpretation of Paquimé and societal organization presented by Di Peso in his multivolume exposition of his work at that great site. Di Peso worked at the apex of the Casas Grandes settlement hierarchy and extended his thoughts about social, economic, political, and religious institutions across the hinterland without an adequate knowledge of the settlements he characterized as being subject to Paquimé. The challenge is to rethink Paquimé and its regional relationships through surveys and excavation of sites from southwest New Mexico to west-central Chihuahua. Chapter 3 provides key theoretical concepts focused on landscape, ritual, pilgrimage, and architecture in order to frame succeeding discussions on Cerro de Moctezuma and the Casas Grandes ritual landscape. As indicated earlier, Cerro de Moctezuma encompasses an array of features from its lower slopes to its summit. Chapter 4 opens with the results from mapping Cerro de Moctezuma’s rock agricultural 23 systems. The unexpected extent of the field complex demonstrates that Cerro de Moctezuma has the second largest system yet recorded in the region. Following that, trails are described as avenues used to ascend and descend Cerro de Moctezuma, to reach El Pueblito at three entrances, and to climb 400 m the summit. Accompanying wayside features also are described. Together, trails and wayside features mark the Casas Grandes landscape at Cerro de Moctezuma in a structured manner that evokes a transition from the common to the extraordinary. Discussion of the summit atalaya concludes Chapter 4 where the largest, most elaborate Casas Grandes hilltop construction is described as a unique ritual precinct. In Chapter 5, attention turns to El Pueblito’s architecture and other features. Normative Medio period construction is not a characteristic of El Pueblito, but instead robust masonry and adobe architecture and diverse outdoor features serve as signatures of the exceptional nature of this unique example of hill settlement. Chapter 5 also serves to introduce architecture and features that were the focus of test excavations on El Pueblito. Chapter 6 summarizes analyses of artifacts from surface collections and test excavations at El Pueblito that are comprehensively discussed in Appendix A. Assemblages of ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone from distinct types of architecture and features are compared in order to evaluate possible differences in their use. Although sample sizes are small, there are some indications of functional variation between spatial components at El Pueblito, especially the adobe room. The same data are used to compare El Pueblito to four other Medio period settlements. Given El Pueblito’s exceptional location, a distinctive artifact assemblage was expected but was not found. 24 In terms of ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone El Pueblito is comparable to current comparative collections. However, wood and faunal collections from El Pueblito and the atalaya also are described in Chapter 6 as tangible evidence for specialized and dedicated conceptions of Cerro de Moctezuma in the Medio period landscape. In Chapter 7, the reader is taken along a journey to Cerro de Moctezuma as visitors to the hill might have experienced it in the past. Trails of destination begin below the hill and rise to one of El Pueblito’s three entrances. Moving through El Pueblito travelers would have encountered a kind of settlement unknown in their home communities. The journey culminates atop Cerro de Moctezuma at the ultimate expression of summit precincts in the region. Summit features are taken up again in Chapter 8, along with ball courts and massive ovens as elements of the broader Casas Grandes landscape in which ritual communities formed under variable contexts. Possibilities for leadership roles could be expressed under varying circumstances within ritual communities. The chapter concludes by addressing 1) Why did the residents of El Pueblito live on a hill while most Casas Grandes populations did not?, and 2) What was Cerro de Moctezuma’s role in Medio period settlement and organization and its wider ritual landscape? 25 CHAPTER 2 – A VIEW OF THE PAST AND PRESENT STATE OF THE CASAS GRANDES MEDIO PERIOD The most famous interpretation of Casas Grandes was published in a 3-volume narrative that was based on three years of excavation at Paquimé and a few other sites. The data from that project fill an additional five volumes, and together they are titled Casas Grandes: A Fallen Trading Center of the Gran Chichimeca (Di Peso 1974; Di Peso et al. 1974). The title tersely characterizes Charles C. Di Peso’s thoughts: Paquimé was a trading center that succumbed. There is more to his interpretation—a complex web of theory, analogy, and data—which suggests that Paquimé was a Mesoamerican outpost and a centralized polity ruling over a vast landscape, about 87,750 sq km. The Joint Casas Grandes Expedition (JCGE), led by Di Peso in collaboration with the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, only excavated two settlements contemporary with Paquimé, making Di Peso’s interpretation Paquimé-centric and leaving a knowledge gap about its near and far neighbors. Importantly, there have been survey and excavation projects and collections studies over the past 20 years that have added data and new understandings of the Casas Grandes region that were missing from the original study (Bagwell 2004; Bagwell 2006; Bradley 1999, 2000; Casserino 2009; Cruz Antillón and Maxwell 1999; Harmon 2005; Kelley 2008; Kelley et al. 1999; Rakita 2001; Searcy 2010; Sprehn 2003; Stewart et al. 2004; VanPool 2003; Vargas 1995, 2001; Whalen and Minnis 2001b, 2009). It now is clear from some of this more recent research that Casas Grandes was not the centralized 26 polity as originally defined by Di Peso, and instead, there appears to have been independent sectors across northwest Chihuahua, and beyond, with variable integration and interaction with the great center of Paquimé, but this settlement retains its primacy in unparalleled fashion. A question to be asked is, “If Paquimé did not comprehensively govern, what tied communities together and to Paquimé?” Among recent studies, religion and ritual have surfaced as an overarching organizing principle for Medio period Casas Grandes (e.g., Rakita 2009; VanPool and VanPool 2007). Nevertheless, while studies promote a ritual perspective, especially as a leadership strategy, it is not always clear how the leadership or ideology was extended across the Medio period landscape. This dissertation is a step in that direction using ritual landscape as a broad framework. In this chapter, I review the original interpretation of Casas Grandes, subsequent regional field projects, and several studies that have proposed integrating strategies used by Medio period leaders. CASAS GRANDES CHRONOLOGY The Medio period was originally defined by Di Peso as beginning in A.D. 1060 and lasting through A.D. 1340 (Table 1; see also Scott 1966). Researchers almost immediately questioned the chronology (Braniff C. 1986; Carlson 1982; LeBlanc 1980; Lekson 1984; Wilcox and Shenk 1977:64-68) and the Medio period has now been pushed forward in time to A.D. 1200-1450/1500 (Dean and Ravesloot 1993; Foster 1995; Phillips and Carpenter 1999). 27 Table 2.1. Chronology for the Casas Grandes world. Period Phase Viejo Convento Pilon Perros Bravos Buena Fé Paquimé Diablo Robles Spanish Contact San Antonio de Padua Apache Medio Tardio Españoles Originala 700-900 900-950 950-1060 1060-1205 1205-1261 1261-1340 1340-1519 1519-1600 1660-1696 1680-1821 Revisedb 1200 to 1450 Note: All dates A.D. a Di Peso et al. 1974:4 b Dean and Ravesloot 1993 The realignment of the Medio period from the thirteenth century into the fifteenth century accords with an earlier estimation of the Casas Grandes timeline (Gladwin in Sayles (1936)). Most recently, Whalen and Minnis (2009) have characterized Medio period Paquimé as blossoming beginning in the 1300s, an evaluation not out of line with Dean and Ravesloot’s (1993) earlier work with Paquimé’s tree-ring data. We know very little about the intervals bracketing the Medio period. Broadly, the antecedent Viejo period was a time of farming by pit house dwellers using plain, textured, and red-on-brown ceramic vessels. The interval immediately preceding the Medio period, but still classified within the Viejo period, saw the transition to surface structures in the form of jacal architecture and the introduction of a polychrome ceramic. Di Peso dated the beginning of the Viejo to A.D. 700, but so little archaeology has been done in the Casas Grandes Valley that the date of Viejo beginnings should be used cautiously (cf. Stewart et al. 2004). 28 In the original chronology, Di Peso named two periods subsequent to Medio times. His Tardio period was characterized as a time of resettlement following the destruction of Paquimé, and while material culture continued, those items cannot be distinguished from their Medio counterparts (Di Peso 1974:3; Pitezel 2000). Phillips and Carpenter (1999) argue eloquently that Di Peso’s construction of the Robles phase, the leading interval of the Tardio period, was flawed in the face of then prevailing evidence. In addition to their argument, it is not clear why the same apparently charged symbolism, for example on ceramics, would continue to be crafted and consumed after Paquimé’s destruction, especially considering Di Peso’s interpretation of that center as the political, economic, and religious seat of Medio period life. Paquimé was not inhabited by its Medio period residents, or their descendents, when Spanish Basque explorer Francisco de Ibarra passed by the settlement in 1568, although the nearby surrounding area was still occupied (Obregón 1928:207). Curiously, Baltasar de Obregón, Ibarra’s chronicler, describes paintings on exterior walls at Paquimé. It seems unlikely that paint, left unattended on adobe would last very long. Either some group was maintaining at least parts of that once great center or its residents had not been gone so long that wall surfaces had deteriorated. Finally, the established presence of the Spanish and the construction of the Franciscan mission San Antonio de Padua de Casas Grandes marks the beginning of Di Peso’s Españoles period in A.D. 1660. There are no known direct descendents of Casas Grandes inhabitants, today. 29 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Casas Grandes affinities in combined ceramics and architecture are found from southwestern New Mexico to west-central Chihuahua and from the Sierra Madre Occidental to the Carmen and Santa Clara Rivers, an area encompassing roughly 29,000 sq km within the Chihuahuan Desert and most of northwest Chihuahua (Figure 2.1). The majority of that area consists of basin and range topography with the Sierra Madre making up the western and southern fringes. The difference between the highest elevation, about 2500 m, and the lowest, about 1100 m, indicates the potential for significant biotic diversity (Brand 1933). Prehistoric patterns of precipitation and temperature are not well known for northwest Chihuahua, but some departure from present conditions appears indicated by ubiquitous riparian species identified in prehistoric roofing that are quite restricted in distribution today. Although records from south-central New Mexico (Grissino-Mayer et al. 1997) are not immediate to Paquimé’s surroundings, past environmental reconstruction based on tree-ring data show a long-term drought between A.D. 1210-1305, followed by a century of above average rainfall with little year-to-year variance; the latter half of the 1300s was especially wet. Below average rainfall characterizes the 1400s, with a severe drought between A.D. 1405-1410 and again between A.D. 1445-1450. In northwest Chihuahua, today, most precipitation occurs in the months of July and August, although rainfall can be spatially variable across the area and from year to year. In general, rainfall decreases from southwest to northeast with annual average precipitation ranging from 600 mm in the Sierra Madre to 250 mm in the Carmen River Valley (INEGI 1988; 30 Schmidt 1973:Figure 6). The modern town Casas Grandes averages about 300 mm annual rainfall that is highly summer dominant. Figure 2.1. Location of the Casas Grandes world. Medio period-related settlements span from the Animas Creek area to Laguna Babicora and from the Sierra Madre Occidental to the Carmen and Santa Clara Rivers. 31 Three interior drainages make up the largest watersheds in northwest Chihuahua. From west to east they are the Casas Grandes, Santa Maria, and Carmen Rivers, all flowing south to north. The Casas Grandes is the largest of these rivers, draining 16,600 sq km (Schmidt 1973:22). Whalen and Minnis (2001b:61) compare the Casas Grandes River drainage to archaeologically important counterparts in the southwest United States, finding that it is some nine times smaller than the Gila River drainage, but comparable to the Verde and Salt River watersheds. Secondary watercourses of importance in northwest Chihuahua are the Tinaja and Tapicitas Arroyos, both of which flow into the Piedras Verdes River that in turn joins the Palanganas River to form the Casas Grandes River at the southern toe of Cerro de Moctezuma. CASAS GRANDES SETTLEMENT The Casas Grandes River Valley is not only the largest watershed but also is home to the largest and most elaborate settlement from Medio times, Paquimé, and is the location of Cerro de Moctezuma. Both are at the headwaters of the Casas Grandes River. Paquimé is regarded as the capital city of the Medio period and Cerro de Moctezuma fills the western panorama of that great city. Rising 400 m above the surround landscape, Cerro de Moctezuma was surely a visual landmark for Paquimé’s residents and surrounding populations. Paquimé was clearly the most populous and elaborate among its Chihuahuan contemporaries (Maxwell 2002:12; Phillips 2002a:20; Whalen and Minnis 2001b), indeed, one the most complex settlements among all its contemporaries in the southwest 32 United States and northwest Mexico (Johnson 1989:386; Plog 1997:173). Paquimé evokes the strongest perceptions of Mesoamerican influence in the greater region during its time (Riley 2005:117). “[I]n terms of both site size and complexity of remains [Paquimé] is ‘off the scale’” for Chihuahua (Phillips 2002a:20), representing the highest expression of political, social, ritual, and economic activity in the Casas Grandes settlement system. The spectacle of Paquimé’s architectural scale and sophisticated artifact inventory is not repeated elsewhere among Medio period settlements. Survey in the Casas Grandes heartland shows that there are about 300 Medio period sites around Paquimé and to its west and northwest, up to a distance of about 70 km (Whalen and Minnis 2001b:Table 4.1). Recent work among some 200 sites south of the heartland in west-central Chihuahua, along the upper Santa Maria and Santa Clara Rivers and around Laguna Babicora, document broadly distributed connections with developments closer to Paquimé (Kelley et al. 1999). Restricted levels of knowledge regarding settlement patterns follows from under-documented habitation in the Sierra Madre Occidental encompassing the modern border of Sonora and Chihuahua to the west and along northwestern Chihuahua’s more eastern Santa Maria and Carmen Rivers. Lekson and his coauthors (2004) speculate that there may have been thousands of Medio period settlements with a population of no less than 95,000. With exceptions possible in more poorly investigated sectors, Medio period settlements are characteristically along or near permanent and seasonal drainages and span mountain bajadas (Brand 1933; Whalen and Minnis 2001b:136-138). In adjacent regions, and contemporary with the Medio period, valley and basin settlement 33 predominates among patterned components of habitation on and specialized use of prominent hills within clearly recognized cultural traditions, and much earlier manifestations of hill residences are known in Chihuahua (Downum et al. 1993; Fish and Fish 2007; Fish et al. 2007; Hard and Roney 1998; O'Donovan 2002; Pailes 2008). Moreover, modification and elaboration of hills appears to have been a widespread ideological phenomenon from central Mexico into the southwest United States (Fish and Fish 2007; Nelson 2007). Expectations for similarly represented ideology in the Medio period find trans-regional expressions muted in comparison but nonetheless almost certainly crafted to local circumstances. Data collected by Swanson (1997) from a 90 sq km area near Paquimé shows that Medio period use of hills was widespread and that work reconfirms characterizations prior to his hill survey of preferred settlement locations in low valley and piedmont settings. There is, however, one exception: El Pueblito on Cerro de Moctezuma. Squarely within the Medio period Casas Grandes heartland and a few kilometers from Paquimé, then, is the only substantial hill residence. PREVIOUS CASAS GRANDES STUDIES Paquimé This background begins with a review of Paquimé because it is the standard by which all else Medio is compared. Volume 2 of the Casas Grandes report, which outlines the Medio period in narrative, immediately introduces an interpretation based on Wittfogel’s (1957) treatise on irrigation societies (Di Peso 1974:2:290). More specifically, Di Peso’s interpretation of Paquimé was tied to themes of “constructional,” 34 “organizational,” and “acquisitive” activities modeled after Chapter 2 of Wittfogel’s work. At Paquimé those activities were initiated and implemented by a foreign “donor” society with the labor of a local “recipient” population, an idea grounded in Di Peso’s previous work in southern Arizona (Di Peso 1956:562-564). For Di Peso, the cultural formation of the southwest United States had much to do with intrusions from unspecified Mesoamerican sources (Riley 1993). The Casas Grandes realm, and more specifically Paquimé, was similarly influenced and Di Peso found in Wittfogel a model on which to base the remarkable changes observed between the Medio period and the preceding Viejo period, with architecture, ceramic inventory, and infrastructure being some of the more prominent developments in Medio times. The following description is abstracted from Volume 2 of the Casas Grandes report (Di Peso 1974:2). After a time of initial contacts with Mesoamerica in the Viejo period, Di Peso suggested that an unknown number of merchant-priests from an unspecified place in Mesoamerica eventually became managerial overlords at Paquimé and inspired an “urbanized hydrologic society.” With technological sophistication the donors engineered and directed the construction of Paquimé, purportedly selected for urbanization because 1) it was in an oasis setting that could sustain agricultural production; 2) it was central to other resources such as ricolite, selenite, salt, copper, and turquoise; 3) it had sufficient population to support exploitative purposes; and, 4) it was positioned in a transportation corridor between the southwest United States and Mesoamerica. These conditions were important for enabling the foreign donors to direct the trading operations between this Mesoamerican outpost and local and foreign communities and create a stratified society 35 of Paquimé elites and an outlying working class. The laboring sister villages produced (primarily agricultural) surplus goods that were funneled into the Paquimé market center and provisioned its civic and religious leadership, thereby allowing the Paquimé residents to specialize in crafting of ceramics, jewelry, and lithic goods. In return for their support, satellite villages could have been provided military protection and religious inspiration from the capital town of Paquimé. Di Peso says little of military operations other than briefly disclosing that hill summit features might have been situated as observation posts from which to keep a watchful eye upon travelers along purported roads that connected Paquimé with local resources. One of these observation posts was atop Cerro de Moctezuma, the central node in the network, and he also considered it an important religious shrine. More is made of religion and its attendant ritual and paraphernalia than of purported military operations. Some of the changes seen in the Medio period, Di Peso suggested, were associated with the introduction of Mesoamerican cults into northern Chihuahua, specifically Xipe Tótec, Tlaloc, and Quetzalcóatl. Mountains, sky, water, agriculture, and sacrifice and cannibalism are some of the themes found within the religious complexes Di Peso identified, and he covered the breadth of Mesoamerica seeking parallels to Paquimé’s architecture, ceramic forms, images and motifs, shell ornaments, and other aspects of Medio period life. Di Peso notes, however, that in order to work, Mesoamerican ritual and ceremonial forms had to be cast in a local flavor and context for the Casas Grandians: “It is one thing to copy your neighbor’s mano design, but another thing to be able to accept his exact image of god and to achieve parallel identity with 36 it…” (Di Peso 1974:2:547). Out of religious doctrines and in conjunction with “display”—a central market, warehouses, ball courts, earthen mounds, and high-rise architecture—priestly orders created a holy image of the city that pulled the hinterland farmers, and their agricultural produce, to a divine place where they gathered to pay homage. Paquimé was crafted in part to attract visitors from near and far for economic transactions and was bolstered by its technological and religious sophistication. Much of the preceding interpretation, while having some basis in the remains of Paquimé’s artifacts, style of public architecture, and iconography, is scanty in details and Di Peso repeatedly deploys words such as “perhaps” and “possibly” thus implying the interpretation is open for deeper analysis. There are Mesoamerican inspirations at Paquimé to be sure. The two I-shaped ball courts are perhaps the clearest transferral of southern models but other Casas Grandes forms have southern overtones such as the earthen mounds, colonnades, effigy vessels, and horned-serpent imagery. However, the presence of such items need not have required managerial overlords from the south (McGuire 1980). Perhaps the biggest gap in this monumental interpretation is the lack of evidence from the so-called satellite villages. The JCGE only excavated at two sites believed to be contemporary with Paquimé (Di Peso et al. 1974:5:856-865). At Reyes Site 1, a single room was excavated and at Reyes Site 2, four rooms, two plazas, and two pits were excavated. It is clear that the Reyes settlements differed from Paquimé in numerous ways but despite those differences, little evidence supports the claim that they, and all other sister settlements were subjects of the leadership seated at Paquimé. 37 Near and Far Organization around Paquimé With one exception (De Atley and Findlow 1982), it was not until the early 1990s that researchers armed with data began to address Paquimé’s footprint across the landscape. To date, none of their research supports the claim that Paquimé singularly commanded surrounding communities in the way Di Peso envisioned. The following discussion focuses on the overarching theme expressed in recent research, that is, the relationships between Paquimé and its surrounding neighbors and how those relationships are measured and expressed. The data come from southwestern New Mexico on the north, from the Santa Maria valley on the east, from west-central Chihuahua to the south, from the Sierra Madre on the west, and from settlements more immediately circumscribing Paquimé, and this is the area I refer to as the Casas Grandes world, sphere, domain, or realm where Medio period ceramics, T-shaped doorways, adobe architecture, and ball courts present a generalized pattern of Medio period life. It may be worth noting that Casas Grandes pottery occurs at greater distances (AZSITE 2010; Carpenter et al. 2006; Carpenter and Vicente 2009; Di Peso et al. 1974:8:143, Figure 149-8; Gallaga Murrieta 2006; Hayden 1957; Kelley 1951; Neuzil 2005). The Near Hinterland The longest, most comprehensive research effort near Paquimé was directed by Michael Whalen and Paul Minnis who, through two decades of survey and excavation have sought to characterize Medio period organization and Paquimé’s integration and interaction with surrounding settlements (Whalen and Minnis 2001b, 2009). Most 38 recently, Whalen and Minnis (2009:6-11) operate in the belief that levels of elaboration and the presence of certain goods and facilities of production can profitably measure organizational hierarchy and they have characterized Paquimé’s leadership as establishing and perpetuating themselves through power strategies of economy and ideology. Signifiers of authority include sophisticated architecture, domination of prestige goods, mobilization of agricultural production, and use of ritual architecture. More specifically, ball courts, massive subterranean ovens, large agricultural fields identified by stone features, and over-engineered and eccentric architecture are identified as markers of authority. With the exception of large agricultural fields, all the items just listed are concentrated at Paquimé. I address ball courts, ovens, and agricultural fields more specifically in Chapter 8 as part of a discussion of the Casas Grandes ritual landscape, but generally, Whalen and Minnis see these items as facilities for both ritual and economic production. Here I draw attention to their use of “architecture of power.” Taking the term from the noted Mississippian archaeologist Thomas E. Emerson (1997), Whalen and Minnis are cued by additional studies that recognize the correlation between architecture and authority. Whalen and Minnis (2001) interpret over-engineered architecture in the Casas Grandes world, such as thick adobe walls and eccentrically shaped rooms, as non-verbal communication about the identity of those who dwell within and their social status. As will be discussed in subsequent chapters, architecture of power is represented at Cerro de Moctezuma in a variety of ways. 39 Whalen and Minnis believe that the presence of these attributes at some settlements but not others indicates settlement specialization in activities that parallel those at Paquimé but that no one settlement appears to be responsible for the comprehensive civic, economic, and religious interests so obviously represented at that great center (Whalen and Minnis 2009). By these measures, most of Paquimé’s neighboring settlements in and near the Casas Grandes Valley are composed of adobe architecture with few recognizable extramural features that indicate activities beyond simple day-to-day activities. Of course additional research could expose activities yet unseen, and questions linger about the role played by the large settlement of Galeana in the neighboring Santa Maria Valley, about 40 km southeast of Paquimé (Cruz Antillón et al. 2004). Figure 2.2a-d shows four settlements from Whalen and Minnis’ work in the Casas Grandes heartland. These settlements were selected for observation here because they recently have been excavated and their artifact assemblages served as a basis of comparison in Chapter 6 to El Pueblito’s artifact assemblage. Moreover, they represent settlement diversity and are foundations for Whalen and Minnis’ characterization of Medio period organization. What is immediately noticeable is that the settlements are not mirror images. Whalen and Minnis (2009:12-40) describe Sites 231 and 317 as small and ordinary, Site 204 as large, and Site 242 as an administrative center. Site 231 consists of thin-walled (ca 30 cm) adobe architecture, now a mound of collapsed walls and roofs, and one outdoor feature that was identified as a stone footing. Nearly 50 percent of recorded settlements are of this kind. Nothing in the way of architecture or artifacts 40 appears to distinguish such settlements from each other. Site 204 is large by regional standards and its ball court and ovens indicates that is was the locus of ritual activity involving more than the settlement’s residents. It too has the thin-walled variety of domestic architecture. a. Site 231. b. Site 317. c. Site 204. d. Site 242. Figure 2.2a-d. Four excavated Medio period settlements showing variability in settlement composition. All figures redrawn from Whalen and Minnis (2009:Figure 1.23, 1.19, 1.4, 1.26). 41 While small, Site 242 is of note for several reasons, including the several stone arcs encircling the adobe mound. It is the only known settlement outside of Paquimé with an earthen mound, and that mound is associated with a ball court, a combination of ritual architecture only seen at Paquimé. Excavation revealed that the walls at this site are uncommonly robust at about 50-60 cm wide and there is a room with 14 walls. The eccentrically shaped room and the thick walls are examples of Casas Grandes architecture of power (Whalen and Minnis 2001). Site 242 also is associated with a rock agricultural complex far larger than would be needed to provision the site’s residents; in fact, it is the largest recorded upland agricultural complex in the near area of Paquimé (Minnis et al. 2006). Accordingly, Minnis and his colleagues (Minnis et al. 2006) argue that the residents were responsible for organizing economic production that possibly helped fund the elite at Paquimé. Because Site 242 has signifiers of authority in architecture, ritual facilities, and agriculture, Whalen and Minnis (Whalen and Minnis 2001a) contend that it was a specialized settlement or an administrative node of Paquimé. Recently, Minnis and colleagues (2006) have added El Pueblito as a specialized settlement because of its associated and extraordinarily large agricultural complex, the second largest in the region, but I believe that the settlement, and by extension, Cerro de Moctezuma was for more than agricultural surplus production. As will be clear in subsequent chapters, with the exception of Paquimé, El Pueblito is the most complexly composed settlement among its contemporaries by having different types of architecture in forms easily considered architecture of power, different kinds of extramural features, 42 trails, and an unequalled ritual summit precinct. In short, Cerro de Moctezuma represents a specialized use of space in Medio times related to ritual authority. Because Whalen and Minnis see differential distribution of features and settlement complexity nearer and farther from Paquimé, they believe that the preeminent center performed most functions related to economy, politics, and ritual within a few kilometers of that settlement. The signifiers of authority are absent or nearly so within that short distance, although Cerro de Moctezuma, a ritual destination, is clearly inside this near zone of authority, leading to the conclusion in this dissertation that Cerro de Moctezuma was crafted by Paquimé’s elite. Beyond that near zone, differential distribution of features and settlement complexity indicate that Paquimé’s control was limited to a few specialized settlements such as Site 242. In addition, Whalen and Minnis (2009:7) believe there to have been settlement clusters (e.g., Tinaja, Alamito) within about 30 km of Paquimé that internally provided the full range of economic, ritual, and political matters that are most comprehensively represented at Paquimé. The large Site 204 in the Tinaja arroyo valley would have been a focal point of one of the within-30-km subsystems, but again, no one settlement in that system covered the range of specialized interests as seen at Paquimé. For example, although Site 204 was large and catered to public events it lacked the architectural sophistication that Whalen and Minnis see as an important signifier of centralized authority from Paquimé. Thus, although some form of managerial control extended beyond Paquimé, there were independent sectors near the Casas Grandes Valley suggesting that integration with Paquimé was not comprehensive. If Paquimé had complete control of the hinterland we 43 presumably would see miniature versions of that center across the Casas Grandes domain. Whalen and Minnis (1999, 2001b) have used both core-periphery and peer polity models to describe their survey and excavation results, and although they are primarily guided by a political-economic perspective, their work provides a valuable foundation for an explicit consideration of the Casas Grandes ritual landscape by recognizing the importance of ritual features, in particular ball courts and communalsized pit ovens (Minnis and Whalen 2005; Minnis et al. 2006; Whalen and Minnis 1996). The Far Hinterland What is described for far areas east and south of Paquimé (Santa Maria and Carmen Valleys, Babicora Basin) indicates a generalized pattern of architecture and material culture not unlike the majority of sites near Paquimé that were just described as relatively simple, lacking public architecture and other characteristics of differentiated settlement (Cruz Antillón et al. 2004; Cruz Antillón and Maxwell 1999; Kelley et al. 1999). Assumptions of the researchers just cited appear not far from ideas expressed by Whalen and Minnis; more specifically, they invoke the presence and absence of artifacts and specialized features to judge interaction and integration with Paquimé. No massive ovens are currently known from these southern and eastern sectors, and stone agricultural systems are unknown except for one of uncertain size in the neighboring Santa Maria Valley (Cruz Antillón et al. 2004). Likewise, ball courts are conspicuously rare, with only one in west-central Chihuahua (Cunningham 2009) and three in southwest New Mexico (Skibo et al. 2002). If these features acted as forums of social order (Whalen and 44 Minnis 2009:6), then Paquimé’s influence operated over a larger arena than proposed by Whalen and Minnis, although the uneven distribution of those facilities might still indicate that the great center did not have comprehensive control. In general, imported items such as marine shell, copper, and ceramics found at Paquimé are nonexistent or are present at much lower frequencies in southern and eastern areas, but this may not be idiosyncratic of those areas because Whalen and Minnis report similarly low numbers of these items from settlements nearer Paquimé. The contrasts in imported goods suggests that settlements far east and south had little interaction with Paquimé, but again by this measure it appears that Paquimé dominated the distribution of prestige goods, as proposed by Whalen and Minnis. On the other hand, Carpenter (2002:157) suggests that the dearth of certain items at a distance from Paquimé may reflect that fact that those items were not necessary to promote or legitimize relations with Paquimé. The idea that interaction with Paquimé can be linked to the presence and frequencies of nonlocal items is an empirical question currently without systematic attention. Analysis of the kinds of imports and their frequency on settlements across extended areas surrounding Paquimé would go far toward a better interpretation of the data and attendant social, political, and economic implications. Chipped stone, ground stone, and subsistence items in areas both south and east of Paquimé appear to be locally derived and controlled but otherwise not uniquely different from nearer Paquimé. Ideological connections seem consistent across distant sectors if we consider the presence of turkey burials and macaw cages, which are conspicuous at Paquimé; subfloor human inhumations; and the presence of common motifs on ceramics 45 types such as Ramos and Babicora polychromes as reliable symbolic indicators (Kelley et al. 1999; Minnis et al. 1993). Commonalities shared by Paquimé and these areas suggest, as Kelley and her coauthors put it, “an overall pattern of loosely assembled social organization, with subscription to common beliefs and practices that were defined in local terms” (Kelley et al. 1999:74). It is unfortunate that similar assessments cannot be made of settlements in the Sierra Madre Occidental to the west of Paquimé. Open air and cave sites in the mountains are Casas Grandes-related but they have been so little investigated and reported that characterizing them beyond the simplest denominator would be risky (see Bagwell 2006; Gamboa Carrera and Mancera-Valencia 2008; Lister 1958; Luebben et al. 1986). What seems clear is that these settlements shared common beliefs or participated in an ideology associated with Casas Grandes, as implied by the presence of Ramos Polychrome and at least one ball court as minimally reliable, although participation may not have been spread equally across the mountain zone. Thus, no single measure points to Paquimé having complete control of the vast Casas Grandes world as originally proposed by Di Peso. Researchers in the Casas Grandes heartland, to the north in southwest New Mexico, to the east in the Santa Maria and Carmen Valleys, to the south in west-central Chihuahua, and in the mountainous zone all express opinions that their respective studies show economic and political independence from Paquimé, although Paquimé certainly could be seen as dominating some aspects of prestige economy, iconography, and ideology. 46 Shamans, Cults, Ball Courts, and Hilltop Features Given the early scholarly focus on economy, manufacturing, and trade, Cordell (1997:413) imagined that religion might have had more to do with “gluing” together the Casas Grandes world than was then currently fashionable (also see Phillips 2002b). Ritual and religious perspectives on Casas Grandes, and more specifically Paquimé, are not new. Di Peso believed strongly in the presence of Mesoamerican cults and that a locally crafted religious ideology accounted for the widespread commonality between Paquimé and its neighbors (Di Peso 1974:2:333, 546-582). More recently, Fish and Fish (1999) and Whalen and Minnis (2001b) have echoed Di Peso’s contention that Paquimé was perhaps a pilgrimage center, and now we are beginning to see more exploration of religion and ritual as a source of leadership. For example, Christine VanPool and Todd VanPool (2007) model religious and political leadership through imagery on polychrome vessels. More specifically, they interpret certain iconography as depicting shamans and their transformation into the spirit world. Communication with the supernatural gave rise to and legitimized the authority of these practitioners as mediators of Medio period cosmology and thusly, in the face of aggregation and scalar stress, they became the leaders of Medio period Casas Grandes. New social norms were encoded on polychrome vessels that fostered “proper” behavior (VanPool and VanPool 2007:133). Whalen (2008) has expressed reservations that shamans harnessed all-inclusive political, economic, and social power. Shamans may serve in priestly roles, be full-time specialists, and rank as extremely powerful individuals but it appears that they are unlikely to be consummate leaders (Eerkens 2010:78-79; 47 Miller and Taube 1993; Winter 2000). More specifically with regard to Paquimé and the Casas Grandes world, it is difficult to envision shamans capitalizing on ideologies that led to massive constructions such as ball courts, ovens, high-rise architecture, colonnades, earthen mounds, and inspired supra-regionally unprecedented concentrations of non-local copper and shell at that preeminent settlement (for shell and copper discussions see Bradley 1999; Vargas 2001). Moreover, other than through encoded rules and spirit journeys, it is not clear how the proposed shamanic leadership operated and from where other than Paquimé leadership emanated. Nevertheless, the VanPools have taken the study of Medio period iconography to a new level. Ravesloot (1994) believed that cosmology or access to ritual knowledge and information was a major source of power for elites at Paquimé, who used monumental architecture and a mortuary program to broadcast their positions to their community. In addition, Ravesloot proposed a “cult of the dead” focused on fertility, water, and regeneration. Following Ravesloot and bringing together the mortuary program at Paquimé with other prominent attributes, such as ball courts, ceramic iconography, and sacrifice, Rakita (Rakita 2009; Rakita 2001) extended Ravesloot’s cult concept in dual fashion, seeing not only a cult of fertility but also a political cult based in ancestral rights. Both Ravesloot and Rakita depend solely on data from Paquimé, however, so that the operation of cults beyond that center remains murky. Harmon (2006; 2005) uses the existence of two ball court styles to argue for “cults” or “ball court complexes” involving both private rituals concerned with fertility and public rituals of display aimed at legitimizing elite ranks. The fertility rituals are 48 again not easily extended to Paquimé’s neighbors because the associated style of elaborated ball court is not replicated elsewhere. However, Harmon believes that competitive displays took place among other communities. Finally, three Casas Grandesstyle ball courts at large sites dating to the locally recognized Animas phase in southwest New Mexico have been interpreted as scenes of celestial-based games related to fertility rituals observed within the Casas Grandes religious interaction sphere (Walker and Skibo 2002). Rituals and observances of various natures must have occurred across the Casas Grandes landscape. As Polly Schaafsma (1998:40) writes, surely “ritual activity was carried out away from Paquimé itself.” Schaasfma’s idea is based on preliminary and limited data from rock art around the great center of Paquimé, but if she is correct, the content, in particular horned serpents and cartouche, and the placement of rock art at springs, overlooking watercourses, and near settlements suggests a structured landscape with cosmological and social relevance. Of course, ball court rituals, whether civic or religious, or both, surely occurred, but the nature of the ball court games remains equivocal (Harmon 2006; Walker and Skibo 2002; Whalen and Minnis 1996, 2001b). In addition, approximately 35 large pit ovens located across the region most likely were facilities for roasting large quantities of food for feasting (Jones 2003; Minnis and Whalen 2005; Minnis et al. 2006:716). I seek to add another dimension to the ritualized Medio period landscape, in particular drawing attention to hill features in the region and on Cerro de Moctezuma that were initially reported by Di Peso (1974:2) and subsequently investigated by Swanson 49 (1997). Swanson recorded features on hills with varying morphological characteristics and classified them as platform cairns, cairns, enclosures, room blocks, and breastworks, and he used a geographic information system to analyze the intervisibility of, specifically, platform cairns as signaling stations. Swanson concluded that platform cairns create a dense and highly intervisible system, with Cerro de Moctezuma being the most intervisible among Chihuahuan hill sites. It should be noted that there is not a platform cairn atop Cerro de Moctezuma; rather, as described in Chapter 4, its summit supports an imposing complex of features unlike any other hill site example. In a later expansion of his work, Swanson (2003) argues for a multifunctional interpretation of the system that includes the possibilities of military, social, and ritual signaling. Ball courts, pit ovens, and hill features are further explored in the final chapter of this dissertation. There, I adopt a ritualized landscape approach to suggest that those features and facilities had different organizational properties and therefore may have involved different realms and scales of ritual and would have provided leadership opportunities outside Paquimé. SUMMARY The interpretation of the Casas Grandes region has been gauged by our understanding of Paquimé, the largest most elaborate Medio period settlement. Economy weighed heavily in the original interpretation of that site, and political sway was centered there as well. While religion was not absent from Di Peso’s interpretation, it was not considered a foremost integrative force. More recently, some researchers have deemphasized economy while drawing attention to possibilities of religion and ritual as 50 primary sources of leadership and as implicit instruments in shaping relationships in the Medio period. Cerro de Moctezuma, although squarely within the Casas Grandes heartland and the most unusual settlement among its contemporaries except Paquimé, has not been a focus of systematic research or consideration in interpretations of the Medio period landscape. The following chapter explores key theoretical concepts that orient the remaining chapters on Cerro de Moctezuma and the Casas Grandes ritual landscape. 51 CHAPTER 3 – SETTING THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Interpreting Medio period Casas Grandes is not a straightforward task. Direct insights are not available from ethnohistorical accounts nor is it clear from which descendent communities to draw interpretative inspiration (cf. Van Dyke 2008:38). Accordingly, a suite of theoretical positions and analogy provide sources of explanation for patterns in the material residues of Medio period life. I freely draw upon theories of architecture, performance, landscape, and ritual as baseline concepts to investigate the use of space on Cerro de Moctezuma, its role in Medio period organization, and the Medio period ritual landscape. A ritualized landscape approach offers a perspective that has not been previously explored for the Medio period. Implicit in the discussion presented in Chapter 2 is a general consensus on the lack of coercion and force on the part of Medio period leadership; in addition, fully institutionalized accumulation and redistribution of material wealth does not appear to have played a major role in social and economic inequalities. Although non-local copper, shell, and ceramics appear to be overwhelmingly present at Paquimé and scarce elsewhere in the Casas Grandes world, the reasons for that uneven distribution remain unclear at present. The basis of leadership arises in many forms and in societies where force and economic redistribution are less a central part of social control, ritual and religion may play a central role in societal structure and organization (Aldenderfer 1993; Burns and Laughlin 1979; Knapp 1988; Mills 2000; Potter and Perry 2000; Reyman 1982; Sanner 1995; Whiteley 1987). 52 A focal point of Whalen and Minnis’ work is demonstrating the level of complexity and hierarchy in Medio period Casas Grandes. I do not explore that perspective explicitly and instead move toward understanding Casas Grandes organizational complexities, in particular by observing ritual communities and leadership. This perspective is not without precedent, particularly in the northern Southwest United States among researchers studying Chaco Canyon. As Mills (2002) observes in her overview of Chacoan research, defining complexity has become muted in favor of newer questions on how Chaco was organized. Moreover, she concludes that many Chacoan scholars are agreeing that power was not invested in a centralized polity but rather developments in and outside of Chaco Canyon were more directly related to ritual organization. LANDSCAPE One way to approach the questions presented in Chapter 1 is through a landscape perspective. I understand landscape in two ways, first as archaeological methodology and second as a process of social life among any past or present group of people in all societal forms. As a methodology, landscape archaeology is an outgrowth from, and reaction to, settlement pattern studies (Willey 1953) that seek to discover settlements and to evaluate arrangements and functions of sites across space as necessary first steps to understanding social processes. A landscape approach builds on settlement studies in many ways but it is particularly useful for considering places that do not easily conform to settlement typologies and it serves as a unifying concept to various guises of “off-site” 53 and “non-site” archaeologies (Anschuetz et al. 2001; Snead et al. 2009). Snead and his coauthors (2009:3) consider the concept of landscape to facilitate observations on previously ignored archaeological data, thereby incorporating them into broader discussions. Landscape archaeology facilitates answering a question long ago posed by Evon Vogt (1956:181-182), “Why are some sites not economically or ecologically situated?” Vogt continues, suggesting that cultural beliefs may have played a part in the selection of some settlement locations, a point to which this dissertation is directed. Landscapes encompass more than settlements by including broadly imagined and physical elements that are understood by their relationships to each other and to people. Tilley (1994:23) observes that landscape is both “medium for and outcom of action and previous actions.” Landscapes can be studied by considering cognitive, formal, historical, relational, and ideological dimensions (Whittlesey 2009). The physical environment should be included in discussion of landscapes because as people interact with nature they continually model and reshape their worldviews or the cognitive field. Landscapes also are the result of past actions that influence the way people assign meaning to their social and physical environments that in turn affect the organizational or relational properties of societies. The study of landscapes, then, articulates physical, social, ideological, and perceptional spheres (Basso 1996; Ingold 1993; Knapp and Ashmore 1999; Zedeño and Bowser 2009). Paths, trails, and roads; shrines, monuments, temples, and palaces; gardens and fields; caves and promontories; springs, rivers, and lakes; and rock art are not just mere components of landscapes and backdrops of human action, they are places 54 of thought and meaningful actions of people that create memory, identity, social order, and transformation. Some constructions by ancient people of the southwest United States, for example, appear to have been metaphors of cosmologically important places of the physical world and thus created and reinforced identity at distances from the referent (Snead 2008:90; Whittlesey 2007). Shrines, trails, and rock art in northern New Mexico are tangible markers of social order (Sneed 2008). Despite the purported competition between these communities, patterned responses to the physical and social environment indicate meaningful and active landscapes of identity, transformation, and memory. Landscapes are borne out of making places and experiencing and knowing other places and times such that sentiments and feelings move with people as they live; meanings of places are not forgotten upon departure (Basso 1996; Derks 1997; Hirsch 1995; Ingold 1993; van Dommelen 1999; Van Dyke 2008:238; Zedeño and Bowser 2009). Bender (1993:9) describes landscapes as “palimpsests of past activities in people’s lives.” As people move about their worlds landscapes can change or shift focus and they are not just echoes of activity but “act back” giving people understandings of themselves (Bender 1993:9). Places of landscapes are where “bonds are developed, lands are made homelands, order and power are created and negotiated, and experiences are anchored (Zedeño and Bowser 2009:8) Landscape theory is particularly useful for considering all the related facets of Cerro de Moctezuma including an impractical location of habitation that is uniquely positioned in an otherwise patterned settlement with respect to water and arable land. Moreover, landscapes as compositions of places bring Casas Grandes hinterland hill sites 55 into a socially meaningful relationship with the summit precinct atop Cerro de Moctezuma. A landscape perspective also provides a framework from which to consider the relationship between Paquimé, Cerro de Moctezuma, and hinterland settlements and the communities they form. RITUALIZATION AND RELIGION A critical point of Knapp and Ashmore’s (1999) discussion of landscapes is that they are created and experienced not only in quotidian life but also in specialized observances. As a form of communication, rituals, especially of a collective nature, offer a specific form of discourse that describes and expresses conditions that are referenced and expected in daily life (Bell 1992; Burns and Laughlin 1979; Sekaquaptewa and Washburn 2004). As people go about routines and move into and out of prescribed occasions, landscapes and rituals intertwine as cultural process and practice. Bell (1992) refers to ritualization as differentiated action that specifically establishes a privileged contrast between certain practices, and it is through this process that some dominant concerns of society are particularly visible. Moreover, ritualization is a culturally and temporally specific strategy of production meant to distinguish some activities from others and it ascribes realities to those distinctions that are thought to transcend the power of humans. Several themes discussed by Bell (1992) and noted elsewhere include central place ritual practices that incorporate localized elements but in more elaborate and stylized performances, autonomous social groups with ceremonies that vary only in 56 minor details yet are indistinguishable in purpose, and the nested importance of locations with respect to the overarching tenets, values, and cosmology of a preeminent center or belief system (Brown 2004; Dozier 1970:203, 209-210; Harvey 1991:93; Kus and Raharijaona 2000; Ware and Blinman 2000). Ritualization is a malleable strategy that allows for variation in content, themes, and actions. Furthermore, it is a process that crosscuts kinship, ethnicity, language, and politics. Every member or participant in the actions of ritualization might not identically recognize meanings, but more than a few people understand the overarching messages and significance. Moore (2005:126) provides such examples of crosscutting membership from Andean sacred places, and adopts Turner’s (1974:184) concept of “ritual topography” to describe the broad geographic catchment and varied social interests focused upon oracular shrines. As described by Bell (1992) and Moore (2005:126), ritual draws upon diverse interests. Ritualization, then, also can be considered a system of beliefs that bring order and meaning to the world. In the ethnographic Puebloan southwest United States and beyond, the relationship between native groups, land, and environment is of religious significance. This relationship was expressed by Zingg (1938:351) for the Huichol as, “there are tongues in trees, books in running brooks, sermons in stones.” Supernatural and natural realms are intimately structured and are accessed through religious practices involving ritual or “ceremonialism” (Dozier 1970; Lamphere 1983; Lumholtz 1902:126135; Zingg 1938). The importance of these practices is life-critical. Ritual specialists hold a reservoir of expert knowledge and are responsible for maintaining and scheduling the ceremonial cycle. Crucial responsibilities situate these specialists into what otherwise 57 is referred to as sociopolitical positions or elite status (Brandt 1980, 1994; Reyman 1982). Ritual paraphernalia, architecture, and religious retreat locations found across Puebloan landscapes indicate the potential for identifying ceremonialism in archaeological contexts. Archaeologists often approach the study of religion from a ritual perspective because ritual can be tangible and because knowing the specifics of prehistoric belief systems is less straightforward. This approach sees ritual as enacting coded religious principles that are interpreted from within a range of lived experience (Barrett 1991; Fogelin 2007). Several papers collected by Hegmon demonstrate the relevance of studying religion and ritual in the past, especially at the scale of archaeological culture, such as the Casas Grandes world (Hegmon et al. 2000:6, 13-14). Insights from these researchers include archaeological signatures and roles of religious practice across shared landscapes, that is, religious action leaves behind patterned residues and is a thread of commonality through broadly recognized prehistoric social configurations. Believing that religion is a pervasive organizing principle of societies, VanPool and her colleagues (2006) compiled research that considers prehistoric southwestern religious expressions from the material to the symbolic (see especially Ruscavage-Barz and Bagwell 2006; Zavala 2006). Ball courts in southern Arizona are elements of social order having integrative measures. These localized facilities have been interpreted not only as scenes of a version of the Mesoamerican ballgame that had cosmological directive, but also as accommodating regional integration rooted in ideological beliefs and ceremonial practices (Wilcox 1991; Wilcox and Sternberg 1983; Wilkerson 1991). 58 Cosmologically oriented practices and material outcomes in the prehistoric southwest United States also are widely recognized in the Katsina and Southwestern Cults (Adams 1991; Crown 1994). Both cults served in different ways to bind members of communities, reinforcing senses of identity and place in the world. The Katsina Cult ritually integrated villagers and allowed leaders to enhance their power through control of secret knowledge. The cult had both public and private aspects, most conspicuously seen as enclosed plazas used for communal observance and ceremonial structures (kivas) with access restricted to certain social segments. The Southwestern Cult was a belief system associated with so-called Salado polychromes, a set of ceramic types with a particular color combination and iconography. The cult is believed to have integrated disparate social constituencies through overarching tenets devoted to earth and fertility. In ritualized landscapes, material culture and the environment are coded with knowledge of how the world works and people respond to these codes through experience. Ritual communicates, but messages are interpreted within a range of lived experience that allows for overarching themes that serve to combine and reconfigure social groups. The Casas Grandes settlement and excavation data described in the previous chapter point to broadly distributed cultural affinities but no researcher working with the data is convinced that Paquimé exercised complete hegemony across the associated landscape. Ritualization seems an appropriate vantage from which to approach Medio period Casas Grandes considering the distribution of ritual facilities such as ball courts, pit ovens, and hilltop shrines. As will be shown in the final chapter, those 59 items have certain distributional limitations but they occur in what were described as autonomous political and economic subsystems. CRAFTING AND MOVING THROUGH THE LANDSCAPE Placecrafting, Trails, and Shrines of Engagement If dominant concerns of society are particularly visible through ritualization as contended by Bell, then differentiated production and action holds promise for identifying and measuring ritualization in the past. Although not specifically addressed by Bell, I consider production and action to include the built environment (Rapoport 1990). In many instances, builders expended considerable effort to demarcate places of authority and significant destinations with cosmological imperatives. Such places might include what Renfrew (2001) refers to as “locations of high devotional expression.” Using the built environment as a strategy is especially visible in societies that convey information materially (McGuire and Schiffer 1983), and where symbolic construction facilitates ideology and social roles by investment in expensive material, overengineering, and specialized forms (Emerson 2003; Kantner 2003; Moore 2005; Nielsen 1995). Nelson (2007) refers to this process as “placecrafting,” a succession of deliberate acts through time that monumentalize, commemorate, and symbolize social and cosmological ideals. Nelson sees placecrafting as a culturally specific, recursive strategy between leaders and followers. In the northern southwest United States, Chacoan great houses were testaments to central beliefs expressed most elaborately in Chaco Canyon 60 and might have been re-conceptualized in memorable and novel ways later in time (Kanter and Mahoney 2000; Van Dyke 2004a). I consider Cerro de Moctezuma an instance of placecrafting for several reasons to be elaborated in the coming chapters. Immediately observable traits include the extravagant use of adobe on a hill, the overbuilt and unique masonry architecture, the incomparable summit feature, and the massive agricultural complex. An over-emphasis on monumentality and expense suffers from missing, ignoring, or undervaluing less elaborate components of landscapes that are just as important in facilitating ideology and beliefs as, for example, monumental Chacoan great houses. I refer to corridors of travel that are usually classified according to levels of elaboration as roads, trails, and paths (Earle 1991). Inka roads and associated shrines, and Maya roads with altars, vaulted arches, and ramps were certainly monumental and crafted to facilitate political and religious ends, but other routes of movement, usually referred to as paths or trails, and their wayside features are often far less conspicuous and elaborate (Creel 2006; Folan 1991; Hyslop 1984; Johnston and Johnston 1957; Motsinger 1998; Robertson 1983; Titiev 1937; Wilcox et al. 1981). However, from a ritualized landscape perspective, variability and informality is of less concern because the focus is on context and association, which, as Snead and his colleagues (Snead et al. 2009:4) write, “provides a much stronger source for inference and interpretation” than typological structures. Context and association bear particular relevance for studying Cerro de Moctezuma’s trails and trail features because they are not of the monumental kinds found in Mesoamerica, for example, and there are no direct ethnographic examples from which to 61 draw interpretive insight. In succeeding chapters I consider Cerro de Moctezuma’s infrastructure within a range of appropriate archaeological and ethnographic examples as well as from the vantage of additional theories introduced below. When these features are regarded in the broader landscape they gain additional perspective as elements in a sacred geography. Trails and wayside features represent “landscapes of movement” that structure and reflect human life, enacting different social domains (Snead et al. 2009:1). Wayside features are known archaeologically from across the southwest United States. Rock borders, rock accumulations, and rock circles along routes in the southwestern Arizona were undoubtedly no less significant than more elaborate versions elsewhere for those who created and experienced them (Phillips and Rozen 1982). Rock circles on the edges of cliffs around Chaco Canyon are associated with access to the canyon bottom and are intervisible with great houses and shrines, indicating ritual or religious value (Windes 1978). Trail features in New Mexico’s Pajarito Plateau are not described with particular emphasis on cosmological association, but the trails themselves lead to shrines (Snead 2002, 2008). Creel notes cairns and other possible wayside features along a road at Old Town in southwest New Mexico. Specific meanings for these road and trail associated features are unknown but given southwest United States and Mexican ethnography it is tempting to consider them as physical nodes from which social and cosmological beliefs were engaged. Ethnographic description of trail features and comparable shrines across indigenous landscapes contributes to the sense that although they are not epic 62 constructions they are places of offerings and embrace consequences important for sustaining harmony, ensuring safe journeys, and appeasement to ancestors and creators (Fewkes 1891; Hough 1907; Jett 1994; Rogers 1933; Thompson et al. 1997; Titiev 1937). Ellis (1994:104) writes that Pueblo shrines are like a “supernatural switchboard,” and Rina Swentzell (Thompson et al. 1997), a native of Santa Clara Pueblo, offers these as places of communion with the universe. Hopi and Tohono O’odham trail shrines are well known but they are not always constructed features; rather, they often are natural formations where offerings are placed and supplications made (Darling 2006; Ferguson et al. 2006; Titiev 1937). In northern Mexico, the Tarahumara, Tepehuanes, and Huichol add stones to rock piles as they are encounter along journeys. Such observances are believed to relieve fatigue and encourage strength (Lumholtz 1902:181-182). Huichol deities are part of the earth, in mountains and stones alike (Lumholtz 1902:132). While trailside features contribute to the importance of routes, trails are also places of engagement along which landmarks are noted, history recounted, and codes of living learned (Basso 1996; Darling 2009; Darling and Lewis 2007; Ferguson et al. 2006). In “landscapes of movement” the journey is not exclusively about the destination because journeys themselves condition personhood and broader social identities along the way, engaging travelers not only with each other but also with the surrounding environment (Cummings and Johnston 2007; Snead et al. 2009). Ancient Hopi trails are believed to have been established by spiritual beings to connect people with each other and with religious shrines (Ferguson et al. 2009). Trails and roads express relationships between people, between people and places, and between people and deities. While used 63 for everyday activities, some trails also serve in sacred and ritual observances or they can have segregated uses and users (Ferguson et al. 2009; Hyslop 1984; Snead 2008). Archaeologically, trails and roads are often more elaborate and visibly defined near points of destination or places of significance. For example, Chacoan roads are often much wider and demarcated with berms and herraduras (rock outlines) near great houses (Kantner 1997; Roney 1992). These roads and associated features were likely part of a sacred geography (Fowler and Stein 1992:116-118; Stein and Lekson 1992; Van Dyke 2004b:424). Commenting on La Quemada in northern Mesoamerica, Nelson (2007) considers road-building as an extension of the placecrafting process in an effort to ritualize the landscape. Exciting new research in southern New Mexico has documented trails at large Mimbres settlements (Creel 2006). Clearly, ethnographic and prehistoric landscapes were active and marked in ways that set apart certain activities from others. Pilgrimage A particular type of movement through landscapes, and a form of ritualization is pilgrimage, which can broadly be defined as a journey undertaken by a person with religious motivation to a place of sacred value (Morinis 1992; Stoddard 1997). Consideration of pilgrimages is relevant because Paquimé has been suggested as a pilgrimage center (Fish and Fish 1999; Whalen and Minnis 2001b:199), and Cerro de Moctezuma conforms to the attributes of a pilgrimage destination. Morinis (1992) and Stoddard (1997) place the preceding definition into perspective. Pilgrimage events are classified as frequent, annual, or rare, and the length of the journey usually involves 64 longer travel than local. Motivation predominately encompasses religious agendas of requesting favor, offering thanks, fulfilling vows and obligations, expressing penitence, and gaining merit or salvation. Pilgrimage destinations most often are considered sacred and can be arranged in hierarchies if more than one exists within a pilgrimage field or catchment area. The location of pilgrimage events often requires strenuous journeys or access. While some pilgrimage locations are often filled with masses of devotees, other destinations are just as sacred because they inhibit large gatherings; ease of access and mass popularity can diminish the sacredness of pilgrimage destinations. Preston considers “spiritual magnetism” to be the power of a pilgrimage shrine or event to attract followers and it develops from “human concepts and values via historical, geographical, and social forces that coalesce in a sacred center” (Preston 1992:33). For Preston, spiritual magnetism is the quality shared by all destinations regardless of their place within the pilgrimage structure. The preceding characterizations are largely drawn from pilgrimages involving major world religions, and using just three of seven criteria that Stoddard (1997) describes as important for defining pilgrimage, he was able to tally 27 different types of pilgrimages. A more nuanced perspective of those circumstances can likewise be tailored to levels appropriate to archaeological cases and more localized traditional belief systems. Pilgrimages, then, represent a transformation from the everyday experience during the act of moving through the landscape along routes to destinations with anticipated outcomes. People from traditional societies to fully modern industrialized nations embark upon journeys at varying scales as devotional expressions of faith. 65 Pilgrims leave their familiar ground of home communities and territories to seek a place or state that they believe embodies the values and ideals necessary for fulfilling that which is sought. And while those ideals and values can be practiced at home or at more local destinations, supra-local pilgrimage destinations often offer intensified versions that can fulfill practices and needs that cannot be accomplished elsewhere. The following examples illustrate a range of variability in pilgrimages but also underscore central criteria of travel, special places, and significance to the journeyer. These instances of pilgrimage were specifically selected based on their spatial, but not temporal, relationship to the Casas Grandes world. Examples from more distant areas, of course, could be included, for example, contemporary Andean pilgrims who perform ritual dances enacting nature, society, and gods at regional shrines; or, delegates who journey to the Njelele shrine in Zimbabwe to request rain for their communities (Mafu 1995; Poole 1991). The idea of prehistoric pilgrimage in the southwest United States is not new. Judge (Judge 1989:234-245; see also Kantner 2003) argued that Chaco Canyon was the focus of periodic pilgrimages built on a structured ritual and exchange system. A pilgrimage field of outlying communities provisioned the leaders in the canyon who embedded favorable environmental conditions into the ritual structure. The ethnography of the southern reaches of the southwest United States and northwest Mexico presents different types of ritual. The Cora of Mexico embark upon week-long pilgrimages to transport sacred water from the edges and center of each Cora community territory to duplicate the meanings of ancestral territory that are encoded in communal dance 66 ceremonies (Coyle 2000). Standardized rituals are performed at each point, but each place has a unique meaning such that “joining the waters” at the final ceremonial destination symbolically reproduces the world. Among the nearby Huichol, ceremonial officers within the civic-religious hierarchy are required to conduct pilgrimages to five sacred places. But in addition, to sustain their world, officers recreate the journey to an eastern desert location that the first ancestor pilgrims undertook in creating the Huichol world (Neurath 2000). Historically, both the Zuni and Hopi made dangerous and arduous pilgrimages to sacred places to collect natural resources necessary for rituals (Ferguson 2007; Ferguson et al. 2006). A modern example of pilgrimage involves thousands of people from three different ethnic groups that descend upon Magdalena de Kino, Sonora, under Catholic tenets (Dobyns 1960). Mexican nationals and native Yaqui and O’odham all make a prescribed arduous journey to Magdalena for intercession from a saint whose statue resides in the parish church; however, not all pilgrims share the same conception of who is venerated. Griffith (1992) explains that while the statute is that of San Francisco Xavier, the celebration occurs on the day assigned to Saint Francis of Assisi. The former was a Jesuit and the latter was the founder of the Order of Friars Minor or Franciscans. To complicate the matter, some believe that the statute of San Xavier in the parish church is the representation of the person buried, and now exposed under a dome, in the church plaza. The plaza burial is Father Eusebio Francisco Kino, a Jesuit who worked in the area in the 1600s. Despite the varied perspectives on the saint’s identity, the underlying belief of the multi-ethnic pilgrimage field is that the saint grants petitions. Moreover, the 67 Fiesta of San Francisco illustrates that a range of disparate groups with different perspectives participate in an overarching system of belief. As Griffith (1992:61) writes, “…in Magdalena [the Yaqui] encounter a San Francisco who is a uniquely Yaqui conception.” The preceding examples show that pilgrimages share the common purpose of travel to a special place for particular needs. Special places involve a central location, ritual resources, and a ritually imbed object or objective. The needs are generally seen as facilitating critical life cycles in the ethnographic examples. The pilgrimage to Chaco Canyon focused on insuring a favorable subsistence environment, while San Francisco fulfilled personal requests of pilgrims. It is clear that the criteria developed for pilgrimage involving world religions do not sufficiently capture the full range of meaning, movement, and behavior. Future work could challenge those criteria by expanding the base of examples to include more ethnographically recorded instances of regional-scale pilgrimage (cf. Astor-Aguilera and Jarvenpa 2008; Crumrine and Morinis 1991; Kubler 1984). Nevertheless, the essential nature of pilgrimage presented above and these few examples provide a basis for considering pilgrimage in Medio period Casas Grandes. ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOGRAPHY OF HILL USE IN MEXICO AND THE SOUTHWEST UNITED STATES Among many ethnographically recorded societies geographical features specifically reference the ideals sought by pilgrims. Prominent among those features are 68 hill and mountains, which are widely recorded as places where the physical and spiritual coincide, referencing cosmological ideals and beliefs (Bowen 1976; Brown 2004; Durán 1971; Ferguson et al. 2006; Griffith 1992; Heiras Rodríguez 2005; Isbell 1978; Ladd 1983; Lumholtz 1902; Rodríguez López and Valderrama Rouy 2005; Sundstrom 1996; Townsend 1991; Vogt 1992; White 1942). Gods and ancestors dwell in these elevated landscape features and they are often believed to be the source of life, of food, and people; origins of rain; and locations of sacred shrines. Hills and mountains, then, are invested with collective meaning that bears upon the continuity and well being of the group. Ritual specialists retreat to mountains, hills, and buttes for the common benefit of society but ordinary people also are known to visit to these places, as among some modern Maya groups that perform rites at shrines atop a sacred mountain to gain desirable things or dispel troubles (Brown 2004). Likewise, any Zuni may at certain times of the year visit sacred peaks to make personal offerings to the gods (Ladd 1983:174). According to Kubler (1984), Mesoamerican pilgrims to sacred elevated landforms were of all social classes. Nevertheless, nobility, ceremonial officers, and ritual specialists often are specifically associated with journeys to hills and mountains. Ritual practitioners from Laguna, Acoma, Zuni, and Jemez travel to a mountain shrine to pray for good crops and successful hunting (Snead and Preucel 1999:178). In Chiapas, Tzotzil Maya shamans intercede in dual observances, at the bottoms and tops of hills (Vogt 1992). Among the Huichol, ritual specialists and pilgrims gather atop Kauyumaritzie hill, home of Elder Brother Kauyumári, for prescribed ceremonial 69 consumption of peyote (Schaefer 1996). Moreover, according to Lumholtz, the Huichol landscape comprises complexes of god-houses and temples on hills and other visually prominent locations where cosmologically sanctioned observances unfold among religious officials. Native historical records from central Mexico document an intensive ritual agenda on hills and mountains oriented toward ensuring the required amount of rain for agriculture success (Nicholson 2003). The grandest ceremony within the cycle occurred atop Mt. Tlaloc, where elite Aztec officials from across the Basin of Mexico gathered in propitiation that included feasting and sacrifice. Hill-focused ritual is not restricted to Mexican and southwest United States geographies, of course. It is notable that elevated landforms have ceremonial and cosmological significance elsewhere (Schutte 1978:120; Sundstrom 1996). In parts of Africa, rain-control rituals are performed on elevated landforms associated with ancestors or, in the case of multi-ethnic shrine locations, unallied spirits (Huffman 2009; Schoeman 2006; 2009:279). There also is a hierarchical system of rain-control, from local ritual to regional shrine locations (Mafu 1995). A commonality through these ethnographic instances of hill use is their cosmological nature and importance in the relationship between society and nature. Elevated landforms associated with ritual and cosmology are attributed parallel ranges of significance that extend from the southwest United States into northern Mesoamerica. According to Nelson (2007), locally variable traditions of monumentalizing significantly prominent elevated places spans from Guanajuato, Mexico, into southern Arizona. Modification of and habitation on hills, Nelson argues, 70 was ritually symbolic, defined social roles, and reinforced societal structures and central ideological concepts. Such landscape features were created to evoke and direct behaviors. Characterized as ceremonial centers or even cities on hills, these central, landmark places document social power within realms of cosmological and ideological significance. Cerro de Moctezuma’s prominent position within the Medio period settlement pattern, its substantial habitation, its trails, and the summit feature fit squarely within Nelson’s characterization of monumentalizing elevated landforms. A recurrent set of stone enclosures and other constructions on hills in the Trincheras Tradition of northern Sonora, Mexico, appears most comprehensive and elaborate at the primate site of Cerro de Trincheras where the distribution of features and artifacts indicate specialized precincts, including ritual loci (McGuire and Villalpando 2007; O'Donovan 2002). Fish and Fish (2007) interpret late prehistoric replication of stone enclosures and related features on hills, in part, as a ritual landscape linked with that preeminent center. Moreover, ideas and features appear to crosscut sectors of the international borderlands, as Fish and Fish (2007) describe the use of hills and the features on them as a pan-regional expression of fundamental beliefs crafted and expressed variably under local conditions and at different times. Nevertheless, such expression of cosmological belief reaches farther, as described earlier for central Mexican rainmaking ceremonies. There, a massive walled enclosure and approaching corridor sit atop Mt. Tlaloc wherein ceremonial beliefs were enacted (Nicholson 2003:Figure 6; Townsend 1991). The similarities between this instance of placecrafting and associated traits and Cerro de Moctezuma’s atalaya are striking (e.g., trail on a steep slope, massive 71 rock enclosure, interior constructions, restricted visual field). I believe that Cerro de Moctezuma’s summit precinct and other hill features across the Medio period landscape pertain to an essential pattern of ideologically influenced architecture on prominent hills in late prehistoric times. ARCHITECTURE Architecture creates and mediates experience (Rapoport 1990). Architecture and politics can converge to create as a message of social surplus in what Gregory Johnson refers to as “piling behavior” (Johnson 1989:376; Nielsen 1995). Thomas Emerson (1997) adds to this discussion in his treatment of architecture as material manifestations of elite status and power. Emerson proposes that specialized and elaborate construction across a region or within a rural population is associated with dominance and control. Whalen and Minnis’ (2001a) similarly used “architecture of power” was referred to in the preceding chapter for thick-walled and over-engineered architecture as a projection of Paquimé’s authority. El Pueblito encompasses architecture of power in adobe and in masonry, and the summit precinct certainly qualifies as a specialized construction among its counterparts in the hinterland. Thus, an understanding of the relationship among status, authority, and architecture will be key to evaluating El Pueblito’s residents and their role in Medio period organization. However, architecture is more than a product of labor investment and overt political posturing because it shapes social interaction by defining public and private access and privilege, influences movement, and creates visual perceptions through design 72 and location (Hall 1969; Moore 2005; Rapoport 1990). These are performance characteristics that can be measured and mapped. The height of walls and the location and direction of entryways contribute to the visual and physical access to structures, plazas, and other differentiated spaces, while the placement of features directs or impedes the flow of movement through them. I explore such architectural variables at El Pueblito and on Cerro de Moctezuma in general. In the most basic examination of El Pueblito, it is clear that some architecture directed circulation upon entering the settlement. There are also obviously defined public spaces on El Pueblito. Inomata (2006) writes that public spaces were a concern of Classic Maya rulers for performances that located participants in social communion and dramatized moral and aesthetic values. The size of public spaces obviously dictates accommodation of audience numbers, and visual and auditory messages and cues not only depend on the size of architecture and public space, but also on the position of participants (Leckman 2004; Moore 2005:98-101). El Pueblito’s performance venues are explored according to ideas of communion, how messages were conveyed, and audience size in order to consider how pilgrims were accommodated within and among the architectural spaces. A THEORETICAL FOCUS ON CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA Landscape is a flexible yet powerful framework for considering diverse material, conceptual, and natural features of societal interest when combined with additional concepts such as ritualization, movement, performance, and architecture. Landscapes involve the diverse physical and mental experiences and daily lives of their inhabitants 73 and thus encompasses multiple social, political, and religious domains. As they are experienced, landscapes reinforce the individual’s place in the world and ways of knowing the world. Rituals are a way of communicating events and conditions of life and are, therefore, elements of landscapes as materialized and conceptualized by societies. Places are built and conceived in ritualizing the landscape. As a strategy, ritualization privileges some actions over others, leaving behind visible and measurable markers of societal concerns. In ritualized landscapes, journeys represent a transformation from the everyday experience to moving through the landscape along specific routes to destinations with anticipated outcomes. Often those destinations are elaborated versions of significant places in home communities, and for many indigenous and prehistoric groups throughout much of Mexico and the southwest United States, those destinations are associated with elevated landforms. I propose that Cerro de Moctezuma was a locally unique ritual destination and that other hill sites served community religious interests corresponding to a geographically widespread ideological phenomenon involving the use of elevated landforms. The following two chapters introduce the components of Cerro de Moctezuma in more detail with attention to agricultural fields, trails, the summit feature, and the variety of architecture and features on El Pueblito as revealed by mapping and excavations. 74 CHAPTER 4 – CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA’S UPLAND FIELDS, CORRIDORS OF MOVEMENT, AND CROWING PRECINCT El Pueblito, agricultural fields, trails, and the hill summit precinct comprise Cerro de Moctezuma’s four major components that register archaeological evidence of Medio period activities. Each was studied as part of dissertation field research, although each was not given equal priority as discussed below. The fields, trails, and the summit features are presented in this chapter, while mapping and excavation at El Pueblito are discussed in Chapter 5. No excavations were carried out among the agricultural features or along trails, but both were mapped and serve to orient the hill as a place of settlement and destination within the Medio period ritual landscape. The summit precinct was mapped in order to clarify the configuration of the features and limited test excavations were carried out to obtain information on the architecture and activities on the hilltop. These four major components of Cerro de Moctezuma archaeology are important for understanding how the hill was used in Medio times and how it contrasted to other settlements across the landscape. Figure 4.1 shows the locations of fields, trails, El Pueblito, and the summit feature. CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA’S FIELDS OF POWER Bandelier (1890-1892:564) may have been the first to have commented on Cerro de Moctezuma’s agricultural complex, as he noted dikes or dams with fertile soil behind them. Brand (1933:48) also observed the system and stated that the agricultural features 75 indicated “a normal settlement of the site.” But, Cerro de Moctezuma’s fields are far from normal because together they comprise the second largest complex of stone features currently on record in the near zone about Paquimé. Moreover, the fields may have provisioned more than the residents and visitors to El Pueblito (Minnis et al. 2006). Figure 4.1. Overview of Cerro de Moctezuma showing the locations of agricultural fields, trails, El Pueblito, and the atalaya. 76 Until recently the fields had not been systematically recorded, with only a sketch map of the fields closest to El Pueblito in the Amerind Foundation archives. Those fields are the northernmost two shown in Figure 4.1, comprised of a large and small field directly below and to the west of El Pueblito, and they are the ones that were mapped during this dissertation field research (Figure 4.2). Features in the fields were plotted using compass and tape as they were opportunistically encountered; full coverage survey was not attempted. The many drainages coming off the hill also have features often referred to as check dams, low rock walls perpendicular to drainage courses, that could have been horticultural features or water and erosion control devices (e.g., Herold 1965; Luebben et al. 1986), but these were not mapped. Minnis and his colleagues (2006) subsequently recorded the other fields shown in Figure 4.1 and they resurveyed the large and small areas that I had previously mapped, finding only two or three more features (Paul Minnis, personal communication 2005). The features shown in Figure 4.2 cover approximately 38,000 sq m, comprising 64 terraces totaling 933 linear m, 178 rock piles, intermittently spaced and clustered rocks, a massive subterranean oven, and a rock outline directly south of the oven that could be a structure. Among the full complex, along Cerro de Moctezuma’s west side, 400 terraces totaling over 5000 linear m covers 400 ha (Minnis et al. 2006). Rock terraces are interspersed between drainages as sets of straight, parallel, and more complexly arranged lines that would have enhanced soil accumulation and water catchment on the gentle slope setting and they parallel ethnographic and archaeological summaries of facilities for agricultural production (Fish et al. 1992b; Maxwell and 77 Anschuetz 1992). The issue of what was grown behind terraces in Chihuahua remains unresolved but the frequent proximity of the largest roasting pits with massive systems suggests agave as one crop. Linear rock alignments (cross-slope terraces, check dams, etc.) in Cerro de Moctezuma’s fields resemble linear features associated with agave cultivation in southern Arizona (Doolittle and Neely 2004; Fish et al. 1984) Figure 4.2. Two upland rock agricultural fields and massive oven that are part of a larger complex along Cerro de Moctezuma’s west side. 78 The fields at Cerro de Moctezuma include dozens of rock piles as shown in Figure 4.2. These features are never more than about 1 m in diameter and are within the size range of rock piles in the Hohokam region that have been interpreted as rock mulch (Fish et al. 1992a). Available data in this proximate region indicate that rock piles protect and enhance the growth of crop plants such as agave. Agave was almost certainly cooked in the nearby subterranean oven (see Chapter 8). Cerro de Moctezuma’s oven is among the largest of its kind in the region, consisting of an outer ring of rocks 1.85 m wide and 1617 m in diameter and a central pit of unknown size. But judging from burned rock distribution the pit is most likely 3-5 m in diameter. Intermittent stones set on end circumscribe the fire pit. These kinds of rock fields are a specialized type of system in upland environments and it is important to remember that the most productive fields for, say, corn, were without doubt the irrigated ones on the floodplains of the major drainages. Nevertheless, Minnis and his colleagues (2006) documented rock field systems in the core area around Paquimé, finding that the largest ones, including Cerro de Moctezuma’s, are associated with specialized settlements. Those researchers designate extraordinarily large systems – more than needed to sustain the associated settlement – as “fields of power,” meaning that they were extensions of the leadership at Paquimé and used to produce surplus that was funneled to that settlement. These fields and products were important in shaping and maintaining a settlement’s function and status among neighbors, but surplus production could just as reasonably have been used in the hinterland for a variety of reasons, including social elaboration of local leaders. Site 242 was described 79 in Chapter 2 as managing agricultural pursuits in the hinterland, and it is a notable site for additional special attributes. El Pueblito is another specialized settlement associated with the management of an unusual extent of slope fields, but that was not the only purpose of the hill. While the fields at Cerro de Moctezuma were likely important in maintaining the status of El Pueblito residents, other components suggest that the hill as a whole was a pilgrimage destination. CASAS GRANDES TRAILS Di Peso et al. (Di Peso et al. 1974:Figure 284-5) published a map locating two “trade trails” originating at Paquimé with trajectories into the nearby Sierra Madre Occidental to the west. The basis for positioning these trails on a map comes from a “study” of trails (Di Peso 1974:2:360-361). Unfortunately, the report lacks specifics. In narrative, Di Peso contends that the trails are as wide as those in the Chaco area of New Mexico, but we do not know where the Casas Grandes trails fall within the range of widths known for Chacoan roads. Two “wayside houses,” found in the Sierra Madre Occidental, are lightly referenced and apparently no other trailside features were observed. These Casas Grandes trails have not been verified subsequent to the publication of the map. Whalen and Minnis (2001) noted trails during several survey projects around the area of Paquimé, although the focus was to locate habitation sites (Michael Whalen, personal communication 2007). Cruz Antillón and his collaborators refer to parallel stone alignments that might indicate a trail in the neighboring Santa María River Valley 80 (Cruz Antillón et al. 2004). Although the alignments bear directly toward Paquimé, the researchers just cited are cautious in placing the possible trail within a temporal frame because they lack diagnostic chronological evidence for doing so. Finally, Swanson (1997) notes a few trails associated with hilltop features but discussion of them is limited. These trails do not appear to approach places of substantial habitation, as Cerro de Moctezuma’s trails do. As part of dissertation fieldwork Cerro de Moctezuma’s trails and heretofore unknown wayside features were mapped and recorded. TRAIL SURVEY METHODOLOGY AT CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA Trail archaeology consists of three basic phases: discovery, description or definition, and interpretation (e.g., Hyslop 1984; Vivian 1983). The first step for interpreting Cerro de Moctezuma’s trails, the task of discovery, was facilitated by early accounts and sketch maps (Bandelier 1890-1892; Roney and Trumball 1983). In addition, local informants proved equally useful for locating trails. In the present case, the landowner directed me to trailside features and portions of trails not easily observed or previously known. Another discovery tool used for the project was satellite imagery on Google Earth, a virtual map and geographic information program. The second step involved description and definition. The Cerro de Moctezuma trail survey was guided by expectations found in reviews of trail archeology and ethnography (Becker and Altschul 2003; Cleland and Apple 2003; Hyslop 1984; Jett 1994; Johnston and Johnston 1957; Kincaid 1983; Robertson 1983; Rogers 1933; Snead 2002; Trombold 1991; Wilcox et al. 1981). From the authors just cited, trails should 81 have measurable morphology, including length, width, and, sometimes, depth. Trails and roads also have wayside associations including built features and artifacts, which can be useful for interpreting the chronology of infrastructure. Description and definition, then, involve obtaining spatial data or location, characterizing structural properties, recording wayside features, and collecting and analyzing associated artifacts. For the Cerro de Moctezuma trail survey, spatial data were collected using a Garmin eTrex Vista GPS unit while surveying within trail margins. Because artifacts and features often are located adjacent to trails, each side of a trail was surveyed by two crewmembers at 2 m intervals, which was considered appropriate considering available time and ground visibility. The transect interval was, however, flexible due to topography. For example, along trails perpendicular to the hill slope more effort was placed surveying down slope than up slope because it was anticipated that items would be dropped or discarded and come to rest down- rather than up slope. When trailside features were encountered, a 5-m radius around the feature was surveyed for artifacts. It should be noted that the trail survey was performed as time and resources allowed because a trail study was not considered in the original vision of the project. However, as the project developed it became clear that trails formed an important component of Cerro de Moctezuma archaeology. Recordation of trails and wayside features is illustrated in Figure 4.3. Intensively surveyed trail segments are highlighted in yellow; other trail segments were only surveyed for spatial data and feature associations to the extent that one or two people could observe them. 82 Figure 4.3. Cerro de Moctezuma’s known trails and wayside features. Trail segments that were intensively surveyed are highlighted in yellow. 83 CONNECTING PEOPLE AND PLACE: CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA’S TRAILS AND WAYSIDE FEATURES Bandelier (1890-1892) reported trails at Cerro de Moctezuma, briefly summarizing that the four trails he observed ranged from about 1.0 to 2.5 m wide. He disagreed with his local informants that the ancient people constructed entrenched trails, instead believing them to be worn into the surface by travel. Bandelier might have been correct but without excavation this distinction cannot be made at Cerro de Moctezuma, except where lateral dirt berms are present along an entrenched walkway. Lumholtz (1902) likely noticed the same trails as Bandelier but adds that in some places, the trails are supported by down-slope rock berms. Blackiston (1906) reported more specifically on an intermittent trail between Paquimé and Cerro de Moctezuma, observing that it was most notable near the hill because it had a below grade walkway. According to Blackiston, the locals referred to this trail as the “road of the Montezumas.” Montezuma is a north Mexican term for a mound of collapsed adobe architecture (Bandelier 1892), which is the condition of a major architectural unit at El Pueblito. Brand (1933) noted trails approaching from the east and west sides of the hill, while Sayles (1933) remarked that El Pueblito is reached by a path from Casas Grandes. Two sketch maps of trails at the hill are known (Amerind Foundation Archives; Roney and Trumball 1983). Cerro de Moctezuma is a striking natural landmark at the juncture of prehistorically populated valleys and constitutes the topographic setting for El Pueblito. Shear cliffs of rhyolite define three sides of the mesa on which El Pueblito sits, 250 m above the surrounding valleys, making it difficult to reach. Therefore, we might expect 84 infrastructure to be associated with the hill itself to facilitate its ascent. However, the approach to Cerro de Moctezuma across surrounding gently rolling terrain, punctuated with occasional low hills, is a seemingly unlikely setting for a scale of infrastructure beyond that necessary to mark trail trajectories, such as simple rock alignments or cairns. Yet, Cerro de Moctezuma’s trails generally are visually conspicuous as they cross easily traversed approaches, implying they are significant features that served to connect people to place in a highly visual and symbolic way. Figure 4.3 shows that most of the trails converge at the north point and west side of El Pueblito, the unique instance of habitation on a hill in Medio times, apparently with full-time residents. However, the radiating trails about the hill originate from the directions of valleys full of contemporaneous settlement, from which populations must have traveled to and returned from Cerro de Moctezuma. I have chosen three key identifiers to designate sets of trails based on where travelers using them would have entered El Pueblito. Accordingly, these are referred to as the West, North, and South Entrance trails, although trails with these designations do not necessarily originate from the corresponding cardinal directions, as shown in Figure 4.3. As an example, the South Entrance trail enters El Pueblito on its southern side but originates as a spur from one of the West Entrance trails, that itself is a south-southwest trending pathway. Finally, one major trail does not serve as an exterior approach into El Pueblito, but rather connects El Pueblito and the summit at the south end of the hill. It is referred to as the atalaya trail. 85 Two North Entrance Trails Trail 112 with Wayside Feature 93 Trail 112 that leads toward the north side of El Pueblito has a steep course and is one of the most intensively engineered trails on Cerro de Moctezuma. A massive down slope rock berm supports the trail along its upper half to the point where it turns northeast. The berm is significantly minimized or absent along the lower half of the trail, but otherwise it ranges from 2.0 to 5.0 m wide, and rises to 60 cm above the walking surface. In places, vegetation and upslope rock fall precluded precise measurements for trail width, but where measureable it varies between 1 and 2 m wide. Steps constructed of flat rocks are present in two places along this segment of the trail. The northeasterly segment of the trail is different than the segment just described. Here, the trail begins as an unmarked bedrock walkway for a few meters and then turns up slope and steeply rises as a 2 meter-wide walkway entrenched well below the modern surface. The recessed track surfaces at a rock wall, Wayside Feature 93, which is constructed of immediately available rhyolite (Figure 4.4). The passage through the center of the wall is intentionally constructed, not the result of collapse, and appears to be an entry or symbolic passage to El Pueblito. Heading southeast from this point, toward El Pueblito, the trail becomes nearly indistinguishable but there are occasional rocks along what could have marked the ancient path to the settlement. A barbed-wire fence runs along the saddle crest, the poles supported by rocks that could have been quarried from the ancient trail. 86 Plain, slipped, and polychrome sherds, chipped stone, and ground stone were recorded along the trail (Appendices C, E, and G). Artifacts associated with the entry feature include plain and polychrome sherds and chipped stone (Appendices C and E). Figure 4.4. Wayside Feature 93, a symbolic passage to El Pueblito and Paquimé, accessed on Trail 112. Trail 113 The symbolic passage (Wayside Feature 93) was certainly used to continue to Paquimé as the trail continues east from it, mostly along an exposed bedrock shelf, where it joins another trail, which also would have brought travelers coming from Paquimé to El Pueblito. The portion of Trail 113 that was intensively surveyed is just below and north of El Pueblito. The trail is constructed, having an entrenched walkway about 1.4 m wide and 0.6 m below the top of dirt and small rock berms that define the margins. The berms range from 10 to 38 cm above the modern surface. Accompanying the berms along a 2530 m stretch, large rocks 30-50 cm in maximum dimension and spaced about 1.0 m apart also demarcate the trail boundaries. Plain sherds and chipped stone were recorded along the trail (Appendices C and E). 87 Feature 113 is most likely the trail Blackiston (1906) and others reported as connecting Cerro de Moctezuma and Paquimé. If it is that trail, the survey crew was unable to confirm it because, unfortunately, the land east of Cerro de Moctezuma was under ownership dispute and could not be accessed for surveying. The trail is recognizable on Google Earth near Cerro de Moctezuma but it is not visible all the way to Paquimé. Five West Entrance Trails Trail 114 with Wayside Features 100, 101, 121, and 137 Trail 114 begins at an unknown point, but according to the landowner it originates 30 km distant near the Sierra Madre where he also owns land and where decades ago he built a road paralleling the ancient trail. Confirming this report was precluded due to limited time and resources; only the portion of the trail illustrated in Figure 4.3 was confirmed. If the trail does come from the mountains, I suspect that it appears today only intermittently along much of its length because orchards and residential development in the intervening communities of Colonia Chuatémoc and Colonia Juárez surely obscure it. The trail ends at a small rock pile (Wayside Feature 137) on a narrow mesa below El Pueblito and shortly thereafter it joins another trail segment that continues to the West Entrance. At the juncture with Wayside Feature 137, Trail 114 gradually descends along the western aspect of the hill and it becomes narrower at about 70 cm wide and has a surface level walkway. Here, the track lacks any notable construction. The trail gains depth and 88 width upon reaching the lower slope of the hill where it turns west-southwest and continues across the gently sloping land. This lower extension is entrenched about 30 cm below the surface and is from 2.0 to 2.4 m wide. Occasionally, rocks appear to demarcate trail margins, but it is ambiguous whether they derive from trail construction or not. Plain, textured, slipped, and polychrome sherds; chipped stone; and a possible piece of ground stone were recorded along the trail (Appendices C, E, and G). Four rock features are associated with the trail. Wayside Feature 137 is a small rock pile at the end of the trail, and it is about 75 cm in diameter and 50 cm high. Wayside Feature 100 is a small rock pile approximately 1.0 m in diameter and 40 cm high lying immediately adjacent to the trail on the south. No artifacts were observed with either rock pile. About 180 m southeast of Wayside Feature 100 is a much larger rock arrangement, Wayside Feature 101, measuring 6.0 m by 7.0 m in maximum dimension and not more than one course high at about 30 cm (Figure 4.5). A cluster of 44 Ramos Polychrome jar body sherds and 2 rim sherds, all from the same vessel, were found about 23 m west of the feature. Artifacts found within the feature boundaries include plain and polychrome sherds and chipped stone (Appendices C and E). None of the polychrome sherds appear to be from the same vessel and none belong to the aforementioned cluster of Ramos Polychrome sherds. The associated trail becomes indistinguishable about 20 m to the northeast of the feature and a few meters southwest of the feature, thus the feature was constructed within the trail corridor rather than to the side. 89 Farther southwest along Trail 114 is Wayside Feature 121. Unlike Wayside Features 100 and 101 that were just described, this is a rock ring rather than an accumulation of contiguous rocks. Basalt rocks from 5-30 cm piled 30 cm high delimit the feature, which is 3.25 by 3.40 m in maximum dimension. Associated artifacts include plain sherds and one possible piece of ground stone (Appendices C and G). The latter is a flat piece of rhyolite with possible polish on one side. Rhyolite is not available in the immediate vicinity of the feature. Figure 4.5. Wayside Feature 101, a rock accumulation on Trail 114. Trails 116 and 138 with Wayside Features 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, and 128 Trail 138 is visible on Google Earth but, unfortunately, there was not sufficient time to confirm it in the field. One brief survey attempt was not able to locate it. Trail 116 is the longest trail recorded at Cerro de Moctezuma, and it joins the previously described Trail 114, continuing to El Pueblito. In part, Trail 116 is structurally similar to Trail 114 with an entrenched walkway about 30 cm below the surface, although it is slightly narrower at about 1.8 m wide. Occasionally Trail 116 appears to be marked with lateral rock alignments, but as is the case for Trail 114, those markers may be more apparent than real. Along certain segments the trail exhibits neither entrenchment nor 90 lateral alignments. Trail 116 loses definition and is only intermittently observable in a few places where a ranch road appears to have obscured it. For a short extent, between Wayside Features 123 and 127, it is about 2 m wide and is not entrenched but follows the natural surface cleared of rock. There is also a portion of the trail that follows an exposed fault that is relatively clear of rock. No artifacts were observed in association with Trail 116. Parallel and immediately adjacent to the Trail 116, Wayside Feature 122 is a rectangular pavement of rock 5.2 m long and 3.2-3.8 m wide. The maximum height of the feature is 40 cm, and it is predominately one course high. One piece of chipped stone was associated (Appendix E). Casual observation of Wayside Features 123 and 127 shows them to be rock rings similar to Wayside Feature 121, and they are about 1 m in diameter and constructed of a single course of rock about 30 cm high. Wayside Feature 124 is a low rock pile about 4.5 m in diameter with an adjoining arrangement of rock that together forms an arc having a total length of 8.5 m (Figure 4.6). No artifacts were observed around Wayside Feature 124. Figure 4.6. Wayside Features 124 (left) and 126 (right) along Trail 116. 91 Directly across Trail 116 from Wayside Feature 124, Wayside Feature 126 is a low rock pile 2.25 m in diameter in conjunction with hundreds of pieces of chipped stone, predominately north of the pile. Although the chipped stone was not collected, field observations indicate that the assemblage consists of mostly chert but also rhyolite flakes in all stages of reduction, retouched flakes, and about 25 cores. The chipped stone is characteristic of Medio period assemblages in terms of the following attributes: 1) No evidence of faceted or prepared or beveled platforms; mostly cortical platforms. 2) No nonlocal or exotic material. 3) No evidence of bifacial reduction; cores are multidirectional. 4) No observed flakes with lipping to suggest hard hammer use. 5) No formal tools, but only expedient flake tools. Wayside Feature 128 was first observed on Google Earth. The feature is between but not immediately associated with Trails 116 and 138, consisting of a pair of roughly parallel rock alignments without accompanying artifacts. The rocks making up Wayside Feature 128 are 30-50 cm in diameter. The area between the rock alignments is cleared of the surface debris that is ubiquitous in the vicinity. These parallel alignments bring to mind local instances of open-ended ball courts, which are much simpler constructions than the two I-shaped courts at Paquimé and often have outlines of low berms or rocks (Whalen and Minnis 1996). The orientation of this feature deviates significantly from most ball court orientations in the greater Casas Grandes world. Figure 4.7 illustrates the orientation of the rock alignments and, for comparison, the orientations of recorded Casas Grandes ball courts. With one exception the prevailing orientation of ball courts is 92 southeast-northwest, but the feature at Cerro de Moctezuma is southwest-northeast; a divergent orientation does not necessarily preclude this feature from having been used as a ball court. Figure 4.7. Wayside feature 128, parallel rock alignments between Trails 116 and 138. However, considering the placement of Wayside Feature 128 within the broader landscape configuration of Cerro de Moctezuma suggests a likely alternative to a ball court function for this unusual parallel alignment. Standing at the open end on the southwest and looking northeast provides a direct view to the massive atalaya atop Cerro de Moctezuma. The line of sight in the opposite direction, to the southwest, does not cross any known landmark or settlement of particular note. Whether or not the set of alignments had additional functions, it seems clear that these parallel lines of rock were an effective mechanism in unequivocally directing the attention toward the atalaya. 93 Trail 110 with Wayside Feature 99 Trail 110 abruptly begins on a narrow shelf below and west of El Pueblito where modern machinery has excavated into the side of the landform. Despite this disturbance, the landowner, who has been associated with the property for over 70 years, related to me that he has never seen an indication of the trail farther west than what is illustrated in Figure 4.3. The trail ascends the shelf and a higher mesa where it splits into two trails, north of Wayside Feature 99. Low, lateral dirt berms in some places suggest that at least portions of Trail 110 were excavated in prehispanic times. The trail surface is about 0.3 to 0.4 m below grade and is about 1 m wide along its entire length, except for a short segment of about 20 m over which it cannot be discerned. Plain and polychrome sherds and chipped stone were recorded along the trail (Appendices C and E). Trail 110 passes a rock cairn, Wayside Feature 99. Constructed of immediately available rhyolite, the cairn stands about 1.0 m high and is 1.85 by 2.60 m wide. The feature appears to be a single construction event rather than the result of episodic accretions because the rocks are stacked rather than piled and the sides are relatively perpendicular to the surrounding surface. No associated artifacts were observed. Trail 111 Vegetation of distinctive color made Trail 111 visible from distances but it was not easily detected on the ground during survey. Therefore, the trail was surveyed twice, producing nearly identical GPS tracks in both cases. Trail 111 branches from Trail 110 94 and proceeds below a mesa of the hill. No notable trail morphology or artifacts were observed. One South Entrance Trail Trail 117 with Wayside Feature 102 Trail 117 begins as a branch from Trail 116 and ends at two parallel lines of rock on El Pueblito. It is about 70 cm wide and has down-slope rock berms along two stretches. One probable polychrome sherd and one piece of chipped stone were recorded along the trail. Wayside Feature 102 is a rock cairn constructed of rhyolite and basalt and is about 2.0 m wide, 0.9 m high on the upslope side, and 1.3 m high on the down slope side. An upright rectangular rock is anchored into the top center of the cairn. Like Wayside Feature 99, this cairn appears to have been built in one event rather than by accretion. No artifacts were observed around it. The Atalaya Trail (Trail 106) The atalaya trail traverses 1326 m and connects El Pueblito with the uppermost part of the hill, where the massive atalaya circumscribes the summit (see following discussion of atalaya in this chapter). In recent years, local residents have built small rock cairns along this trail to mark their way along less noticeable stretches and it was more recently cleared when Tarahumara runners raced down from the summit during the festival for the patron saint of Casas Grandes. The clearing caused minor disturbance but the trail remains in much the form as when it was surveyed during this project. 95 Beginning on El Pueblito, where it is not elaborated in any way, the trail gradually ascends along a stretch of about 280 m at which point it begins a steep rise up the western aspect of the hill. At the point where the trail meets the ridge of the hill it becomes less defined on the ground, although this portion of the trail is strikingly clear in aerial photographs. Along most of its length the trail seems little more than a single-file track about 30-40 cm wide, although in a few places it widens to 70 cm. Down slope rock berms were observed in a few instances, and although these are not substantial constructions they clearly create and support a level surface for foot travel. The berm segments measured no more than 1 m wide and in one instance a berm rises about 30 cm above the walking surface. No constructed steps were confidently identified, but there are places were exposed bedrock facilitates the ascent. No artifacts were observed along the trail. The Tunnel Trail and Hillside Tunnel The “tunnel trail” is not illustrated in Figure 4.3 but is found on a recently published map (Swanson 2003:Figure 2). It is directly west and below the hill summit, and is 68 m long, ending at a tunnel of uncertain age and function cut into the side of the hill. I do not believe this trail is prehistoric. Given the precipitous descent from the summit to the tunnel it appears significant that no trail improvements ease the descent and ascent. In fact, the trail is littered with small to medium sized, loose rock, making walking hazardous. No artifacts were observed in association with the trail. The tunnel 96 trail, such as it is, may well be a result of repeated treasure seekers visiting the tunnel over the last century and probably even longer. The tunnel into the side of the hill, 50 m below the summit, is said by some locals to lead to Paquimé or any number of surrounding hills. It stretches about 14 m into the hill to a circular chamber about 20 m in diameter and 6 m deep; from there, another branch leads off for an unknown distance. The tunnel may or may not have originated as a natural cave or overhang but it clearly has been altered in modern times. There are blasting holes on the entrance face and tailings are strewn across the entrance and down the hill slope forming a T-shape that is visible on aerial photographs from the 1950s (Amerind Foundation Archives). Blackiston (1906) was of the opinion, based on local informants, that the tunnel was a modern creation, but the existence of the tunnel or a natural precursor in prehistoric times cannot be conclusively dismissed. Other than one historic glaze ware sherd of unknown type, no artifacts were found in association with the tunnel. MEDIO PERIOD USE OF TRAILS A critical step for interpreting Cerro de Moctezuma’s trails is to evaluate their chronology, primarily through diagnostic ceramics. Of the 215 trail-associated artifacts, 161 are sherds, 51 of which are Medio period polychromes. However, of the 51 painted sherds, 46 are from the sherd cluster associated with Trail 114 and Wayside Feature 101. These 46 and three of the other five are Ramos Polychromes. The two exceptions could be Ramos or Babicora Polychrome, also a Medio period ceramic type. The painted 97 sherds were recovered along three trails (110, 112, and 114) and Trail 117 produced a probable polychrome sherd; seven polychrome sherds were associated with wayside features. No decorated sherds were encountered on the trails or elsewhere at Cerro de Moctezuma that could be assigned to a time preceding the Medio period. I have argued elsewhere that the ceramic type descriptions for non-decorated Casas Grandes pottery are not easily distinguished from those of the earlier Viejo period (Pitezel 2000, 2001). Nevertheless, based on my experience in analyzing thousands of sherds from nearby Medio period sites for projects directed by Mike Whalen and Paul Minnis and viewing sherds from single component Viejo period sites, unpainted sherds along Cerro de Moctezuma’s trails and at trailside features are consistent with Medio period types. On that basis, Trails 110, 112, 113, and 114 were also used during the Medio period. Cerro de Moctezuma’s trails radiate from valleys once populated by Medio people, and one trail bridges El Pueblito and the atalaya, which are both clearly of the Medio period. No sherds from the Viejo period were found during the project indicating that this was not a Viejo settlement. Trails could have preceded the Medio period because Archaic points were found in excavations on El Pueblito, but other Medio settlements have yielded early points. It seems justifiable in treating Cerro de Moctezuma’s trail complex as a Medio period phenomenon. 98 CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA’S TRAILS AND WAYSIDE FEATURES IN CONTEXT Having discussed the structure and chronology of Cerro de Moctezuma’s trails, they now can be interpreted within the Medio period landscape. The following generalized summary of ethnographic and archaeological characteristics of trails and roads provides interpretative insights into Cerro de Moctezuma’s infrastructure. First and foremost, trails and roads connect people and places. Trails are used for everyday activities as well as sacred and ritual observances; the same trail can be used for both purposes because in many societies even everyday activities have sacred dimensions. Trails can also have privileged users. Moreover, travel along trails and roads is often an experience of social and cosmological value. Trails and roads are often are more elaborate at places of culturally assigned importance than at other points along the route, therefore serving as an immediately visible spatial transition. Finally, shrines are constructed along trails and roads as places of petition and thanksgiving. Cerro de Moctezuma’s trails are conspicuous landscape features that connected surrounding populations with El Pueblito and ultimately the summit atalaya. In general, most trails are broad enough along most of their courses to have facilitated processional traffic, and some trails may have had special uses. Trail 112 illustrates why differential use of trails at Cerro de Moctezuma should be considered. This trail could have served western populations, however, as engineered, it diverges from El Pueblito rather than continuing a direct trajectory toward it and stops at a rock wall with a constructed passage in the center. The rock wall could be a ceremonial entrance to El Pueblito that was used for specific ritual events, perhaps ones that ultimately led travelers to Paquimé. 99 Recall that nearby Trail Feature 113 is a trail that may have continued to Paquimé. In addition is the atalaya trail (Trail 106), which ascends along the hill slope in much the same way as Trail 112, yet the latter is substantially constructed while the atalaya trail is not. The lesser construction and narrow walkway of the route suggests more exclusive single-file foot traffic rather than broad processions. By their placement, wayside features have the appearance of vital components of travel; they certainly recall ethnographically recorded shrines as discussed in Chapter 3. The examples at Cerro de Moctezuma do not appear to form a patterned distribution. That is to say, the same kinds of features are not found along each trail, although trails were not surveyed at equal levels leaving the possibility that some wayside features went unnoticed. The exceptions to apparent random distribution are the two cairns that are both at higher but not lower elevations. The rock rings do not seem large enough to have accommodated activities within them. In general, activities probably occurred around or in reference to the wayside features at Cerro de Moctezuma. A UNIQUE INVESTMENT: THE ATALAYA ATOP CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA Introduction and Research Methodology Bandelier (1890-1892:567-568), Blackiston (1906), Brand (1933), Di Peso (1974:2:362-365; Di Peso et al. 1974:5:866-867), Lumholtz (1902:89-91) and Swanson (2003) have described the summit feature on Cerro de Moctezuma, and while some commonalities emerge, feature components and their measurements are sufficiently discrepant to preclude resolution. As an example, the summit feature has been illustrated 100 as a spiraled wall encircling additional features (Di Peso et al. 1974:5:Figure 239-5), but others who have visited the site did not detect that configuration, instead minimally describing an outermost wall, an inner wall, and a central room block. (Di Peso’s Figure 239-5 also shows the straight-line distance between the summit and El Pueblito to be 2.3 km rather than the actual distance, about 1.4 km.) The summit precinct was therefore mapped as part of field research. Heavy mapping instruments were not carried to the remote summit and instead the features were mapped using compass and tape. There is no remaining evidence of a central room block within inner and outer encircling walls today. The center of the atalaya is a jumble of stone and vegetation where the walls of the room block presumably stood. A goal was to place trenches about where the walls of the rooms might have been, based on an estimation of position from a sketch in the Amerind Foundation archives. The effort that could be afforded to this excavation was limited due to the remote location, time and personnel constraints, and a lack of shade during the hottest, driest month of the year. Two short trenches were excavated to explore the existence of interior walls and one test pit was excavated to acquire characteristics of construction of the inner encircling wall. Each was excavated as one level and all contents were passed through ¼-inch screen. Di Peso called the summit precinct an atalaya, a Spanish term for watchtower. Swanson analyzed this and other hill features, that Di Peso termed atalayas, for their intervisibility and likelihood of being stations for signaling, finding that Cerro de Moctezuma’s summit precinct was the most intervisible among the network of hilltop features and he referred to it as a “unique architectural investment” among Casas Grandes 101 hilltop features (Swanson 1997:72, 2003). Little charred material was recovered from screening during my project, however, and no ashy deposits were encountered in the excavation or on the surface in the vicinity, suggesting that it was not a communication station using pyrotechnics as suggested by Di Peso (1974:5:362-365). I believe it was instead involved in communication about the cosmology of Medio period people and the social and ritual organization seated at Paquimé (see Chapter 8). Describing and Excavating the Ostentatious Ritual Precinct The atalaya on Cerro de Moctezuma consists of three components – an outermost low rock wall, a massive inner rubble core masonry wall, and the purported innermost structure previously described as divided into quadrants. As will become clear in Chapter 8, this complex is ostentatious by comparison to other Casas Grandes hilltop features. Plan and profile views of the atalaya are shown in Figures 4.8 and 4.9, respectively. The outermost wall forms a roughly 45 m diameter circle of immediately available basalt rocks that are 5 to 15 cm in maximum dimension. The wall varies from 70 to 90 cm wide and from 30 cm to 1.5 m high; where highest the rocks are well stacked, while in other places the wall is less formally prepared, having only a low grade into the up slope surface. There is no obvious constructed passage through the low wall but it is generally easy to step over. The precipitous slope between this outer wall and the next higher wall is littered with rock that occurs naturally on the hill and it is clear that the outermost wall does not form an encircling terrace for retaining soil to create a level inner surface. 102 Figure 4.8. Plan view of the atalaya atop Cerro de Moctezuma. 103 Figure 4.9 Profile views of the atalaya atop Cerro de Moctezuma. Top view facing west, bottom view facing south. The inner massive wall, 6 vertical meters higher up slope, overshadows the outermost low wall. In fact, this massive construction rises from the hill summit such that it is recognizable at distances to at least 5 km. The original height of the wall is difficult to measure in many places due to collapse, but judging from a lack of wall fall near one portion, some of the wall remains largely intact and is 2.7 m tall on the exterior side; although, as shown in profile (Figure 4.9) the wall height likely varied along its circumference because the hill summit is not symmetrical. Any entrance through the inner wall that might have been originally constructed could be obscured today by wall collapse; however, Bandelier did not observe an entrance when he visited in 1884, although he conjectures that a heap of stones (likely collapse) on the outside of the wall may have originally been stairs (Bandelier 1890-1892). The 2-meter wide inner rubble 104 core masonry wall has two facings composed of locally available basalt rocks from 30 to 50 cm in maximum dimension, with smaller cobbles filling the center; its interior diameter is 17 m. Bandelier (1890-1892) was under the impression that the stones were laid in adobe, but there is no evidence of that today. Judging from a test pit excavated against the interior side of the massive inner wall (Figure 4.8), it was built on an undisturbed ground surface; after which, clean fill to a height of about 30 cm was added to the interior to create a level surface. The artificially leveled surface undoubtedly supported the “four clearly outlined chambers in the centre” of the massive wall that Lumholtz observed in 1891 (Lumholtz 1902:91). Lumholtz apparently excavated within one (or more) of the rooms but found nothing except a floor that was about 1 inch (2.5 cm) thick. My limited excavation within the center of the massive inner wall confirmed the presence of masonry construction and adobe flooring, although all was in poor condition. It may not be surprising that Lumholtz found only a floor in his excavation because relatively little was recovered in my more recent work as well. However, in the present case, the unusual nature of recovered items exceeds any expectations based on the small quantity of materials excavated. In addition to a polishing stone and a turquoise bead, charred fragments of pine and agave-like tissue were recovered. My limited excavation further uncovered elements forming three complete bird wings, identified as two terns (Sterninae) and one probable snowy egret (Ardeidae cf. Egretta thula); both are migratory water birds exotic to the Casas Grandes environs. Pine wood and bird wings are further addressed in Chapter 6 as elements of specialized interests and settlement in 105 the Casas Grandes world, but for the present purpose I consider at least the bird wings to have been used in specialized observances in the atalaya. Also of interest here is a test excavation within a hilltop massive adobe wall structure or enclosure in southern Arizona that uncovered a schist pestle carved into the shape of a human phallus and a small stone bowl that were classified as ritual rather than domestic (Downum et al. 1993:78-89). From neighboring Sonora, Mexico, McGuire and Villalpando (2007:158-159) report that features and artifacts on the massively terraced hill called Cerro de Trincheras become more elaborate as elevation increases. Features culminate at the summit in a complex of terraces and rock enclosures with restricted access, and the summit has been interpreted as ceremonial precinct. By combining ethnographic evidence that shows shrines on hills bear cosmological and ritual importance with archaeologically derived data it is not unreasonable to suggest ritual or ceremonial importance for Cerro de Moctezuma’s summit precinct and other hilltop features in the Casas Grandes world that were recorded by Swanson (1997), although I recognize that specific meanings varied across geographical and temporal expressions related to hill ideology. The atalaya atop Cerro de Moctezuma and other Casas Grandes hilltop features are further discussed in Chapter 8 as components of the Casas Grandes ritual landscape. SUMMARY Three components of Cerro de Moctezuma were described and discussed in this chapter as untypical elements of Medio period organization and effort. Agricultural 106 fields, trails, and the summit precinct represent instances of marking the landscape in overt ways as strategies of differentiation. The rock agricultural complex at Cerro de Moctezuma is one of the largest agriculturally engineered landscapes currently known and larger than needed for El Pueblito’s residents and visitors. As fields of power, the system reflects the authority invested in at least a part of El Pueblito’s inhabitants, as leaders with ability to organize large-scale production and those that held knowledge of ritual significance undoubtedly involved with that production. Southwest United States and north Mexican ethnography, broader instances of road archaeology, and the concept and pilgrimage provide comparative and interpretive insights that contextualize and localize Medio period placecrafting at Cerro de Moctezuma. In Medio times, Cerro de Moctezuma’s broad trails supported travel to and facilitated ascent of the hill, however the trails also were physical and symbolic places that, in part, structured the Medio period landscape. Trails converging at Cerro de Moctezuma and wayside features presented an initial and enduring sense of place, meaning, and identity for travelers who convened at the hill to participate in Medio period observances. The wide trails at the hill suggest populations from surrounding settlements coming to participate in rituals of shared interest. In short, trails were the infrastructure used to ascend the hill and thus oriented pilgrims to the destination and outcomes of travel. The summit precinct atop Cerro de Moctezuma was perhaps the ultimate destination for those coming to the hill. Prior to the present project, no summit feature in northwest Chihuahua had been excavated. The few artifacts revealed in the excavation 107 are provoking. Although perhaps an accident of sampling, the only piece of turquoise found during the fieldwork is from the summit feature. Pine wood and three wings from locally exotic water birds also were found; their significance is discussed in Chapter 6. The atalaya is a regionally unique instance of hilltop ritualization with parallels of relevance from northern Mesoamerica into the southwest United States as an ideology and cosmology associated with elevated landforms. Such places were crafted by leaders and followers and reference ideals believed to meet the needs of societal interests and personal needs that are associated with conceptions of how the world works and with relationships to ancestors and deities. It is not difficult to imagine pilgrims coming to Cerro de Moctezuma for intercession or supplication in accordance with Medio period tenets. Administers of rituals were likely the elite residents of El Pueblito, which is the subject of the following chapter. 108 CHAPTER 5 – DISCOVERING AND EXCAVATING EL PUEBLITO Mapping El Pueblito revealed a variety of architectural forms, feature types, and construction techniques (Pitezel 2007). This first systematically produced map includes 80 obvious and less well-defined features (Figure 5.1). For example, architecture standing more than 1 m high is more easily recognized than some of the low rock alignments scattered across the mesa at much the same height as surrounding natural stones. The map illustrates a current state of knowledge subject to future modification and detail. In this chapter I describe the different types of architecture and other constructed features with particular focus on those selected for excavation, denoted by red feature numbers in Figure 5.1. This chapter also serves to orient the contexts artifact analyses summarized in Chapter 6 and evaluated in Appendices A and B. Excavation at El Pueblito was designed to address questions concerning the nature of architectural differentiation and corresponding differentiation of activities through comparative analyses of recovered materials. Adobe, rock-in-adobe, rubble core masonry, and rock features comprise four classes of constructions with obvious technological differences, and implications for functional variation. The architecturally differentiated range of activities at El Pueblito was approached through a limited test excavation program using a stratified sample of features from the four construction classes. Rock-in-adobe and rubble core masonry structures were selected primarily as representative of the class to which they belong and because of their rareness and uniqueness in the Casas Grandes world. Selection of rock features sought to capture the 109 range of variability in forms and maximize spatial coverage across the settlement. Admittedly, the sample size is small but given restricted time, resources, and feature variability, coverage was necessarily constrained. Nevertheless, the stratified sample provides initial insights into the function of El Pueblito in the Medio period landscape. Additional work, of course, could modify any conclusions provided in this dissertation. I begin with the adobe architecture, which at El Pueblito is an example of a regionally defined “architecture of power” with differential representation across the Medio period landscape. One large room in the site’s adobe room block was completely outlined and was partially excavated. I then briefly describe rooms constructed of rockin-adobe, which is a minor style of architecture at Paquimé and more widely known in the mountainous zone but is to date rare among excavated settlements in the valleys below. One of these rooms on El Pueblito was tested. Following that, I discuss rubblecore masonry architecture, a construction technique presently unknown anywhere in the Casas Grandes world except at El Pueblito, where in addition to rooms it was used to build a 90 m long wall along the east edge of the settlement. I define rubble core masonry as another instance of architecture of power at the settlement. Six of these structures were tested. The final category of construction is rock features that are found as low walls, alignments, arcs, and circles. These types of features appear to be rare in the Casas Grandes hinterland. Five rock features were tested. 110 Figure 5.1 El Pueblito on Cerro de Moctezuma showing the types and locations of features. Test excavated features are indicated by red feature numbers. 111 ARCHITECTURE OF POWER IN ADOBE The adobe architecture at El Pueblito today is a mound of collapsed and melted walls and roofs that once formed a group of contiguous rooms. Looting had exposed a portion of a wall in the mound, allowing shallow excavations to easily outline a room for excavation, a common procedure used elsewhere in Casas Grandes investigations. A small portion of the room was excavated in arbitrary levels to the prehistoric natural surface and all contents of the excavation were passed through ¼-inch screen. Flotation samples were collected from floor fill contexts and discriminately from upper fill levels. Wall trenching showed that the mound contains an elaborately shaped room with 12 walls that are up to 0.55 m wide; the total floor area is 73.6 sq m, making it the largest known room outside of Paquimé (Frost 2000:Table 4.5; Whalen and Minnis 2009:Table 3.1). The room is illustrated in Figure 5.2, which also shows that the room has a Tshaped door, two rectangular doors, and a wall niche. The shape of the room alone stands apart from most rooms at surrounding settlements that are more commonly simple rectangular or L-shapes and smaller in area (Whalen and Minnis 2001a). Eccentrically shaped rooms and large room areas are not common in the Casas Grandes sphere but are more characteristic of Paquimé and of a few functionally differentiated settlements, such as Site 242, which has a room with 14 walls (Whalen and Minnis 2001a). Like the similar room at Site 242, the elaborately shaped room at El Pueblito is surrounded by other rooms, indicating that there was not direct access into it from the outside. 112 Figure 5.2. A 12-walled room in the adobe mound. The narrow central portion of the room was excavated to floor. Letters indicate wall profiles shown in Figures 3a-c. This type of unusual architecture constitutes non-verbal communication about the identity of those who dwell within and their status within and among social 113 constituencies. The size and shape of this room at El Pueblito are remarkable but considering the use of adobe on a hill amplifies the unusual nature of this settlement. Adobe architecture is a pedestrian attribute of the Medio period as hundreds of settlements were constructed of mixed earth and water cast in layers between wooden forms, but the ingredients for adobe, especially the water, might not have been immediately available in quantities sufficient for constructing adobe walls at El Pueblito. There is a reservoir to the south of the adobe mound that might have naturally accumulated the necessary amount of water, but if not, water would have been collected off the hill and carried up 200 m in order to prepare adobe. Moreover, deep sediments are not characteristic of the mesa top and dirt may also have been hauled as well, possibly from the narrow shelf extending further west just below the El Pueblito mesa, where the West Entrance trails converge (see Figure 4.3). There, a possible barrow pit has been identified1. A small portion of the outlined room at El Pueblito was selected for excavation. Figure 5.2 shows the excavation plan view as well as letters that indicate wall profile views shown in Figure 5.3a-c, which presents the east and west wall profiles from the excavation and the profile of a wall exposed by looting. Excluding wall tracing, a mere 11.5 m3 of fill was removed from the room. As indicated in Figure 5.2, about half (4.33 sq m) the floor area within the excavation was disturbed, while a small portion (2.03 sq m) was hard packed and lacked plaster that covered the remaining area (4.03 sq m). No 1 Harmon (2005) refers to this depression as an Open-to-T-shape transition ball court. I respectfully disagree. First, its shape is ambiguous without a clearly defined north or south end. Second, uneven and jagged bedrock exposures can be seen within what would be the playing field. Third, the berms on the east and west sides are composed mostly of rubble, which looks strikingly like the result of winnowing. The latter point particularly suggests a possible borrow pit for making the adobe found at El Pueblito. 114 floor or wall features were observed within the excavated area. Judging from excavation below the floor level, the adobe walls have footings about 16 cm deep that rest on bedrock or cultural fill; bedrock appears from 16 to 39 cm below the floor. Figure 5.3a-c. Adobe wall profiles as revealed by looting (north) and excavation (west and east). Refer to Figrue 5.2 for the locations of walls. 115 Estimating Number of Rooms The tops of adobe walls in Chihuahua are not typically visible because they are capped by a thin layer of overburden. Thus, counting the number of rooms is impossible on the basis of surface indications, and to complicate matters, Medio period rooms are of variable size and shape such that estimating numbers of rooms from mound size is difficult at best. To avoid overestimating or underestimating room counts, Whalen and Minnis (2001b:108-110) used mound area to characterize settlement size, and by that measure El Pueblito’s 925 sq m mound is small by Chihuahua standards, although it falls at the top end of their small category. Small settlements (< 1000 sq m) account for about 76 percent of mounds found within about 80 km of the primate center of Paquimé (Whalen and Minnis 2001b:Table 4.4). El Pueblito’s adobe room block is directly associated with other types of architecture (e.g., Features 61, 44); those are not included in the 925 sq m, nor is the associated plaza. New data have become available since Whalen and Minnis first established the use of mound area as a measure of settlement size. Now, there are four sets of data for comparative purposes and they underscore previous understanding that room size is variable among settlements (Whalen and Minnis 1999, 2000; 2001b:110-111; 2001c, 2003). Including excavation at Paquimé, there are 312 rooms in the sample with average room sizes ranging between 8.8-26.9 sq m. Even removing Paquimé from the equation, there is a difference of 10.7 sq m between the low and high end of average room sizes. Finally, at least one room at El Pueblito is about 74 sq m, far above the highest average of 26.9 sq m. Using the low and high averages yields estimates of 105 and 34 for the 116 number of adobe rooms at El Pueblito. It should be clear from this brief exercise that estimating the number of rooms at El Pueblito could be misleading, but I am comfortable rejecting the high of 105 rooms, given the unusually large size of the 12-walled room. The lower number is, of course, plausible but it also is likely too high because the calculation for El Pueblito’s mound area includes the full extent of adobe melt that most likely extends beyond the original footprint of the room block. Therefore, I take the number of rooms to be no more than 34 and most likely fewer. ROCK-IN-ADOBE A small block of three rooms directly northeast of the adobe mound was mapped from surface rock alignments, and the rooms appear to be constructed from rock-in adobe, although the north wall of this complex is rubble core masonry (Features 22, 63, and 64). One of the rooms appears to have 8 walls, forming a complex shape (Feature 64). If this is truly the case, the room is another instance of extravagant engineering that is uncommon at other settlements. More of this same type of architecture forms a row of contiguous rooms on the south side of the Adobe Plaza. One of the rooms appears to form an L-shape. There are a few walls of this type at Paquimé, and Di Peso et al. (1974:4:218) referred to them as adobe and stone cob. Outside of those few examples, the only other currently known walls of this nature occur about 150 km west of Cerro de Moctezuma in the Sierra Madre (Bagwell 2004). One small test pit 0.8 by 1.3 m (0.9 m3) was excavated into Feature 56, one of the rock-in-adobe rooms along the Adobe Plaza’s south edge (Figure 5.4). An exposed wall 117 in the excavation was plastered with a thick (ca. 3 cm) application of adobe that was then covered with a thin coat of plaster. A compact surface was found about 95 cm below the modern surface, and although a plastered floor was not confidently identified, there were 43 flat-lying plain jar sherds at that level. All but one or two of the sherds belong to the same vessel. Below that level was about 10 cm of fill on top of an uneven bedrock surface. Unfortunately, time constraints precluded expanding this test excavation to obtain additional information, such as the possibility of floor features or type of entry. Figure 5.4. West wall profile of a rock-in-adobe structure, Feature 56. ESOTERIC KNOWLEDGE IN RUBBLE CORE MASONRY Rubble core masonry architecture accounts for at least 21 structures on El Pueblito. The technology has no counterpart at Paquimé and is unknown elsewhere in northwest Chihuahua. Beyond the Casas Grandes world, this construction technique is known to be associated with ritual centers in Mexico and on hill sites in the southwest 118 United States (Ferdon 1955:3-4; Nicholson 2003; Wasley and Johnson 1965:90). As described in Chapter 7, the adoption of this unusual technique could have been a strategy of employing esoteric knowledge in order to further differentiate Cerro de Moctezuma. At El Pueblito, rubble core masonry occurs as isolated and contiguous rooms, although the technology is incorporated in a few other constructions that are not considered to have ever been full height structures (Features 30, 81, and 104) or are mixed with other construction techniques as in the small room block directly northeast of the adobe mound that was previously described as rock-in-adobe and rubble core masonry. Rubble core masonry structures are listed in Table 5.1. Feature 136, directly north of the adobe architecture was overgrown with dense vegetation so that clear definition of walls was not possible; it may contain divisions that went undetected. An early map of El Pueblito, inadvertently submitted for publication (Pitezel 2007), incorrectly characterizes that feature as having semi-circular walls. Rubble core masonry walls are generally about 90 cm wide and are constructed of immediately available, mostly undressed, rhyolite as outer faces that are filled with naturally available smaller cobbles and pebbles as well as crushed rock. The robust nature of the walls easily fit into the designation architecture of power. I envision at least most of this architectural class as having full-height masonry walls because excavation shows that the height of walls are generally 1.5 m, from floor to the top of existing walls. Judging from abundant wall fall in the test excavations, there would be enough rock to complete a full height wall from floor to roof. A profile of two partially excavated rooms is shown in Figure 5.5. The exact type of roof these structures 119 had is not known, but it is clear that the roofs included grasses and reeds as well as small beams because impressions of these materials were found on small masses of hardened mud. Table 5.1. Rubble core masonry structures at El Pueblito. Feature Feature 10 11 13 15 18 21 23 25 28 29 31 35 36 39 Feature 40 43 47 104 134 135 136 Figure 5.5. West profile of two partially excavated rubble core masonry structures showing room floors and remnant and projected wall heights. General excavation procedures included excavation in arbitrary levels unless otherwise noted in the following discussion. All fill was passed through ¼-inch screen. Flotation samples were collected from basal levels. Trench excavations 0.5 m wide and of variable length were used to initially explore rubble core masonry structures. Where appropriate, trenches were expanded laterally to obtain additional architectural and feature characteristics. 120 Isolated Rubble Core Masonry Structures Blackiston (1906) regarded the southernmost rubble core masonry structure, Feature 47, as a stone tower, suggesting a construction much more substantial that what is now visible. Although the feature is filled with rock, there does not appear to be enough to have extended the structure to more than one story. Moreover, interior wall faces are clearly visible and an entry is definable in the north wall, so if Blackiston was referring to a tall mass, that appears also to be incorrect. Blackiston’s evaluation seems inaccurate in either case. There is a possible low platform (ca 40 cm high) constructed of rhyolite along the exterior west wall, but without additional investigation through excavation, this assessment remains speculative. Other structures also have interiors filled with rock, in particular the small room (Feature 18) attached to the D-shaped wall on the east side of the massive rubble core masonry wall. Bandelier (Lange and Riley 1970:319) described this room as a “nearly square mound of stone,” but that description is not entirely straightforward. Again, like Feature 47, the small room is filled with rubble, but that also is likely to be wall fall and there is indication of an entry in the west wall. On the north and west perimeters of the El Pueblito mesa, nearly directly opposite of the two features just described, are two other structures that are filled with rubble. Feature 48, isolated along the west edge of the site is nearly identical in size to the east and south structures (Features 18 and 47), while Feature 11 on the north is slightly larger and is in much worse condition than the other three. It is collapsed to about 70 cm above the surface, while the others stand to about 1.25 m high. The east and west flanking structures and the southern one could have been 121 filled prehistorically; however, if that is the case, they most likely were not used as platforms because the interior surfaces are not level, in fact, they are so uneven that standing atop them is precarious. Because of their isolated nature these structures might have been used differently than contiguous masonry structures. It is unfortunate that they were in such a state of disrepair, with few that could be readily tested. Directly adjacent to the east side of the Adobe Plaza is an isolated structure (Feature 21) that had the least amount of rock filling its interior. A 0.5 by 2.13 m trench (0.5 m3) excavated along its south wall revealed only a few centimeters of deposition above a base of undulating bedrock. No floor or subfeatures were observed. West-central Rubble Core Masonry Structures Three rooms from the cluster of masonry plazas and rubble core rooms north of the adobe architecture were selected for testing. Most of the architecture there is clearly rubble core technology except the northernmost room with stacked rock walls on the north and east (Feature 30), and two ancillary spaces (Features 37 and 75). The three tested structures include Features 35, 36, and 39. Very little can be said of the southernmost room (Feature 39) that was tested in this group. A 0.5 by 2.0 m trench (0.7 m3) along its north wall exposed plastered walls and floor, all in excellent condition. Hardened pieces of adobe with impressions of reeds 4-5 mm in diameter found in the excavation are suggestive of roof construction as described at Paquimé (Di Peso et al. 1974:4:250-251). 122 Feature 35 is the only circular room on El Pueblito; therefore it was specifically targeted for testing (Figure 5.6). A total of 2.7 m3 of fill was excavated. The room appears to have been partially subterranean because there is a 20 cm stepped entry and bedrock forms the lowest part of the structure wall just north of the entry. The bedrock had been ground smooth. Similar alteration of bedrock to create level floors of structures is reported at Fortified Hill near Gila Bend, Arizona (Greenleaf 1975). A Casas Grandes Plainware jar was found sitting upright about 3 cm above the floor of the room (Appendix I). Figure 5.6. A rubble core masonry structure, Feature 35, showing the limit of test excavation and location of the stepped entry. Feature 36, the far north room, proved to be one of the most interesting because the test excavation of 2.2 m3 of fill along the south wall revealed a platform hearth, a T- 123 shaped door, and the only turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) bones recovered from El Pueblito (Figure 5.7). The platform hearth is similar to some at Paquimé that were described as Type 2A, Rectangular Platform (Di Peso et al. 1974:4:256). As the name implies, the hearth is raised from the floor level, but it also consists of an ash retainer behind the fire pit and a front air vent into the fire pit. The example from El Pueblito, however, lacks the air vent but more interestingly, the ash pit was fashioned from parent rock that makes up the substrate of the room (Figure 5.8). The floor of the room was typical of other Medio period floors except that a portion of it, like the ash retainer, was formed from bedrock that had been ground flat and smooth (Figure 5.8). The doorway, in the southeast corner of the room, was only partially preserved but it is clear that it once formed a T-shape. 124 Figure 5.7. A rubble core masonry structure, Feature 36, with a platform hearth and T-shaped door. 125 Figure 5.8. An adobe platform hearth (Feature 118) with ash retainer in a rubble core masonry structure (Feature 36). Bedrock was ground smooth to form part of the floor (east of ash retainer) and part of the ash retainer. Scale = 10 cm. Five turkey bones found in the southwest corner of the room form a left wing (see Chapter 6); the distal end of the humerus had been cut, unlike the others. Another wing bone, from the right side, was also recovered, suggesting an additional wing that was not fully recovered. The position of the bones among roof fall suggests that the wing may have been hanging on a wall or suspended from the roof of the room. I have been unable to find reference to turkey wings from Paquimé where most of the turkeys recovered were complete or headless burials (Di Peso et al. 1974:8:Figure 322-8; Hodgetts 1996). Thus, currently this is the only known example of whole turkey wings from a Casas Grandes settlement. Ethnographically, across west, central, and eastern Mesoamerica turkeys are critical parts of rain, harvest, and crop ceremonies, and among southern 126 cultures turkey plumes are referred to as feathers of the lord (Di Peso 1974:2:602; Vogt 1969). North Rubble Core Masonry Structures The only known interconnected rubble core masonry rooms are found in the north-central portion of El Pueblito (Features 28 and 29), along with a small stone arc attached to the south and a patio extending to the east (Features 78 and 27). The northernmost room is one of only two known L-shaped rooms at El Pueblito. Figure 5.9 illustrates Feature 28, the larger, southern room. Test excavation of 1.8 m3 of fill exposed short segments of walls in the southeast corner of the room but neither wall plaster or a floor were observed, although matrix color and texture changes, as well as dramatic drop in artifact density, indicate the possibility of a surface about 30 cm below the modern ground level. Below that level, there was a 15 cm thick layer of crushed rhyolite extending at least to the walls of the structure. This deposit could predate the construction of the room, but its full extent, possibly under the walls, is unknown. This is a large room and postholes would be expected to support a roof but no such features were observed nor was there evidence of a roof, for example, beam impressions as found elsewhere. 127 Figure 5.9. A rubble core masonry structure (Feature 28) showing the limit of test excavation. Northeast Cliff Rubble Core Masonry Structures Feature 15, on the northeast cliff edge, is accompanied by an additional rubble core structure (Feature 13) as well as two low-walled spaces on the north and south (Features 70 and 16). Feature 15, illustrated in Figure 5.10, is partially set against a low bedrock escarpment that forms part of its southwestern wall, with rubble core masonry atop. Otherwise the room is typical rubble core technology, although the use of massive boulders as wall facing is not typical. A small area adjacent to the structure is bounded 128 on the west by a taller bedrock outcrop, about 1.5 m high, forming a small extramural space (Feature 14). No floor was observed in the 0.5 by 2.28 m test trench (0.9 m3) in Feature 15, nor did the walls have plaster covering, although deposition was shallow, about 20 cm before encountering a layer of unconsolidated rock covering bedrock. Figure 5.10. A rubble core masonry structure (Feature 15) along the east edge of El Pueblito showing the limit of test excavation. 129 The Massive Rubble Core Masonry Wall A striking complex of rock construction at El Pueblito is along the east side of the settlement where the mesa rapidly drops several meters before reaching the precipitous cliff face. The complex encompasses a massive wall, a few lower, less substantial walls, three enclosures, and a low terrace (Figure 5.1). Features 19, 86, and 87 are constructions of the type described in the following section. Feature 18 and 98 are rubble core masonry, the former being the structure described by Bandelier as a mound of stone. The massive wall is rubble core masonry but it is considerably more robust than other examples (Figure 5.11). While structure walls are about 90 cm wide, the massive wall measures between 1.0 and 2.7 m wide along its 90 m length. There is a constructed passage through the wall where Bandelier (1890-1892:565) observed a large slab forming a step by which to pass through the opening. There is another opening in the wall a few meters south of the passage but it is the result of wall collapse. Figure 5.11. Top view of the massive rubble core masonry wall (Feature 46) on the east side of El Pueblito. Scale = 1m. 130 The purpose of the long wall is not immediately clear, but it could be an elaborate form of terrace to retain soil. Eight auger holes were excavated along the west side of the wall in order to determine depth to bedrock. Depths of the holes ranged from 5 to 45 cm, the shallowest two holes (5 cm and 8 cm) are from near the south end of the wall where the topography is flatter than along the northern two-thirds of the wall where the minimum depth to bedrock is 20 cm. Artifacts were only observed in the northernmost hole and they included 2 Ramos Polychrome sherds and a vesicular basalt mano fragment. It is clear that the wall supports the accumulation of sediments along the west side, but it is unknown if that was its intended purpose. This long wall could have served an unknown purpose, but the most parsimonious conclusion is that it retained soil to create a level surface. Although no structural elements are presently recognizable on the surface along the wall, the proposed terrace could have been used to support perishable constructions such as ramadas. UNTYPICAL COMPONENTS OF SETTLEMENT COMPOSITION: EXTRAMURAL ROCK FEATURES The most variable class of features on El Pueblito comprises rock arrangements that are generally grouped as low single course masonry walls and rock alignments, but as shown in Figure 5.1, construction techniques can be mixed and bedrock is sometimes incorporated into feature designs. More specifically, the features listed in Table 5.2 include single course enclosures, arcs, and alignments; low (between 30-40 cm) piled enclosures, arcs, and alignments; walled enclosures; and wall segments; and one low 131 terrace. Walled enclosures are about 75 cm high, except in one case, which is 2 m high. Some rock features are a combination of single courses and piled segments, and in at least one example rubble core masonry is combined with simpler single course masonry. None of these features appear to have been full height structures with formal roofs, although more ephemeral superstructures cannot be confirmed or rejected at this time. These types of features are not typical components of Casas Grandes settlements, especially in the quantity as found at El Pueblito, indicating a level of settlement activity and complexity beyond most. Table 5.2. Extramural rock features at El Pueblito. Feature/Description Feature/Description Feature/Description 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 16 17 19 20 24 26 37 49 50 51 52 53 54 68 70 71 72 73 74 75 79 80 81 82 83 86 87 103 129 130 131 132 133 piled alignment piled arc single course enclosure piled arc piled enclosure piled enclosure mixed alignment mixed enclosure terrace walled enclosure piled alignment piled arc walled enclosure walled enclosure single course enclosure single course enclosure single course alignment single course enclosure single course arc single course double alignment single course alignment? walled enclosure single course enclosure single course enclosure mixed alignment single course alignment walled enclosure mixed arc single course alignment mixed enclosure single course alignment piled alignment wall segment wall segment piled enclosure single course alignment single course alignment single course arc single course alignment single course alignment As just mentioned, several features have combinations of architectural elements. One is found in the northwest corner of the settlement where both piled rock walls and rubble core masonry are combined to form a small rectangular space (Feature 81). About 20 m south of that feature is a line of rocks bordering the cliff edge, but its east edge, like 132 the previous feature, also includes rubble core masonry (Feature 9); this feature sits directly on bedrock. Feature 7 is another example of combined architectural elements, and it is in the cluster of features along the west edge of the settlement and directly west of the south masonry plaza. The feature consists of a stacked rock wall 1 m high as an east facing U shape with a massive bedrock outcrop incorporated into the opening of the U. It is about 2.7 by 3.0 m (Figure 5.12). A 0.5 by 2.7 m trench (0.3 m3) in the center of the feature revealed a maximum 18 cm of sediments atop a west-slopping bedrock substrate. No cultural surface was identified, although if there was a prepared surface it could not have been more than about 5 cm below the modern surface because that was the minimum depth of bedrock. Figure 5.12. A rock feature (Feature 7) on the west side of El Pueblito showing area tested. 133 Feature 49 is the southwesternmost known feature on El Pueblito, and it is a single row of rocks that are about 30 cm in maximum dimension forming a rectangular shape (Figure 5.13). No artifacts were recovered and only about 2 cm of wind-blown and water-deposited sediment was removed from a centrally placed trench 0.5 by 2.6 m. It is built directly on bedrock. This feature has a rock (ca. 50 cm in maximum dimension) in the center of it, as do two other features, both of which are also along the west margin of the settlement (Features 5 and 52). Another feature lacking a prepared surface was Feature 19, on the east side of El Pueblito. It is the D-shaped enclosure (6.5 by 6 m) attached to the east side of the massive wall, and just north of that wall’s opening. This feature has the tallest wall (2 m) of any within the class of single-course masonry features. A 0.5 by 5.5 m trench (0.5 m3) through the center of the feature shows downward stepped bedrock from west to east and no distinctions within feature fill. Figure 5.13. A rock feature (Feature 49) in the southwest corner of El Pueblito showing the area tested. The feature was built on bedrock. 134 At the north end of the massive wall are two stone circles, one of which was tested (Feature 71). The stone circle is about 3.5 m in diameter and consists of a single row of rocks that are about 25 cm in maximum dimension. Except for a discontinuous deposit of yellow-brown clayey sediments about 20 cm below the modern surface, a 0.5 by 3.5 m trench (0.8 m3) through the center of the feature revealed homogeneous deposits on top of disaggregating bedrock. Artifacts were found to near the bedrock surface, and at no point was a prehistoric surface identified. The final rock feature that was tested is the large stone arc (Feature 24), about 30 m north of the stone circle just described. The arc, shown in Figure 5.14, is similar to those at Site 242 (Whalen and Minnis 2009). Feature 24 is about 7.5 m by 5.0 m and is constructed of rocks from 40-50 cm in maximum dimension, although smaller ones are incorporated. The underlying substrate consists of a broad surface of bedrock in the northeast portion of the 0.5 by 3.0 m test trench (0.6 m3) and a deeper, disaggregated bedrock surface in the southwest half of the trench. No cultural surface was identified during excavation or in the trench profile. 135 Figure 5.14. A rock feature (Feature 24) showing the area test excavated. SURVEILLANCE AND ACCOMMODATION: PLAZAS None of the plazas on El Pueblito were excavated but they are included here because they are examined in Chapter 6 and Appendix A through artifact collections from the surface. Moreover, plazas are generally considered to be activity areas for more than a few people, and the immediate goal is to examine the sizes of the plazas and their capacity to accommodate activities and visibility. The plazas are first described with attention to surveillance or intervisibility properties. Referring to Figure 5.1, the plazas are: the North Masonry Plaza (NMP), the South Masonry Plaza (SMP), the Central Plaza, and the Adobe Plaza. Included in the summary analysis in Chapter 6 is Feature 29, a 136 small patio adjacent to a rubble core masonry structure (Feature 28) but it is not further discussed in this section. The Adobe Plaza is surrounded by adobe architecture on the north and west and by adobe-in-rock architecture to the south. The exact nature of the architecture forming the east side (Feature 61) is unknown but surface indications show probable adobe, with some simpler masonry along the north edge, and rubble core masonry on the east. There also are two parallel masonry alignments that appear to have been an entry between the plaza and this poorly understood area. By all indications, the activities within the plaza would not have been visible from outside, but the roofs of surrounding architecture could have been places from which to view activities within the plaza. The North and South Masonry Plazas are defined by rubble core masonry architecture along the western sides. A simpler type of stacked masonry wall divides the two plazas and forms the east and south walls of the south plaza. The southern plaza appears to be entirely enclosed with no visible entrance. The northern plaza is not fully enclosed but a massive bedrock exposure on the east side restricts entry. Although much of the simpler masonry walls of the plazas have collapsed, estimating their original height from, presumably, largely intact segments and adjacent wall fall indicates that they were about 1.5 m high, or about the average height of the population living at Paquimé (males 1.65 m, females 1.55 m; Di Peso et al. 1974:8:339). Judging from the lack of significant wall fall, parts of the west walls of both plazas stand nearly to their assumed full height, and no interior part of the plazas can be viewed from outside along their west borders because the architecture rises about 3 m above the line of sight. 137 The Central Plaza is an open space, defined by the adobe architecture on the south and masonry constructions on the east and west, by the bolder and rock alignment on the northeast, and by rock-and-adobe room block on the southeast. Although it is not extreme, a drop in the contour of the mesa defines the area between the northeast and southeast constructions. The plaza is further notable for and definable by the lack of natural surface rock that characterizes the unaltered parts of the mesa. A short, single course rock alignment sits toward the center of the plaza, but its function is unknown. El Pueblito’s four plazas are of different sizes suggesting that activities within them encompassed different audience sizes, activities, or social segments. The Central Plaza is the largest at about 710 sq m, and it is open, rather than restricted. The North Masonry Plaza, South Masonry Plaza, and the Adobe Plaza are 80 sq m, 100 sq m, and 305 sq m, respectively, and they are physically and visually restricted from without. Using Moore’s (2005:147, Table 4.8) estimate of 1 person per 3.6 sq m of plaza space results in El Pueblito audience sizes of 197 for the Central Plaza, 85 for the Adobe Plaza, 28 for the South Masonry Plaza, and 22 for the North Masonry Plaza. Moore is quick to note, however, that estimating audience size depends on several factors including the type of activity and actors, design of the plaza space, and surrounding accommodations (such as roof tops). Such caveats are particularly useful to consider for El Pueblito’s plazas. In particular, the unsymmetrical shape of the masonry plazas raises questions as to how people would have been arranged within the plazas to view activity presumably taking place in the center of the plazas. The estimates provided here are only general guides to the possible sizes of audiences within plazas. 138 SUMMARY Adobe, rock-in-adobe, rubble-core masonry, and rock features comprise four classes of architecture and features at El Pueblito. A sample from each class was tested including a portion of an elaborately shaped room in the adobe mound, a portion of one room from the rock-in-adobe architecture, five rooms from the rubble-core masonry architecture, and five extramural rock features. The artifact assemblages from the excavations are analyzed and evaluated in the following chapter, along with an analysis of surface artifact collections. Before moving to those analyses, however, a few conclusions about El Pueblito and its place within the Medio period landscape can be summarized from the preceding discussions. A developmental theme of this dissertation is the specialized nature of El Pueblito, and the architecture is one line of evidence in support of that characterization. In addition, mound area is a regional standard by which to measure settlement size, and despite the small size of El Pueblito’s mound, it is comparable to the mound at Site 242, which has been characterized as an extension of Paquimé’s authority in the hinterland. This simple observation underscores the relevance of understanding the range of variability among Medio period settlements, where the size of a settlement cannot be inferred to indicate the nature of its occupants or its role in Medio period organization. It is, rather, the use and configuration of materials that set these two settlements apart from their neighbors. While adobe is a common construction material in the Medio period it is used extravagantly at El Pueblito as thick walls and as a room with 12 walls. These 139 qualities conform to what has been called architecture of power, a declaration of authority related to Paquimé where architecture of power is maximally expressed. Similarly, rubble core masonry architecture, which is currently unknown elsewhere among recorded settlements around Paquimé, is robust and exaggerated. While the rock used to construct these rooms is immediately available on the surface, the walls are thick at about 90 cm. I believe that this technology represents esoteric knowledge and is another example of over-engineering at El Pueblito as a statement about the people who lived there and about their formal relationship with the leadership at Paquimé. Excavation in the rooms revealed plastered walls and floors and there is evidence of roofing material. Moreover, effort was expended in modifying the natural surface to accommodate floors, as bedrock had been ground smooth in two of the rooms. Many other constructions on El Pueblito also set it apart from other Casas Grandes settlements. At least 40 extramural rock features as single-row alignments, low piled-rock alignments, low-walled enclosures, and wall segments contribute to the complexity of the settlement when compared to most others that lack such features. There is no evidence that any of these features were covered with substantial roofs supported by load bearing walls, but ephemeral superstructures cannot be ruled out. No cultural surfaces were identified in the examples that were excavated. An immediate observation is that these features divide space in ways not typical elsewhere and that there were kinds of activities on El Pueblito that required that those interests be visibly demarcated. 140 Other segregated spaces at El Pueblito include three of its plazas. Two masonry plazas and the adobe plaza are fully enclosed by walls and other architecture, indicating that viewing activities within them was restricted to a limited number of participants. What kinds of activities occurred in the plazas is unknown, but their size implies that they were not overly large gatherings. The two masonry plazas could probably accommodate around 25 people. The Adobe Plaza could have entailed a larger group, around 85 people. However, there is also the Central Plaza that is not enclosed but rather completely open, and much larger. It was estimated that it could have held a group of about 200 people. El Pueblito on Cerro de Moctezuma represents a unique location among a predominately valley and mountain settlement pattern where hilltops were not used for substantial habitation except on Cerro de Moctezuma. In ritualized landscapes, places are crafted to meet dominant concerns of society. Specialization and differentiation set apart those interests from the ordinary as strategies that not only enhance experiences but also the status of those who, in the present case, live in the midst of those materialized actions. Given the complexity of El Pueblito’s organization and the effort that was expended in its architecture that is beyond the practical, I envision at least some El Pueblito residents as leaders, and more specifically ritual leaders, that were intimately related to Paquimé (see Chapter 8). 141 CHAPTER 6 – THE ORDINARY AND EXTRAORDINARY: RESIDENCE AND RITUAL AT CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA Analysis of artifact collections from El Pueblito and the atalaya on Cerro de Moctezuma anticipated answers to key questions involving chronology, functional variation among feature classes, use of public spaces, and identification of extramural activity areas. Moreover, El Pueblito’s collections would be crucial for examining questions of residential permanence and settlement specialization through comparison to available inventories from other settlements. Ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone provided the primary artifact classes used to assess these issues. However, other kinds of artifacts from nearby sites also provided initial expectations for what appears in residential and more specialized settlements. Nonlocal items such as turquoise, shell, and copper, as well as a variety of effigies as at Paquimé show the presence of privileged societal members who participated in activities beyond those at most other settlements. These items were rare at a few other settlements. If they were present at Cerro de Moctezuma they would be of primary significance for characterizing the hill and its occupants as key dimensions of the Casas Grandes ritual landscape. This chapter is a summary of artifact analyses that are more fully detailed in Appendix A and B. Data are listed in Appendices C-H. In addition to surface collections the analyses included artifacts from, as discussed in Chapter 5, a stratified sample of 13 features from the four construction categories: adobe, rock-in-adobe, rubble core masonry, and rock features. Excavations were necessarily restricted to testing because 142 time and resources were limited. Additionally constraining the excavation program was the wide variety of constructions to be sampled. It is believed that limited testing across the spectrum of features types would provide clearer initial insights to answer research questions than more extensive excavations among fewer feature types. Features selected for limited testing are listed in Table 6.1 (see Figure 5.1 for the location of tested features). Table 6.1 also shows the volume excavated within each feature. The total volume excavated at El Pueblito was only 23.5 m3, nearly half of which was from the adobe architecture. An additional 3.5 m3 was excavated within the atalaya. Given the low volume of excavation and near absence of floor artifacts (and absence of use surfaces in some cases), artifacts from all levels are included in the analyses. Nevertheless, sample sizes were small and less than ideal. When considering the inter-settlement analyses, it should be remembered that only eight rooms and five extramural features were test excavated at El Pueblito compared to 55 fully excavated rooms and two partially excavated extramural features at other sites, totaling 425 m3. Table 6.2 shows the volume excavated and the counts of ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone from El Pueblito and four comparative Medio settlements, where were described in Chapter 2. Statistical tests were employed in both inter- and intra-settlement evaluations but they do not overcome caution of using small samples in individual analyses. Tentative but important conclusions for interpreting components of Cerro de Moctezuma were forthcoming in some but not all cases. Especially significant is evidence for settlement specialization given the admittedly small sample of artifacts from the hill. 143 Overall, the analyses of ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone revealed little out of the ordinary for Medio period residential sites; in fact, judging from comparative artifact assemblages, activities at El Pueblito must have crosscut the kinds practiced at most settlements. Personal adornment and high value items were scarce at Cerro de Moctezuma, but some of this evidence illustrates that El Pueblito and the atalaya were locations of extraordinary activity. Wood and faunal remains, for example, reveal especially notable components of specialized interests uniquely expressed on Cerro de Moctezuma. As such, the types of wood and animal remains are detailed in this chapter. Taken together, artifacts from Cerro de Moctezuma indicate that a segment of Medio period population must have resided at El Pueblito for extended intervals and that the hill itself was a primate ritual destination for occupants of the countryside. Table 6.1. Test excavated features at Cerro de Moctezuma. All are at El Pueblito except the atalaya. Feature Number Volume (m3) 1 7 15 19 21 24 28 35 36 39 49 56 71 95 11.50 0.33 0.88 0.53 0.50 0.59 1.83 2.66 2.24 0.73 0.03 0.94 0.77 3.50 Feature Description Feature Class Room in adobe mound Low rock wall enclosure Rubble core masonry structure High rock wall enclosure Rubble core masonry structure Rock arc Rubble core masonry structure Rubble core masonry structure Rubble core masonry structure Rubble core masonry structure Single course rock enclosure Rock-in-adobe structure Single course rock enclosure Atalaya Adobe Rock Feature Rubble Core Rock Feature Rubble Core Rock Feature Rubble Core Rubble Core Rubble Core Rubble Core Rock Feature Rock/Adobe Rock Feature 144 Table 6.2. Volume excavated and counts of ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone from El Pueblito and four other Medio period settlements. Volume (m3) Site El Pueblito 204 231 242 317 Total 23 280 19 95 31 448 Ceramic Chipped Stone Ground Stone Total 2424 27534 3695 6656 10167 50476 459 15639 1147 161 1559 18965 7 514 17 28 19 585 2890 43687 4859 6845 11745 70026 SURFACE ARTIFACTS FROM EL PUEBLITO Surface collections were analyzed in order to maximize the characterization of artifact diversity at the site, identify activities outside recognized architectural and feature boundaries, and evaluate correspondence between surface and subsurface deposits. Surface collections consisted of 1) a general, non-systematic collection, 2) controlled collections from outside the boundaries of architecture and other features, and 3) collections from within known architectural or feature boundaries. The first examination of El Pueblito’s artifacts considered simple counts of ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone from a general, unsystematic surface collection from non-feature areas of the settlement. The only exceptional artifacts from those assemblages were an unusually large stemmed biface, maul, and axe (see Figures A.2c and A.3). In other words, by the simplest comparison of types of ceramics present, kinds of ground stone items, and chipped stone tools and debitage El Pueblito does not stand out among its contemporaries. Internally, the surface collection adds quantity to the excavated assemblages but does little to expand the variety of items from subsurface deposits. 145 In addition to the general surface collection, three controlled collections were made. These units proved useful for potentially identifying use areas that are not defined by recognizable feature boundaries. No ground stone items were observed in these units, and the analyses of the ceramics and chipped stone showed one possible location of stone reduction. Although the collection units were small and sample sizes less than ideal, the results are suggestive of extramural use areas, and importantly, point to the potential of such controlled surface collections at other Medio period settlements. The other two types of surface collections were from within the boundaries of recognizable architecture and features. One set came from El Pueblito’s enclosed plazas and one patio, and they were not clearly instructive of specific, localized activities. Assemblage compositions from all proveniences were similar, with chipped stone being most abundant followed by ceramics and ground stone (see Figure A.4). Only the North Masonry Plaza was statistically different from that perspective, having a higher proportion of chipped stone and lower proportion of ceramics than other proveniences, but the meaning of that difference is not currently understood. Individual artifact class analyses also yielded only general discard patterns. The South Masonry and Adobe Plazas on the one hand and the patio and North Masonry Plaza on the other hand were more alike regarding proportions of plain and decorated ceramics, but there was not a statistical difference between proveniences (see Figure A.5). Chipped stone assemblages (flakes, debris, cores, tools) analyses showed a higher proportion of flakes than debris followed by cores and tools in all proveniences except the Adobe Plaza, which had a 146 higher proportion of debris than flakes. In this regard, the Adobe Plaza was statistically different from the other proveniences (see Figure A.6). The other set of collections came from the surfaces of El Pueblito’s buildings and extramural rock features (see Figure A.7). Interpretable differences and similarities were not forthcoming except to say that surface assemblages are not, at least at El Pueblito, good predictors of subsurface deposits. For example, in some cases, proportion profiles of ceramics and chipped stone were reversed between surface and subsurface deposits. Future research could be geared toward more comprehensive surface collections in order to better address this approach. EXCAVATED ARTIFACTS FROM EL PUEBLITO Adobe and rubble core masonry have been characterized as having tangible attributes of status based on readily observable traits. However, the construction of both masonry and adobe architecture likely indicates functional differentiation between these two types of buildings. El Pueblito’s stone alignments and rock-in-adobe architecture surely represent still further differentiated use of space. Although specific activities presently cannot be distinguished, the excavated assemblages were helpful in identifying differences between and similarities among El Pueblito’s different proveniences. Proportional representations of ceramic, chipped stone, and ground stone showed that activities in the adobe architecture involved less chipped stone and more ceramics than activities in the rock-in-adobe architecture, rubble core masonry structures, and extramural rock features (see Figure A.10). The difference between the adobe 147 architecture and all other proveniences was statistically significant, as discussed in Appendix A. Further refinement of the data showed that ceramic assemblages are the most differentiated class among architectural and feature classes. The adobe architecture had more plain ceramics and more jars than other contexts where plain and decorated ceramics were more evenly distributed, as were jars and bowls (see Figures A.13 and A.14). The differences could be related to information contained on decorated vessels and the greater need to have that information visible in rooms other than within the adobe architecture. Alternatively, the differences could be related to storage of goods within the oddly shaped adobe room that was likely not typically domestic. Neither alternative can be supported or rejected with confidence at this time. In general, larger samples would help resolve those options. More specifically, vessel volumes potentially could distinguish different activities across El Pueblito’s proveniences (see Figures A.15 and A.16). Chipped stone data change the picture from all excavated proveniences to one of more or less homogeneity, with only two features standing apart from all others with regard to flakes, debris, cores, and tools. Two rock enclosures (Features 7 and 71) had an unusually high proportion of debris relative to other contexts (see Figures A.18-A.20). Chipped stone tools were few and the majority were tabular knives that were found in all contexts. These knives, used to process agave, are consistent with the massive rock agricultural system along the base of Cerro de Moctezuma where agave was likely grown. Two Archaic period projectile points where found in the adobe architecture. Overall, the chipped stone data suggest similar but less intensive activities in the adobe 148 rooms than the other excavated proveniences. Finally, although the number of ground stone items from the adobe architecture is low, six of the seven items are different types (see Table A.29). In summary, artifacts from the adobe architecture were distinctive in several respects, but the volume excavated (11.5 m3) in that one context was nearly the same as the volume of the seven other proveniences combined (12.0 m3); those smaller sample sizes may heighten apparent differences. The ceramic assemblage differed in that there might have been greater storage or less need to broadcast information encoded on decorated vessels. While chipped stone activities appeared to be similar across El Pueblito, within the adobe architecture those activities were less intense. A greater variety of ground stone items came from the partially excavated adobe room than all other proveniences combined. No Archaic projectile points were recovered from contexts other than the adobe architecture. Finally, these artifact distinctions derived from a room that is complexly shaped with twelve walls. It would be unwise to project the content of this room to all other adobe rooms on El Pueblito, but clearly, at least a portion of the adobe building involved artifacts and, inferentially, activities not present in other architectural contexts. THE ORDINARY: INTER-SETTLEMENT COMPARISON In addition to the intra-site analysis, comparisons to four other Medio period settlements are extensively described in Appendix A. Sites 231 and 317 were characterized in Chapter 2 as small and simple, Site 204 was large and likely a key node 149 within a settlement subsystem, and Site 242 was an administrative node of Paquimé in the hinterland. The questions to be asked with regard to the settlement comparisons are 1) Are there differences in artifact assemblages at the settlement level? and 2) How do individual artifact classes from El Pueblito compare and contrast to other settlements? As explained in Appendix A, comparison to Paquimé’s artifact assemblage is limited because the data do not exist in comparable form. El Pueblito’s unusual setting and distinctive architecture suggested that its artifact assemblage might differ from other Medio period settlements that have been characterized as relatively simple or might be more similar to those sites that have been interpreted as having a specific and differentiated relationship with Paquimé. Site 242, the administrative center, for example, had a markedly lower proportion of chipped stone than any other settlement, suggesting that assemblage profiles may indicate settlement specialization. In general, however, El Pueblito’s assemblage of ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone fits within the range of all other settlements (see Figures A.11 and A.12). No assemblage composition necessarily corresponded to settlement characterizations that were described in Chapter 2 as small and simply domestic, large and multifunctional, or administrative. As described more fully in Appendix A, in terms of individual artifact classes, El Pueblito can be differentiated in several ways, although the significance of most differences is not fully understood. Differences in samples sizes could play a role in some of the apparent variation. For example, abrading stones were recovered from all sites except El Pueblito, which might be explained by limited excavations at El Pueblito. 150 In another difference, El Pueblito had an unusually high proportion of chipped stone debris (see Tables A.24 and A.28), a situation not entirely resolvable with the data at hand. Another departure from all other settlements was the proportion of chipped-stone raw material types. Chert was either the dominant or second highest raw material by proportion at all sites except El Pueblito, where it was lowest in proportion to rhyolite and basalt (see Table A.27). Immediately available raw material may have dictated selection during the Medio period, a conclusion reached by Whalen and Minnis (2009). El Pueblito and Site 242 had a high jar-to-bowl ratio, and both had a high proportion of jars that are of the plain variety. In most cases, ceramic differences between El Pueblito and other sites are minor, except that El Pueblito had the lowest ratio of Babicora Polychrome-to-Ramos Polychrome. According to Whalen and Minnis, this kind of difference in proportion of these polychromes is an attribute of later Medio times, although an early Medio occupation at El Pueblito as well cannot be eliminated from consideration. El Pueblito’s jar-to-bowl ratio and high proportion of jars that are of the plain variety closely mirrors those same characteristics of Site 242. Whalen and Minnis were able to marshal additional lines of evidence to support their conclusion that Site 242’s predominately plain jar assemblage corresponds to food and drink production (Jones 2003; Whalen and Minnis 2009) but a similar interpretation for El Pueblito would be premature. Obtaining a larger sample size and more discriminate analyses of El Pueblito’s ceramics, such as recording the presence of soot and pitting should be a goal for future research at El Pueblito. 151 THE EXTRAORDINARY Wood Preference and Differentiation More details are provided about wood and animal bone in this chapter than on ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone because of the unusual nature of the former materials recovered from Cerro de Moctezuma. Plant remains other than wood are discussed in Appendix B but, briefly, cultivated, weedy, and wild plants were represented in flotation samples with maize (Zea mays) being the most common charred item (see Table B.1). Table 6.3 provides abundance, counts, and weights by feature for wood recovered from flotation samples at El Pueblito. Paul Minnis, University of Oklahoma, made the wood identifications. Present in the collection are Gymnosperm (general conifer category), Juniperus (juniper), Pinus (pine), Prosopis (mesquite), Quercus (oak), Phragmites (reed), monocot (general monocotyledonae category), diffuse-porous wood, semi-ring porous wood, and unknown. Pine is the most abundant (59.3%), followed by oak (24.4%) and mesquite (4.7%). Although pine is most abundant, oak was recovered from all wood-bearing samples except from the adobe architecture where pine was the preferred wood. A few other wood samples were obtained directly from excavation, and all confirm the preference of pine in the adobe architecture. The atalaya atop Cerro de Moctezuma produced pine, oak, gymnosperm, and monocot. All types of wood collected from excavation at Cerro de Moctezuma would have been available locally on or near the hill. However, pine would have required extra work to acquire because it came from about 30 km distant in the Sierra Madre. The presence of pine wood at El Pueblito and still higher and more remote at the summit atalaya speak 152 to the preferred qualities of the wood as architectural elements and fuel. Efforts to obtain the wood obviously required coordinated labor in felling, preparation, transport out of the mountains and across the valley, and, finally, up the hill. With an admittedly low sample size, the wood from Cerro de Moctezuma is further intriguing because its proportional profile resembles Site 242, the administrative node, more than other settlements. Paul Minnis provided comparative data in Table 6.4, which shows wood abundance from the sites used in preceding inter-settlement comparisons. Notice that Site 242 and El Pueblito have unusually high abundances of pine wood and low abundances of more locally available wood (compare bolded values). Clearly, pine was the most important type of wood at both settlements and this comparison affords a major contrast in access and consumption of wood resources. 153 Table 6.3. Abundance, counts, and weights of wood remains from El Pueblito flotation samples. Taxaa Gymnosperm Juniperus Pinus Prosopis Quercus Pharamites Monocot D-P S-P Unknown Abundanceb 1 2.3 2.3 59.3 4.7 24.4 2 (0.05)c 15 44 (5.40) 24 Feature 28 39 2 (0.10) 4 (0.15) 5 (0.30) 1 (0.05) 1 (0.05) 1 (0.05) 56 1 (0.15) 4 (0.35) 10 (0.25) 71 118 (hearth in Feature 36) 2 (0.05) 2 (0.05) 1 (0.05) -- (0.15) 1.2 1.2 2.3 2.3 1 (0.05) 1 (0.05) 2 (0.20) 1 (0.10) 1 (0.05) Note: Identifications made by Paul Minnis. a. Gymnosperm (general conifer), Juniperus (juniper), Pinus (pine), Prosopis (mesquite) Quercus (oak), Phragmites (reed), Monocot (general monocotyledonae), D-P (diffuse porous wood), S-P (semi-ring porous wood), and unknown b. Abundance refers to the percent of examined wood pieces identified to that taxon. c. Number of individual identified pieces (cumulative weight in grams of those pieces). Table 6.4. Wood abundance from El Pueblito and four other Medio period settlements. Pine (Pinus) Oak (Quercus) Mesquite (Prosopis) El Pueblito 204 231 317 242 59.3 24.4 4.7 38.1 36.0 6.8 23.1 43.6 14.0 28.8 46.5 18.6 87.7 3.3 0.9 Note: Abundance refers to the percent of examined wood pieces identified to that taxon. 154 Bird Wings and Elk Ribs among Other Fauna The faunal collection includes 104 bones, all of which were identified by Kari Schmidt (University of New Mexico); Barnet Pavao-Zuckerman (Arizona State Museum) provided supplemental identifications (Table 6.5). Mammal and bird bones are represented, and approximately half were identified to either the genus or species level. Present at El Pueblito were two black-tailed jackrabbits (Lepus californicus), one cottontail (Sylvilagus sp.), one elk (Cervus elaphus), two mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and two turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo). The turkey bones, found clustered together in a rubble core masonry structure (Feature 36), represent one left wing. Another wing bone from the right side also was found in the same excavation, suggesting that additional wing elements were not recovered. Five of the eight identified mammals found at El Pueblito are from the adobe architecture, which is the sole provenience of the larger game animals, elk and mule deer. Among the unidentifiable mammal bones is one classified as medium-large (e.g., deer) and it also came from the adobe architecture. The presence of these bones from higher value animals indicates that the adobe room extraordinary among other proveniences. All six of the unidentifiable bird bones (diaphysial fragments) are medium-large, about the size of a turkey, and they came from the round rubble core masonry structure (Feature 35), adjacent to the location of the turkey wings. There are nine additional bird bones comprising wings, two tern wings and a probable snowy egret wing; all are from the atalaya. Remarkably, these wings were 155 found next to each other and articulated in the notably small test excavation atop the hill. Moreover, they surely came from within one of the purported rooms illustrated by Di Peso et al. (1974) and others that is not visible on the surface today (see Chapter 4). Survival of articulated elements suggests that the interior massive rubble core wall of the atalaya circumscribed protected spaces. Additionally, these wings from migratory water birds at the top of the hill are fundamental indicators of ritual activity in the summit precinct. All three humeri from the atalaya have clean cuts on their distal ends, but none of the other wing bones show cut marks, suggesting that the wings were used whole, possibly as fans or as other ceremonial accoutrements. Birds and their feathers are widely known to be key components in private and public ceremony among groups in the Southwest and beyond (Cushing 1920:161; Gnabasik 1981; Jett 1994; Lange 1950; Lumholtz 1902; 1990:93; McKusick 1986; Parsons 1918:403; Schroeder 1968; Sekaquaptewa and Washburn 2004; Titiev 1937; Tyler 1979), and birds were ritually important prehistorically (Di Peso 1974:2:598-603; Hill 2000; Hodgetts 1996; LaMotta 2006; Shaffer 1991:173; Strand 1998; Woosley and McIntyre 1996). The use of bird wings specifically is not recorded ethnographically among groups in northern Mexico and the southwest United States, although fans were crafted from individual feathers (e.g., Gnabasik 1981:148). Records of the prehispanic use of wings are rare. One of the clearest examples of ritual use of wings comes from the Mimbres area where owl wings were included in the wall fabric of a communal pit structure at the large settlement of Old Town (Creel 2006:144; Creel and Anyon 2003). It could be the case that the atalaya atop 156 Cerro de Moctezuma served a variety of purposes, but the wings of exotic bird species make perfectly clear that activities well beyond the ordinary were performed in this magnificent construction on the uppermost reaches of a prominent hill. The turkey wing from El Pueblito combined with the three wings from the summit atalaya indicate a comprehensive interest across Cerro de Moctezuma for activities beyond those of everyday routines. But those more common activities occurred, as describe earlier, thereby permitting a characterization of the hill as residential and ritual. The low sample size of faunal remains makes normative comparisons unreliable, but the small collection from Cerro de Moctezuma is remarkable for containing four rib fragments of elk, an animal otherwise currently unknown from other excavations in Chihuahua (e.g., Carrera and Ballard 2003; Di Peso et al. 1974:8; Hodgetts 1996; Whalen and Minnis 2009). In general, elk is rare in archaeological contexts even in what are assumed preferred environments in western North America (Allen 2004:60). Moreover, there are no known instances of wings from hinterland settlements, although they might have been present at Paquimé. Di Peso (Di Peso et al. 1974:8:280, 305) makes reference to wings included with three turkey burials and one macaw burial, but without a bone inventory the suggestion of wings remains ambiguous because some of those may have been represented by only one bone. In other words, all elements comprising the purported wings may not have been present in the burials. 157 Table 6.5. Faunal remains from Cerro de Moctezuma. Feature Taxa 1 Black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) Cottontail (Sylvilagus sp.) Elk (Cervus elaphus) Gambel’s quail (Lophortyx gambelii) Ground squirrel (Spermophilus sp.) Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) Snowy egret (Egretta thula)c Tern (Sterninae)c Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) Artiodactyla (tooth enamel fragments) Aves (all medium-large) Mammalia Unknown 2a (1)b 7 19 28 35 36 71 95 26 (1) 1 4 (1) 1 1 4 (2) 3 (1) 6 (2) 6 (2) 1 5 9 5 10 2 6 3 3 Note: Bones identified by Kari Schmidt. All features are at El Pueblito except Feature 95, which is the atalaya. a. Number of identified specimens. b. Minimum number of individuals in parenthesis. c. Also identified by Barnet Pavao-Zuckerman. 1 2 158 MISCELLANEOUS ARTIFACTS FROM CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA This section lists the items in addition to the more common categories previously discussed. These largely consist of artifacts such as beads and raw materials that might have value related to availability. Recall from introductory remarks that initial conceptions of Cerro de Moctezuma envisioned non-local shell and copper items of ritual importance at the hill. That was not the case; no shell or copper was recovered. In fact, very few items of personal or ritual adornment were found. One possible dolomite bead fragment was found on the surface of El Pueblito, one bead of unknown stone material was recovered from excavation in a small stone enclosure (Feature 71), and one ricolite bead came from excavation in the adobe room. Three obsidian nodules totaling 16 g came from Feature 71, Feature 19 (a D-shaped wall), and from the general surface collection at El Pueblito. Fourteen pieces of glassy rhyolite weighing 114.7 g were recovered from the adobe room. Two additional pieces came from the surface of a rubble core masonry structure (0.7 g) and from excavation in Feature 28, another rubble core masonry room (0.5 g). A green mineral (0.5 g) was found on the El Pueblito surface. Finally, a turquoise pendant and possible polishing stone were found in the atalaya test excavation. The scarcity of “valuable” items is curious but could be related to the limited testing program. SUMMARY The analyses summarized in this chapter are more completely discussed in Appendix A. With the understanding that the analyses are based on less than ideal 159 sample sizes and that only minimal test excavations were carried out, the artifacts from Cerro de Moctezuma make three important points. First, it seems obvious that El Pueblito dates to the Medio period because adobe architecture, which is a hallmark of that time, is present. However, there are other kinds of unusual structures and features at the settlement that could indicate an occupation during other time periods. The polychrome ceramics from excavations show that the use of all features at El Pueblito was within the Medio period. Moreover, the presence Ramos Polychrome and the ratios of Ramos-to-Babicora Polychrome show that El Pueblito was occupied during the late Medio period, although it could have been occupied in early Medio times as well. Second, El Pueblito’s remote and unique location on a hill, its differentiated architecture and features, and its association with the massive and conspicuous summit atalaya could be conceived to embody a specialized arena of limited use. However, El Pueblito’s ceramic, chipped stone, and ground stone assemblage is comparable to the simplest of domestic settlements (Sites 231 and 317), a large and probable settlement subsystem node (Site 204), and the hinterland administrative satellite (Site 242). Assuming that items represented by those assemblages primarily correspond to the daily activities of Medio period life, a typical domestic occupation can be inferred at El Pueblito. Whether or not the settlement was occupied year-round cannot be confidently confirmed with the data at hand. Nevertheless, it is tempting to envision full-time residency of at least a sector of the settlement given the assemblage profiles. 160 Third, while activities at El Pueblito clearly must have largely cross-cut those at other settlements and included an ordinary domestic range, a few items from the artifact inventory emerged to underscore the specialized nature of the settlement and hill summit precinct. The preference for pine wood in the adobe architecture at El Pueblito and its presence 400 m above the valley in the atalaya is a particularly salient conception of the hill by its architects and residents. While present at other settlements, pine appears to be distinctly associated with specialized settlement. In addition, non-local migratory water bird wings in the summit atalaya and sacred turkey wings at El Pueblito are understandable components of ritual, beyond ordinary activities, whether as additions to ceremonial garb or as prescribed elements of dedicated observances. Whole wings are repeated elements at Cerro de Moctezuma but are currently unknown at other settlements. Finally, conspicuously present in the adobe room on El Pueblito are elk bones, currently unknown from other Medio period sites, even Paquimé, and, in general, rare elsewhere in southwest United States archaeological sites. The full meaning of elk at El Pueblito is beyond present understanding but its general rarity indicates that it likely was related to social prestige and ritual practitioners. 161 CHAPTER 7 – EXPERIENCE AND DESTINATION AT CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA All who traveled to Cerro de Moctezuma in the past were likely to have experienced the hill in a variety of ways and those traveling there today would certainly have even different encounters, but its four main components – trails, agricultural fields, El Pueblito, and the summit precinct – can serve as primary landscape segments by which to timelessly orient modern visitors. The specific meanings and functions of some prehispanic parts may be lost forever, but through experiential description it is possible to illustrate how built features may have guided travel and movement, how architecture would have been perceived, and where public and private gatherings could have been held in the past. This kind of description has been previously applied at scales from settlements to vast landscapes (Fitzsimmons et al. 2003; Snead et al. 2009; Snead and Preucel 1999; Van Dyke 2008). I begin by traveling along Cerro de Moctezuma’s trails, encountering wayside features and views of the hill along the way. The journey would not have been without effort, climbing 200 vertical meters to El Pueblito, but once there Casas Grandes visitors would have encountered what we now know to be a regionally rare class of adobe architecture and a locally unduplicated type. El Pueblito would also present a settlement setting, layout, and organization unfamiliar in home communities. Climbing upward another 200 meters on a 1 km-long trail to the summit from El Pueblito would take travelers to an unparalleled panorama and impressive summit precinct. The following sections connect these components with perception and experience in more detail. 162 MOVING TO EL PUEBLITO Even today in its neglected state, Cerro de Moctezuma’s infrastructure is still recognizable and local residents use some of the ancient trails to climb 400 m above the surrounding landscape to the hill summit for unparalleled views of the surrounding Piedras Verdes, Palanganas, and Casas Grandes valleys as well as the Sierra Madre Occidental. Recently, some residents began an ancient practice of marking trails with rock cairns to guide their way along less conspicuous parts of the now unmaintained trails. In 2006, Tarahumara runners followed the trail down from the summit during dusk hours while carrying torches as part of the festival celebrating the patron saint of Casas Grandes, San Antonio de Padua. Clearly, to some extent, then, Cerro de Moctezuma’s trails are an active part of today’s landscape, as they were in Medio times. The trails at Cerro de Moctezuma were especially significant to Medio travelers because they presaged components of the hill, constituted an experience of travel apart from daily travels elsewhere, and heralded a destination. The rolling landscape below and west of Cerro de Moctezuma contains trails that are about 2 m wide, often with entrenched walkways, and occasionally bordered by rock alignments and intermittently spaced rocks. At higher elevations, especially along the hill slope, residents and visitors would have traveled the West and South Entrance (see Figure 4.3) trails along narrower pathways. The same trails are accompanied by wayside features in a variety of sizes and shapes as rock accumulations, rings, piles, or cairns. Trails pass across undulating land, 163 but it appears that wayside locations do not mark the crests of slopes or crossroads. Thus it seems unlikely that Cerro de Moctezuma’s wayside features served as directional markers for travel. These features could have been places from which to acknowledge distant landmarks with well known meanings, to petition for well-being, or make offerings as among some ethnographically recorded groups (Ferguson et al. 2006; Lumholtz 1902). As discussed in Chapter 4, wayside points have cosmological relevance. Artifacts specifically associated with wayside features are few and their paucity suggests that these were places of specialized observations rather than spaces heavily used for ordinary activity. Alternatively, associated items were perishables such as grass or feathers as in the practices of some Southwestern and Mexican groups at similar features (Jett 1994; Lumholtz 1902:283). While we can imagine travelers to and residents of Cerro de Moctezuma stopping for brief observances at wayside shrines, it is clear that that was not the case along one trail where over 100 pieces of chipped stone were scattered about the immediate vicinity of a wayside feature (see Figure 4.6). The abundance of both flakes and cores indicates that this was an intensively used area for stone reduction and possibly tool manufacture, although there are no clues as to why this particular area was selected for those activities. About 180 m southwest of that area, between but not immediately associated with either of two flanking trails, a pair of roughly parallel rock alignments (see Figure 4.7) without visibly associated artifacts probably caught the traveler’s eye, in its resemblance to a simplified hinterland ball court. Travelers who left the nearby trails to stand between 164 the rock alignments would have experienced a visual preview of elevated, unique, and undoubtedly portentous architecture. Standing at the open end on the southwest and looking northeast between the alignments provides a direct view to Cerro de Moctezuma’s summit with its massive atalaya atop. It seems undisputable that these parallel lines of rock were meant to frame the summit and mandate a view the atalaya. Walking the trails to the West and South Entrances of El Pueblito not only involved moments of observations at wayside shrines but also brought into view, in some places, crops growing in a large rock field complex along the lower slopes of the hill. Moreover, it is not difficult to imagine agave, and possibly other kinds of plants bordering some portions of trails to Cerro de Moctezuma. This is especially true along one trail (Trail 110) where agave grows today along the margins of the embedded walkway. As fields of power, the agricultural complex would have reminded travelers, who may have come to work in the fields or partake of their products, of the status and generosity of El Pueblito’s residents. The experiences of moving through Cerro de Moctezuma’s landscape while traveling the West and South Entrance trails were likely quite different than traveling the North Entrance trails, in part because of the views on both the approach to and descent from the hill. Traveling to the West and South Entrance, wayside shrines and fields would be encountered, and the views were open, revealing the nearby Sierra Madre Mountains in the distance when leaving Cerro de Moctezuma or open views to the west and Cerro de Moctezuma in the foreground on the ascent. In contrast, views from the two trails leading to the North Entrance were more restricted. 165 Both North Entrance trails (see Figure 4.3) have restricted views of the surrounding valleys, especially during the climb. For example, the northwesternmost trail (Trail 112) rises steeply along a slope into a narrow saddle, impeding the view forward to the saddle crest during ascent; a steep slope rises to the left and a precipitous slope to the right ends in a narrow, shallow canyon, from which sounds of running water can be heard during rainy seasons. The wide trail is relatively monumental, supported by an impressively engineered down-slope rock berm. After a 20-minute walk up 40 m, the massive construction ends. The traveler is left to wonder how to proceed to El Pueblito, still another 60 m higher and 250 m to the right (east), because the transition to the next visible trail segment is not marked. If the current situation obtained in prehistoric times, travelers would have needed cues on how to proceed because to continue on would have required an unmarked and illogical turn to the left (northeast), away from El Pueblito, and thereafter to proceed several meters along one of several bedrock exposures leading to a point where the trail once again becomes visible. There, the trail steeply rises to the saddle crest as a below surface walkway, approaching a rock wall (see Figure 4.4), which because of the grade, cannot be seen until a few meters before reaching it. The trail juncture with this rock wall gives the impression of a symbolic crossing for continuing to El Pueblito; the steep rhyolite cliff surrounding the El Pueblito mesa can be seen from here. A few sherds, pieces of chipped stone, and a mortar from nearby along the trail suggest this was the locus of some activity. The trail to El Pueblito becomes nearly indistinguishable beyond this point, but there are occasional rocks that might have marked the ancient path onward to El Pueblito. The secluded nature of the 166 trail, the construction, and the symbolic passage would have focused attention more directly on the destination than other trails. The symbolic passage also could have offered the means to continue to Paquimé, as the trail continues east from here then joins another trail, which also would have brought travelers coming from Paquimé to El Pueblito. The upward and forward view from this particular part of the trail reveals the towering rhyolite cliff of El Pueblito ahead (Figure 7.1). Figure 7.1. Below surface Trail 113 with rhyolite cliff of the El Pueblito mesa in the background. The trail most likely once connected Cerro de Moctezuma and Paquimé. Estee Rivera standing, Mike Searcy seated. Both journeys to El Pueblito’s North Entrance would have been as impressive and eventful as traveling other trails to the hill but it seems in different ways. Approaching the West and South Entrances, travelers would have had occasions to stop for observances at way side features and observe fields and distant landmarks, while 167 traveling to the North Entrance would have been more secluded and focused. Together, trails leading to Cerro de Moctezuma are relatively broad, often made for more than single file traffic, and are accompanied by wayside features. The trails were engineered to ease the passage of travelers and residents but they accomplished more; they also were crafted as elements of the ritual landscape, bringing travelers to a distinctive place in a memorable manner. ENTERING EL PUEBLITO Figure 7.2 shows the locations of entrances at El Pueblito and circulation into the settlement. The following descriptions of entry onto the El Pueblito mesa draw from my own experiences but are reconfirmed by observing new visitors’ first reactions upon arriving there. Initial views of El Pueblito from different entries present different vantages. The West Entrance trails converge on a narrow shelf below El Pueblito where a single trail leads up to a natural opening in the towering rhyolite cliff above, while the North Entrance trails converge and lead to a craggy opening at the north tip of the El Pueblito mesa (Figures 7.3 and 7.4). The two points of entry are not notably visible from any distance along the trails approaching them, and only the West Entrance is recognizable from select points. Both entries are difficult to traverse, requiring a sure foot to negotiate their steep, uneven rise to the mesa, and neither opening appears to have been altered in ancient times to make access more accommodating. While trails without doubt facilitated ascent, climbing 200 m above the surrounding valleys and navigating the points of entry surely punctuated the sense of place that Cerro de Moctezuma evoked. 168 Figure 7.2. El Pueblito showing the south entrance trail and points of entry from the north and west. 169 Figure 7.3 West entrance to El Pueblito. Adam Searcy standing. Figure 7.4. North entrance to El Pueblito. 170 The West Entrance opens onto a perpendicular alignment of masonry architecture that rises a little more than 3 m above the traveler’s line of sight because it is built on a natural rise (Figure 7.2). Whether or not this kind of view was intentional, it would have visually communicated monumentality and reinforced the specialized nature El Pueblito. The view of any activity within the settlement was certainly obstructed from this vantage. Access to the central part of El Pueblito from this entrance can only be had by skirting the masonry architecture at either the north or south end as shown in Figure 7.2. The north trajectory is not marked and entails traversing uneven bedrock exposures. It seems most likely that passage into the core area, or Central Plaza, was between the adobe architecture and the south end of the masonry architecture; although it also is not marked in any detectable manner today, it is the more intuitive way to proceed. The attention of visitors may have been drawn that way because of the adobe building sitting even higher above their line of sight as will be described presently. After negotiating the precarious North Entrance visitors are presented a broad passage along a naturally stepped rise to the Central Plaza that is defined by the towering adobe architecture on the north and masonry constructions on the east and west (Figure 7.2). In part, the site map belies the natural tendency to walk this broad, seemingly processional corridor upon entering the mesa from the north. While a rock alignment and a massive bedrock outcrop restrict the west side, the east side is open. However, although the wide, open space to the east appears as an available avenue on Figure 7.2, there is nothing but undulating bedrock exposures, a less than inviting walking surface and view. In fact, the contour of the mesa prevents any view of the mesa edge and it 171 looks as if there is nothing to the east except the adjacent valley. From this position, the features along the east and west perimeters are completely out of view. In short, there is nothing to either side of the corridor to draw attention away from the bordering masonry construction that would guide travelers into the Central Plaza. The South Entrance is remarkable for its lack of dramatic, direct entry to the settlement, compared to the North and West Entrances. The difficult transition from hillside trail through the west cliff to the El Pueblito mesa occurs far south of any feature on the settlement. Two parallel rock alignments mark the terminus of the trail but nothing on the surface today guides travelers into the heart of the settlement or anywhere else. ENCOUNTERING EL PUEBLITO Public and Private Gatherings: Plazas El Pueblito’s four plazas were undoubtedly spaces engaging residents and visitors, and they are of different sizes suggesting that activities within them encompassed audiences or groups of persons of different sizes. The Central Plaza is large and open at the center of El Pueblito, defined by but not fully enclosed by surrounding architecture. That openness is not replicated at El Pueblito’s other three identifiable plazas: the North Masonry Plaza, the South Masonry Plaza, and Adobe Plaza. Use and visitation rights for these plazas were physically or visually restricted, either fully or partially. Masonry walls restrict views into the masonry plazas, especially on the west. This is the view that the visitor confronts upon entering El Pueblito through the 172 West Entrance where the North Masonry Plaza’s west walls rise nearly 3 m above the line of sight. Of course, sounds of plaza events may not have been immediately contained within the walls and it is likely that activities within the masonry plazas could be viewed from the roofs of immediately surrounding structures, but not from atop the adobe buildings because of intervening masonry architecture. The Adobe Plaza is surrounded by buildings and is clearly blocked from the Central Plaza by rooms on the north, now a long, narrow mound of melted and fallen adobe that probably formed a single row of rooms adjoining other adobe rooms to the west. Rock-reinforced adobe structures would have prohibited casual viewing into the plaza interior from the south side. The exact nature of the plaza’s east margin is unknown but involves a mix of adobe and masonry construction, retarding visual and physical access to the plaza from the east. Beyond the Practical: Architecture, Placement, and Multiplicity Adobe is the ordinary architectural medium of the Medio period as hundreds of settlements were constructed of the material, but the expense of using it on a hill without immediately available ingredients underscores the conceptual and ideological place of El Pueblito. In addition, at El Pueblito it is made conspicuous by location. Even though El Pueblito’s adobe architecture was likely never more than one story it would have been visually impressive beyond what was standard in valley settlements because it sits on a natural rise of the mesa that is not immediately perceptible. Standing in the Central Plaza, the roof of the adobe buildings would have been about 3 m above the average 173 person’s line of sight, and the same would be true of east and west views. In other words, the adobe architecture fills the vista of onlookers from the most active areas at El Pueblito. The view from the south would not have created quite the sensation as from other directions. More importantly, it seems, was the perception as people entered and moved around El Pueblito. There are additional and equally extraordinary attributes of this architecture as described in Chapter 5, the unusually thick adobe walls and a room with 12 walls, but these were likely visually and symbolically experienced in different ways. Visitors to El Pueblito would immediately encounter another distinct departure from their home settlements of adobe rooms. Walking around El Pueblito they would see the only known instances of rubble core masonry within Casas Grandes’ sway, although it occurs on hill sites in more distant reaches of the southern southwest United States and is associated with religious building in Mexico. Mary Helms (1988) writes that knowledge of the distant, esoteric, and of things that in some way lie beyond the everyday is a strategy of elders and leaders who often conceal or practice secrecy to effect mystique, but just as often secret knowledge is conspicuously displayed. It could be that part of the aura of El Pueblito was the conspicuous display of foreign architectural technology and tangible reference to distant beliefs associated with hill settlement and cosmology. Other distinctive constructions on El Pueblito include rock arcs, alignments, circles, and low walls. These are clearly differentiated from the more substantial rubble core masonry architecture although there are also several examples of higher walls. 174 Many of these features are found along or near the west margin of the El Pueblito mesa, but some occur across the settlement. To be sure, these types of features are uncommon among other settlements and when present there are almost never more than one or two. An exception is Site 242, a specialized settlement thought to embody an extension of Paquimé’s leadership, that has 11 stone arcs encircling its adobe architecture. Despite their apparent simplicity, these spatial divisions add a level of organization to settlement layout that is understudied in Chihuahua. Whatever the associated activities, the multiplicity of extramural rock features certainly set some interests apart from others in an uncommon way. A striking complex of rock construction at El Pueblito is found along the east side of the settlement where the mesa rapidly drops several meters before reaching the precipitous cliff face. There, a passage was constructed through the wall where Bandelier (1890-1892:565) observed a large slab forming a step by which to pass through the opening. The function of this complex, especially the monumental wall is unclear. As discussed in Chapter 5, the wall appears to retain soil on the west side, possibly to create level space for temporary structures or ramadas. In any event, the massive wall, like the adobe room and other rubble core masonry examples, is beyond the practical and constitutes another example of how El Pueblito is unique. All together, the many different instances of stone alignments, low walls, and the massive rubble core wall at El Pueblito situate the settlement at a level of organization and architectural differentiation beyond most others in the region. From this initial view it seems that few of the features 175 of this type were positioned to direct the flow of movement about the site but instead were demarcated spaces for small-scale activities. THE ULTIMATE DESTINATION AT CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA To reach the hill summit, travelers must first use one of the many trails leading to El Pueblito to make the 200 m ascent to the settlement and then use the unmarked and unassuming atalaya trail originating on the south side of El Pueblito to finally reach the destination. The trail proceeds south from El Pueblito across the mesa along a narrow, unmarked walkway and then reaches the steep western slope where it continues upward as a single-file foot path with only a few instances of minor down slope support. The trail rises 200 m along the western aspect of the hill, providing an unequaled and ever changing view of the Sierra Madres to the west, adjacent valleys, and fields and trails below. After traveling 1 km, about 40 minutes, the trail reaches the uppermost ridge of the hill, and there, the atalaya is for the first time fully in sight (Figure 7.5). But there still is a steep climb onward another 260 m to reach the atalaya and along this final stretch the verdant Casas Grandes River Valley emerges into view to the east. 176 Figure 7.5. First view of the atalaya from the atalaya trail, which is visible in center of frame. Upon arriving at the low outermost wall of the atalaya, the traveler notices there is no passage through it, thus it must be overstepped to continue up the still steep hill to reach the next wall. To pass within that second massive, rubble core wall today, visitors must carefully negotiate former parts of the wall that have fallen to the outside. There is no evidence of an entry through the wall, suggesting that in prehistoric times entry was gained by a ladder or a series of steps made of rock, now obscured by wall fall. Once inside this massive enclosure the surrounding wall would have obscured views to the outside. The central chambers were not large enough to accommodate crowds but instead appear to have represented more private quarters for ritual observances. Recall that this is where the exotic bird wings were found. As described earlier, activities performed in 177 the atalaya were restricted to the central rooms because no other part of the summit appears to have been modified for use. The physically demanding journey to the atalaya and its remote location from El Pueblito surely predict that this crowing summit precinct was of singular importance to those who traveled there. By combining ethnographic evidence that shrines on hills bear cosmological and ritual importance with archaeologically derived data, it is not unreasonable to suggest that other hilltop features in the Casas Grandes region were localized ritual shrines that replicated at least part of what Cerro de Moctezuma’s atalaya signified in the Medio period ritual landscape, a subject explored in the following chapter. SUMMARY Cerro de Moctezuma is unique among other hills around Paquimé in having the only known hilltop settlement, but it also is distinguished from other Medio period locales by presumably processional trails and wayside features, where, in most cases, brief, specialized observances were likely held. Trails initialized perceptions of the hill, but one in particular stands apart. The northwesternmost trail duplicates the orientation of the trail directly to the south of it, and it seems curious that two trails from the west would be required. The attributes of the northwesternmost trail, with its massive down slope support, associated symbolic passage, and its delivery of travelers to a broad corridor that could accommodate processions on El Pueblito, indicate that it would facilitate occasions of unusual importance. In general, trails toward Cerro de Moctezuma radiate from densely settled valleys surrounding the hill, supporting the interpretation of 178 pilgrimages to the hill for ceremonial occasions that likely culminated at the atalaya. Difficult and strenuous journeys to remote and specialized locations are characteristic of pilgrimages, and they often involve topographically prominent places such as Cerro de Moctezuma. Few artifacts were recovered from the single trench in the atalaya, but the unusual nature of its small assemblage suggests that the summit precinct was the scene of practices not enacted elsewhere on Cerro de Moctezuma or in settlements below. Supporting the inference of exclusive ritual space are an absence of manos, metates, and abundant pottery but the unique presence of specialized items such as the three bird wings, a polishing stone, and the only turquoise found during the project. Cerro de Moctezuma’s trails appear to accommodate more than single file movement of people to El Pueblito, where plazas would have been venues for communal observance of various sizes and variable privilege. Increasing exclusivity is evident in the narrower trail from El Pueblito to the atalaya. Once inside the innermost enclosure atop the hill, the towering rubble core wall would have concealed visitors from view by the rest of the world. Finally, the four central chambers created still more restricted space for increasingly individualized experience. But Cerro de Moctezuma as a whole was not just a pilgrimage destination nor was El Pueblito an empty ceremonial center because activities at that site appear to resemble those at settlements in the near vicinity that have been characterized as the simplest kind of Medio period residence. Comparative collections come from both simple and more specialized sites, and El Pueblito’s fits within the range of variability for primarily 179 domestic assemblages. The reservoir at El Pueblito speaks to the permanence or persistence of settlement but, of course, does not necessarily reflect year-round occupation. El Pueblito looks significantly different in other ways, however. The placement of its architecture influenced traveler’s perceptions as they entered the settlement by guiding them along the processional corridor into the Central Plaza that likely held public activities related to the pilgrimage. Other architecture bounded smaller, more exclusive gathering places such as the masonry and adobe plazas. The privacy and exclusivity of El Pueblito’s smaller plazas is not typical among Medio period settlements except at Paquimé, perhaps indicating that the types of events within the plazas could only be performed at one of those two settlements, although the specific activities need not have been duplicated. Functional differentiation among the several types of architecture on El Pueblito and the underlying significance of each style cannot be specified with current information. It could be the case that adobe rooms were the home of El Pueblito’s permanent residents and many ritual functionaries while the rubble core masonry rooms served as accommodations for pilgrims. Neither scenario can by supported or rejected with the data at hand. Nevertheless, other relevant insights into architectural diversity are possible within the framework of a ritual landscape. The rubble core masonry structures could represent conspicuous display of specialized and esoteric knowledge of a building style largely confined to hills from the southwest United States to central Mexico. The elevated position of the adobe buildings surely accentuated the extravagant use of adobe on the hill and its designation as architecture of power. 180 Common forms of Casas Grandes residence were not constructed at El Pueblito. Simple adobe rooms fit the expectations of Medio period architecture at ordinary settlements, but would not have fulfilled the needs of a leadership seeking to secure its sanctified role as possessors of the privileged knowledge to address requests and desires of pilgrims. Similarly, single coursed masonry structures could have been built at El Pueblito from the immediate raw material, but El Pueblito’s builders chose a second architecture of power, represented in an unusual massive and exotic rubble core style. Knowledge and execution of that same exotic rubble core style is nowhere expressed so flamboyantly as at the hill summit in the huge innermost wall of the atalaya. Differentiation and specialization are means for ritualizing a landscape. Thus, not only did trails, plazas, and the summit feature represent building blocks of Cerro de Moctezuma’s place in the ritual landscape, so did El Pueblito’s singular residential architecture. First time visitors to Cerro de Moctezuma would have arrived with expectations based in the ordinary surrounding of their home settlements. Traveling up in elevation and beyond the everyday, they would have experienced in their journey an extraordinary destination in the Casas Grandes ritual landscape. These experiences were taken home, remembered, and reencountered through time, thereby further constructing and reinforcing an ideology and cosmology of which Cerro de Moctezuma was a crucial component. 181 CHAPTER 8 – FROM ARCHAEOLOGY TO IDEOLOGY: COMPILING AND CONCEPTUALIZING THE CASAS GRANDES RITUAL LANDSCAPE Ritualized landscapes emerge from social processes involving physical, conceptual, and historical actions and experiences that are practical ways of explaining the way the world works or of dealing with specific circumstances or realities believed to exceed the capabilities of human beings. Ritualization involves actions that produce differentiated and privileged contrasts between certain practices that are enacted at different scales (Bell 1992). A ritual observance might involve a household or it might include larger groups from extended families to communities. A spring, rock art location, or hilltop can individually be sacred places but they are a part of larger landscapes, together representing collective interests of societies, that although not always understood in the same way by all members, they are recognizable to most. Worldview and ideology can be defined as concepts about the way the world works and the representation of inequalities by factions that draw upon certain aspects of belief and symbolic systems (DeMarrais et al. 1996; Eagleton 1991:28-29; Knapp 1988; Van Dyke 2008:31-32). While strategies for dealing with natural and social circumstances and realities are culturally specific, in general, leaders and followers structure the landscape in ways through which worldviews emerge and ideologies of differentiation are created. In the process, certain groups or individuals become associated with particular ways of facilitating the resolution of social concerns. Actors 182 are motivated by self-interest but they also react to emotional loyalties, religious beliefs, historical circumstances, and memory. These values affect decisions in ritualization and create and reproduce meaning across the landscape. Cerro de Moctezuma as a whole was a ritual monument that played a part in the lives of residents and pilgrims alike as the embodiment of an ideological strategy associated with a specific local worldview, while also representing trans-regional tenets associated with elevated landforms. The visually iconic hill would have been a constant reminder of ideological themes to those living in the Casas Grandes and surrounding valleys. But, Cerro de Moctezuma was not the only hill-based element in the Medio period ritual landscape because other hills had similarly placed features of a specialized sort. In this chapter I describe hill site features in the Casas Grandes hinterland that are composed of individual or multiple elements found on Cerro de Moctezuma, suggesting that features on hills in the countryside were local shrines or places of ritual significance for surrounding settlements. The countryside was further differentiated with ball courts and massive subterranean ovens, both of which were undoubtedly used in producing and enacting ritual observances. Ball courts and huge ovens are overt expressions of public ritual at Paquimé, and that primate center is described in this chapter as a comprehensive package of ritual components, not unlike Cerro de Moctezuma that also encompasses a suite of ritual elements that are variably and in a lesser manner expressed on other hills. The distribution of hill sites, ball courts, and ovens is not isomorphic and it is clear that people across the Casas Grandes ritual landscape participated in an ideology and 183 worldview differentially. Finally, the concept of community offers an additional source of insights for considering a multifaceted ritual landscape. VISUALIZING RITUAL COMMUNITIES IN THE CASAS GRANDES LANDSCAPE Simplifying Yaeger and Canuto (2000), communities are realized through mutual participation in an activity where people have come together with common interests and sentiments. Communities in this sense form under particular circumstances and overlap with other communities formed for different purposes, such that the configuration of one group is not necessarily reflective of other purposeful gatherings. Moreover, because circumstances for assembling shift from community to community, the leadership or specialists for different communal purposes can be just as fluid. I also acknowledge that gatherings of communion might not be equally understood and participated in by all in attendance (Varien and Potter 2008). Nevertheless, a common purpose should be detectable archaeologically, although we may remain ignorant of specific meanings attached to such activities. Community is the conjunction of “people, place, and premise” (Yaeger and Canuto 2000:5). Casas Grandes ritual communities, as discussed here, are dynamic social units that left behind archaeological signatures of organizational diversity in the form of hill features, ball courts, and ovens. With these concepts I explore the ways in which such features reflect ritual communities in the Medio period landscape. These conspicuous features are differentially distributed among settlements and serve as nodes among which people interacted for certain occasions and on different 184 scales. At Cerro de Moctezuma, trails tangibly indicate patterns of interaction along specific, spatially ordered nodes. Before moving to those topics, I introduce the survey areas from which settlement, ball court, and oven data presented below are derived. Figure 8.1 shows the Casas Grandes heartland where the most intensive programs of settlement survey have been completed, and where ball court and oven distributional data are most comprehensive. The survey areas reflect the survey project goals to characterize a vast area for which even reconnaissance-level information was nonexistent. In an effort to maximize their observations on regional structure and centralization over an extent of more than 5000 sq km, Whalen and Minnis (2001b:85-95) selected zones at a range of distances from Paquimé, the accepted center of population and organization, and concentrated on select survey areas within those zones. Whalen and Minnis cite well known settlement survey studies from Mesoamerica as support for their methodology. The surveys, then, are not full coverage in the technical sense, and the following observations are based on incomplete knowledge of settlements and the features and facilities that are found with and among them, in particular, in the Casas Grandes valley directly north of Paquimé where only a few sites were opportunistically recorded. Finally, the hilltop feature data is derived from Swanson’s (1997) survey areas shown in Figure 8.2. Swanson’s full survey methodology is unclear, but he first sought hills that Di Peso identified as having features he called “Tower (Atalaya)” (Di Peso et al. 1974:5:Figure 284-5). 185 Figure 8.1. Settlement survey areas and known settlements in the Casas Grandes heartland. Survey areas adapted from Whalen and Minnis (2001:Figure 3.15). Settlement data courtesy Whalen and Minnis. 186 Figure 8.2. Hill survey areas and known locations of hill sites in the Casas Grandes heartland. Survey areas adapted from Swanson (2003:Figure 3). Hill data courtesy Swanson; also see Swanson (1997). 187 Hill Sites Hilltop Shrines In Chapter 2 other Casas Grandes hilltop constructions were briefly described as pale comparisons to the massive atalaya atop Cerro de Moctezuma and as local shrines in service to settlements around them, but the configurations and locations of features were not detailed. In this section the features on other hills are described in more detail and compared to Cerro de Moctezuma’s summit precinct and wayside features in order to conceptualize these hinterland hill sites as components of a Casas Grandes ritual landscape. Figure 8.2 shows the currently known distribution of hill sites among habitation settlements in northwest Chihuahua. What is immediately obvious is that a few hill sites have no neighboring settlements within appreciable distances. These apparently vacant surroundings are largely due to lack of survey; I assume that most if not all hill sites are associated with yet unrecorded settlements. Swanson (1997) surveyed 107 hills and of those 29 are included here; the other hills were either featureless or believed antecedent to the Medio period. Fifty-one features recorded by Swanson on summits and slopes of those hills are classified in this dissertation as circum-summit alignment, enclosure, room block, cairn, and rock pile, however; these categories are not coterminous with Swanson’s for the sake of clarity in the present discussion. For example, Swanson classifies breastwork as a low wall circumscribing a hill summit, but to avoid a functionally loaded (militaristic) and biased terminology I call these circum-summit alignments, an alternative way of denoting 188 continuous or segmented rock alignments circumscribing hill summits. These features are no more than about 1 m high and encompass areas up to 90 m in diameter. Enclosures are the most variable class of features, being circular or rectangular rock alignments from 0.2-2.7 m high and ranging from 0.75-17.0 m in interior diameter; the two largest dimensions being from the massive, inner rubble core masonry wall atop Cerro de Moctezuma. This simple definition undoubtedly masks meaningful differences. For example, another feature type recorded by Swanson is room block, composed of two enclosures that share a wall. Unfortunately, then, possible rooms that do not share walls are not analytically separate from what might otherwise be a high-walled enclosure such as the atalaya’s massive rubble core inner wall on Cerro de Moctezuma or a simpler rock circle with little height. Swanson is of the opinion that room blocks and other possible rooms he reported (i.e., enclosures) were not full-time residences, nor was any hill the locus of substantial settlement; instead, judging from surface artifact composition (e.g., absence of manos, metates) and density, these rooms resemble what have been generally referred to as field houses (Steve Swanson, personal communication 2010). Two other types of features on hills are rock piles and cairns. Rock piles (Swanson’s cairns) are low stacks or single course accumulations no more than 40 cm high. Cairns (Swanson’s platform cairns) are taller piles or even well stacked courses of rock from 0.4-2.0 m high. Swanson recorded two additional features on one hill that he categorized as “Other.” One is a cross-shaped feature consisting of an enclosure about 75 cm in diameter and four radiating rock alignments that are about 3.5 m long; the other and nearby feature is a rock pile with an upright rock in the center. These features are of 189 further significance because, standing in the center of the enclosure and sighting straight over the upright rock in the cairn several meters away, is a direct view to Cerro de Moctezuma’s atalaya. Not all features can confidently be placed within the Medio period because temporally diagnostic artifacts were rare in their vicinities (Swanson 2003:758). There is a chance, then, that some were constructed and used in earlier times. For example, there are numerous rock rings resembling Swanson’s enclosures on terraced hill sites in northwest Chihuahua that have been dated to the Archaic period (Roney and Hard 2004). For the present purpose, I consider Swanson’s hill features to have actively marked meaningful locations during the Medio period because they are morphological components of the suite of features on Cerro de Moctezuma that are demonstrably Medio in date and because his GIS analysis shows that every Medio period settlement had a line of sight to at least one hill site. If the features are of archaic origin, their use in Medio times could be prompted in part by social memory. Figure 8.3 shows the distribution of feature types on hills and it is clear from that illustration that the different features are variably represented. Cairns are found on 22 hills, enclosures on 13, and rock piles on ten; there are only four hills with a circumsummit alignment and three with room blocks. When more than one feature occurs on a hill, the dominant combination is an enclosure and cairn (n=11). The diversity in some feature types (e.g., enclosures) complicates absolute comparison with Cerro de Moctezuma but the definitions still permit immediate recognition of Cerro de Moctezuma’s uniquely inclusive combination. Of the five feature types (circum-summit 190 enclosure, enclosure, room block, cairn, rock pile), all are present at Cerro de Moctezuma. Its atalaya integrates a circum-summit alignment roughly 45 m in diameter, a tall and massive inner enclosure 17 m in interior diameter (the rubble core wall), and finally a room block consisting of 4 interior room divisions. In addition, along Cerro de Moctezuma’s trails are two cairns on the upper slope, at least four rock piles at low and high elevations, and three rock rings of relatively small diameter that could be classified under the enclosure category. Together, these features form a comprehensive package of otherwise variably deployed hinterland hill site shrines. Of note are the room blocks, of which only three are known: one on Cerro de Moctezuma and two lesser examples on hills along arroyos to the east. No room blocks, then, are known in the far reaches of hill site distribution. The room blocks on the two other hills are not substantial structures such as those at El Pueblito, with its variety of imposing rubble core masonry and adobe architectures, plazas, and other defined spaces, nor are they as substantial as the early descriptions of the conjoined rooms at the center of Cerro de Moctezuma’s atalaya. Another point of distinctiveness for Cerro de Moctezuma is the summit precinct’s nested layout of an outermost circum-summit alignment, imposing inner enclosure, and central room block, a configuration that is not found elsewhere (Steve Swanson, personal communication 2010). And although Cerro de Moctezuma’s circum-summit alignment is not the largest in diameter on any peak, it is accompanied by the tallest, most massive, most formally constructed enclosure, and more rooms that at any other hill site. 191 Figure 8.3. Hill sites in the Casas Grandes heartland and types of features on them. Hill data courtesy Swanson; also see Swanson (1997). 192 Hill Shrine Communities The variable placement and elaboration of features on hills indicates a nested importance of hill locations with privileged contrast that is a characteristic of pilgrimage locations. The current state of research on hill sites allows identification of a hierarchy with two levels in northwest Chihuahua, Cerro de Moctezuma and all other community shrines. More nuanced patterns undoubtedly could be recognized with further study. Cerro de Moctezuma indisputably displays the most complex organization and comprehensive execution of hill elements in the Casas Grandes realm. The meaning of the individual elements is not known beyond simple performance implications. If each type of feature represented a specific symbolic significance with associated knowledge pertaining to specialized observance, Cerro de Moctezuma would have encompassed the fullest range of attendant ritual knowledge, at any hill site. I envision hinterland hill sites as local shrines for community use and visitation, signs of participation in the beliefs most elaborately expressed at Cerro de Moctezuma. Fish and Fish (2007) have suggested a comparable scenario for summit precincts in the neighboring Trincheras heartland. There, secondary trincheras sites are simplified or partial reflections of the ideological complexity of the regional center Cerro de Trincheras where communal rituals were maximally expressed. Local hill shrine communities are the nodes from which we can imagine pilgrimages to Cerro de Moctezuma beginning, with the most prominent Casas Grandes summit precinct as the ultimate destination. The processional trails at Cerro de Moctezuma offer an example of formalization that would have situated and conditioned 193 travelers for the observances that probably would have only been available atop Cerro de Moctezuma. Only two or three other trails are known at other hill sites and they are never more than about 1 m wide (Swanson 1997). Traveling to Cerro de Moctezuma would have been an out-of-the-ordinary act for community members and a memorable journey for travelers coming from home settlements across the Casas Grandes world. While I envision ritual communities surrounding hinterland hill shrines, it may be unreasonable to suggest mass pilgrimage to Cerro de Moctezuma. El Pueblito’s accommodations were unlikely to have supported hordes of travelers. Excluding the adobe rooms, which may well have been reserved for El Pueblito’s full-time residents and ritual leaders, there are only about 25 rubble core masonry and rock-in-adobe rooms (i.e., structures that were roofed) that could have housed visitors to El Pueblito. However, the area to the west of the massive rubble core masonry wall could have provided space for ephemeral structures such as ramadas or other temporary lodging, thereby increasing the space available. El Pueblito’s four plazas could have held between 20 and 200 people. Obviously, any estimate of the number of visitors is contingent on variables beyond immediate control, the possibility of ephemeral lodging being one, but also variation in the limits of interpersonal space and spatial tolerances under special conditions such as visitations to El Pueblito for singular occasions. Finally, although the atalaya, the presumed ultimate destination at Cerro de Moctezuma, is a “unique architectural investment” (Swanson 1997), it would not have had the capacity to accommodate more than about 25 people if all four rooms were in use at the same time, 194 and extramural spaces on the summit do not appear to have been altered in any way to facilitate activities. Ball Court Communities In addition to ritual hill sites, the Casas Grandes landscape also is composed of tangible remains of public rituals, the ball courts. Figure 8.4 shows the distribution of Casas Grandes-style ball courts in the heartland; three ball courts about 130 km to the northwest and one ball court about the same distance southeast of Paquimé are not shown on the map. Also, Whalen and Minnis (1996) report an additional four Casas Grandesstyle courts west of the Sierra Madre in the neighboring state of Sonora. The lack of ball courts along the Casas Grandes River could reflect survey methodology and coverage as discussed earlier; however it is noticeable that with one exception courts are also absent in the northwest zone where intensive survey was conducted. A possible reason for the dearth of recorded ball courts in the northwest zone could be simply the difficulties of recognition. Casas Grandes ball courts are known as three types: open, I-shaped, and Tshaped (Whalen and Minnis 1996). Open courts are simple parallel lines of rocks with nothing on either end field; a low earthen berm sometimes accompanies each rock alignment. T-shaped courts are formed by an earthen berm on each side of the court area and a berm along one of the end fields, while I-shaped courts are entirely bounded by low earthen embankments. Both the T- and I-shaped courts can be completely enclosed by center court and end field embankments or open, where end field structures are not 195 attached to the center court lateral ridges. Known examples of ball courts range in size from about 245 sq m to nearly 900 sq m (Whalen and Minnis 1996). Figure 8.4. Distribution of ball courts in the Casas Grandes heartland. Data courtesy Whalen and Minnis. 196 Obviously, Casas Grandes hinterland ball courts are not of the elaborate varieties known from Tula, Monte Albán, or among the Maya (e.g., Scarborough 1991), nor are they on the scale of the two I-shaped courts so famously known from Paquimé. There, at least one court has a playing field area of 1194 sq m (Whalen and Minnis 1996). Unfortunately, arroyo cutting has partially destroyed the other ball court and its full size is unknown but what remains appears to be of about the same dimensions as the complete example. In addition to their great size, these courts are remarkable for each being accompanied by solid earthen mounds that rise about 2.8 and 4.0 m above the surrounding surface and consist of about 1400 m3 and 1800 m3 of earth, respectively (Di Peso et al. 1974:4:Figure 214-4, 1974:5:Figure 181-5). Outside Paquimé, only one other such mound is known to be associated with a ball court and it is a mere 1 m high and could not have contained more than about 130 m3 of earth (Whalen and Minnis 1999:Figuras 17 and 18). The simplicity of hinterland Casas Grandes ball courts could inhibit their recognition during survey and therefore account for the lack of representation in some areas. Furthermore, their signature surface alignments could readily be disturbed. The primary social role of Casas Grandes ball courts is as yet inconclusive, as discussed in Chapter 2. Whalen and Minnis (1996) conclude that the frequency of courts in areas closest to Paquimé represents a higher level of integration with that center than in the areas with fewer courts. For Whalen and Minnis, ball court rituals were largely scenes of factional competition among local elites. Harmon (2006) argues for a ball court cult involving shifting statuses of winners and losers of games. Walker and Skibo (2002) 197 argue that Casas Grandes-style ball courts in Animas phase southwest New Mexico were scenes of celestial-based games related to agricultural fertility rituals. Outside the Casas Grandes interaction sphere, Wilcox (1991) has suggested that Hohokam ball courts were linked with ceremonial exchange. Taken together, ball courts represent locations of ritual, but whether or not those rituals were socially, politically, or religiously motivated remains in a state of debate. Whatever their specific function, we assume that activities involving ball courts drew more people than those living at the associated settlement. The exact contemporaneity of ball courts closest to Paquimé is not well established but they are clustered densely there. Therefore, those ball courts may have drawn upon a smaller community of participants than in other areas. Alternatively, clusters of ball courts may have been used sequentially within prescribed temporal cycles, thereby engaging much larger audiences. Interaction in the hinterland for ball court rituals could have occurred at different scales, and larger-scale movement of people from the hinterland to Paquimé for ball court ritual seems equally valid. From a ritualized landscape perspective, the sophistication of Paquimé’s courts and associated mounds indicates ranking of ritual events, with Paquimé at the top of the hierarchy. As the central place, Paquimé’s leaders might have incorporated and implemented localized elements of ball court ritual in a more elaborate and vital fashion. Through time, the events at Paquimé could have facilitated actions and outcomes realized only at Paquimé. 198 Feasting Communities Other conspicuous ritual facilities in the Casas Grandes landscape are large subterranean ovens, which are recognizable as an outer ring of rock between 8-12 m in diameter surrounding a central fire pit between 2-5 m in diameter. Some versions have a circular alignment of intermittent stones set on end between the outer ring and center pit (Whalen and Minnis 2001b:125-126). Although that particular characteristic is not found at Paquimé, there are five massive ovens there, four of which are clustered together at the north end of the site, and average 3.9 m in diameter and 2.5 m deep. A fifth, toward the center of the site, is impressive at 5.4 m in diameter and 3.3 m deep, and it is associated with an imposing mound designated Unit 9 (Di Peso et al. 1974:4:275-276, 468). Minnis and Whalen (2005) calculated that the largest oven at Paquimé could have produced nearly 3000 kg of baked agave per cooking episode, and accordingly have interpreted these large ovens as facilities for large-scale production of foods, which could include agave, corn, and cholla. Ethnographically, pit ovens were used to bake agave (Castetter et al. 1938; Pennington 1963; Pérez de Ribas 1999:88). Agave and corn in turn could have been converted to an alcoholic beverage (Bruman 2000; Castetter et al. 1938:61). Minnis and Whalen consider the largest oven at Paquimé to have been a facility for ritual production of food or beverage because of its proximity to a mound. In contrast, the other four large ovens at Paquimé were used to produce food and beverage for economic or political feasting because they are not associated with obvious ritual architecture. By extension, those researchers conclude that feasting in the hinterland was 199 organized at least somewhat differently than at Paquimé because no oven is associated with ritual architecture. The strength of the mound-oven association can be questioned. About 10-12 m and an intervening canal separate Unit 9 and the largest oven at Paquimé. Moreover, the four massive ovens at the north end of the site are separated by only 20 m from the Mound of the Cross, a low cross-shaped mound with a circular mound at the end of each arm. Although a somewhat less imposing platform mound complex due to low height, the five mounds sit on a natural rise of the site giving them equal prominence to Unit 9. Di Peso suggested that the Mound of the Cross was a solar sighting station because, as viewed from the central cross mound, the sun rises directly over the east circular mound on March 21 and September 21, thus the mound complex was important for scheduling agricultural matters. If so, these were likely times of ritual observances and could have involved production from the nearby oven complex for feasting. Whatever the exact case, Minnis and Whalen have convincingly argued for the large-scale production of foods for feasting at Paquimé and in the hinterland. Figure 8.5 shows the distribution of “feasting” ovens in the heartland, including the massive one at Cerro de Moctezuma that is one of the largest known examples. Ovens predominate in two settlement survey zones immediately west and southwest of Paquimé, although a few are found to the northwest. None of the currently known large ovens are at settlements along primary watercourses, and comparatively few are along secondary drainages, while nearly two-thirds are in upland environments, perhaps exactly where agave might be emphasized as a drought-adapted crop and where ovens would be 200 predicted considering their presumed major use for baking agave. It is worth noting that the ovens along the secondary drainages are in narrow arroyo valleys directly adjacent to sloping landscapes that are, like the upland environments, preferred topographic locations of nonriverine farming. Minnis and his colleagues (2006) recently documented agriculturally engineered landscapes near the settlements with large ovens, finding many small, probably family-based fields and a few extraordinarily large systems. Together, the fields encompass 17 km2 and have nearly 30 km of rock alignments or trincheras that would have allowed cultivation in otherwise marginally productive areas. Types of crops grown behind the trincheras have not been identified, but agave is a likely candidate by comparison to other well-documented occurrences of probable agave cultivation in the Tucson and Safford Basins (Doolittle and Neely 2004; Fish et al. 1992). In Mexico, agave line terrace walls (Parsons and Parsons 1990). In contrast to the largest roasting ovens in some Hohokam areas (Fish et al. 1992), those in the vicinity of Paquimé occur predominately at settlements rather than as distinctive features of field systems. The implications of location for the social value of ovens appear striking in comparison. While initial processing (i.e., harvesting) obviously would have taken place in fields, baking of agave within settlements must have been notable events in themselves. Collection, processing, and consumption of agave as food and beverage and attendant restrictions, taboos, and designed procedures related to baking agave are recorded among a wide range of groups (Castetter et al. 1938:28-56; Pérez de Ribas 1999:391). Events featuring production and consumption of agave were 201 occasions of much celebration among the Zuni in former times, where even the opening of baking pits prompted “universal rejoicing” (Cushing 1920:235-236). Figure 8.5. Distribution of massive “feasting” ovens in the Casas Grandes heartland. Data courtesy Whalen and Minnis. 202 Precise kinds of ritual and proscription associated with Casas Grandes ovens are speculative but planting, harvesting, processing, and feasting must have required organizational priorities and ritual knowledge of certain members living in hinterland communities. They could have been the same authorities who organized travel to Paquimé for shared concerns such as agricultural scheduling and celebrations of new planting seasons. I do not think that organization was necessarily qualitatively different in the hinterland despite the absence of a mound-oven relationship, although the scale of organization and events would have been much greater at Paquimé. The relationship with public architecture at Paquimé would have accentuated the observances related to the production of food and beverage, and would have elevated Paquimé’s position as an authority of ritual associated with the production of food and beverage. THE RITUAL LANDSCAPE AT PAQUIMÉ Ritual communities are composed of interacting groups of people from different home settlements joined together for both religious and secular observances. Ball courts and ovens are two facilities found across the Medio period ritual landscape that identify intersections of those communities. Ball courts and ovens are also found at Paquimé and there they are far more elaborated, occur in greater numbers, and are associated with additional ritual architecture and facilities among differentiated domestic and public buildings. Paquimé is the ultimate expression for the elements composing the Medio period ritual landscape. Here I describe experiences that visitors might have had at Paquimé, coming together for broader societal interests whether they were civic, 203 religious, communal, or factional. This is not an exhaustive account; rather, I focus on the ritualization of the settlement for identifying fundamental contrasts with the surrounding landscape. Visitors to Paquimé were presented conspicuous elements signifying the settlement’s position in the Casas Grandes landscape. Over-engineered high-rise dwellings and rooms with up to 18 walls; a city water delivery, retention, and disposal system; public and restricted venues; and a ceremonial precinct formed the central place during Medio times. Writing of Paquimé, Christine VanPool and Todd VanPool (2007:27-32) weave together the desert setting, artifacts, iconography, a walk-in well, and the city water system to summarily describe Paquimé as a metaphorical “water city.” Water was channeled 3.61 km to Paquimé from a spring, Ojo Vareleño (Bandelier 18901892:554-555; Di Peso et al. 1974:5:830). When it reached Paquimé, tributary canals carried water throughout the adobe rooms and plazas and into reservoirs. The water system is not known to be replicated at any contemporary settlement in the southwest United States or northwest Mexico and would have been a powerful symbol of prowess in capturing such a precious commodity, thus elevating Paquimé’s prestige among visitors and followers of the entwined ideological precepts. We do not know if Paquimé had formal entrances but they are strongly suspected. And they were likely approached from magnificent trails as were other premier prehistoric settlements such as the great houses in the Chaco world or La Quemada in Zacatecas, but any signs of Paquimé’s trails have probably been lost to modern farming and housing development around that great center. To be sure, as approached from the 204 east, Paquimé is an imposing adobe pueblo mass. Bartlett (1854) estimated that rooms could have reached six stories, but we now know that was probably not the case. The architecture that Bartlett saw is built on the edge of a steep terrace of the Casas Grandes River valley and there is as much as 9 m elevation difference between the highest points of the adobe architecture and the ground surface below the terrace, from which Bartlett likely gazed (Whalen et al. 2010). Anyone entering Paquimé from the east would have faced a monumental adobe residence unlike anything from the hinterland. It is tempting to think that the architects of Paquimé manipulated perception by locating the residences on the terrace edge. Although much of the interior of the adobe buildings were private residences the setting makes the room block public, and as Moore notes, public architecture can reflect larger dimensions of social order (Moore 2005:2). Other approaches appear as planned as the east entrance. From the north visitors would pass the cluster of large ovens, the Mound of the Cross, and an I-shaped ball court and mound, while from the south another I-shaped ball court and a D-shaped mound would be encountered before approaching a colonnaded gallery. The approach from the west would have taken visitors through the ceremonial precinct of platform mounds an Ishaped ball court, a massive oven, and a reservoir. Walking around the city visitors surely heard the clamor of macaws and turkeys from cages within many of the walled plazas that were themselves architecture of power with an average wall thickness of 85 cm. Macaws and turkeys were not kept for subsistence. Most of the 503 recovered military, scarlet, and other macaws and 344 turkeys were buried in graves, some with human interments (Di Peso et al. 1974:8). 205 Sixty-one percent of the turkeys were buried headless and the majority of the macaws were dead by the end of their first year, the age when they would have produced their first full, brilliantly colored tail feathers, which were apparently plucked for use in ritual and ceremony. Feathers are imperative components of many southwest Pueblo rituals and ceremony where they are found on prayer sticks or given as offerings, and they are related to gods and spirits (Cushing 1920:161; Jett 1994). Birds themselves are believed to be messengers of the world in which they travel (Tyler 1979). Turkeys are associated with rain and crop ceremonies (Vogt 1969). Some visitors to Paquimé were likely aviculturalists themselves because there is evidence of macaw cages in the hinterland in the form of cylindrical and donut-shaped cage door elements of stone that were ground into shape (Minnis et al. 1993; Whalen and Minnis 2001b:129-130). However, there is no evidence in the hinterland of large-scale aviculture such as at Paquimé. The plumes of these birds, or even the birds themselves, might have been a part of ceremonies held in the open and closed plazas, and atop the many mounds in the ceremonial district. None of the mounds were the bases of residences, and all but three most likely were platforms from which speeches and ritual performances were broadcast. We do not know if the mounds were communal property, belonged to kin or corporate groups of the settlement, or were used at different times of the year or for different ceremonies. What we do know is that only one other settlement in the Casas Grandes hinterland contains an earthen mound (Whalen and Minnis 2001b). Mounds, then, are particularly conspicuous ritual features at Paquimé. 206 Another obvious difference between Paquimé and other settlements is the formality of plazas in the case of the former and the scarcity of such qualities elsewhere. Reference to Figure 2.2b and 2.2c shows plazas in the hinterland to be defined at significant changes in the shape of a melted adobe residential mound’s perimeter, forming U- or C-shapes open to the outside of the architecture. The stone footings shown in Figures 2.2a and 2.2b could also have demarcated plazas. Nevertheless, a few fully enclosed plazas are suspected from field survey maps (Minnis and Whalen 1992). In a few words, plazas do not appear to have been made private or enclosed except in a few cases, El Pueblito being one example. At Paquimé, Di Peso excavated about 30 enclosed plazas totaling nearly 7800 sq m of space, excluding his purported but doubtful “East Plaza” (Di Peso et al. 1974:4:263; see alsoWhalen et al. 2010). Walking around the settlement today it is clear that some of the plazas were more public than private, and Wilcox’ (1999) preliminary analysis using space theory confirms the casual observation that public and private plazas were built at Paquimé. Of particular note is the so-called Central Plaza, which Di Peso interpreted as a ceremonial and trading venue (Di Peso et al. 1974:5:813). It is bounded by architecture to the east with the remainder being a low, plastered rock wall that bears a striking resemblance to I-shaped ball courts (Di Peso et al. 1974:5:Figure 198-5). The plaza was indeed public in the spatial sense and could have accommodated scores of visitors. By the calculation introduced in Chapter 5, the Central Plaza conservatively could have held about 550 people. One of the more significant aspects about the Central Plaza is the Mound of the Offerings at the northwest corner. The mound was so named because of the socio- 207 religious paraphernalia found in its interior vaults and by the dearth of domestic artifacts (Di Peso et al. 1974:4:305). Excavation also revealed post-cranial remains of three individuals interred in three unusually large Ramos Polychrome jars; Di Peso surmised one of the individuals was the Mesoamerican merchant who settled in the valley and precipitated the Medio period, while the other two may have been his successors. That Paquimé’s founding family is represented in the urns is not an unreasonable idea, even without invoking Mesoamerican travelers. Burial accoutrements included a human phalange necklace, a human long bone musical rasp, and two other unworked human long bones (Di Peso et al. 1974:8:372) that seem undeniably ritual and sacred. Interestingly, ritualized human sacrifice at Paquimé has been proposed based on new evaluation of the human remains from that settlement (Casserino 2009). Di Peso hypothesized that the placement of the mound tangent to the Central Plaza was intentional for it effects upon visitors, but if that were the case visitors would have had to know or see interpretable signs what was inside. Whether visitors were allowed to enter the vaults or if the vaults and their contents were part of esoteric lore, the placement of the mound seems to have been intentionally and specifically public. The aura enveloping the Mound of the Offerings and its meanings were nowhere more obviously spectacular in the Casas Grandes world. CONCLUSIONS Strategies of contrast and differentiation are most emphatically expressed in the ritualization of Paquimé. Architecture of power has been ascribed to Paquimé’s adobe 208 buildings for their robust wall thickness and elaborately shaped rooms (Whalen and Minnis 2001a) but that designation also should include the enhanced perception of monumentality achieved by placing them at the edge of the valley terrace, where visitors would have first seen them on a heightened landform. This elevated positioning undoubtedly inspired explorers and archaeologists to estimate more stories for room blocks than can be accounted for (Whalen et al. 2010). Other points of access into the great settlement appear to have been made to appear dramatic, for example near the colonnaded galley to the south. Entering Paquimé set the mood for the magnified kinds of activities inside. Mounds not only were physical features without equal elsewhere in the Casas Grandes ritual landscape but also were likely the stages from which to dramatize central beliefs in efforts to instill a worldview that would be remembered and carried back to home bases. The presumed ostentatious display atop mounds carried over to Paquimé’s two magnificent I-shaped ball courts and accompanying mounds where perhaps other ideological rituals engaged elites vying for status. Of course such contests could have blended actions denoting status with more cosmological ideals because worldviews often provide the source through which ideological ranks emerge. Cooking in the massive ovens at Paquimé likely involved orchestrated actions and ritualized proscriptions. The production from ovens could have been used in a variety of circumstances but were likely accompaniments to ball court rituals and festivities surrounding occasions of gathering around mounds. 209 Tangible reproductions of ritual in the hinterland are less elaborately expressed either in form, quality, or quantity than at Paquimé. In terms of ball courts and ovens, associated rituals may have involved different scales of interaction within ritual communities that formed and transformed according to circumstances. The meanings of rituals enacted at Paquimé may have been transmitted outward to surrounding settlements. It is equally plausible according to ritualization theory that ritual premises and features were originally widespread across the region and through time Paquimé gained favor or extended its sway by adopting ever-greater physical embellishment of ritual facilities. That strategy and the associated ritual knowledge base at Paquimé would have elevated the status of ritual leaders and promoted perceptions that they were fundamental for fulfilling needs of societal concern. Agricultural scheduling is one such possibility. While ball court rituals and the products from ovens could have had overlapping uses, the facilities are not distributed equally in the hinterland, suggesting organizational diversity among communities that, in turn, would have entailed managerial requirements providing local leadership opportunities. Decisions of those leaders would have influenced placement and construction of facilities, scheduling of events, and capabilities to stage rituals and reaffirm their meanings. Another archaeologically evidenced class of ritual in the hinterland is not duplicated at Paquimé, however. I refer to the hilltop sites across the hinterland that I propose were scenes of more intimate rituals than at ball courts or ovens. I also consider that the settlements around these hills constituted ritual communities or catchment fields. Each settlement in the countryside had a direct view to at least one hill site and 210 sometimes more than one, suggesting that the corresponding communities could have been primarily oriented toward rituals on specific hills. Variable forms of shrines on these hills are fully represented in the components on Cerro de Moctezuma. The specific rationales for variable replication of hill shrines are unknown, but Cerro de Moctezuma’s central position in the network of shrines indicates that while local communities might have constructed shrines to fulfill ritual needs, they also may have felt constrained in their efforts of elaboration and content in deference to Cerro de Moctezuma. I also suggest that Cerro de Moctezuma was the ultimate hilltop pilgrimage destination in Medio times. The characteristics of local shrines and the elaboration and remote setting of the atalaya are consistent with theoretically derived and ethnographically observed nested configurations of ritual pilgrimage. Considering the widespread occurrence of hill sites, it seems obvious that local shrines were related in some hierarchical manner to Cerro de Moctezuma. Whether and where ritual specialists specifically related to hill observances lived among outer communities is unknown. The answer might depend on more comprehensively locating shrines and better understanding the organizational requirements of hilltop ritual. The placement of shrines could have been guided by historical circumstances or memory of times past, suggesting local knowledge and communal decision-making. On the other hand, that knowledge could have resided with select individuals, and if that were the case would reflect appreciable ritual specialization. Additionally, it may be worth considering whether hills were selected because they could 211 be viewed from settlements or whether settlements at times were established based on visual access to shrine locations. Another line of questions concerns the complexity of ritual. I envision hilltop ritual to be a more intimate affair than, say, ball court rituals, but we do not know if ritual specialists were necessary to execute those observances or if everyone had the prerequisite knowledge and qualifications to visit shrines and adequately perform ritual mandates. If specific forms of shrines corresponded with specific meanings, then Cerro de Moctezuma represented many ritual interests and a reservoir of knowledge not found in the hinterland. The complexities of Cerro de Moctezuma and the monumental effort put into the summit precinct strongly indicate coordinated orchestration at that site. Trails, agricultural fields, El Pueblito, and the summit atalaya combine into the second most complexly organized Casas Grandes settlement location. Both Paquimé and this nearby prominent hill are unique elements of the Medio period landscape and while they are different in many ways, they share parallels. Both have architecture of power represented in materials, forms, and placement of construction. And both contain the most elaborate versions of key components of the larger ritual landscape. Paquimé, among other items, has ball courts and mounds, while Cerro de Moctezuma has a uniquely located and architecturally impractical settlement and an ostentatious, unparalleled crowning summit precinct. In a few words, each concentrated the trappings of specialization and embodied construction effort far beyond the practical. The extravagantly displayed ritual elements of these two places are not wholly replicated elsewhere but there are reflections of each in the hinterland. 212 With no other substantial settlement on a hill during the Medio period, El Pueblito is without equivalent. Why is it there? If its residents lived on Cerro de Moctezuma to manage agricultural surplus, as has been implied (Minnis et al. 2006), then we would expect it to be below the hill closer to the fields; furthermore no other attractive economic resource has been identified. I argue that El Pueblito and the atalaya were integral parts of a much broader, trans-regional ideology and worldview of hill settlement and use, locally implemented by the leadership at Paquimé and that at least some of its residents were ritual specialists who conducted prescribed and privileged ceremonies. I understand El Pueblito and Paquimé to have been intimately related, if not part of the same settlement in a broad sense, perhaps with some ritual leaders living intermittently at both premier sites. Cerro de Moctezuma dominates the western panorama for Paquimé (see Figure 1.1) and would have constituted an immediate and highly visible landmark for that center’s residents and visitors. Moreover, a trail segment recorded during this project surely once continued to Paquimé, directly linking the two monumental places. The atalaya atop the hill is visibly detectable from Paquimé, and Di Peso et al. (1974:4:227, Figure 164-5) report an angled room window with a view directly to Cerro de Moctezuma’s summit precinct. The specific meanings and kinds of ceremonies performed at Cerro de Moctezuma may never be known, but within a vast array of hilloriented ideologies mapped onto sacred landscapes, from central Mexico to the northern southwest United States, it is difficult to imagine Paquimé, the renowned capital of 213 Medio times, and Cerro de Moctezuma as unrelated major components of the local sacred geography. Whalen and Minnis (2001b:189-190; 2009) observe that ritual facilities and other signs of leadership strategies or signifiers of authority, such as ball courts, ovens, and large agricultural fields, are absent or nearly so within about 15 km of Paquimé and that the functions associated with those facilities were absorbed by the primate center. Yet, Cerro de Moctezuma is squarely within that zone of influence and it has a massive oven, an unexpectedly large upland agricultural system, and the most comprehensive set of hillrelated ritual features. Others have suggested that the leadership at Paquimé used religious ideals and symbols as resources for creating and maintaining their preeminent position (Di Peso 1974; Whalen and Minnis 2001b, 2009). That leadership can be envisioned as specifically selecting Cerro de Moctezuma in order to monumentally broadcast their role as paramount holders of religious knowledge associated with hills. Whether that ideological strategy involved capitalizing on an existing cosmology originally widespread throughout the hinterland or whether hill-related ideals were first transmitted outward from Paquimé and Cerro de Moctezuma and thereafter adopted by local constituencies is unknown. Casas Grandes archaeology is still in its infancy and perhaps more research will lead to clues directly relevant to such a question. El Pueblito existed because of a ritual mandate. Some people left the valleys filled with neighbors to live and conduct ceremonies on Cerro de Moctezuma in order to accomplish cosmologically driven directives. Ethnographically, elevated landforms are homes of ancestors, deities, and of life giving waters, symbolic phenomena that are 214 infused in societal practices. If Paquimé required extensions of its central role in the hinterland, such as at the administrative Site 242, hill settings were likely prerequisites for maintaining a balance between natural forces and society. Cerro de Moctezuma conceptually represents a specialized, centrally crafted ritual destination that must have reinforced and maintained central beliefs and values emanating from Paquimé. The sights and sounds of the ritual landscape permeated far-flung Medio period settlements. Ritually charged places were crafted, communities gathered for suites of observances under special circumstances, and Cerro de Moctezuma was an iconic physical and ideological pinnacle of that Casas Grandes world. 215 APPENDIX A – EL PUEBLITO ARTIFACT ANALYSES AND COMPARISONS The analyses of artifacts from El Pueblito presented in this appendix are summarized in Chapter 6, where wood and faunal remains and miscellaneous artifacts from Cerro de Moctezuma also are discussed. Some of that discussion is reproduced here for maximum clarity and continuity. A limited surface collection contributes to generallevel understanding of site activities. Adobe, rock-in-adobe, rubble core masonry, and extramural rock features oriented an intra-settlement stratified sampling program in which 13 features were test excavated. These features and the volume excavated in each are listed in Table A.1 and shown in Figure 6.1. The general issue of functional differences among architecture and feature types is evaluated through comparison of assemblages of ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone. Each class of artifact also is separately compared across feature types. Table A.1. Test excavated features at El Pueblito. Feature Number Volume (m3) 1 7 15 19 21 24 28 35 36 39 49 56 71 11.50 0.33 0.88 0.53 0.50 0.59 1.83 2.66 2.24 0.73 0.03 0.94 0.77 Feature Description Feature Class Room in adobe mound Low rock wall enclosure Rubble core masonry structure High rock wall enclosure Rubble core masonry structure Rock arc Rubble core masonry structure Rubble core masonry structure Rubble core masonry structure Rubble core masonry structure Single course rock enclosure Rock-in-adobe structure Single course rock enclosure Adobe Rock Feature Rubble Core Rock Feature Rubble Core Rock Feature Rubble Core Rubble Core Rubble Core Rubble Core Rock Feature Rock/Adobe Rock Feature 216 Figure A.1. El Pueblito on Cerro de Moctezuma showing the locations of test excavated features (red) and controlled surface collection units (green). In addition to the intra-site analysis, comparisons to four other Medio period settlements are made. The comparative site collections comprise 55 fully and partially 217 excavated rooms and 2 extramural features (about 425.0 m3) compared to test trenches and units in eight rooms and five features at El Pueblito (about 23.5 m3). Only limited comparisons to Paquimé can be made because, unfortunately, its data do not exist in comparable form. For example, artifact recovery from Paquimé, or at least retention and reporting procedures, apparently did not include all chipped stone. From three years of nearly continuous excavation of almost 15 hectares that included several public ceremonial precincts and over 250 rooms, only 3714 pieces of chipped stone are reported (Di Peso et al. 1974:7:Figure 423-7). At El Pueblito, limited surface collections and only 23.5 m3 of excavation produced 2895 pieces of chipped stone. Whalen and Minnis (2009:183-184, 204-205) have rigorously supported the contention that samples from Paquimé are biased; to summarize, chipped stone is weighted toward items of fine-grain material and ground stone is overrepresented by whole pieces to the exclusion of fragments. Additionally, I strongly suspect that ceramic sherd size data are skewed toward large sizes. SURFACE COLLECTIONS FROM EL PUEBLITO Surface collections from El Pueblito were examined in an effort to 1) maximize the characterization of artifact diversity at El Pueblito, 2) identify activities outside recognized architectural and feature boundaries, and 3) evaluate correspondence between surface and subsurface deposits. Surface artifacts were collected in three ways. A general surface collection contains opportunistically and nonsystematically retrieved artifacts from areas outside the boundaries of architecture and other features without the 218 use of transects or measured areas. All artifacts were collected from three 2-m diameter units. Finally, surface artifacts were collected from within the boundaries of known plazas, buildings, and extramural rock features. These surface data offer preliminary characterizations of the range of activities and their spatial distributions. General Surface Collection Table A.2 shows general surface ceramic types and counts. Medio period ceramic types follow those of Di Peso et al. (1974:6:108-316), which were used for all local ceramic type identifications. Of twenty-two defined Medio period types, fourteen were present on El Pueblito’s surface. In addition to the local types are Chupadero Black-onwhite (n=2), El Paso Polychrome (n=1), and one red-on-brown that resembles types from southeastern Arizona but is too small to confidently identify. The category “Small” includes sherds that are smaller than 2.5 cm and idadequate for accurate identification. In short, there is nothing out of the ordinary about this collection and no local sherd predates or post-dates the Medio period. General surface chipped stone in Table A.3 includes flakes in all stages of reduction, broken flakes, debris, cores, broken cores, scrapers, tabular knives, a large biface, and projectile points, analyzed in accordance with the four other recently excavated collections referenced later in this appendix (see Gutzeit 2008). Whole flakes were classified as primary, secondary, or tertiary based on the percent of visible cortex (> 50 %, < 50 %, absent). Figure A.2 illustrates two projectile points, a tabular knife, a scraper, a large stemmed biface, and a core from the collection. The projectile points 219 comprise two of three Medio period points (unspecified types) recovered from El Pueblito. The one unusual item is the large stemmed biface that it is so distinctive among Medio collections that it could have a specialized, perhaps ceremonial, use. Table A.2. Ceramic counts from the general surface collection at El Pueblito. Class/Type Local Plain Scoreda Incisedb Broad Coil Tool Punched Playas Red Black-on-red Babicora Polychrome Carretas Polychrome Ramos Polychrome Villa Ahumada Polychrome Babicora/Ramos Polychrome White paste Indeterminate Chihuahuan Non-local Chupadero Black-on-white El Paso Polychrome Red-on-brown (SE Arizona?) Other Unknown Small Total a. Includes Plain, Rubbed, and Pattern Scored. b. Includes Plain and Pattern Incised. Count 409 24 2 1 5 46 2 4 4 20 4 8 2 4 2 1 1 1 1426 1966 220 Table A.3. Chipped stone counts from the general surface collection at El Pueblito. Item Flake Broken Flake Debris Core Broken Core Scraper Tabular Knife Stemmed Biface Projectile Point Total Count 114 207 271 6 14 3 9 1 2 627 Figure A.2a-e. Examples of chipped stone tools from the general surface collection at El Pueblito: a) projectile points, b) tabular knife, c) stemmed biface, d) scraper, e) core. Illustrations by Gutzeit. 221 Ground stone items from the general surface collection includes axes, mauls, bowls, hammerstones, manos, mano blanks, metates, a pestle, and a shaft straightener (Table A.4). An additional shaft straightener was observed on the surface prior to the surface collection but could not be relocated. One axe and maul are notable for their greater size than any recovered from Paquimé (Figure A.3). Table A.4. Ground stone counts from the general surface collection at El Pueblito. Item Axe Bowl Hammerstone Mano Mano Blank Maul Metate Pestle Shaft Straightenera Total Count 6 2 2 11 3 8 2 1 1 36 a. An additional shaft straightener observed prior to the collection could not be relocated. Figure A.3. An unusually large axe from the general surface collection at El Pueblito. 222 Comparison of Controlled Surface Collection Units All artifacts were collected from three 2-m-diameter collection units, none of which were located within known architectural or feature boundaries (Figure A.1). The following tables list density and ratios for each of the three collection units. Table A.5 shows the assemblage as a whole, Table A.6 shows plain and decorated ceramics, Table A.7 shows decorated ceramics by surface treatment, and Table A.8 shows classes of chipped stone. Collection Unit 65 has the highest density of artifacts (48.5/sq m), nearly twice the other units, and it has a nearly equal ratio, 0.9, of ceramics to chipped stone, compared to 0.5 and 0.1 for the other units (Table A.5). Although the number of decorated ceramics is low, Unit 65 has the highest density and the distribution across decorated classes is nearly equal (Table A.7). Finally, Table A.8 shows even amounts of flakes and debris in unit 65, which also has the highest number of tools. Collection Units 63 and 71 are similar in overall artifact density, 29.5/sq m and 25.0/sq m, respectively (Table A.5). However, ratios of ceramics to chipped stone differ, with Unit 71 having 9 pieces of chipped stone for every sherd and unit 63 having 1.95 pieces of chipped stone for every sherd (Table A.5). To the degree that this sort of artifact heterogeneity indicates specialized or limited activity sets rather than variability in secondarily deposited trash, then variation in activities is reflected across collection units. The collections could represent different activities, and in particular, Unit 71, with its flakes, cores, and debris, appears to represent stone reduction. Thus, while only one possible activity can be specified (stone reduction), the differences among albeit small collection areas suggest that informal and 223 extramural areas on El Pueblito hold information regarding settlement activities and special purpose locations. Further, controlled collection and even excavation of outdoor areas at El Pueblito and other settlements holds promise for a fuller understanding of Medio period activities. Table A.5. Densities and ratios of ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone from controlled surface collection units at El Pueblito. Unit Ceramic Chipped Stone Total Density (sq m) Ratio 20 46 5 39 51 45 59 97 50 29.5 48.5 25.0 0.5 0.9 0.1 63 65 71 Table A.6. Densities and ratios of plain and decorated ceramics from controlled surface collection units at El Pueblito. Unit Plain Decorated Total Density (sq m) Ratio 63 65 71 18 39 3 2 7 2 20 46 5 10.0 23.0 2.5 9.0 5.6 1.5 Table A.7. Densities of decorated ceramics from controlled surface collection units at El Pueblito. Unit 63 65 71 Textured 2 2 0 Red 0 2 1 Black-on-red Polychrome Total 0 1 0 0 2 1 2 7 2 Density (sq m) 1.0 3.5 1.0 Table A.8. Densities of chipped stone from controlled surface collection units at El Pueblito. Unit 63 65 71 Flake Debris Core Tool Total 28 23 27 9 23 16 0 1 2 2 4 0 39 51 45 Density (sq m) 19.5 25.5 22.5 224 Surface Collections from Plazas Plaza surface collections come from the North and South Masonry Plazas, the Adobe Plaza, and a small patio (Feature 27) attached to Feature 28 (Figure A.1). The Central Plaza was, unfortunately, included in the general surface collection prohibiting separate evaluation. Of significance for formation processes, the patio and the Adobe Plaza are likely to have subsurface deposits while the North and South Masonry Plazas are on bedrock. The assemblages of ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone from these areas are similar, with chipped stone as the highest proportion (71-97%), followed by ceramics (10-30%) and ground stone (0-1%; Figure A.4; Table A.9). The North Masonry Plaza is statistically different from the other contexts combined with regard to proportions of ceramics and chipped stone (χ2 = 12.77, df = 1, p = 0.0004; Cramer’s V = 0.1885). Ground stone is absent from the patio and Adobe Plaza and only one metate and one mano were found in the North and South Masonry Plazas, respectively; therefore they were removed from the statistical analysis to avoid violation of cell size. Figure A.5 shows that the South Masonry Plaza and Adobe Plaza have similar proportions of plain and decorated ceramics, while the patio and North Masonry Plaza are similar. Fisher’s Exact Test indicates that the association between ceramic surface treatment and provenience is not significant (p = 1.0000). Thus, with regard to ceramics, all four contexts are alike. 225 100 Percent 80 60 40 20 0 Ceramics Patio Chipped Stone NMP SMP Ground Stone Adobe Plaza Figure A.4. Proportional comparison of ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone from the surfaces of El Pueblito’s plazas (see Table A.9). Table A.9. Proportions of ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone from the surfaces of El Pueblito’s plazas (see Figure A.4). Ceramics Patio NMP SMP Adobe Plaza Chipped Stone Ground Stone Total n % n % n % n % 7 21 18 17 29.2 9.9 18.6 30.4 17 191 78 39 70.8 89.7 80.4 69.6 0 1 1 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 24 213 97 56 100 100 100 100 Percent 226 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 n=6 n=18 n=13 n=5 n=1 n=13 n=4 n=3 Patio NMP Plain SMP Adobe Plaza Decorated Figure A.5. Proportional comparison of plain and decorated ceramics from the surfaces of El Pueblito’s plazas. The chipped stone data are shown graphically in Figure A.6 and summarized in Table A.10. In general, flakes dominate the assemblages (44-77%), followed by debris (18-54%), cores (0-6%), and tools (0-3%); the Adobe Plaza deviates from that pattern by having a larger proportion of debris than flakes. Only one or two cores were recovered from all loci except the Adobe Plaza. Three tabular knives were found, two in the South Masonry Plaza and one in the Adobe Plaza. Cores and tools are present at such low numbers that they are disregarded for statistical purposes. The difference between contexts with regard to proportions of flakes and debris is significant (χ2 = 11.13, p = 0.011; Cramer’s V = 0.1871). However, when the aberrant Adobe Plaza is removed from statistical analysis the result is not significant (χ2 = 4.2, p = 0.1225; Cramer’s V = 0.1225), indicating that indeed the Adobe Plaza contains an assemblage of flakes and debris different from all other contexts. Percent 227 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Flake Debris Patio NMP Core SMP Tool Adobe Plaza Figure A.6. Proportional comparison of chipped stone from the surfaces of El Pueblito’s plazas (see Table A.10). Table A.10. Proportions of chipped stone from the surfaces of El Pueblito’s plazas (see Figure A.6). Flake n Patio NMP SMP Adobe Plaza 137 119 55 17 Debris Core Tool Total % n % n % n % n % 76.5 62.3 70.5 43.6 3 7 20 21 17.6 36.6 25.6 53.8 1 2 1 0 5.9 1.0 1.3 0.0 0 0 2 1 0.0 0.0 2.6 2.6 17 191 78 39 100 100 100 100 Surface Collections from Buildings and Extramural Rock Features Figure A.7 illustrates assemblages from the surfaces of adobe architecture, rockin-adobe, rubble core masonry, and extramural rock features. Variation is evident in the proportions of ceramics (24.6-62.6%) and chipped stone (35.5-74.4%), and ground stone is absent from all categories except the adobe architecture (Table A.11). Ground stone is therefore not included in statistical analysis. The difference between proveniences with regard to proportions of ceramics and chipped stone is significant (χ2 = 92.39, df = 3, p. < 0.0001; Cramer’s V = 0.3442). Discrimination of proveniences groups the adobe and 228 rubble core masonry structures on the one hand and rock-in-adobe and rock features on the other, and it is significant (χ2 = 86.87, df = 1, p < 0.0001; Cramer’s V = 0.3364). 80 70 Percent 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Ceramics Adobe Chipped Stone Rock/Adobe Ground Stone Rubble Core Rock Features Figure A.7. Proportional comparison of ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone from the surfaces of El Pueblito’s buildings and extramural rock features (see Table A.11). Table A.11. Proportions of ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone from the surfaces of El Pueblito’s buildings and extramural rock features (see Figure A.7). Ceramics n Adobe Rock/Adobe Rubble Core Rock Features 224 11 93 58 Chipped Stone Ground Stone Total % n % n % n % 62.6 37.9 56.7 24.6 127 18 71 178 3.5 62.1 43.3 75.4 7 0 0 0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 358 29 164 236 100 100 100 100 Figure A.8 shows ceramic data divided into plain and decorated. In all cases, plain ceramics dominate the surface assemblages, from 71-91 percent, while decorated ceramics are a small percentage of the different collections, ranging from about 9-29 percent. The collection from the rock-in-adobe architecture has an especially low percent of decorated ceramics (9.1%). Despite apparent differences among architectural units, 229 however, the proportions of plain and decorated ceramics are not statistically significant (χ2 = 3.99, df = 3, p = 0.2625; Cramer’s V = 0.1017). 100 n=10 n=74 Percent 80 n=42 n=160 60 40 n=64 n=16 n=19 20 n=1 0 Adobe Rock/Adobe Rubble Core Rock Features Plain Decorated Figure A.8. Proportional comparison of plain and decorated ceramics from the surfaces of El Pueblito’s buildings and extramural rock features. Figure A.9 graphs the chipped stone and all proveniences share the general trend of predominately flakes (53.4-63.0%) followed by debris (27.8-42.7%), cores (2.211.1%), and tools (0-4.2%). Tools are absent from the adobe architecture and the nearby rock-in-adobe architecture. All recovered tools are tabular knives except for one biface from the rock-in-adobe (Table A.12). Extramural rock features are notable for having slightly different proportions of flakes and debris than all other features, and the difference is significant (χ2 = 13.73, df = 1, p = 0.0002; Cramer’s V = 0.2059). Finally, ground stone from the surface of the adobe mound includes one hammerstone, one mano, five metates, and one fragment of a possible round entry frame for a bird cage. 230 70 60 Percent 50 40 30 20 10 0 Flake Mound Debris Rock/Adobe Core Tool Rubble Core Rock Features Figure A.9. Proportional comparison of chipped stone from the surfaces of El Pueblito’s buildings and extramural rock features (see Table A.12). Table A.12. Proportions of chipped stone from the surfaces of El Pueblito’s buildings and extramural rock features (see Figure A.9). Flake Adobe Rock/Adobe Rubble Core Rock Features Debris Core Tool Total n % n % n % n % n % 80 11 39 95 63.0 61.1 54.9 53.4 43 5 24 76 33.9 27.8 33.8 42.7 4 2 5 4 3.1 11.1 7.0 2.2 0 0 3 3 0.0 0.0 4.2 1.7 127 18 71 178 100 100 100 100 Surface collections vary in assemblage composition within recognizable feature boundaries on El Pueblito. Similar assemblage compositions were anticipated from subsurface deposits, however, as will be seen in the following section, that is not generally the case. Overall, surface assemblages are not necessarily reliable predictors of subsurface deposits. 231 EXCAVATED ASSEMBLAGES FROM EL PUEBLITO AND INTER-SETTLEMENT COMPARISONS Analysis goals for excavated assemblages include comparison among different architectural types and features and comparison between El Pueblito and other Medio period settlements. The analyses provide grounds for assessing activities at El Pueblito and placing it into a larger Casas Grandes context for measuring settlement roles and specialization. Admittedly, sample sizes from El Pueblito are not ideal; nevertheless, the excavated data provide an additional gauge of the range of this settlement’s activites and its place in the Medio period landscape. Comparison of Excavated Assemblages from El Pueblito Figure A.10 shows excavated ceramic, chipped stone, and ground stone as proportions within the different provenience categories. The basic assemblage is remarkably similar across El Pueblito except from the adobe architecture, where ceramics and chipped stone proportions differ from other excavated contexts. The adobe has about 84 percent ceramics and 16 percent chipped stone, whereas the rock-in-adobe, rubble core masonry, and extramural rock features range from about 48 percent to 52 percent of both ceramics and chipped stone (Table A.13). Ground stone was recovered only from the adobe and rubble core structures, and because those items exist as such a low number they are removed for statistical purposes. The difference between the adobe architecture and all other proveniences combined with regard to proportions of ceramics and chipped stone is significant (χ2 = 581.38, df = 1, p < 0.0001; Cramer’s V = 0.3519). Clearly, whatever activities occurred within the adobe room required more ceramics and chipped stone less often. Artifact classes will be further discussed in succeeding sections, 232 especially to expand on the difference between adobe and other contexts but inter- Percent settlement comparison of assemblages will now be reviewed. 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Ceramic Adobe Chipped Stone Rock/Adobe Rubble Core Ground Stone Rock Features Figure A.10. Proportional comparison of excavated ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone from El Pueblito’s buildings and extramural rock features (see Table A.13). Table A.13. Proportions of excavated ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone from El Pueblito’s buildings and extramural rock features (see Figure A.10). Ceramics Adobe Rock/Adobe Rubble Core Rock Features n % 2424 33 538 368 83.8 48.5 51.3 51.8 Chipped Stone n 459 35 509 342 Ground Stone Total % n % n % 15.8 51.5 48.5 48.2 7 0 2 0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 2890 68 1049 710 100 100 100 100 Inter-settlement Comparison of Excavated Assemblages Figure A.11 illustrates comparative data for major artifact classes from El Pueblito and four other Medio settlements, which were excavated by Michael Whalen and Paul Minnis, and El Pueblito. Briefly, Sites 204, 231, and 317 are interpreted as being relatively ordinary residential settlements, although there is an I-shaped ball court 233 at Site 204 and two pit ovens at 317, suggesting some supra-settlement activities at those two sites. In contrast, the occupants of Site 242, with its extremely large rock agricultural field system and massive and unusual architecture, have been characterized as discharging duties directly associated with the goals of leaders from Paquimé (Whalen and Minnis 2009:267-269), producing implications for a distinctive assemblage. Considering El Pueblito’s specialized settlement characteristics, its assemblage could more closely resemble that from Site 242 or differ more from Sites 204, 231, and 317; or both. 100 Percent 80 60 40 20 0 El Pueblito Ceramic 204 231 Chipped Stone 242 317 Ground Stone Figure A.11. Proportional comparison of excavated ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone from the adobe architecture at El Pueblito and four other Medio period settlements (see Table A.14). The data from El Pueblito and Site 242 only include those from adobe architecture because the other comparative sites only have data from adobe architecture (Figure A.11). All settlements have higher proportions of ceramics than chipped stone and ground stone, with ground stone always being proportionately much less than the other two classes (Table A.14). Figure A.11 shows that, indeed, Site 242 is different from all other settlements in having a conspicuously low proportion of chipped stone, but 234 that El Pueblito’s adobe building assemblage is not similar to Site 242. Instead, El Pueblito’s adobe is nearly identical to Site 317, which was described by its excavators as a simple type of residential settlement in their sample (Whalen and Minnis 2009:273274). Statistical analysis of the data confirms that the difference between sites with respect to proportions of ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone is significant (χ2 = 5425.11, df = 8, p < 0.0001; Cramer’s V = 0.1968). As settlements from the small, large, simpler, and more complex varieties are included, it can be concluded that when considering only El Pueblito’s adobe assemblage, settlement type or primary inferred function does not correspond necessarily with proportional compositions of ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone. Table A.14. Proportions of excavated ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone from the adobe architecture at El Pueblito and four other Medio period settlements (see Figure A.11). Ceramic Settlement El Pueblito 204 231 242 317 n 2424 27535 3695 6656 10167 Chipped Stone % 83.9 63.0 76.0 97.2 86.5 n 459 15639 1147 161 1559 Ground Stone % n % 15.9 35.8 23.6 2.4 13.3 7 514 17 28 19 0.2 1.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 Total n 2890 43688 4859 6845 11745 % 100 100 100 100 100 Figure A.12 shows the same comparison as Figure A.11 but includes all excavated architecture and features at El Pueblito and extramural rock features from Site 242 in order to maximize observations of potential diversity in settlement activities. While there are proportional shifts (e.g., El Pueblito’s chipped stone percentage rises) the general picture presented by these more inclusive data remains the same (Table A.15). 235 At this level of analysis variation across settlements in artifact assemblages is again apparent but it is notable that El Pueblito’s assemblage fits squarely within the proportional range of ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone from the other settlements. Activities at El Pueblito must have crosscut the kinds practiced at most settlements. 100 Percent 80 60 40 20 0 El Pueblito Ceramic 204 231 Chipped Stone 242 317 Ground Stone Figure A.12. Proportional comparison of excavated ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone from all contexts at El Pueblito and four other Medio period settlements (see Table A.15). Table A.15. Proportions of excavated ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone from all contexts at El Pueblito and four other Medio period settlements (see Figure A.12). Ceramic Settlement El Pueblito 204 231 242 317 n 3363 27535 3695 8044 10167 Chipped Stone % 71.3 63.0 76.0 95.5 86.5 n 1345 15639 1147 354 1559 Ground Stone % n % 28.5 35.8 23.6 4.2 13.3 9 514 17 28 19 0.2 1.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 Total n 4717 43688 4859 8426 11745 Despite the lack of correspondence between settlement characterization and assemblage composition according to major artifact classes, other differences between % 100 100 100 100 100 236 settlements with respect to individual artifact classes will be discussed in following analyses. The next step is to evaluate differential use of spaces at El Pueblito by looking more closely at ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone from the sample of architecture and features. Comparison of Excavated Ceramics from El Pueblito Plain and decorated sherd proportions from excavated contexts at El Pueblito are illustrated in Figure A.13. The adobe architecture has a slightly lower proportion of decorated ceramics (15%) than the other proveniences (20-30%). Chi-square test of association between variables shows that there is not a statistically significant difference in plain and decorated proportions between rock-in-adobe, rubble core masonry, and rock features (χ2 = 1.79, df = 2, p = 0.4086; Cramer’s V = 04.37). However, when those three proveniences are lumped as All Other, there is a significant difference between the adobe architecture and other proveniences combined (χ2 = 21.93, df = 1, p < 0.0001; Cramer’s V = 0.0816). Thus, there appears to be less use of decorated vessels within the adobe architecture. Percent 237 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 n=2069 n=422 n=293 n=738 n=23 n=10 n=116 n=355 Adobe n=75 Rock/Adobe Rubble Core Rock Features Plain n=201 All Other Decorated Figure A.13. Proportional comparison of excavated plain and decorated ceramics from El Pueblito. An additional, yet simple, distinction can be made between bowls and jars. The surest method of distinguishing bowls and jars in Medio period assemblages is using rims because interior surfaces of jars are often well-finished. Figure A.14 represents the rims from El Pueblito (rock-in-adobe architecture is not included because there are no rims), and jars provide a larger part of the assemblage in the adobe architecture, by a ratio of 15.25 (Table A.16). In contrast, jar and bowl ratios are much lower (between 1.3 and 1.7) in the rubble core masonry and rock features. The difference between adobe and rubble core masonry and rock features with respect to proportions of jars and bowls is significant (χ2 = 18.81, df = 1, p < .0001; Cramer’s V = 0.399). Thus, jars predominate within the adobe architecture and bowls and jars are more evenly represented in the other proveniences. 238 100 Percent 80 60 40 20 0 Jar Bowl Adobe Rubble Core Rock Features Figure A.14. Proportional comparison of excavated jar and bowl rims from El Pueblito (see Table A.16). Table A.16. Proportions of excavated jar and bowl rim from El Pueblito (see Figure A.14).a Jar Adobe Rubble Core Rock Features Bowl Total n % n % n % 61 25 12 93.8 61.0 57.1 4 15 9 6.3 39.0 42.9 65 40 21 100 100 100 Ratio 15.25 1.66 1.33 a. There are no rims from the rock-in-adobe architecture. Initial differences can be identified among architecture and features at El Pueblito. Although there are more plain vessels and more jars from the adobe architecture compared to other proveniences, the specific activities producing the differences are uncertain. Conceivably, it was less important to have vessels with added information (i.e., decoration) within the adobe room that was excavated, and if that was the case, the room might have been a more exclusive locus at the settlement. By its eccentric shape the room is not likely to have been typically domestic. Similar rooms at Paquimé have 239 been interpreted as special purpose spaces, either for storage or for accommodating religious and public officials (Di Peso 1974:2:290). A reasonable inference from the higher proportion of jars is that there was more storage within the adobe architecture. Vessel sizes are instructive measures of storage capacity and other use factors, so it is unfortunate that samples are inadequate to evaluate propositions concerning ranges of vessel size. The only pottery class with more than a few rims is plain jars. Figures A.15 and A.16 show the distribution of those rims from adobe architecture, rubble core masonry, and rock features; no rims were found in the rock-in-adobe architecture. Figure A.15 shows the full range of rim diameters with three potential class sizes of plain jars, graphed in Figure A.16. The three class sizes (11-15 cm, 16-23 cm, and 24-31 cm) are fairly evenly distributed, except for rock features where the largest size is absent. The medium class size, 16-23 cm, makes up the largest percentage in all contexts, while the largest class size, 24-31 cm, is proportionately smallest in the adobe and masonry. The small sample size, unfortunately, makes statistical statements impossible and it would be premature to interpret greater storage in the adobe room based on rim diameters. In fact, with admittedly low sample sizes, it appears that vessel sizes are rather evenly represented across El Pueblito. Count 240 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Diameter Adobe Rubble Core Rock Features Figure A.15. Range of excavated Plainware rim diameters from El Pueblito. n=4 70 n=15 60 n=5 Percent 50 40 30 n=7 n=3 n=2 20 n=3 n=1 10 n=0 0 11-15 16-23 Diameter Adobe Rubble Core 24-31 Rock Features Figure A.16. Proportions of small, medium, and large Plainware jars using excavated rim diameters as a proxy for vessel size. Inter-settlement Comparison of Excavated Ceramics with Notes on Chronology Earlier, whole assemblages of ceramics, chipped stone, and ground stone from five settlements were compared; assemblage composition with these inclusive categories appears not to straightforwardly correspond to settlement characterization as small or large, or simple or specialized, or be determinative for discriminating settlement function. 241 However, examining ceramic assemblages in more detail has previously proved to be constructive in distinguishing settlements (e.g., Whalen and Minnis 2009). Table A.17 shows the ceramic type counts and proportions from El Pueblito and Sites 204, 231, 242, and 317. No strong contrastive tendencies are revealed, but nearly all defined ceramic types were found in the excavations at El Pueblito. Escondida and Dublan Polychromes are rare at most sites, so their absence from the limited sample at El Pueblito is not necessarily definitive. Nevertheless, the absence of Dublan Polychrome, combined with the presence of Ramos Polychrome and red-on-black ceramics, situates El Pueblito within later Medio times, ca. A.D. 1300 to 1450. Dublan is a primarily early Medio period type that decreases in frequency thereafter, while Ramos and red-on-black ceramics are post-A.D. 1300 occurrences (Larkin et al. 2004:196; Whalen and Minnis 2009:115-125). Table A.18 shows polychrome counts as percentages of all polychromes. Data from trash deposits at Site 204 show that a low ratio of Babicora Polychrome-to-Ramos Polychrome is an indicator of the late Medio period (Whalen and Minnis 2009:126). El Pueblito has a ratio of 0.22, the lowest for excavated sites shown in Table A.18. Thus, the low ratio of Babicora-to-Ramos further strengthens the ceramic evidence for a late Medio period occupation at El Pueblito. Because Babicora Polychrome was made throughout the Medio period, however, an early Medio occupation as well cannot be eliminated. 242 Table A.17. Ceramic type proportions from excavations at El Pueblito and four other Medio period settlements. El Pueblito Type n % Plain 2826 83.9 Broad Coil 2 0.1 10 0.3 Corrugateda 29 0.9 Inciseda 116 3.4 Scoreda Tool Punched 11 0.3 Playas Red 222 6.6 Ramos Black 39 1.2 Black-on-red 7 0.2 Babicora Polychrome 9 0.3 Carretas Polychrome 2 0.1 Corralitos Polychrome 19 0.6 Dublan Polychrome 0 0.0 Escondida 0 0.0 Huerigos 1 0.0 Ramos Polychrome 41 1.2 Villa Ahumada 29 0.9 White paste Babicora 6 0.2 Non-local 1 0.0 Total 3370 100.0 204 n 231 % 19901 72.1 56 0.2 560 2.0 1064 3.9 995 3.6 267 1.0 2074 7.5 627 2.3 6 0.0 298 1.1 143 0.5 24 0.1 75 0.3 37 0.1 26 0.1 987 3.6 394 1.4 1 0.0 63 0.2 27598 100.0 n 242 % 3150 85.3 1 0.0 39 1.1 171 4.6 139 3.8 7 0.2 43 1.2 65 1.8 3 0.1 31 0.8 4 0.1 0 0.0 3 0.1 3 0.1 0 0.0 19 0.5 11 0.3 6 0.2 0 0.0 3695 100.0 n 317 % 5680 85.3 126 1.9 42 0.6 47 0.7 189 2.8 7 0.1 178 2.7 192 2.9 52 0.8 33 0.5 4 0.1 8 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 0.1 70 1.1 14 0.2 5 0.1 0 0.0 6656 100.0 n % 8099 79.7 0 0.0 386 3.8 280 2.8 399 3.9 24 0.2 785 7.7 60 0.6 15 0.1 49 0.5 0 0.0 1 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 21 0.2 43 0.4 3 0.0 0 0.0 10167 100.0 a. Includes Plain, Rubbed, and Pattern types. Table A.18. Polychrome proportions from excavations at El Pueblito and four other Medio period settlements. El Pueblito Type n Babicora Polychrome 9 Carretas Polychrome 2 Corralitos Polychrome 19 Dublan Polychrome 0 Escondida 0 Huerigos 1 Ramos Polychrome 41 Villa Ahumada 29 White-paste Babicora 6 Total 107 % 8.4 1.9 17.8 0.0 0.0 0.9 38.3 27.1 5.6 100.0 204 n 231 % 298 15.0 143 7.2 24 1.2 75 3.8 37 1.9 26 1.3 987 49.7 394 19.8 1 0.1 1985 100.0 n 31 4 0 3 3 0 19 11 6 77 242 % 40.3 5.2 0.0 3.9 3.9 0.0 24.7 14.3 7.8 100.0 n 33 4 8 0 0 9 70 14 5 143 317 % 23.1 2.8 5.6 0.0 0.0 6.3 49.0 9.8 3.5 100.0 n % 49 41.2 0 0.0 1 0.8 2 1.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 21 17.6 43 36.1 3 2.5 119 100.0 243 Corralitos is the third most abundant type represented at El Pueblito at 17.8 percent of polychromes, a proportion greater than other sites by a factor of nearly 3. Currently, Medio period ceramic assemblages with such a high proportion of Corralitos are unknown elsewhere, including the primate center of Paquimé where it represents only 3.59 percent (Whalen and Minnis 2009:Table 4.4). The percentage from El Pueblito appears aberrant, but available information cannot account for its abundance. The differences between settlement assemblages do not readily translate into differentiated settlement function, although El Pueblito’s high percentage of Ramos Polychrome is similar to Sites 204 and 242, with public architecture, and it is most unlike Sites 231 and 317, both of which have been described as the simplest kind of settlement. One attribute that positions El Pueblito closer to Site 242 than the other sites is the jar-tobowl ratio. Using rim sherds, Whalen and Minnis (2009:152-153) found that Paquimé, Site 204 trash and room deposits, and Site 231 and 317 rooms contained a jar-to-bowl ratio between 2 and 3. Site 242 had a ratio of 20, contrasting markedly with its contemporaries. As a whole, El Pueblito has an excavated jar-to-bowl ratio of 3.3 (Table A.16). But El Pueblito’s contexts also differ clearly, with the adobe mound having a much higher proportion of jars than bowls. The other proveniences have a somewhat low ratio of 1.5, but the adobe architecture’s very high ratio of 15, resembles that of Site 242. By this single measure, then, El Pueblito and Site 242 are more similar to each other than to other settlements, including Paquimé. Finally, Whalen and Minnis (2009:153) observe that while 60-68 percent of jars from Sites 204, 231, and 317 are plain and 40-57 percent of bowls are plain, the situation 244 at Site 242 is quite different. There, more than 90 percent of the jars are plain, but the authors do not provide the percent of plain bowls from Site 242. When the rim assemblage from El Pueblito is compared to 242, the results do not conform straightforwardly to Whalen and Minnis’ data. Although 75.5 percent of the excavated jar rims from El Pueblito are plain, a high percentage by their characterization, 67.9 percent of the excavated bowl rims are plain (Table A.19). The percentage of plain jars is higher than Sites 204, 231, and 317, and it lies somewhere between those sites and Site 242, but it has a markedly higher percent of plain bowls Table A.19. Plainware jar and bowl proportions compared to all other types from El Pueblito. Jar Type n Plainware All Others Total 74 24 98 Bowl % 75.5 24.5 100.0 n % 19 9 28 67.9 32.1 100.0 Comparison of Excavated Chipped Stone from El Pueblito Figure A.10 and Table A.13 showed that the adobe architecture has a low proportion of chipped stone (16%) relative to all other excavated El Pueblito contexts (48-51%), indicating manufacture or use of chipped stone was not as common there. A closer look at the kinds of chipped stone in each assemblage may disclose whether chipped stone differences between the adobe and other contexts is a result of similar but less intense activities or different kinds of activities. This comparison uses four classes: flakes (primary, secondary, tertiary, broken), debris (pieces lacking identifiable flake 245 attributes), cores (whole, broken), and tools (scraper, tabular knife). Differences are apparent between the adobe architecture and all other contexts with reference to flakes and debris (Figure A.17 and Table A.20). The adobe architecture has a higher proportion of flakes (62.7%) and a higher proportion of debris (31.8%) than the other contexts (53.3% and 43.8%). However, when the proveniences are separated in Figure A.18 it can be seen that the assemblages from rock features weight the contrastive distributions (Table A.21). Statistical evaluation is not possible due to empty cells, so an alternative data combination is based on similarities seen in Figure A.18. Accordingly, adobe, rockin-adobe, and rubble core masonry contexts (all structures) are combined and plotted against rock features (Figure A.19 and Table A.22). The difference between architectural types and extramural rock features with respect to proportions of classes of chipped stone is significant (χ2 = 31.24, df = 3 p < .0001; Cramer’s V = 0.1525). The difference between all architecture and extramural rock features (Figure A.19) is the result of the assemblages from Features 7, a low walled enclosure, and 71, a small stone circle near the north end of the site’s massive long wall, as shown in Figure A.20 (see Table A.23). Features 19 and 24, a high D-shaped rock wall attached to the massive wall and a stone arc, respectively, are more similar to the adobe, rock-in-adobe, and rubble-core masonry in having decreasing proportions of flakes, debris, cores, and tools. Features 7 and 71, in contrast, both have a higher proportion of debris than flakes, and similar proportions of cores and tools to other proveniences. There appear to be major functional differences between this low walled enclosure and small stone circle on the one hand and the D-shaped wall and arc (Features 19 and 24) on the other. Given 246 these data, the relationship of these chipped stone patterns to feature morphology is unclear. A high proportion of debris in Features 7 and 71 could indicate initial testing of cobbles, in which case there might be a higher proportion of primary flakes. Inspection of Table A.24 shows that not to be the case. In all cases tertiary and broken flakes dominate. Flakes with no cortex visible on the dorsal surface, in fact, dominate the whole flake assemblage. More specific insights into reasons for high proportions of debris are left until inter-settlement comparison of chipped stone. 70 60 Percent 50 40 30 20 10 0 Flake Debris Adobe Core Tool All Other Figure A. 17. Proportional comparison of excavated chipped stone from El Pueblito’s adobe architecture and all other contexts (see Table A.20). Table A.20. Proportions of excavated chipped stone from El Pueblito’s adobe architecture and all other contexts (see Figure A.17). Flake Adobe All Other Debris Core Tool Total n % n % n % n % n 288 472 62.7 53.3 146 388 31.8 43.8 15 17 3.3 1.9 10 9 2.2 1.0 459 886 % 100 100 247 70 60 Percent 50 40 30 20 10 0 Flake Adobe Debris Rock/Adobe Core Tool Rubble Core Rock Features Figure A.18. Proportional comparison of excavated chipped stone from all contexts at El Pueblito (see Table A.21). Table A.21. Proportions of excavated chipped stone from all contexts at El Pueblito (see Table A. 18). Flake Adobe Rock/Adobe Rubble Core Rock Features Debris Core Tool Total n % n % n % n % n % 288 22 300 150 62.7 62.9 58.9 43.9 146 13 197 178 31.8 37.1 38.7 52.0 15 0 7 10 3.3 0.0 1.4 2.9 10 0 5 4 2.2 0.0 1.0 1.2 459 35 509 342 100 100 100 100 248 70 60 Percent 50 40 30 20 10 0 Flake Debris Buildings Core Tool Rock Features Figure A.19. Proportional comparison of excavated chipped stone from El Pueblito’s buildings and extramural rock features (see Table A.22). Table A.22. Proportions of excavated chipped stone from El Pueblito’s buildings and extramural rock features (see Figure A.19). Flake Buildings Rock Features Debris Core Tool Total n % n % n % n % n % 610 150 60.8 43.9 356 178 35.5 52.0 22 10 2.2 2.9 15 4 1.5 1.2 1003 342 100 100 249 70.0 60.0 Percent 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Flake Debris 7 19 Core 24 Tool 71 Figure A.20. Proportional comparison of excavated chipped stone from El Pueblito’s extramural rock features (see Table A.23). Table A.23. Proportions of excavated chipped stone from El Pueblito’s extramural rock features (see Table A.20). Flake Debris Core Tool Total Feature n % n % n % n % n % 7 19 24 71 14 6 59 71 35.0 54.5 64.1 35.7 22 4 29 123 55.0 36.4 31.5 61.8 1 1 4 4 2.5 9.1 4.3 2.0 3 0 0 1 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 40 11 92 199 100 100 100 100 Table A.24. Proportions of excavated whole and broken flakes from El Pueblito’s extramural rock features. Primary Secondary Tertiary Broken Total Feature n % n % n % n % n % 7 19 24 71 1 0 5 2 7.1 0.0 8.5 2.8 1 0 9 6 7.1 0.0 15.3 8.5 2 5 11 29 14.3 83.3 18.6 40.8 10 1 34 34 71.4 16.7 57.6 47.9 14 1 59 71 100 100 100 100 A simple but insightful measure of both intra- and inter-settlement differences is raw material types. Figure A.21 shows chipped stone raw material types as proportions 250 from excavated contexts (Table A.25). Chert is always least represented in each of the architectural and extramural rock feature proveniences, ranging from 19.5 percent to 28.7 percent. In the adobe and rock-in-adobe architectures basalt is proportionately higher (36.2% and 45.7%) than rhyolite (35.1% and 31.4%), while that trend is reversed in the rubble core masonry and rock features, which have more rhyolite (47.4% and 37.1%) than basalt (33.1% and 36.8%). The difference between the four excavated contexts with regard to proportions of raw material types is significant (χ2 = 22.1, df = 6, p = 0.0012; Cramer’s V = 0.0908). Note, however, the similar proportions of raw material types from the adobe architecture and rock features. Those contexts produced insignificant differences in raw material types. Thus, adobe architecture and rock features are more similar than the other contexts. 50 45 Percent 40 35 30 25 20 15 Basalt Adobe Rock/Adobe Chert Rubble Core Rhyolite Rock Features Figure A.21. Proportional comparison of excavated chipped stone raw material types from El Pueblito (see Table A.25). 251 Table A.25. Proportions of excavated chipped stone raw material types from El Pueblito’s buildings and extramural rock features (see Figure A.21). Basalt n Adobe Rock/Adobe Rubble Core Rock Features 165 16 168 126 Chert Rhyolite Total % n % n % n % 36.2 45.7 33.1 36.8 131 8 99 89 28.7 22.9 19.5 26.0 160 11 241 127 35.1 31.4 47.4 37.1 456 35 508 342 100 100 100 100 Another basis for gauging functional differences between areas of settlement activity is chipped-stone tools. At El Pueblito there are 18 recognizable tools with ten of these from the adobe architecture, five from the masonry architecture, and three from extramural rock features; there are no tools from the rock-in-adobe architecture (Table A.26). Of the 18 tools, sixteen are tabular knives, one is a scraper, and three are projectile points (two of which are of Archaic period age). Nine of the tabular knives came from the adobe architecture, while four others are from a rubble core masonry structure (Feature 28), and three are from a rock feature (Feature 7). Similar tools have been ethnographically observed (e.g., Castetter et al. 1938) and archaeologically interpreted (e.g., Fish et al. 1992) as tools for processing agave. The presence of tabular knives at El Pueblito is in keeping with extensive field systems of rock agricultural features along the western slope of Cerro de Moctezuma. Multiple tabular tools from several contexts suggest localized activity and the overall importance of agave processing for the site in general. 252 Table A.26. Counts of excavated stone tools from El Pueblito. Adobe Rubble Core Rock Features Projectile Pointa Scraper Tabular Knife Total 1 0 0 0 1 0 9 4 3 10 5 3 a. Does not include two Archaic period projectile points from the adobe architecture. Two of the projectile points are clearly of a size uncharacteristic of the Medio period, and they resemble those of archaic times. In fact, one is classified as an Early Archaic San Jose point made from ignimbrite, while the other is a Middle to Late Archaic Palmillas type made from chert (Gutzeit 2008). These points likely represent curated items, a phenomenon known at other Medio period settlements or could be indicative of a preceding Archaic hill occupation of unknown nature (Whalen and Minnis 2009:103, 203-204). The other projectile point is recognizable as produced during Medio times but is of unspecified type. All these points came from the adobe architecture. The scraper came from a rubble-core masonry room (Feature 36). Inter-settlement Comparison of Excavated Chipped Stone Whalen and Minnis (2009:200) observed statistically significant differences in raw material types between the settlements they excavated, despite the fact that three of the settlements are close together and in very similar settings; they attribute the significant difference to local availability of raw materials. The three dominant materials, basalt, chert, and rhyolite are used in the present analysis to the exclusion of minor amounts of obsidian, igniumbrite, and quartzite. Table A.27 shows counts of raw 253 materials as percents of chipped stone assemblages from El Pueblito and the settlements excavated by Whalen and Minnis. At El Pueblito chert is proportionately lowest (24.4%) among the raw material types, with rhyolite (40.2%) and basalt (35.4%) more common. At all other settlements dominant materials are combinations of either chert and rhyolite or chert and basalt. Local availability may have strongly influenced raw material choice at El Pueblito as it did at other settlements. Cerro de Moctezuma is composed of alternating layers of basalt and rhyolite, and the latter makes up the El Pueblito substrate itself. Table A.27. Proportions of excavated chipped stone raw material types from El Pueblito and four other Medio period sites. Basalt Chert Rhyolite Settlement n % n % n % El Pueblito 204 231 242 317 475 1075 186 201 748 35.4 7.0 11.8 36.5 30.4 327 8619 312 264 994 24.4 56.0 19.8 48.0 40.4 539 5706 1075 85 717 40.2 37.1 68.3 15.5 29.2 Total n 1341 15400 1573 550 2459 % 100 100 100 100 100 Whalen and Minnis (2009:185-204) also found that frequencies of most chipped stone artifact categories vary significantly between sites but found no interpretably patterned difference. Core and core fragments are a small part of each settlement’s lithic assemblage and they are not statistically different among settlements. El Pueblito’s percentage of cores (2.4%) is slightly higher than Sites 231, 242, and 317 (1.12-1.48%) and slightly lower than Site 204 (3.86%; Table A.28). It is not, then, out of the ordinary. However, El Pueblito’s proportions of flakes and debris show a striking departure from 254 all other settlements. While the settlements excavated by Whalen and Minnis have flake percentages between 81 and 94 and debris percentages between 5 and 17, El Pueblito’s chipped stone assemblage has about 57 percent flakes and 40 percent debris. The dramatic difference between El Pueblito and the other settlements is graphically represented in Figure A.22. The difference between El Pueblito and all other sites combined with respect to proportions of flakes, debris, and cores is statistically significant (χ2 = 1694.67, p < 0.0001, df = 2; Cramer’s V = 0.2909). Table A.28. Proportions of excavated chipped stone from El Pueblito and four other Medio period sites (see Figure A.22). Flake Settlement n El Pueblito 204 231 242 317 760 14116 1075 317 1276 Debris Core Total % n % n % n 57.3 90.3 93.7 89.6 81.9 534 920 55 33 261 40.3 5.9 4.8 9.3 16.7 32 603 17 4 22 2.4 3.9 1.5 1.1 1.4 1326 15639 1147 354 1559 % 100 100 100 100 100 100 Percent 80 60 40 20 0 Flake El Pueblito Debris Site 204 Site 231 Core Site 242 Site 317 Figure A.22. Proportional comparison of excavated chipped stone from El Pueblito and four other Medio period settlements (see Table A.28). 255 Features 7 and 71 at El Pueblito were shown to skew the proportion of debris from excavated contexts. Even if those features are removed from the data set, however, El Pueblito still has an unusual amount of debris relative to the other sites and it is still significantly different from those settlements (χ2 = 1113.83, p < 0.0001, df = 2; Cramer’s V = 0.2372). The fact that flakes (83%) also predominate over debris (17%) at a large Medio period settlement in the adjacent valley known as Galeana (VanPool et al. 2000) is further evidence of El Pueblito’s unusual chipped stone profile. Presently I cannot account for the abnormal abundance of debris from El Pueblito from a behavioral or cultural standpoint. Collection strategies were equivalent among all excavations. Moreover, each analyst was trained or advised by the same person using the same categories and definitions. Nevertheless, inter-analyst differences may play some part in the unusual assemblage from El Pueblito. Formal tools from excavated contexts on El Pueblito are few, although of the 18 tools, 16 are tabular knives. Whalen and Minnis (2009:203) note, but do not provide quantification, that tabular knives make up a large proportion of their tool assemblages. All of these settlements are associated with slope fields where agave was likely produced and processed. Finally, El Pueblito has a higher percentage (2%) of tools than the smaller 231 (0.4%) and 317 (0.9%) settlements but a much lower percentage than the administrative Site 242 (9%). Comparison of tools from the latter settlement’s extramural stone arcs (3%) with El Pueblito’s extramural rock features (1.2%) shows a difference of about 2 percent. 256 Comparison of Excavated Ground Stone from El Pueblito The final artifact category for comparison is ground stone, of which the nine items from the limited excavation on El Pueblito come from the rubble core masonry (n = 2) and adobe (n = 7) architectures (Table A.29). The adobe architecture differs from the masonry and other architectural types in producing a greater variety of ground stone tools, although its larger excavated sample is probably an important factor in this result. While the rubble core masonry contained one hammerstone and one stone dish, the adobe architecture yielded one axe, one hammerstone, one maul, one metate, one mortar, and two manos. The variety of ground stone tools from the adobe may indicate a greater number or range of tasks or possibly storage of tools. Table A.29. Counts of excavated ground stone items from El Pueblito. Item Axe Dish Hammerstone Mano Maul Metate Mortar Total Adobe Rubble Core 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 7 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 Total 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 9 Inter-settlement Comparison of Ground Stone To compare ground stone assemblages from El Pueblito and Sites 204, 231, 317, and 242, it is necessary to include both excavated contexts and the surface collections above them because those proveniences are merged in the data from the other settlements (Whalen and Minnis 2009:205). That criterion limits comparison to only the adobe 257 mound and one rubble-core masonry room from El Pueblito, where from the former there is one axe, one bowl, three manos, one maul, and six metates; from the latter there is one bowl. Table A.30 lists counts and percentages of ground stone items from the five sites. Only Site 204 produced the full-variety of items shown in Table A.30, but that site is the most extensively excavated among the sample. Manos are the only items present at all sites. Metates are of interest because Todd VanPool and Robert Leonard (2002) have been discussed them in terms of specialization. Those researchers believe that squarecornered Type 1A metates from Paquimé are the product of specialized manufacture, while other types are not. Whalen and Minnis show that 43 percent of their combined sites sample is not of the specialized type, and that 19 percent is, all of which are from Site 204. At El Pueblito, only one of the metates is unambiguously of the purported specialized Type IA. El Pueblito lacks abrading stones, present at all other sites and has an unusually high proportion of mauls and metates. Table A.30. Proportions of ground stone items from El Pueblito and four other Medio period sites. El Pueblito Item n Abrading Stone Axe Bowl/Mortar Mano Mano Blank Maul Metate Pestle Stone Disk Total 0 1 2 3 0 1 6 0 0 13 % 0.0 7.7 15.4 23.1 0.0 7.7 46.2 0.0 0.0 100.0 204 n 142 14 22 204 22 13 73 24 0 536 231 % 26.5 2.6 4.1 38.1 4.1 2.4 13.6 4.5 4.1 100.0 n 3 2 0 10 0 0 1 1 0 17 242 % 17.6 11.8 0.0 58.8 0.0 0.0 5.9 5.9 0.0 100.0 n 2 0 2 22 0 0 1 1 0 28 317 % 7.1 0.0 7.1 78.6 0.0 0.0 3.6 3.6 0.0 100.0 n % 3 15.8 1 5.3 1 5.3 12 63.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 5.3 1 5.3 0 0.0 19 100.0 258 APPENDIX B – NON-WOOD PLANT REMAINS FROM EL PUEBLITO EXCAVATIONS Under the direction of Dr. Paul E. Minnis, Mike McKay identified plant remains other than wood from flotation samples at the University of Oklahoma (see Chapter 6 for discussion of wood remains). All samples were sorted under a 10-45X binocular microscope, and comparative collections, keys, and manuals were utilized for taxonomic identification. A total of 1773 identifications were made, but only 88 instances (5%) were charred, the most reliable indication of an origin during the prehispanic occupation. Those taxa are shown in Table B.1 as ubiquity values (percentage of all productive flotation samples in which the taxon appears) and counts of items by feature and contents of one ceramic vessel. Both cultivated and wild plants are represented. The most common charred plant is maize (Zea mays) identified in 53.8 percent of samples followed by purslane (Portulaca) in 30.7 percent. Maize remains consist only of cupules; no kernels were found. Other plant remains represented in the assemblage are Agavaceae (Agave family; end spine), Amaranthus sp. (amaranth), Calandrinia sp. (redmaid), Chenopodium sp. (chenopod), Gramineae (grass), and Opuntia sp. (prickly pear or cholla). No charred seeds were recovered from the adobe architecture. Ninety percent of the purslane came from Feature 35, the round rubble core masonry structure. A Casas Grandes Plainware jar was found in this same room and flotation samples from the vessel produced only one charred grass seed. The majority of maize was found in Features 39 (63%) and 28 (19%), both rubble core masonry rooms. 259 Table B.1. Ubiquity and number of identified charred plant remains from El Pueblito flotation samples. Feature Taxaa Agavaceae Amaranthus sp. Calandrinia sp. Chenopodium sp. Gramineae Opuntia sp. Portulaca sp. Zea mays 7 15 24 28 35 39 56 71 118 (hearth in Feature 36) Vessel Fillc Ubiquity(%)b 7.6 7.6 23.0 23.0 7.6 15.4 30.7 53.8 1 2 2 5 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 36 2 5 1 1 17 1 1 Note: Identifications made by Mike McKay. a. Agavaceae (end spine), Amaranthus sp. (amaranth), Calandrinia sp. (redmaid), Chenopodium sp. (chenopod), Gramineae (grass), Opuntia sp. (prickly pear or cholla), Portulaca sp. (purslane), Zea mays (maize cupules) b. Ubiquity is the percentage of seed-bearing samples that contain a taxon. c. See Appendix I for vessel information. 260 APPENDIX C – CERAMIC DATA FROM CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA’S TRAILS AND WAYSIDE FEATURES 261 Table C.1. Ceramic types and counts from the surface of trails wayside features at Cerro de Moctezuma. Feature Number/Ceramic Type TRAIL 106 107 110 111 112 113 114 116 117 WAYSIDE FEATURE 93 101f 121f Plainware Scoreda Corrugatedb Incisedc Tool Punched Broad Coil 22 4 4 9 1 2 2 3 Note: One historic glaze ware sherd of unknown type was found at the entrance to the tunnel below the atalaya. It is not tabulated. a. Includes rubbed, pattern. b. Includes pattern incised, rubbed, indented. c. Includes pattern. d. Includes corrugated, incised, punched, scored. e. Ramos Polychrome paste without paint, f. artifacts not collected. 262 Table C.1. Ceramic types and counts from the surface of trails and one wayside feature at Cerro de Moctezuma by provenience (continued). Provenience/Ceramic Type TRAIL 106 107 110 111 112 113 114 116 117 Playas Redd Ramos Black Black-on-red Babicora Polychrome Carretas Polychrome Corralitos Polychrome 15 4 WAYSIDE FEATURE 93 101f 101f Note: One historic glaze ware sherd of unknown type was found at the entrance to the tunnel below the atalaya. It is not tabulated. a. Includes rubbed, pattern. b. Includes pattern incised, rubbed, indented. c. Includes pattern. d. Includes corrugated, incised, punched, scored. e. Ramos Polychrome paste without paint, f. artifacts not collected. 263 Table C.1. Ceramic types and counts from the surface of trails and one wayside feature at Cerro de Moctezuma by provenience (continued). Provenience/Ceramic Type TRAIL 106 107 110 111 112 113 114 116 117 WAYSIDE FEATURE 93 101f 101f Huerigos Polychrome Ramos Polychrome Villa Ahumada Babicora/Ramos Polychrome Polychrome White paste Babicora White pastee 1 3 1 50 3 2 2 Note: One historic glaze ware sherd of unknown type was found at the entrance to the tunnel below the atalaya. It is not tabulated. a. Includes rubbed, pattern. b. Includes pattern incised, rubbed, indented. c. Includes pattern. d. Includes corrugated, incised, punched, scored. e. Ramos Polychrome paste without paint, f. artifacts not collected. 264 Table C.1. Ceramic types and counts from the surface of trails and one wayside feature at Cerro de Moctezuma by provenience (continued). Provenience/Ceramic Type TRAIL 106 107 110 111 112 113 114 116 117 WAYSIDE FEATURE 93 101f 101f Chupadero Black-on-white El Paso Polychrome Red-on-brown Indeterminate Small 23 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 Note: One historic glaze ware sherd of unknown type was found at the entrance to the tunnel below the atalaya. It is not tabulated. a. Includes rubbed, pattern. b. Includes pattern incised, rubbed, indented. c. Includes pattern. d. Includes corrugated, incised, punched, scored. e. Ramos Polychrome paste without paint, f. artifacts not collected. 265 APPENDIX D – CERAMIC DATA FROM EL PUEBLITO AND THE ATALAYA 266 Table D.1. Surface and excavated ceramic types and counts from El Pueblito and the atalaya. Provenience/Type SURFACE General El Pueblito Collection Unit 63 Collection Unit 65 Collection Unit 71 Patio (Feature 27) North Masonry Plaza South Masonry Plaza Adobe Plaza Adobe Mound Rock-in-adobe Rubble Core Masonry Rock Features Atalaya EXCAVATED Adobe Room (Feature 1) Rock Feature (Feature 7) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 15) Rock Feature (Feature 19) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 21) Rock Feature (Feature 24) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 28) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 35) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 36) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 39) Rock Feature (Feature 49) Rock-in-adobe (Feature 56) Rock Feature (Feature 71) Plainware Scoreda 349 18 39 3 6 18 13 13 160 10 74 45 5 22 2 2069 45 62 26 21 36 223 87 29 4 10 23 195 Corrugatedb Incisedc Tool Punched Broad Coil 2 1 1 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 1 58 5 4 1 4 1 18 1 4 4 4 3 1 1 2 18 6 1 7 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 a. Includes rubbed, pattern. b. Includes pattern incised, rubbed, indented. c. Includes pattern. d. Includes corrugated, incised, punched, scored. e. Ramos Polychrome paste without paint. 267 Table D.1. Surface and excavated ceramic types and counts from El Pueblito and the atalaya (continued). Provenience/Type SURFACE General El Pueblito Collection Unit 63 Collection Unit 65 Collection Unit 71 Patio (Feature 27) North Masonry Plaza South Masonry Plaza Adobe Plaza Adobe Mound Rock-in-adobe Rubble Core Masonry Rock Features Atalaya EXCAVATED Adobe Room (Feature 1) Rock Feature (Feature 7) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 15) Rock Feature (Feature 19) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 21) Rock Feature (Feature 24) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 28) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 35) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 36) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 39) Rock Feature (Feature 49) Rock-in-adobe (Feature 56) Rock Feature (Feature 71) Playas Redd Ramos Black 43 2 Black-on-red 1 1 Babicora Polychrome 4 Carretas Polychrome Corralitos Polychrome 4 1 2 1 3 19 1 8 9 169 5 2 19 2 1 2 3 3 4 4 3 1 1 1 1 5 11 2 5 5 1 1 2 18 3 1 2 2 1 4 a. Includes rubbed, pattern. b. Includes pattern incised, rubbed, indented. c. Includes pattern. d. Includes corrugated, incised, punched, scored. e. Ramos Polychrome paste without paint. 268 Table D.1. Surface and excavated ceramic types and counts from El Pueblito and the atalaya (continued). Provenience/Type SURFACE General El Pueblito Collection Unit 63 Collection Unit 65 Collection Unit 71 Patio (Feature 27) North Masonry Plaza South Masonry Plaza Adobe Plaza Adobe Mound Rock-in-adobe Rubble Core Masonry Rock Features Atalaya EXCAVATED Adobe Room (Feature 1) Rock Feature (Feature 7) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 15) Rock Feature (Feature 19) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 21) Rock Feature (Feature 24) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 28) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 35) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 36) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 39) Rock Feature (Feature 49) Rock-in-adobe (Feature 56) Rock Feature (Feature 71) Huerigos Polychrome Ramos Polychrome 19 Villa Ahumada Babicora/Ramos Polychrome Polychrome 4 White paste Babicora 8 1 1 1 3 10 1 1 1 5 2 2 1 29 12 1 2 1 White pastee 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 12 a. Includes rubbed, pattern. b. Includes pattern incised, rubbed, indented. c. Includes pattern. d. Includes corrugated, incised, punched, scored. e. Ramos Polychrome paste without paint. 269 Table D.1. Surface and excavated ceramic types and counts from El Pueblito and the atalaya (continued). Provenience/Type SURFACE General El Pueblito Collection Unit 63 Collection Unit 65 Collection Unit 71 Patio (Feature 27) North Masonry Plaza South Masonry Plaza Adobe Plaza Adobe Mound Rock-in-adobe Rubble Core Masonry Rock Features Atalaya EXCAVATED Adobe Room (Feature 1) Rock Feature (Feature 7) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 15) Rock Feature (Feature 19) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 21) Rock Feature (Feature 24) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 28) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 35) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 36) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 39) Rock Feature (Feature 49) Rock-in-adobe (Feature 56) Rock Feature (Feature 71) Chupadero Black-on-white El Paso Polychrome Red-on-brown 2 1 1 1 Indeterminate Small 1 1 3 1182 63 171 10 26 114 98 35 255 17 111 138 6 3 1 1415 43 44 29 26 65 268 56 9 7 19 20 339 1 1 6 1 3 a. Includes rubbed, pattern. b. Includes pattern incised, rubbed, indented. c. Includes pattern. d. Includes corrugated, incised, punched, scored. e. Ramos Polychrome paste without paint. 270 APPENDIX E – CHIPPED STONE DATA FROM CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA’S TRAILS AND WAYSIDE FEATURES 271 Table E.1. Chipped stone items and counts from the surface of trails and wayside features at Cerro de Moctezuma. Provenience/Item TRAIL 106 107 110 111 112 113 114 116 117 WAYSIDE FEATURE 93 101a 122a 126b Primary Flake Secondary Flake Tertiary Flake 2 1 3 Core 2 1 1 1 Broken Flake 2 3 Core Fragment 1 3 3 1 2 12 1 Debris Tabular Knife 1 4 2 2 2 2 2 1 a. Artifacts not collected. b. Hundreds of pieces of chipped stone were associated with Wayside Feature 126 but were not collected or discretely analyzed. Field observations indicate that the assemblage consists of mostly chert but also rhyolite flakes in all stages of reduction, retouched flakes, and about 25 cores. 272 APPENDIX F – CHIPPED STONE DATA FROM EL PUEBLITO AND THE ATALAY 273 Table F.1. Surface and excavated chipped stone items and counts from El Pueblito and the atalaya. Provenience/Item SURFACE General El Pueblito Collection Unit 63 Collection Unit 65 Collection Unit 71 Patio (Feature 27) North Masonry Plaza South Masonry Plaza Adobe Plaza Adobe Mound Rock-in-adobe Rubble Core Masonry Rock Features Atalaya EXCAVATED Adobe Room (Feature 1) Rock Feature (Feature 7) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 15) Rock Feature (Feature 19) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 21) Rock Feature (Feature 24) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 28) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 35) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 36) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 39) Rock Feature (Feature 49) Rock-in-adobe (Feature 56) Rock Feature (Feature 71) a. Archaic types San Jose and Palmillas. Primary Flake Secondary Flake Tertiary Flake 9 3 1 3 4 3 1 25 3 2 4 80 6 8 7 6 32 6 3 23 2 5 21 207 16 12 13 3 77 43 13 46 7 26 68 2 65 2 51 5 5 11 16 5 2 179 10 105 1 2 34 54 14 5 3 29 17 34 4 1 2 3 7 5 1 7 1 6 14 16 1 5 28 1 17 5 6 9 9 2 1 1 2 2 6 Broken Flake Core Core Fragment Debris 6 14 273 9 23 16 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 3 1 1 4 4 11 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 70 20 21 43 5 24 79 5 1 1 146 22 89 4 22 29 70 12 3 1 3 13 123 2 2 274 Table F.1. Surface and excavated chipped stone items and counts from El Pueblito and the atalaya (continued). Provenience/Item Projectile Point SURFACE General El Pueblito Collection Unit 63 Collection Unit 65 Collection Unit 71 Patio (Feature 27) North Masonry Plaza South Masonry Plaza Adobe Plaza Adobe Mound Rock-in-adobe Rubble Core Masonry Rock Features Atalaya EXCAVATED Adobe Room (Feature 1) Rock Feature (Feature 7) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 15) Rock Feature (Feature 19) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 21) Rock Feature (Feature 24) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 28) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 35) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 36) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 39) Rock Feature (Feature 49) Rock-in-adobe (Feature 56) Rock Feature (Feature 71) a. Archaic types San Jose and Palmillas. Tabular Knife Biface Fragment Scraper 9 2 4 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 2a 1 9 3 4 1 275 APPENDIX G – GROUND STONE DATA FROM CERRO DE MOCTEZUMA’S TRAILS AND WAYSIDE FEATURES There was one mortar from Trail 112, one mano from Trail 114, and a possible mano from Wayside Feature 121. 276 APPENDIX H – GROUND STONE DATA FROM EL PUEBLITO AND THE ATALAY 277 Table H.1. Surface and excavated ground stone items and counts from El Pueblito and the atalaya. Provenience/Item SURFACE General El Pueblito Collection Unit 63 Collection Unit 65 Collection Unit 71 Patio North Masonry Plaza South Masonry Plaza Adobe Plaza Adobe Mound Rock-in-adobe Rubble Core Masonry Rock Features Atalaya EXCAVATED Adobe Room (Feature 1) Rock Feature (Feature 7) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 15) Rock Feature (Feature 19) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 21) Rock Feature (Feature 24) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 28) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 35) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 36) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 39) Rock Feature (Feature 49) Rock-in-adobe (Feature 56) Rock Feature (Feature 71) Axe Bead Bowl/Dish Hammerstone Mano 5 1 1 2 11 Mano Blank 3 Maul 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 278 Table H.1. Surface and excavated ground stone items and counts from El Pueblito and the atalaya (continued). Provenience/Item SURFACE General El Pueblito Collection Unit 63 Collection Unit 65 Collection Unit 71 Patio North Masonry Plaza South Masonry Plaza Adobe Plaza Adobe Mound Rock-in-adobe Rubble Core Masonry Rock Features Atalaya EXCAVATED Adobe Room (Feature 1) Rock Feature (Feature 7) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 15) Rock Feature (Feature 19) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 21) Rock Feature (Feature 24) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 28) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 35) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 36) Rubble Core Masonry (Feature 39) Rock Feature (Feature 49) Rock-in-adobe (Feature 56) Rock Feature (Feature 71) Metate Mortar Nesting Box Entrance Pecking Hammer 1 Pestle Polishing Stone 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 Shaft Straightener 279 APPENDIX I – A CASAS GRANDES PLAINWARE BOWL FROM EL PUEBLITO A Casas Grandes Plainware bowl, resembling what Di Peso at al. (1974:6:165) called a cajete-like bowl, was found in a rubble core masonry room, Feature 35, about 3 cm above the room floor (Figure I.1). The bowl was sitting upright. Upper and lower vessel fill were collected as flotation samples, which yielded one charred grass (Gramineae) seed. Height: 13 cm, rim diameter 16 cm, body diameter 21cm. Figure I.1. A Casas Grandes Plainware bowl from El Pueblito. 280 REFERENCES Adams, E. Charles 1991 The Origin and Development of the Pueblo Katsina Cult. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Aldenderfer, Mark 1993 Ritual, Hierarchy, and Change in Foraging Societies. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 12:1-40. Allen, Craig D. 2004 Ecological Patterns and Environmental Change in the Bandelier Landscape. In Archaeology of Bandelier National Monument: Village Formation on the Pajarito Plateau, New Mexico, edited by Timothy A. Kohler, pp. 19-68. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Anschuetz, Kurt F., Richard H. Wilshusen and Cherie L. Scheick 2001 An Archaeology of Landscapes: Perspectives and Directions. Journal of Archaeological Research 9:157-211. Astor-Aguilera, Miguel and Robert Jarvenpa 2008 Comparing Indigenous Pilgrimages: Devotion, Identity, and Resistance in Mesoamerica and North America. Anthropos 103:483-506. AZSITE 2010 Site AZ CC:16:14(BLM). Arizona Archaeological Site Files. Arizona State Museum, The University of Arizona, Tucson. Bagwell, Elizabeth A. 2004 Architectural Patterns Along the Rio Taraises, Northern Sierra Madre Occidental, Sonora. Kiva 70:7-30. Bagwell, Elizabeth Arwen 2006 Domestic Architectural Production in Northwest Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Bandelier, Adolf F. 1892 The "Montezuma" of the Pueblo Indians. American Anthropologist 5:319-326. Bandelier, Adolph F. 1890-1892 Final Report of Investigations Among the Indians of the Southwestern United States, Carried on Mainly in the Years from 1880 to 1885. Papers of the 281 Archaeological Institute of America, American Series IV, Part II. University Press, Cambridge. Barrett, John C. 1991 Towards an Archaeology of Ritual. In Sacred and Profane: Proceedings of a Conference on Archaeology, Ritual and Religion, Oxford 1989, edited by Paul Garwood, David Jennings, Robin Skeates and Judith Toms, pp. 1-9. Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Oxford. Bartlett, John Russell 1854 Personal Narrative of Explorations and Incidents in Texas, New Mexico, California, Sonora, and Chihuahua, Connected with The United States and Mexican Boundary Commission, during the years 1850, '51, '52, and '53. D. Appleton and Co., New York. Basso, Keith H. 1996 Wisdom Sits in Places: Notes on a Western Apache Landscape. In Senses of Place, edited by Steven Feld and Keith H. Basso, pp. 53-90. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Becker, Kenneth M. and Jeffrey H. Altschul, with a contribution by Christopher D. Dore 2003 Historic Context for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Trails and Related Features at Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona. Technical Report 03-13. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson. Bell, Catherine 1992 Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford University Press, New York. Bender, Barbara 1993 Introduction: Landscape - Meaning and Action. In Landscape: Politics and Perspectives, edited by Barbara Bender, pp. 1-17. Berg, Providence. Blackiston, A. H. 1906 Ruins of the Cerro de Montezuma. American Anthropologist 8(n.s.):256-261. Bowen, Thomas 1976 Seri Prehistory: The Archaeology of the Central Coast of Sonora, Mexico. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No. 27. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Bradley, Ronna J. 1999 Shell Exchange within the Southwest: The Casas Grandes Interaction Sphere. In The Casas Grandes World, edited by Curtis F. Schaafsma and Carroll L. Riley, pp. 213-228. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 282 2000 Networks of Shell Ornament Exchange: A Critical Assessment of Prestige Economies in the North American Southwest. In The Archaeology of Regional Interaction: Religion, Warfare, and Exchange Across the American Southwest and Beyond, edited by Michelle Hegmon, pp. 167-187. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Brand, Donald D. 1933 The Historical Geography of Northwestern Chihuahua. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles. 1943 The Chihuahua Culture Area. New Mexico Anthropologist 6-7(3):115-158. Brandt, Elizabeth A. 1980 On Secrecy and the Control of Knowledge: Taos Pueblo. In Secrecy: A CrossCultural Perspective, edited by Stanton K. Tefft, pp. 123-146. Human Sciences Press, New York. 1994 Egalitarianism, Hierarchy, and Centralization in the Pueblos. In The Ancient Southwestern Community: Models and Methods for the Study of Prehistoric Social Organization, edited by W. H. Wills and Robert D. Leonard, pp. 9-23. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Braniff C., Beatriz 1986 Ojo de Agua, Sonora and Casas Grandes, Chihuahua: A Suggested Chronology. In Ripples in the Chichimec Sea: New Considerations of Southwestern-Mesoamerican Interactions, edited by Frances Joan Mathien and Randall H. McGuire, pp. 70-80. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. Brown, Linda A. 2004 Dangerous Places and Wild Space: Creating Meaning with Materials and Space at Contemporary Maya Shrines on El Duende Mountain. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 11:31-58. Bruman, Henry J. 2000 Alcohol in Ancient Mexico. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Burns, Tom and Charles D. Laughlin, Jr. 1979 Ritual and Social Power. In The Spectrum of Ritual: A Biogenetic Structural Analysis, edited by Eugene G. d'Aquili, Charles D. Laughlin, Jr. and John McManus, pp. 249-279. Columbia University Press, New York. Carlson, Roy L. 1982 The Polychrome Complexes. In Southwestern Ceramics: A Comparative Review, edited by Albert H. Schroeder, pp. 201-234. The Arizona Archaeologist No. 15. Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix. 283 Carpenter, John, Sánchez Guadalupe and Haydee Chávez 2006 Informe Final del Proyecto Salvamento Arqueológico Álamo Dorado de la Minera Corner Bay S.A. de C.V. Informe técnico entregado al Consejo de Arqueología del INAH, México, D.F. Carpenter, John P. 2002 The Animas Phase and Paquimé: Regional Differentiation and Integration at Joyce Well. In The Joyce Well Site, edited by James M. Skibo, Eugene B. McCluney and William H. Walker, pp. 149-166. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Carpenter, John and Julio Vicente 2009 Fronteras compartidas: La conformación social en el norte de Sinaloa y sur de Sonora durante el periodo cerámico (200 d.C.-1532 d.C). Espaciotiempo 3:82-96. Carrera, Rogelio and Warren B. Ballard 2003 Elk Distribution in Mexico: A Critical Review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:1272-1276. Casserino, Christopher Michael 2009 Bioarchaeology of Violence and Site Abandonment at Casas Grandes, Chihuahua, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene. Castetter, Edward F., Willis H. Bell and Alvin R. Grove 1938 Ethnobiological Studies in the American Southwest VI. The Early Utilization and Distribution of Agave in the American Southwest. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Cleland, James H. and Rebecca McCorkle Apple 2003 A View Across the Cultural Landscape of the Lower Colorado Desert: Cultural Resource Investigations for the North Baja Pipeline Project. EDAW, Inc., San Diego. Cordell, Linda 1997 Archaeology of the Southwest. Academic Press, San Diego. Coyle, Philip E. 2000 "To Join the Waters": Indexing Metonymies of Territoriality in Cora Ritual. Journal of the Southwest 42:119-128. Creel, Darrell 284 2006 Excavations at the Old Town Ruin Luna County, New Mexico, 1989-2003. Cultural Resources Series No. 16, Volume 1. Bureau of Land Management, Santa Fe. Creel, Darrell and Roger Anyon 2003 New Interpretations of Mimbres Public Architecture and Space: Implications for Cultural Change. American Antiquity 68:67-92. Crown, Patricia L. 1994 Ceramics and Ideology: Salado Polychrome Pottery. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Crumrine, N. Ross and Alan Morinis (editors) 1991 Pilgrimage in Latin America. Greenword Press, New York. Cruz Antillón, Rafael, Robert D. Leonard, Timothy D. Maxwell, Todd L. VanPool, Marcel J. Harmon, Christine S. VanPool, David A. Hyndman and Sidney S. Brandwein 2004 Galeana, Villa Ahumada, and Casa Chica: Diverse Sites in the Casas Grandes Region. In Surveying the Archaeology of Northwest Mexico, edited by Gillian E. Newell and Emiliano Gallaga, pp. 149-175. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Cruz Antillón, Rafael and Timothy D. Maxwell 1999 The Villa Ahumada Site: Archaeological Investigations East of Paquimé. In The Casas Grandes World, edited by Curtis F. Schaafsma and Carroll L. Riley, pp. 43-53. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Cummings, Vicki and Robert Johnston 2007 Leaving Place: An Introduction to Prehistoric Journeys. In Prehistoric Journeys, edited by Vicki Cummings and Robert Johnston, pp. 1-7. Oxbow, Oxford. Cunningham, Jerimy J. 2009 The Santa Clara Survey - Results from the 2007 & 2008 Seasons. Poster presented at the 74th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. Atlanta. Cushing, Frank Hamilton 1920 Zuni Breadstuff. Indian Notes and Monographs, Vol. VIII. Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, New York. Darling, J. Andrew 2006 Getting There: Pima Song and the Archaeology of Space. Paper presented at the Southwest Symposium. Las Cruces, New Mexico. 285 2009 O'odham Trails and the Archaeology of Space. In Landscapes of Movement: Trails, Paths, and Roads in Anthropological Perspective, edited by James E. Snead, Clark L. Erickson and J. Andrew Darling, pp. 61-83. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia. Darling, J. Andrew and Barnaby V. Lewis 2007 Songscapes and Calendar Sticks. In The Hohokam Millennium, edited by Suzanne K. Fish and Paul R. Fish, pp. 131-139. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe. De Atley, Suzanne P. and Frank J. Findlow 1982 Regional Integration of the Northern Casas Grandes Frontier. In Mogollon Archaeology: Proceedings of the 1980 Mogollon Conference, edited by Patrick H. Beckett, pp. 263-277. Acoma, Ramona, California. Dean, Jeffrey S. and John C. Ravesloot 1993 The Chronology of Cultural Interaction in the Gran Chichimeca. In Culture and Contact: Charles C. Di Peso's Gran Chichimeca, edited by Anne I. Woosley and John C. Ravesloot, pp. 83-104. Amerind Foundation, Dragoon, Arizona and University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. DeMarrais, Elizabeth, Luis Jaime Castillo and Timothy Earle 1996 Ideology, Materialization, and Power Strategies. Current Anthropology 37:1531. Derks, Tom 1997 The Transformation of Landscape and Religious Representations in Roman Gaul. Archaeological Dialogues 4:126-147. Di Peso, Charles C. 1956 The Upper Pima of San Cayentano del Tumacacori: An Archaeo-historical Reconstruction of the O'otam of the Pimería Alta. Amerind Foundation No. 7. Amerind Foundation, Dragoon, Arizona. 1974 Casas Grandes: A Fallen Trading Center of the Gran Chichimeca. Amerind Foundation Series No. 9. Vols. 1-3. Amerind Foundation and Northland Press, Dragoon, Arizona and Flagstaff, Arizona. Di Peso, Charles C., John B. Rinaldo and Gloria J. Fenner 1974 Casas Grandes: A Fallen Trading Center of the Gran Chichimeca. Amerind Foundation Series No. 9. Vols. 4-8. Amerind Foundation and Northland Press, Dragoon, Arizona and Flagstaff, Arizona. Dobyns, Henry Farmer 286 1960 The Religious Festival. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Cornell University, Ithica. Doolittle, William E. and James A. Neely (editors) 2004 The Safford Valley Grids: Prehistoric Cultivation in the Southern Arizona Desert. Anthropological Papers of The University of Arizona No. 70. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Downum, Christian E., John E. Douglas and Douglas B. Craig 1993 The Cerro Prieto Site. In Between Desert and River: Hohokam Settlement and Land Use in the Los Robles Community, compiled by Christian E. Downum, pp. 53-95. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No. 57. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Dozier, Edward P. 1970 The Pueblo Indians of North America. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York. Durán, Diego 1971 Book of the Gods and Rites and the Ancient Calendar. Translated by Fernando Horcasitas and Doris Heyden. University of Oklahoma, Norman. Eagleton, Terry 1991 Ideology: An Introduction. Verso, London. Earle, Timothy 1991 Paths and Roads in Evolutionary Perspective. In Ancient Road Networks and Settlement Hierarchies in the New World, edited by Charles D. Trombold, pp. 1016. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Eerkens, Jelmer W. 2010 Privatization of Resources and the Evolution of Prehistoric Leadership Strategies. In The Evolution of Leadership: Transitions in Decision Making from Small-Scale to Middle-Range Societies, edited by Kevin J. Vaughn, Jelmer W. Eerkens and John Kanter, pp. 73-94. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe. Ellis, Florence Hawley (edited by Andrea Hawley Ellis) 1994 Pueblo Religious Patterns, Especially Types of Shrines and Areas for Collecting Herbs and Other Religious Necessities. In Arifacts, Shrines, and Pueblos: Papers in Honor of Gordon Page, edited by Meliha S. Duran and David T. Kirkpatrick, pp. 101-112. Archaeological Society of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 287 Emerson, Thomas E. 1997 Cahokia and the Archaeology of Power. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2003 Materializing Cahokia Shamans. Southeastern Archaeology 22:135-154. Ferdon, Edwin N., Jr. 1955 A Trial Survey of Mexican-Southwestern Architectural Parallels. Monographs of the School of American Research No. 21. Museum of New Mexico, Santa, Fe. Ferguson, T.J. 2007 Zuni Traditional History and Cultural Geography. In Zuni Origins: Toward a New Synthesis of Southwestern Archaeology, edited by David A. Gregory and David R. Wilcox, pp. 377-403. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Ferguson, T.J., G. Lennis Berlin and Leigh J. Kuwanwisiwma 2006 Kukhepya: Searching for Hopi Trails. Paper presented at the Symposium: Landscapes of Movement: Trails, Paths and Roads in Anthropological Perspective. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. 2009 Kukhepya: Searching for Hopi Trails. In Landscapes of Movement: Trails, Paths, and Roads in Anthropological Perspective, edited by James E. Snead, Clark L. Erickson and J. Andrew Darling, pp. 20-41. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia. Fewkes, J. Walter 1891 A Few Summer Ceremonials at Zuñi Pueblo. Journal of American Ethnology and Archaeology 1:1-61. Fish, Paul R. and Suzanne K. Fish 1999 Reflections on the Casas Grandes Regional System from the Northwestern Periphery. In The Casas Grandes World, edited by Curtis F. Schaafsma and Carroll L. Riley, pp. 27-42. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Fish, Suzanne K. and Paul R. Fish 2007 Regional Heartlands and Transregional Trends. In Trincheras Sites in Time, Space, and Society, edited by Suzanne K. Fish, Paul R. Fish and M. Elisa Villalpando, pp. 165-194. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Fish, Suzanne K., Paul R. Fish and Christian E. Downum 1984 Hohokam Terraces and Agricultural Production in the Tucson Basin, Arizona. In Prehistoric Agricultural Strategies in the Southwest, edited by Suzanne K. Fish, Paul R. Fish and Martha R. Binford, pp. 55-71. Anthropological Research Paper No. 33. Arizona State University, Tempe. Fish, Suzanne K., Paul R. Fish and John H. Madsen 288 1992a Evidence for Large-scale Agave Cultivation in the Marana Community. In The Marana Community in the Hohokam World, edited by Suzanne K. Fish, Paul R. Fish and John H. Madsen, pp. 73-87. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No. 56. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 1992b Parameters of Agricultural Production in the Northern Tucson Basin. In The Marana Community in the Hohokam World, edited by Suzanne K. Fish, Paul R. Fish and John H. Madsen, pp. 41-52. Anthropological Papers of the The University of Arizona, No. 56. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Fish, Suzanne K., Paul R. Fish and Elisa M. Villalpando (editors) 2007 Trincheras Sites in Time, Space, and Society. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Fitzsimmons, James L., Andrew Scherer, Stephen D. Houston and Hector L. Excobedo 2003 Guardian of the Acropolis: The Sacred Space of a Royal Burial at Piedras Negras, Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity 14:449-468. Fogelin, Lars 2007 The Archaeology of Religious Ritual. Annual Review of Anthropology 36:5571. Folan, William J. 1991 Sacbes of the Northern Maya. In Ancient Road Networks and Settlement Hierarchies in the New World, edited by Charles D. Trombold, pp. 222-229. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Foster, Michael S. 1995 The Redating of the Medio Period and a Summary of Other Postclassic Northwest Mexican Archaeological Sequences. In Cuatro Congreso Internacional de Historia Regional Comprada Actas 1993, edited by Jorge Chávaz C., pp. 47-58. Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez, Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua. Fowler, Andrew P. and John R. Stein 1992 The Anasazi Great House in Space, Time, and Paradigm. In Anasazi Regional Organization and the Chaco System, edited by David E. Doyel, pp. 101-122. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, Albuquerque. Frost, Dawn Annette 2000 Architecture as Chronological Marker: Testing Di Peso's Assumptions at Paquimé, Chihuahua, Mexico. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Gallaga Murrieta, Emiliano 289 2006 An Archaeological Survey of the Onavas Valley, Sonora, Mexico: A Landscape of Interactions during the Late Prehispanic Period. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. Gamboa Carrera, Eduardo and Federico J. Mancera-Valencia 2008 The Cultural Landscape of Cliff Houses in the Sierra Madre Occidental, Chihuahua. In Archaeology without Borders: Contact, Commerce, and Change in the U.S. Southwest and Northwestern Mexico, edited by Laurie D. Webster and Maxine E. McBrinn, pp. 355-364. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Gnabasik, Virginia R. 1981 Faunal Utilization by the Pueblo Indians. Unpublished Master's thesis, Eastern New Mexico University, Portales. Greenleaf, J. Cameron 1975 The Fortified Hill Site Near Gila Bend, Arizona. The Kiva 40:213-282. Griffith, James S. 1992 Beliefs and Holy Places: A Spiritual Geography of the Pimeria Alta. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Grissino-Mayer, Henri D., Christopher H. Baisan and Thomas W. Swetnam 1997 A 1,373 Year Reconstruction of Annual Precipitation for the Southern Rio Grandes Basin. Submitted to the Directorate of Environment, Natural Resources Division, Fort Bliss, Texas, for the Legacy Program. Gutzeit, Jennifer Lynn 2008 The Chipped Stone Assemblage from Cerro de Moctezuma: Implications for Lithic Assemblage Variability in the Casas Grandes Region, Chihuahua, Mexico. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Hall, Edward T. 1969 The Hidden Dimension. Anchor, Garden City. Hard, Robert J. and John R. Roney 1998 A Massive Terraced Village Complex in Chihuahua, Mexico, 3000 Years Before Present. Science 279:1661-1664. Harmon, Marcel J. 2006 Religion and the Mesoamerican Ball Game in the Casas Grandes Region of Northern Mexico. In Religion in the Prehispanic Southwest, edited by Christine S. VanPool, Todd L. VanPool and David A. Phillips, Jr., pp. 185-217. AltaMira Press, Lanham, MD. 290 Harmon, Marcel James 2005 Centralization, Cultural Transmission, and "The Game of Life and Death" in Northern Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Harvey, H.R. 1991 Pilgrimage and Shrine Religious Practices among the Otomi of Huixquilucan, Mexico. In Pilgrimage in Latin America, edited by N. Ross Crumrine and Alan Morinis, pp. 91-107. Greenwood Press, New York. Hayden, Julian D. 1957 Excavations, 1940 at University Indian Ruin, Tucson, Arizona. Southwestern Monuments Association, Globe, Arizona. Hegmon, Michelle, Kelley Hays-Gilpin, Randall H. McGuire, Alison E. Rautman and Sarah H. Schlanger 2000 Changing Perceptions of Regional Interaction in the Prehistoric Southwest. In The Archaeology of Regional Interaction: Religion, Warfare, and Exchange across the American Southwest and Beyond, edited by Michelle Hegmon, pp. 1-21. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Heiras Rodríguez, Carlos Guadalupe 2005 The Tepehua. In Native Peoples of the Gulf Coast of Mexico, edited by Alan R. Sandstrom and E. Hugo García Valencia, pp. 211-230. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Helms, Mary W. 1988 Ulysses' Sail: An Ethnographic Odyssey of Power, Knowledge, and Geographical Distance. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Herold, Laurance C. 1965 Trincheras and Physical Environment along the Rio Gavilan, Chihuahua, Mexico. Publications in Geography. Technical Paper No. 65-1. University of Denver, Denver. Hill, Erika 2000 The Contextual Analysis of Animal Interments and Ritual Practice in Southwestern North America. Kiva 65:361-398. Hirsch, Eric 1995 Introduction: Landscape: Between Place and Space. In The Anthropology of Landscape: Perspectives on Place and Space, edited by Eric Hirsch and Michael O'Hanlon, pp. 1-30. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 291 Hodgetts, Lisa M. 1996 Faunal Evidence from El Zurdo. Kiva 62:149-170. Hough, Walter 1907 Antiquities of the Upper Gila and Salt River Valleys in Arizona and New Mexico. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 35. Smithsonian Institution, Washington. Huffman, Thomas N. 2009 A Cultural Proxy for Drought: Ritual Burning in the Iron Age of Southern Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:991-1005. Hyslop, John 1984 The Inka Road System. Academic Press, Orlando. INEGI 1988 Sistema Estatal de Informactión: Situación del Sector Primario en el Estado de Chihuahua. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Información, Aguascalientes, Mexico. Ingold, Tim 1993 The Temporality of the Landscape. World Archaeology 25:152-174. Inomata, Takeshi 2006 Plazas, Performers, and Spectators: Political Theaters of the Classic Maya. Current Anthropology 47:805-842. Isbell, Billie Jean 1978 To Defend Ourselves: Ecology and Ritual in an Andean Village. University of Texas Press, Austin. Jett, Stephen C. 1994 Cairn Trail Shrines of the Navajo, the Apache, and Puebloans, and of the Far North. In Artifacts, Shrines, and Pueblos: Papers in Honor of Gordon Page, edited by Meliha S. Duran and David T. Kirkpatrick, pp. 129-145. Archaeological Society of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Johnson, Gregory A. 1989 Dynamics of Southwestern Prehistory: Far Outside Looking In. In Dynamics of Southwest Prehistory, edited by Linda S. Cordell and George J. Gumerman, pp. 371-390. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Johnston, Francis J. and Patricia H. Johnston 292 1957 An Indian Trail Complex of the Central Colorado Desert: A Preliminary Survey. Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey 37:22-34. Jones, Jeanna Fay 2003 Ceramics and Feasting in the Casas Grandes Area, Chihuahua, Mexico. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Judge, W. James 1989 Chaco Canyon - San Juan Basin. In Dynamics of Southwest Prehistory, edited by Linda S. Cordell and George J. Gumerman, pp. 209-261. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Kanter, John and Nancy M. Mahoney (editors) 2000 Great House Communities across the Chacoan Landscape. Anthropological Papers of The University of Arizona No. 64. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Kantner, John 1997 Ancient Roads, Modern Mapping: Evaluating Prehistoric Chaco Anasazi Roadways Using GIS Technology. Expedition Magazine 39(3):49-62. 2003 Rethinking Chaco as a System. Kiva 69:207-227. Kelley, J. Charles 1951 A Bravo Valley Component, Chuahuaha, Mexico. American Antiquity 17:114119. Kelley, Jane H. 2008 El Zurdo: A Small Prehistoric Village in West-Central Chihuahua, Mexico. Part 1: Introduction and 1991 Field Studies. Maxwell Museum Technical Series No. 9. Maxwell Museum, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Kelley, Jane H., Joe D. Stewart, A. C. MacWilliams and Loy C. Neff 1999 A West Central Chihuahuan Perspective on Chihuahuan Culture. In The Casas Grandes World, edited by Curtis F. Schaafsma and Carroll L. Riley, pp. 63-77. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Kincaid, Chris (editor) 1983 Chaco Roads Project, Phase I: A Reappraisal of Prehistoric Roads in the San Juan Basin. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Santa Fe and Albuquerque. Knapp, A. Bernard 1988 Ideology, Archaeology and Polity. Man 23:133-163. 293 Knapp, A. Bernard and Wendy Ashmore 1999 Archaeological Landscapes: Constructed, Conceptualized, Ideational. In Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Wendy Ashmore and A. Bernard Knapp, pp. 1-30. Blackwell, Malden, Massachusetts. Kubler, George 1984 Pre-Columbian Pilgrimages in Mesoamerica. Diogenes 32(125):11-23. Kus, Susan and Victor Raharijaona 2000 House to Palace, Village to State: Scaling up Architecture and Ideology. American Anthropologist 102:98-113. Ladd, Edmund J. 1983 Pueblo Use of High-Altitude Areas: Emphasis on the a:shiwi. In High-Altitude Adaptations in the Southwest, edited by Joseph C. Winter, pp. 168-188. Cultural Resources Management Report No. 2. USDA Forest Service, Southwest Region, Albuquerque. LaMotta, Vincent Michael 2006 Zooarchaeology and Chronology of Homol'ovi I and other Pueblo IV Period Sites in the Central Little Colorado River Valley, Northern Arizona. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The University of Arizona, Tucson. Lamphere, Lousie 1983 Southwestern Ceremonialism. In Southwest, edited by Alfonso Ortiz, pp. 743763. Handbook of North American Indians. vol. 10, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Lange, Charles H. 1950 Notes on the Use of Turkeys by Pueblo Indians. El Palacio 57:204-209. Lange, Charles H. and Carroll L. Riley 1970 The Southwestern Journals of Adolph F. Bandelier 1883-1884. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Larkin, Karin Burd, Jane H. Kelley and Mitchel J. Hendrickson 2004 Ceramics as Temporal and Spatial Indicators in Chihuahua Cultures. In Surveying the Archaeology of Northwest Mexico, edited by Gilian E. Newell and Emiliano Gallaga, pp. 177-204. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. LeBlanc, Steven A. 1980 The Dating of Casas Grandes. American Antiquity 45:799-806. 294 Leckman, Phillip O. 2004 Visibility, Perception and Power at the Marana Platform Mound: A Spatial Analysis. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, The University of Arizona, Tucson. Lekson, Stephen H. 1984 Dating Casas Grandes. The Kiva 50:55-60. Lekson, Stephen H., Michael Bletzer and A. C. MacWilliams 2004 Pueblo IV in the Chihuahuan Desert. In The Protohistoric World, A.D. 12751600, edited by E. Charles Adams and Andrew I. Duff, pp. 53-61. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Lister, Robert H. 1958 Archaeological Investigations in the Northern Sierra Madre Occidental, Chihuahua and Sonora, Mexico. University of Colorado Studies, Series in Anthropology No 7. University of Colorado Press, Boulder. Luebben, Ralph A., Jonathan G. Andelson and Laurance C. Herold 1986 Elvino Whetten Pueblo and Its Relationship to Terraces and nearby Small Structures, Chihuahua, Mexico. The Kiva 51:165-187. Lumholtz, Carl 1902 Unknown Mexico. A Record of Five Year's Exploration Among the Tribes of the Western Sierra Madre; in the Tierra Caliente of Tepic and Jalisco; and among the Tarascos of Michoacan. 2 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York. 1990 New Trails in Mexico: An Account of One Year's Exploration in NorthWestern Sonora, Mexico, and South-Western Arizona, 1909-1910. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Mafu, Hezekiel 1995 The 1991-1992 Zimbabwean Drought and Some Religious Reactions. Journal of Religion in Africa 25:288-308. Maxwell, Timothy D. 2002 Casas Grandes Region: Prehistoric Life in the Chihuahuan Desert. El Palacio 107:12-19. Maxwell, Timothy D. and Kurt F. Anschuetz 1992 The Southwestern Ethnographic Record and Prehistoric Agricultural Diversity. In Gardens of Prehistory: The Archaeology of Settlement Agriculture in Greater Mesoamerica, edited by Thomas W. Killion, pp. 35-68. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 295 McGuire, Randall H. 1980 The Mesoamerican Connection in the Southwest. The Kiva 46:3-38. McGuire, Randall H. and Michael B. Schiffer 1983 A Theory of Architectural Design. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2:277-303. McGuire, Randall H. and Elisa Villalpando 2007 Excavations at Cerro de Trincheras. In Trincheras Sites in Time, Space, and Society, edited by Suzanne K. Fish, Paul R. Fish, and M. Elisa Villalpando, pp. 137-164. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. McKusick, Charmion R. 1986 Southwest Indian Turkeys: Prehistory and Comparative Osteology. Southwest Bird Laboratory, Globe, Arizona. Miller, Mary and Karl Taube 1993 An Illustrated Dictionary of the Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya. Thames and Hudson, New York. Mills, Barbara J. 2000 Alternative Models, Alternative Strategies: Leadership in the Prehispanic Southwest. In Alternative Leadership Strategies in the Prehispanic Southwest, edited by Barbara J. Mills, pp. 3-18. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 2002 Recent Research on Chaco: Changing Views on Economy, Ritual, and Society. Journal of Archaeological Research 10:65-116. Minnis, Paul E. and Michael E. Whalen 1992 El sistema regional de Casas Grandes, Chihuahua. Un informe presentado al Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. 2005 At the Other End of the Pueblo World: Feasting at Casas Grandes, Chihuahua, Mexico. In Engaged Anthropology: Essays on North American Archaeology, Ethnobotany, and Museology: Papers in Honor of Richard I. Ford, edited by Michelle Hegmon and B. Sunday Eiselt, pp. 17-31. Anthropological Papers 94. University of Michigan Museum Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor. Minnis, Paul E., Michael E. Whalen and R. Emerson Howell 2006 Fields of Power: Upland Farming in the Prehispanic Casas Grandes Polity, Chihuahua, Mexico. American Antiquity 71:707-722. Minnis, Paul E., Michael E. Whalen, Jane H. Kelley and Joe D. Stewart 1993 Prehistoric Macaw Breeding in the North American Southwest. American Antiquity 58:270-276. 296 Moore, Jerry D. 2005 Architecture and Power in the Ancient Andes : The Archaeology of Public Buildings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Morinis, Alan 1992 Introduction. In Sacred Journeys: The Anthropology of Pilgrimage, edited by Alan Morinis, pp. 1-28. Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut. Motsinger, Thomas N. 1998 Hohokam Roads at Snaketown, Arizona. Journal of Field Archaeology 25:8996. Nelson, Ben A. 2007 Crafting of Places: Mesoamerican Monumentality in Cerros de Trincheras and Other Hilltop Sites. In Trincheras Sites in Time, Space, and Society, edited by Suzanne K. Fish, Paul R. Fish and M. Elisa Villalpando, pp. 229-246. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Neurath, Johannes 2000 Tukipa Ceremonial Centers in the Community of Tuapurie (Santa Catarina Cuexcomatitlán): Cargo Systems, Landscape, and Cosmovision. Journal of the Southwest 42:81-110. Neuzil, Anna Astrid 2005 In the Aftermath of Migration: Assessing the Social Consequences of Late 13th and 14th Century Population Movements into Southeastern Arizona. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The University of Arizona, Tucson. Nicholson, H.B. 2003 The Annual "Royal Ceremony" on Mt. Tlaloc: Mountain Fertility Ritualism in the Late Pre-Hispanic Basin of Mexico. In Mesas and Cosmologies in Mesoamerica, edited by Douglas Sharon, pp. 33-49. San Diego Museum Papers 42. San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego. Nielsen, Axel E. 1995 Architectural Performance and the Reproduction of Social Power. In Expanding Archaeology, edited by James M. Skibo, William H. Walker and Axel E. Nielsen, pp. 47-66. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. O'Donovan, Maria 297 2002 New Perspectives on Site Function and Scale of Cerro de Trincheras, Sonora, Mexico: The 1991 Surface Survey. Arizona State Museum Archaeology Series No. 195. Arizona State Museum, Tucson. Obregón, Baltasar de 1928 Obregon's History of 16th Century Explorations in Western America, Entitled Chronicle, Commentary, or Relation of the Ancient and Modern Discoveries in New Spain and New Mexico, Mexico, 1584. Translated by George P. Hammond and Agapito Rey. Wetzel, Los Angeles. Pailes, M. C. 2008 Wealth Differentiation and Social Organization at Cerro Prieto: An Early Classic Period, Hohokam Cerro de Trincheras. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, The University of Arizona, Tucson. Parsons, Elsie C. 1918 War God Shrines of Laguna and Zuni. American Anthropologist 20:381-405. Parsons, Jeffrey and Mary H. Parsons 1990 Maguey Utilization in Highland Central Mexico: An Archaeological Ethnography. Anthropological Papers No. 82. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Pennington, Campbell W. 1963 The Tarahumar of Mexico: Their Environment and Material Culture. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Pérez de Ribas, Andrés 1999 History of the Triumphs of Our Holy Faith amongst the Most Barbarous and Fierce Peoples of the New World. Translated by Daniel T. Reff, Maureen Ahern and Richard K. Danford. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Phillips, David A., Jr. 2002a Beyond the Shadow of a Giant: Casas Grandes Research Enters the TwentyFirst Century. NewsMAC 1:20-21. 2002b Mesoamerican-Southwestern Relationships: An Intellectual History. In Culture and Environment in the American Southwest: Essays in Honor of Robert C. Euler, edited by David A. Phillips, Jr. and John A. Ware, pp. 177-195. SWCA Anthropological Research Papers No. 8. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Phoenix. Phillips, David A., Jr. and John P. Carpenter 298 1999 The Robles Phase of the Casas Grandes Culture. In The Casas Grandes World, edited by Curtis F. Schaafsma and Carroll L. Riley, pp. 78-83. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Phillips, David A., Jr. and Kenneth Rozen 1982 Effects of Inundation on Cultural Resources in Painted Rock Reservoir, Arizona: An Assessment. Archaeological Series No. 149. Cultural Resource Management Division, Arizona State Museum, Tucson. Pitezel, Todd A. 2007 Surveying Cerro de Moctezuma, Chihuahua, Mexico. Kiva 72:353-369. Plog, Stephen 1997 Ancient Peoples of the American Southwest. Thanes and Hudson, London. Poole, Deborah A. 1991 Rituals of Movement, Rites of Transformation: Pilgrimage and Dance in the Highlands of Cuzco, Peru. In Pilgrimage in Latin America, edited by N. Ross Crumrine and Alan Morinis, pp. 307-338. Greenwood Press, New York. Potter, James M. and Elizabeth M. Perry 2000 Ritual as a Power Resource in the American Southwest. In Alternative Leadership Strategies in the Prehispanic Southwest, edited by Barbara J. Mills, pp. 60-78. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Preston, James J. 1992 Spiritual Magnetism: An Organizing Principle for the Study of Pilgrimage. In Sacred Journeys: The Anthropology of Pilgrimage, edited by Alan Morinis, pp. 31-46. Greenwood Press, Westport. Rakita, Gordon F.M. 2009 Ancestors and Elites: Emergent Complexity and Ritual Practices in the Casas Grandes Polity. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland. Rakita, Gordon Forbes Martin 2001 Social Complexity, Religious Organization, and Mortuary Ritual in the Casas Grandes Region of Chihuahua, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Rapoport, Amos 1990 The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Nonverbal Communication Approach. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Ravesloot, John C. 299 1994 Architectural Planning and Design: Social and Religious Symbols of Power at Casas Grandes. Paper presented at the 59th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Anaheim. Renfrew, Colin 2001 Production and Consumption in a Sacred Economy: The Material Correlates of High Devotional Expression at Chaco Canyon. American Antiquity 66:14-25. Reyman, Jonathan E. 1982 Priests, Power, and Politics: Some Implications of Socioceremonial Control. In Astronomy and Ceremony in the Prehistoric Southwest, edited by John B. Carlson and W. James Judge, pp. 121-147. Papers of the Maxwell Museum of Anthropology No. 2. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Riley, Carroll L. 1993 Charles C. Di Peso: An Intellectual Biography. In Culture and Contact: Charles D. Di Peso's Gran Chichimeca, edited by Anne I. Woosley and John C. Ravesloot, pp. 11-22. New World Studies Series No. 2. Amerind Foundation and University of New Mexico Press, Dragoon, Arizona, and Albuquerque. 2005 Becoming Aztlan: Mesoamerican Influence in the Greater Southwest, AD 1200-1500. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Robertson, Benjamin P. 1983 Other New World Roads and Trails. In Chaco Roads Project, Phase I: A Reappraisal of Prehistoric Roads in the San Juan Basin, edited by Chris Kincaid, pp. 2-1-2-7. United State Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Santa Fe and Albuquerque. Rodríguez López, Maria Teresa and Pablo Valderrama Rouy 2005 The Gulf Coast Nahua. In Native Peoples of the Gulf Coast of Mexico, edited by Alan R. Sandstrom and E. Hugo García Valencia, pp. 158-186. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Rogers, Malcolm J. 1933 The Aborigines of the Desert. In The California Deserts: A Visitor's Handbook by Edmund C. Jaeger, pp. 116-129. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. Roney, John R. 1992 Prehistoric Roads and Regional Integration in the Chacoan System. In Anasazi Regional Organization and the Chaco System, edited by David E. Doyel, pp. 123131. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology Anthropological Papers No. 5. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 300 Roney, John R. and Robert J. Hard 2004 A Review of Cerros de Trincheras in Northwestern Chihuahua. In Surveying the Archaeology of Northwest Mexico, edited by Gilian E. Newell and Emiliano Gallaga M., pp. 127-148. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Roney, John and Bob Trumball 1983 Survey notes on file with John Roney, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Ruscavage-Barz, Samanta M. and Elizabeth A. Bagwell 2006 Gathering Spaces and Bounded Places: The Religious Significance of Plazaoriented Communities in the Northern Rio Grande, New Mexico. In Religion in the Prehispanic Southwest, edited by Christine S. VanPool, Todd L. VanPool and David A. Phillips, Jr., pp. 81-101. AltaMira, Lanham. Sanner, Hans-Ulrich 1995 "Kachina Coding": Ritual Humor as Ritual Metacommunication. European Review of Native American Studies 9(1):9-14. Sayles, E.B. 1933 Gila Pueblo Survey Records. Vol. 8. Chihuahua:A:1-Chihuahua:D:16. Manuscript 15. Arizona State Museum Archives, Tucson. 1936 An Archaeological Survey of Chihuahua, Mexico. Medallion Papers XXII. Gila Pueblo, Globe, Arizona. Scarborough, Vernon L. 1991 Courting the Southern Maya Lowlands: A Study in Pre-Hispanic Ballgame Architcture. In The Mesoamerican Ballgame, edited by Vernon L. Scarborough and David R. Wilcox, pp. 129-144. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Schaafsma, Polly 1998 The Paquimé Rock Art Style, Chihuahua, Mexico. In Rock Art of the Chihuahuan Desert Borderlands, edited by Sheron Smith-Savage and Robert J. Mallouf, pp. 33-44. Center for Big Bend Studies, Sul Ross State University, Alpine, Texas. Schaefer, Stacy B. 1996 The Crossing of the Souls: Peyote, Perception, and Meaning among the Huichol Indians. In People of the Peyote: Huichol Indian History, Religion, and Survival, edited by Stacy B. Schaefer and Peter T. Furst, pp. 138-168. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Schmidt, Robert H., Jr. 1973 A Geographical Survey of Chihuahua. Monogrpaph No. 37. Texas Western Press, El Paso. 301 Schoeman, Maria H. 2006 Imagining Rain-Places: Rain-Control and Changing Ritual Landscapes in the Shashe-Limpopo Confluence Area, South Africa. The South African Archaeological Bulletin 61(184):152-165. 2009 Excavating the 'Waterpits in the Mountain': the Archaeology of ShashLimpopo confluence Area Rain-hill Rock Tanks. South African Humanities 21:275-298. Schroeder, Albert H. 1968 Birds and Feathers in Documents Relating to Indians of the Southwest. In Collected papers in Honor of Lyndon Lane Hargrave, edited by Albert H. Schroeder, pp. 95-114. Papers of the Archaeological Society of New Mexico: 1. Museum of New Mexico Press, Santa Fe. Schutte, A.G. 1978 Mwali in Venda: Some Observations on the Significance of the High God in Venda History. Journal of Religion in Africa 9:109-122. Scott, Stuart D. 1966 Dendrochronology in Mexico. Papers of the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research No. 2. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Searcy, Michael T. 2010 Symbols and Sociopolitical Organization: Mesoamerican Iconograhpy in the U.S. Southwest/Northwest Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oklahoma, Norman. Sekaquaptewa, Emory and Dorothy Washburn 2004 They Go Along Singing: Reconstructing the Hopi Past from Ritual Metaphors in Song and Dance. American Antiquity 69:457-486. Shaffer, Brian Sawyer 1991 The Economic Importance of Vertebrate Faunal Remains from the Nan Ruin (LA 15049), a Classic Mimbres Site, Grant County, New Mexico. Unpublished Master's thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station. Sheridan, Thomas E. 2006 Landscapes of Fraud: Mission Tumacácori, The Baca Float, and the Betrayal of the O'odham. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Skibo, James M., Eugene B. McCluney and William H. Walker 2002 The Joyce Well Site: On the Frontier of the Casas Grandes World. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 302 Snead, James E. 2002 Ancestral Pueblo Trails and the Cultural Landscape of the Pajarito Plateau, New Mexico. Antiquity 76:756-765. 2008 Ancestral Landscapes of the Pueblo World. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Snead, James E., Clark L. Erickson and J. Andrew Darling (editors) 2009a Landscapes of Movement: Trails, Paths, and Roads in Anthropological Perspective. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia. 2009b Making Human Space: The Archaeology of Trails, Paths, and Roads. In Landscapes of Movement: Trails, Paths, and Roads in Anthropological Perspective, edited by James E. Snead, Clark L. Erickson and J. Andrew Darling. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia. Snead, James E. and Robert W. Preucel 1999 The Ideology of Settlement: Ancestral Keres Landscapes in the Northern Rio Grande. In Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Wendy Ashmore and A. Bernard Knapp, pp. 169-197. Blackwell, Malden, Massachusetts. Sprehn, Maria S. 2003 Social Complexity and the Specialist Potters of Casas Grandes in Northern Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Stein, John R. and Stephen H. Lekson 1992 Anasazi Ritual Landscapes. In Anasazi Regional Organization and the Chaco System, edited by David E. Doyel, pp. 87-100. Anthropological Papers No. 5. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, Albuquerque. Stewart, Joe D., Jane H. Kelley, A. C. MacWilliams and Paula J. Reimer 2004 Archaeological Chonology in West-Central Chihuahua. In Surveying the Archaeology of Northwest Mexico, edited by Gilian E. Newell and Emiliano Gallaga M., pp. 205-245. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Stoddard, Robert H. 1997 Defining and Classifying Pilgrimages. In Sacred Places, Sacred Spaces: The Geography of Pilgrimages, edited by Robert H. Stoddard and Alan Morinis, pp. 41-60. Geosciences, Department of Geography and Anthropology, Baton Rouge. Strand, Jennifer Gail 303 1998 Analysis of the Homol'ovi Fauna with Emphasis on Ritual Behavior. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The University of Arizona, Tucson. Sundstrom, Linea 1996 Mirror of Heaven: Cross-Cultural Transference of the Sacred Geography of the Black Hills. World Archaeology 28:177-189. Swanson, Steve 2003 Documenting Prehistoric Communication Networks: A Case Study in the Paquimé Polity. American Antiquity 68:753-767. Swanson, Steven John 1997 Atalayas of Paquimé: a GIS Analysis of Prehistoric Communication Features. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Oklahoma, Norman. Thompson, Ian, Mark Varien and Susan Kenzle, with a Puebloan Perspective by Rina Swentzell 1997 Prehistoric Architecture with Unknown Function. In Anasazi Architecture and American Design, edited by Baker H. Morrow and V. B. Price, pp. 149-158. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Tilley, Christopher Y. 1994 A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths, and Monuments. Berg, Oxford. Titiev, Mischa 1937 A Hopi Salt Expedition. American Anthropologist 39:244-258. Townsend, Richard F. 1991 The Mt. Tlaloc Project. In To Change Place: Aztec Ceremonial Landscapes, edited by Davíd Carrasco, pp. 26-30. University Press of Colorado, Niwot. Trombold, Charles D. 1991 An Introduction to the Study of Ancient New World Road Networks. In Ancient Road Networks and Settlement Hierarchies in the New World, edited by Charles D. Trombold, pp. 1-9. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Turner, Victor 1974 Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. Tyler, Hamilton A. 1979 Pueblo Birds and Myths. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. 304 van Dommelen, Peter 1999 Exploring Everyday Places and Cosmologies. In Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Wendy Ashmore and A. Bernard Knapp, pp. 277-285. Blackwell, Malden, Massachusetts. Van Dyke, Ruth M. 2004a Memory and the Construction of Chacoan Society. In Archaeologies of Memory, edited by Ruth M. Van Dyke and Susan E. Alcock, pp. 180-200. Blackwell, Malden, Massachusetts. 2004b Memory, Meaning, and Masonry: The Late Bonito Chacoan Landscape. American Antiquity 69:413-431. 2008 Chaco Experience: Landscape and Ideology at the Center Place. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe. VanPool, Christine S. 2003 The Symbolism of Casas Grandes. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. VanPool, Christine S. and Todd L. VanPool 2007 Signs of the Casas Grandes Shamans. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. VanPool, Christine S., Todd L. VanPool and David A. Phillips, Jr. (editors) 2006 Religion in the Prehispanic Southwest. AltaMira, Latham. VanPool, Todd L. and Robert D. Leonard 2002 Specialized Ground Stone Production in the Casas Grandes Region of Northern Chihuahua, Mexico. American Antiquity 67:710-730. VanPool, Todd L., Christine S. Vanpool, Rafael Cruz Antillón, Robert D. Leonard and Marcel J. Harmon 2000 Flaked Stone and Social Interaction in the Casas Grandes Region, Chihuahua, Mexcio. Latin American Antiquity 11:163-174. Vargas, Victoria D. 1995 Copper Bell Trade Patterns in the Prehispanic U.S. Southwest and Northwest Mexico. Archaeological Series 187. Arizona State Museum, Tucson. 2001 Mesoamerican Copper Bells in the Pre-Hispanic Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico. In The Road to Aztlan: Art from a Mythic Homeland, edited by Virginia M. Fields and Victor Zamudio-Taylor, pp. 196-211. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Varien, Mark 305 1999 Sedentism and Mobility in a Social Landscape: Mesa Verde and Beyond. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Varien, Mark D. and James M. Potter 2008 The Social Produciton of Communities: Structure, Agency, and Identity. In The Social Construction of Communities: Agency, Structure, and Identity in the Prehispanic Southwest, edited by Mark D. Varien and James M. Potter, pp. 1-18. AltaMira, Lanham. Vivian, R. Gwinn 1983 Identifying and Interpreting Chacoan Roads: An Historical Perspective. In Chaco Roads Project Phase I: A Reappraisal of Prehistoric Roads in the San Juan Basin, edited by Chris Kincaid, pp. 3-1-3-20. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Albuquerque. Vogt, Evon Z. 1956 An Appraisal of "Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the New World". In Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the New World, edited by Gordon R. Willey, pp. 173-182. Wenner-Gren, New York. 1969 Handbook of Middle American Indians. Vol. 7, Ethnology. University of Texas Press, Austin. 1992 The Persistence of Maya Tradition in Zinacantan. In The Ancient Americas: Art from Sacred Landscapes, edited by Richard F. Townsend, pp. 61-69. Art Institute of Chicago and Prestel Verlag, Chicago and Munich. Walker, William H. and James M. Skibo 2002 Joyce Well and the Casas Grandes Religious Interaction Sphere. In The Joyce Well Site: On the Frontier of the Casas Grandes World, by James M. Skibo, Eugene B. McCluney, and William H. Walker, pp. 167-175. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Ware, John A. and Eric Blinman 2000 Cultural Collapse and Reorganization: The Origin and Spread of Pueblo Ritual Sodalities. In The Archaeology of Regional Interaction: Religion, Warfare, and Exchange Across the American Southwest and Beyond, edited by Michelle Hegmon, pp. 381-409. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Wasley, William W. and Alfred E. Johnson 1965 Salvage Archaeology in Painted Rocks Reservoir Western Arizona. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No. 9. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Whalen, Michael E. 306 2008 Review of Signs of the Casas Grandes Shamans by Christine S. VanPool and Todd L. VanPool. American Antiquity 73:167-168. Whalen, Michael E., A. C. MacWilliams and Todd Pitezel 2010 Reconsidering the Size and Structure of Casas Grandes, Chihuahua, Mexico. American Antiquity 75:527-550. Whalen, Michael E. and Paul E. Minnis 1995 Informe Técnico al Consejo de Arqueología. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Chihuahua City, Mexico. 1996 Ball Courts and Political Centralization in the Casas Grandes Region. American Antiquity 61:732-746. 1999a Investigaciones sobre la estructura del sistema regional de Paquimé, Chihuahua, México: excavaciones en el sitio 93-242. Informe Ténico al Consejo de Arqueología, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. 1999b Investigating the Paquimé Regional System. In The Casas Grandes World, edited by Curtis F. Schaafsma and Carroll L. Riley, pp. 54-62. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2000 Investigaciones sobre la estructura del sistema regional de Paquimé, Chihuahua, Mexico: Excavaciones en el sitio 204, temporada de 2000. Informe Técnico al Consejo de Arqueología, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. 2001a Architecture and Authority in the Casas Grandes Area, Chihuahua, Mexico. American Antiquity 66:651-668. 2001b Casas Grandes and Its Hinterland: Prehistoric Regional Organization in Northwest Mexico. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 2001c Investigaciones sobre la estructura del sistema regional de Paquimé, Chihuahua, Mexico: Excavaciones en el sitio 204, temporada de 2001. Informe Técnico al Consejo de Arqueología, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. 2003 Excavaciones en el sitio 204: Temporada de 2002 y Análisis de los datos de 2000, 2001, y 2002. Informe Técnico Final al Consejo de Arqueología, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. 2009 The Neighbors of Casas Grandes: Excavating Medio Period Communities of Northwest Chihuahua, Mexico. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. White, Leslie A. 1942 The Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico. Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association No. 60. American Anthropological Association, Menasha, Wisconsin. Whiteley, Peter M. 1987 The Interpretation of Politics: A Hopi Conundrum. Man 22(n.s.):696-714. Whittlesey, Stephanie M. 307 2007 Hohokam Ceramics, Hohokam Beliefs. In The Hohokam Millennium, edited by Suzanne K. Fish and Paul R. Fish, pp. 65-73. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe. 2009 Mountains, Mounds, and Meaning Metaphor in the Hohokam Cultural Landscape. In The Archaeology of Meaningful Places, edited by Brenda J. Boswer and María Nieves Zedeño, pp. 73-89. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Whittlesey, Stephanie M., Richard Ciolek-Torrello and Jeffrey H. Altschul (editors) 1997 Vanishing River: Landscapes and Lives of the Lower Verde Valley: the Lower Verde Archaeological Project: Overview, Synthesis, and Conclusions. SRI Press, Tucson. Wilcox, David R. 1991 The Mesoamerican Ballgame in the American Southwest. In The Mesoamerican Ballgame, edited by Vernon L. Scarborough and David R. Wilcox, pp. 101-125. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 1999 A Preliminary Graph-Theoretic Analysis of Access Relationships at Casas Grandes. In The Casas Grandes World, edited by Curtis F. Schaafsma and Carroll L. Riley, pp. 93-104. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Wilcox, David R., Thomas R. McGuire and Charles Sternberg 1981 Snaketown Revisited: A Partial Cultural Resource Survey, Analysis of Site Structure and an Ethnohistoric Study of the Proposed Hohokam-Pima National Monument. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series No. 155. Arizona State Museum, Tucson. Wilcox, David R. and Lynette O. Shenk 1977 The Architecture of the Casa Grande and Its Interpretation. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series No. 115. Arizona State Museum, Tucson. Wilcox, David R. and Charles Sternberg 1983 Hohokam Ballcourts and their Interpretation. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series No. 160. Arizona State Museum, Tucson. Wilkerson, S. Jeffrey K. 1991 And Then They Were Sacrificed: The Ritual Ballgame of Northeastern Mesoamerica through Time and Space. In The Mesoamerican Ballgame, edited by Vernon L. Scarborough and David R. Wilcox, pp. 45-71. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Willey, Gordon R. 1953 Prehistoric Settlement Pattern in the Virú Valley, Peru. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 155, Washingtion, D.C. 308 Windes, Thomas C. 1978 Stone Circles of Chaco Canyon, Northwestern New Mexico. Reports of the Chaco Center No. 5. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Albuquerque. Winter, Joseph C. 2000 From Earth Mother to Snake Woman: The Role of Tobacco in the Evolution of Native American Religious Organization. In Tobacco Use by Native Americans: Sacred Smoke and Silent Killer, edited by Joseph C. Winter, pp. 265-304. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Wittfogel, Karl A. 1957 Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power. Yale University Press, New Haven. Woosley, Anne I. and Allan J. McIntyre 1996 Mimbres Mogollon Archaeology: Charles C. Di Peso's Excavations at Wind Mountain. Archaeological Series No. 10. Amerind Foundation, Dragoon, Arizona. Wygant, Lindsay Marie 2007 Shells, Bells, and Birds: The Landscape of Long-distance Excange in the Prehistoric Southwest. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, The University of Arizona, Tucson. Yaeger, Jason and Marcello A. Canuto 2000 Introducing an Archaeology of Communities. In The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective, edited by Marcello A. Canuto and Jason Yaeger, pp. 1-15. Routledge, London. Zavala, Bridget M. 2006 Elevated Spaces: Exploring the Symbolic at Cerros de Trincheras. In Religion in the Prehispanic Southwest, edited by Christine S. VanPool, Todd L. VanPool and David A. Phillips, Jr., pp. 135-145. AltaMira, Lanham. Zedeño, María Nieves and Brenda J. Bowser 2009 The Archaeology of Meaningful Places. In The Archaeology of Meaningful Places, edited by Brenda J. Bowser and María Nieves Zedeño, pp. 1-14. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Zingg, Robert M. 1938 Report of the Mr. and Mrs. Henry Pfeiffer Expedition for Huichol Ethnography, Sponsored by the Department of Anthropology of the University of 309 Chicago and the Laboratory of Anthropology, Santa Fe, New Mexico. The Huichols: Primitive Artists. G.E. Stechert, New York.
* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project