Ceramic Distribution and Exchange: Jeddito Yellow Ware and Implications Social Complexity

Transcription

1 3 Ceramic Distribution and Exchange: Jeddito Yellow Ware and Implications Social Complexity for E. Charles Adams Ariwna State Museum Tucson, Ariwna Miriam T. Stark The University of Ariwna Tucson, Ariwna Deborah S. Dosh Kinlani Archaeology Flagstaff, Ariwna The scale of late prehistoric sociopolitical complexity on the ColoracWPlateau has been widely debated in the American Southwest. Proponents of an alliance model usejeddito Yellow Ware) manufactured at Hopi Mesa villages) as one offtur index wares. This distributional study ofjeddito Yellow Ware challenges aspects of the alliance model by using a data set that contains over 430 yellow ware sites throughout areas of NE Arizona. This pottery is found on the full range of site types and sizes) rather than simply at the large sites (i.e.) >50 rooms) that the alliance model assumes. Within the coreproduction area) Jeddito Yellow Ware is not characterized by restricted accessto such pottery: most (89%) yellow ware sites have two rooms or less. We argue that the distribution ofjeddito Yellow Ware in our study area can be understood in the context of inter-community exchange and communitybased craft specialization) rather than through elite-controlled ceramic exchange networks. Introduction The issue of sociopolitical complexity has been debated in studies of large, late prehistoric (Pueblo IV, ca. A.C ) pueblos on the Colorado Plateau. Disagreement over the nature of the organizational structures entailed in competing models has been discussed in great detail elsewhere (cf. Cordell and Plog 1979; Cordell, Upham, and Brock 1987; Graves 1987; Plog 1985; Reid 1985; Reid et al. 1989; Upham 1982, 1985; Upham and Plog 1986). On one side of the debate are those who contend that complex prehistoric political systems were disrupted at Spanish contact by dramatic population decline and the imposition of colonial rule. On the other side are those who, despite admonishments from Pueblo ethnographers and others (cf. Dozier 1970; Wilcox 1981), use puebloan analogy to argue that relatively egalitarian political structures existed through the entire prehistoric period. This study of the distribution of Jeddito Yellow Ware in NE Ariwna provides empirical data to better evaluate these two positions concerning late prehistoric political organization. An expanded restudy of the yellow ware data set provides one means of evaluating the alliance model proposed by Upham and others. Data used in this paper combine the evidence contained in Upham's (1982) study (i.e., Jeddito Yellow Ware sites are ones containing 50 rooms or more) with information from sites smaller than 50 rooms in size, not used in Upham's study. A battery of data collected during five years' research through the Homol'ovi Research Program (Arizona State Museum) is used to test the alliance model. The study area is located on the southern Colorado Plateau in NE Arizona (FIG. 1). Its boundaries were selected on the basis of the most accessible and most recent data available, drawing from data banks at numerous Ariwna institutions as well as from the Homol'ovi Research Program. Subdivisions of the study area facilitate our analysis of patterning within the general region, and will be addressed following an introduction to the issue of complexity.

2 4 Ceramic Distribution and Exchange/Adams) Stark) and Dosh River UTAH ARIZONA Northern I r Front ier MOENKOPI. Wupatki..,0 e'()' ORAIBI '~~ Q' Hopi.Awatovi Bidahochi. Buttes 't)0 ~ \ () 0.~.0 <t X Z llj o ~ N a::: 3: <t llj Z pueblo FLAGSTAFF Little Colorado River HomOI'ovi/ WI NSLOW HOLBROOK Puerco o Map Location ~I ===::::::;:::==:::;:::==::::::::; o!j\ N I 50km 30 Mi. (;:)\ 0~ Nuvakwewtaqa Figure 1. The study area showing the boundaries of the four regions discussed in the text.

3 Journal of Field ArchaeologylVol. 20) The Model for Late Prehistoric Complexity Recent research on the transition from prehistory to ethnohistory in the Plateau Southwest has raised questions regarding traditional assumptions of continuity in sociopolitical organization (Thomas 1989; Upham, Lightfoot and Jewett 1989; Wilcox 1981). Studies of the impact of Spanish colonialism on indigenous populations show that governing policies changed, to varying degrees, indigenous social structures that characterized different Southwestern linguistic groups (e.g., Ramenofsky 1987; Spicer 1962; Ubelaker 1988). Contact-period Pueblo society may have been characterized by a higher degree of group interdependence and of inter-community exchange networks than that recorded by ethnographers of the historic Pueblos (Adams 1981; Snow 1981). Regional exchange systems linked Plains hunter-gatherers with Pueblo horticulturalists (e.g., Spielmann 1986), and communitybased productive specialization likely operated among settled farming populations with access to different natural resources, as was true in the Rio Grande Valley (Snow 1981). The issue of continuity vs. change has a long tradition of debate in the American Southwest (Cordell 1989). The existence and timing of sociopolitical complexity in the northern Southwest forms the nexus of the controversy surrounding the alliance model of 14th-century sociopolitical complexity on the Colorado Plateau (e.g., Hantman 1989; Lightfoot 1984; Plog 1983; Upham 1985; Upham and Plog 1986). In this model, increasingly elaborate economic "alliances," concurrent with emergent stratification, linked communities across the Colorado Plateau ca. A.C During the Pueblo IV period, major population centers housed "managerial elites," who coordinated and controlled aggregated populations. Large and small sites, "articulated into a single political system" (Upham 1982: 59), were linked together through elite-controlled, economic "alliances" that incorporated the exchange of "high status" (e.g., polychrome) ceramics and luxury goods such as turquoise and obsidian. Accordingly, large pueblos served as redistributive centers and as centers of elite-based social, political, and economic control (Upham 1982: 60). Archaeological evidence for the alliance model lies in large sites that yield higher quantities of regionally-distinct decorated ceramics than do smaller neighboring sites (Cordell and Gumerman 1989: 13). Material correlates for these "alliances" are socially-determined distributions of diagnostic decorated ceramics (Upham, Lightfoot, and Feinman 1981). Four ware-specific alliance spheres were identified: the Jeddito Yellow Ware alliance, the White Mountain Red Ware alliance, the Winslow Orange Ware alliance and the Zuni Glaze Ware alliance. One reason the alliance model remains unresolved is that little research correlates index ceramic wares with political and economic processes. Our interest in the Jeddito Yellow Ware area restricts our research focus to one variant of the alliance model, proposed by Upham (1982). Upham's model equates restricted ceramic distributions with restricted (i.e., elite) access at large (i.e., >50 rooms) 14th and 15th-century sites. Our study challenges the assumption that Jeddito Yellow Ware served as one "elite" ware that high-status individuals used to offset economic crises in the Hopi Mesas and Middle Little Colorado River regions. U sing the Jeddito Yellow Ware data, the following expectations implicit in the alliance model will be evaluated: 1) "elite" goods should be concentrated in large sites that served as central places, rather than at small, subordinate sites; 2) small sites situated outside of the ceramic production center (identified by Bishop et al as the Hopi Mesas) should not have Jeddito Yellow Wares; and 3) the "elite" wares exported from the production centers should be concentrated almost exclusively at large pueblos, or central places. We evaluate these expectations by examining the distribution of Jeddito Yellow Ware-bearing sites in NE Arirona. The specific geographic area in this study is the Jeddito Yellow Ware production source (the Hopi Mesas) and its environs, broadly defined. Precise boundaries of the study area were selected on the basis of the most accessible and recent data available, drawn from a broad range of resources housed in,arirona institutions. Results of our distributional study challenge the notion of restricted access to Jeddito Yellow Wares, thereby eliminating the rationale behind the "Jeddito Alliance" sphere proposed by Upham (1982). We contend instead that the yellow ware distribution is explainable through factors such as land-extensive resource exploitation and community-based specialization. Distribution ofjeddito Yellow Wares Characterized by a pale yellow hue and an absence of visible temper, the Jeddito Yellow Wares were developed after ca. A.C (Smith 1971). Undecorated utility ceramics are known as Awatovi Yellow Ware, while the decorated variant is recognized as Jeddito Yellow Ware (Colton and Hargrave 1937). Only Jeddito Yellow Ware was used in this distributional study because it is more accurately reported across different institutional site records. Jeddito Yellow Ware represents an ideal ceramic ware for charting 14th and 15th-century spatial organization in NE Ariwna during the later prehistoric period.

4 6 Ceramic Distribution and Exchange/Adams) Stark) and Dosh As one of four diagnostic ceramic wares in the basic alliance model (Upham 1982), the entire range of Jeddito Yellow Ware types has well-established temporal boundaries (A.C ) and a limited area of manufacture (Bishop et al. 1988). Identified in Colton (1956) as type 6 of ware 7B, Jeddito Yellow Ware represents two technological innovations with respect to its ceramic predecessors: 1) coal replaced wood as a firing material (resulting in higher firing temperatures and in a pale yellow color); and 2) unusual properties of the clays precluded the need for temper additives in most such vessels (Bishop et al. 1988; Smith 1971: ). Jeddito Yellow Ware has an extremely limited area of manufacture, but its extensive geographic distribution (Schaefer 1969) makes it a diagnostic ware for 14th-century occupation in the northern Southwest. Characterization studies indicate that the yellow-firing pottery was made primarily on the Hopi Mesas (Bishop et al. 1988). Jeddito Yellow Ware has been identified in sites as far west as southern California and north into southern Utah and sw Colorado (Adams and Adams 1987), however. Across New Mexico, late prehistoric sites such as Pecos (Kidder 1936), Gran Quivira (Hayes, Young, and Warren 1981), Acoma (Ruppe and Dittert 1952), and Pottery Mound (Hibben 1955) contain Jeddito Yellow Ware sherds. Within Arizona, Jeddito Yellow Ware has also been documented at Hohokam sites (e.g., Casa Grande [Hargrave 1932], Pueblo Grande [Downum 1991] and Los Muertos [Haury 1945]); Mogollon sites (e.g., Chavez Pass [Upham 1982], Point of Pines [Wendorf 1950]); and Salado period sites in the Tonto Basin (e.g., Rye Creek Ruin [Elson and Craig 1992], Schoolhouse Point [Arleyn Simon, personal communication, 1991]). Within the Jeddito heartland (NE Arizona), settlement patterns shifted throughout the period of Jeddito Yellow Ware manufacture. During the early 14th century, primary settlement was concentrated along the Little Colorado River Valley, on the Hopi Mesas, and in the vicinity of Bidahochi, 40 km SE of the Hopi Mesas in villages of 30 to more than 200 rooms in size. By A.C. 1350, the Homol'ovi group was reduced to three major pueblos, and only 11 sites were occupied on the Hopi Mesas. Settlement size in both areas ranged from 75 to over 700 rooms. By A.C. 1400, or soon thereafter, the Homol'ovi and Puerco River sites were abandoned and only nine Hopi Mesa sites remained occupied. In this time, settlement size ranged from 250 to over 1000 rooms. By 1500, Hopi Mesa occupation was further reduced to six or seven settlements. Shortly after Spanish contact, only five settlements existed, having from 400 to perhaps 2000 or more rooms (Brew 1941). Research Methods and Limitations of Study Jeddito Yellow Ware site data were collected through archival research and from Arizona site information repositories. Sources include the Museum of Northern Arizona; Northern Arizona University; Coconino, Coronado, and Tonto National Forests; Arizona State University; and the AZSITE file of the Arizona State Museum. The AZSITE system contains details on 17,000 sites obtained from public and private agencies. Site collections at the Arizona State Museum were also consulted. Archival data in file and document form was collected through the aid of Arizona State Museum personnel. 1 The quality of data utilized in this distributional study is uneven, because those from excavated and surveyed sites were combined for the Jeddito Yellow Ware database. Differences in field recording techniques, in field investigation methods (e.g., survey, subsurface testing, or extensive excavation), and in institutional site cataloguing systems leave the resultant database as a source of only gross generalizations. Site ceramic collections were not uniform, but reflect varying collection strategies with a bias toward decorated wares, and are likely unrepresentative of any site's total c'eramic assemblage. The relative frequencies of covarying, temporally-diagnostic decorated types cannot be statistically analyzed. We therefore devote much of our study to the middle Little Colorado River Valley, an area of five years' archaeological investigation by the Homol'- ovi Research Program. Another limitation to distributional analyses that incorporate survey data is the reliance on relative, rather than absolute, dating techniques. Our ceramic seriation relies on the Winslow Orange Wares and the Jeddito Yellow Wares, presented in Table 1, and on a half century's work in the study area (e.g., Breternitz 1966; Colton and Hargrave 1937; Hargrave 1931; Morris 1928; Smith 1971). More detailed discussions of the ceramic chronology are found in Hays' (1991) summary of Homol'ovi II ceramics. General Characteristics of Site Distribution A total of 433 ceramic-seriated sites in the study area 1. The following information was recorded for each site in th~ Jeddito Yellow Ware database: institutional identification codes (e.g., SItenumbers); site name(s); size (area and/or number of rooms recorded); decorated ceramic assemblage; location (including township/range and quarter sections and/or UTM, where provided); and environmental parameters (i.e., distance to nearest drainage or ~andfor~ on ~hich the site is located). Sites with inadequate locational InformatIon (I.e., those located to a particular drainage or only to a township and rang.e) ~ere deleted from the distributional maps but not from the analysis.sites containing information on political subdivisions ~tow.nship/range/qu~ter/quarter section) were rough-plotted to ~e n:udpoint of the coordinates and included in the figures presented In this study.

5 Journal of Field ArchaeologylVol. 20) Table 1. Descriptions and dates for various colored wares in the study area. Ware Jeddito Yellow Ware A.C Winslow Orange Ware A.C Jeddito Orange Ware A.C Types Awatovi Black-an-yellow Bidahochi Polychrome Jeddito Black-an-yellow Sikyatki Polychrome Tuwiuca Black-an-orange Chavez Pass and Homol'ovi Polychrome Jeddito Black-an-orange and Jeddito Polychrome Temper/paste Visible, clear quartz sand; yellow to yellow-orange paste Same as Awatovi Black-onyellow; clear quartz sand not visible to the naked eye; yellow to pale yellow paste Same as Jeddito Black-onyellow Abundant sand with opaque quartz, chert, and feldspar; yellow to orange sherd temper rare; Brown-orange to gray-orange paste Same as Tuwuica Black-onorange Scarce to abundant sherd temper, always white; some clear quartz sand; orange paste Dates A.C / / / / / Table 2. Distribution of sites according to size in the four study areas. Little Number of Number of ColoratW rooms sites Hopi Mesas River 501+ rooms 2 Awatovi Homol'ovi II rooms 7 Kawaika-a Chevelon Sikyatki Stone Axe Kuchaptevela Oraibi Shungopavi rooms 6 Chakpahu Homol'ovi I Lamehva Kokopnyama Mishongnovi rooms 7 Huckovi Homol'ovi IV Hoyapi Jackrabbit Nesuftanga Puerco rooms rooms 14 Pink Arrow Homol'ovi III + 9 others Cottonwood Creek 3-19 rooms rooms, artifact scatter Totals Hopi Buttes Bidahochi 1 Northern frontier 1 site Old Moenkopi postdate A.C. 1300, and their distribution is presented in Table 2. The sites have been divided into eight categories, according to the presence and size of structures, nonarchitectural features, and associated artifact types. Habitation sites or pueblos consist of three classes: small (3-20 rooms, and sites listed as "small" in site files); medium (21-75 rooms, and sites listed as "medium"); and large (76 rooms or more, and sites listed as "large"). Nonhabitation sites include those recorded as "field houses," artifact scatters, and sites with non-architectural features, such as rock art or shrines (often glossed as "limited activity sites"). The 384 small sites were probably foci of seasonal or special use (cf. Wilcox and Pities 1978). Figure 2 presents the distribution of Jeddito Yellow Ware sites in the study area. The settlement pattern includes medium to large pueblos surrounded by smaller sites that are located near arable land. Two distinct clusters of large sites, accompanied by smaller, non-architectural

6 8 Ceramic Distribution and Exchange/Adams) Stark) and Dosh o 50 km t=1 ~'==::;' =:' ~I o 30 km o Pueblos over 50 rooms Sit es Ie sst han 50 roo m s If\ N I UT CO :.. ~.1 AZ NM CKAYENTA O 'b' -.e.;-d------, Figure 3 ral I I ; ~ ~ o. I I. A1' I I 0 '}'f~.. I Awatovi.../.. I L ~_.! J o Bidahochi.. r , 0 Figure 4 I.,-Homol'ovi n ---I.. I WINSLOW 0 I.-. I L...J Figure 2. Distribution of Jeddito Yellow Ware sites within the study area. sites can be discerned. The first, located within the vicinity of the Hopi Mesas, contains approximately 23 pueblos in the early 14th century (FIG. 3). The second group, termed the Homol'ovi cluster, consists of six pueblos in the central Little Colorado River Valley (FIG. 4). In addition, a more dispersed pattern of pueblos occurs in the Pueblo Colorado, Cottonwood Creek, Leroux Wash, and Puerco River areas and includes the Bidahochi sites, Puerco Ruin, and Stone Axe (Hough 1903). Although the small sites tend to cluster near larger settlements (e.g., Homol'ovi sites and those around the Hopi Mesas), secondary clusters are known in the Colorado River-San Juan River country of southern Utah and northern Arizona, along the Pueblo Colorado Wash, and in the Hopi Buttes. The association of small sites with arable land suggests that local environments may have been exploited for agriculture. Three site types may be associated with agriculture: small, seasonal habitation sites (2-5 rooms); agricultural sites with field

7 Journal of Field ArchaeologylVol. 20) Oroibi o.. o..- o Awotovio.00,.0 : 0:.. o Pueblos over 50 rooms Sites less thon 50 rooms!f\ I N a 3 km 61===!::::::r==:!""! 2 Mi. Figure 3. Large-scale map of the distribution of sites having Jeddito Yellow Ware within the Hopi Mesas region. \...0 Homol 'ovi II ~ ".r ",1.-;.., ". WINSLOW D -- o Pueblos over 50 rooms Sites less thon 50 rooms -0 Little o Colorado River a 3km t F=====r====!, I a 2 Mi. Figure 4. Large-scale map of the distribution of sites having Jeddito Yellow Ware within the Little Colorado River region. houses (1-2 rooms or artifact scatters); and artifact scatters of sherds or sherds and lithics. Distributional patterns in subsections of the study area-the Hopi Mesas, the Hopi Buttes, the central Little Colorado River and the northern Frontier-will first be discussed. Data from the Homol'ovi Research Program then provide an in-depth perspective on distributional patterns within the supply wne (Hopi Mesas) and its environs (i.e., Little Colorado River region). The Hopi Mesas By the early 14th century a clear dichotomy existed between medium to large sites (having over 20 rooms) and small sites (some with structures, but having no more than 1-2 rooms) also called field houses (FIGS. 2,3). There also appears to be a settlement hierarchy reflected in site size differentiation and clustering. It consists of one very large site (twice the size of other sites in the vicinity), two

8 10 Ceramic Distribution and Exchange/Adams, Stark, and Dosh or more medium-to-large sites, and multiple small sites (TABLE2). A similar pattern is apparent in the central Little Colorado River region. Nine of the 24 Yellow Ware sites that date A.C in the Hopi Mesas area consist of large pueblos of 250 rooms or more, whereas the other 15 sites have less than 3 rooms, most having no architecture at all. The latter are all located within 10 km of the large pueblos. One likely explanation for this distribution pattern in late Jeddito Yellow Ware sites is that most of the populations were aggregated into large pueblos after 1400, a pattern also evident in the Zuni area at that time (Kintigh 1985). The presence of Jeddito Yellow Wares on a wide range of sites resulted from the many locations used by pueblo inhabitants in resource procurement and cultivation. The Hopi Buttes About 250 sites in the Hopi Buttes area (FIGS. 1,2) have Jeddito Yellow Wares record~d. Over half of the Hopi Buttes sites have poor provenience information and multicomponent occupations. Therefore, records from only 43 Hopi Buttes yellow ware sites contained adequate 10- cational information to be included in Table 2. Sherd and lithic scatters are the most common site types, possibly associated with the agricultural use of the area by prehistoric Hopi Mesa inhabitants, especially those on Antelope Mesa. The eastern Buttes area is dominated by the occupation of two 14th -century pueblos in the Bidahochi area. One has about 300 rooms and lies on the north side of the Pueblo Colorado Wash. The other is opposite the primary pueblo (Bidahochi) on the south side of the wash and has perhaps 150 rooms. A dense cluster of small yellow ware sites lies in the vicinity, and may consist of agricultural sites related to the larger settlements. At least six small sites have Sikyatki Polychrome ceramics, suggesting a post-a.c date (TABLE2). All lie within 10 km of the Antelope Mesa pueblos, except one site inferred to be a shrine (Gumerman and Skinner 1968: 195). The Little ColoradoRiver Valley Based on radiocarbon dates and the JedditolWinslow ceramic wares, the central Little Colorado River Valley (FIG. 1) was occupied during the late prehistoric period (A.C ). Intensive survey of a 30 sq-mi area near Homol'ovi I-IV by the Ariwna State Museum has recorded more than 175 yellow ware sites. About 64% of the sites recorded within the survey area contain both orange wares and yellow wares, suggesting beginning dates of A.C. 1300/1350. Approximately 40% contain exclusively Jeddito Yellow Ware. Five of the Jeddito Yellow Ware sites are medium to large (from 30 to 500 rooms or more). The remaining 94 sites are small, with a single 2- or 3-room pueblo, seven I-room field houses, and 86 sherd or sherd and lithic scatters (FIG. 4). AdjacentAreas: The Northern Frontier Little is known about the Jeddito Yellow Ware sites north of the Hopi Mesas in the Four Corners region (FIG. 2). Uneven archaeological survey in this area constrains our ability to interpret the observed pattern. We believe that the Jeddito Yellow Ware distribution on Northern Frontier sites is best explained through limited but continued occupation before A.C and by periodic use of the area by Hopi Mesa residents. Other proposed models focus on interactions between hunter-gatherer populations (Athapaskan or Numic speakers) and Hopi Mesa residents post-a.c (e.g., Ambler and Sutton 1989; Schaefer 1969: 61). Beaglehole (1937) has documented trade relations between historical Hopi populations and mobile hunter-gatherers in the region, but we lack convincing archaeological evidence to extend this pattern backward in time into the late prehistoric period (Adams and Adams 1987). Prior to A.C. 1300, populations apparently lived in pueblos of 75 or more rooms. Local (i.e., within 10 km) sand dune areas for dry farming and runoff farming in arroyo mouths and alluvial valleys provided food. Small groups of Pueblo populations may have continued to use existing habitations in the Northern Frontier area, farming nearby arable land. Most sites consist of sherd and lithic scatters and likely represent continued occupation or reuse of existing settlements (Adams and Adams 1987). With rare exceptions, Jeddito Yellow Ware types that were manufactured before A.C (e.g., Awatovi Black-on-yellow) predominate at these sites. Thus, it appears that Jeddito Yellow Ware-using groups rarely utilized the Four Corners. These sites are not clustered around large settlements, as is the case in the Hopi Mesas/Little Colorado River Valley. Instead the sites are associated with arable land and ephemeral drainages (e.g., Ambler, Lindsay, and Stein 1964), suggesting agricultural use. Notable exceptions to this pattern are the small pueblo of Old Moenkopi and a few sites in the vicinity of Moenkopi Wash that were clearly occupied or used after A.C Fourteenth-century rock art sites in the region bear a strong resemblance to contemporary art styles on Hopi Mesa sites, and support the idea that the prehistoric Hopi Mesa population incorporated sections of the Northern Frontier into its land use patterns (Adams and Adams 1987). Twentieth -century ethnographers describe various Hopi uses of the area including hunting, gathering, trap-

9 Journal of Field ArchaeologylVol. 20) ping eagles for use in ceremonies, and visiting shrines marking ancestral homes and boundaries of Hopi land (Beaglehole 1937; James 1974; Page 1982; Whiting 1939). Titiev (1937) also records salt gathering and eagle hunting expeditions in areas north of the Hopi Mesas. Post-A.C yellow ware sites located more than 10 km away from the large sites are much less common and are associated with rock art or sites in circumscribed ecological niches that may have been more suitable for cotton agriculture (as is the case at Moenkopi). Alternatively, these sites may be related to the procurement of local, rare resources, such as salt in the Little Colorado River gorge or eagles nested in the cliffs that are scattered across the plateau. Analysis of the Jeddito Yellow Ware Distribution Trade and migration have been cited as primary mechanisms by which Jeddito Yellow Wares were distributed from their production centers on the Hopi Mesas (Schaefer 1969; Upham 1982). Our study improves upon previous research by encompassing the full range of yellow ware site types in NE Arizona. Results suggest that the focus of earlier research on large "redistributive" sites (to the exclusion of small sites) misrepresents the distributional patterning of Jeddito Yellow Ware. In our sample, large and medium sites (over 50 rooms) comprise only 5.1% (22) of the total 433 yellow ware sites inventoried (FIG. 2). Although virtually all large sites in our study area contain Jeddito Yellow Ware, yellow wares are also found on other sites of all types and sizes. Most Jeddito Yellow Ware sites in the study area are small and are likely associated with prehistoric agricultural activities. Many of the Hopi Buttes sites, for example, were probably also utilized seasonally by inhabitants of the Hopi Mesas settlements. The Pueblo Colorado Wash area may have been exploited by occupants of the Bidahochi Pueblos, and small sites in the Homol'ovi area were used by agriculturalists from the eponymous site group. The Hopi Mesas and Environs: Supply Zone Behavior Table 3 lists the distance from the Hopi (Antelope Mesa) pueblos to the nearest settlement in the Homol'ovi group, the Puerco group, Nuvakwewtaqa, the Silver Creek settlements, and the upper Little Colorado settlements. Frequencies of Jeddito Yellow Ware compiled by Upham (1982: table 29) are used to generate frequencies for this table. When a regression analysis is applied to these data, the best fit is a linear relationship (y = x; r =.972; P <.01). According to Renfrew (1977: 84), such a linear relationship is probably the result of supply zone behavior. This behavior fits the material culture distribution when (I) the reduction in the quantity of an artifact ( Jeddito Yellow Ware) is independent of the quantity left and is dependent only on the distance; and (2) when material is acquired by the user travelling directly to the source (or the supplier travelling to the consumers). Reciprocal exchange would be one possible means for a linear distribution to occur. Ethnography provides one model for explaining ancestral Hopi exchange behavior. Exchange and intergroup dependence, mitigating occa~ional subsistence stress and reflecting village-based productive specialization, was present on the Hopi Mesas as late as the 20th century (Beaglehole 1937: 80-85; Ford 1972). The Hopi household, rather than formalized leaders, served as the basic Table 3. Distance to the edge of settlement clusters from Antelope Mesa (Awatovi) and frequency of Jeddito Yellow Ware as a percentage of total decorated ceramics. Settlement duster- Hopi Mesas Homol'ovi Puerco Anderson Mesa Silver Creek Upper Little Colorado River KmfromHopi (Antelope Mesa)t o % Jeddito Yellow Ware of total decorated pottery! *The Zuni sites data were not used because most of the sample came from sites occupied through the 17th century, thus artificially decreasing the frequency of Jeddito Yellow Ware. Verde Valley site data were not used because the normalizing process used by Upham, whereby Jeddito Yellow Ware is divided by total decorated ceramics, artificially inflates the Verde Valley frequency versus all other data sets. The relationship between distance and frequency of Jeddito Yellow Ware is best expressed as: y = x; r =.972; P <.Ol. tthese distances were recomputed using USGS 1:250,000 quad maps and the Antelope Mesa settlement cluster as the point of origin (Bishop et al. 1988). tfrequencies from Upham 1982: table

10 12 Ceramic Distribution and Exchange/Adams) Stark) and Dash organizational unit. Subsistence exchange within the community occurred between ceremonial and dance groups, between clan members, and with relatives visiting from other mesas (Beaglehole 1937: 78; Parsons 1925: 79-80; Titiev 1944: 16). Such exchange was conducted at the household level, ranging from transactions defined by casual reciprocity (Talayesva 1942: 53) to ones based on complex ritual calendars (Beaglehole 1937: 72). Intercommunity exchange linked kin groups from different settlements during ritual and secular activities throughout the year. Subsistence exchange buffered populations against an unpredictable environment and differences in agricultural productivity. Exchange in the Archaeological Homol'ovi Data Record: The The wealth of archaeological data from Homol'ovi II and its environs challenges the alliance model in which "managerial elites" supposedly maintained wide-ranging but socially-restricted trade networks through the exchange of decorated ceramics such as Jeddito Yellow Ware (Upham 1982). Excavations at the site of Homol'ovi II yielded calibrated radiocarbon dates in the mid-14th century (Adams 1989b) and suggest that Jeddito Yellow Ware vessels were widely used during the site's occupation. Jeddito Yellow Wares constituted 65% of the decorated ceramics on the site's surface, and 95 % of the partially restorable vessels recovered from five room floors, dating ca. A.C (cf. Adams 1989b; Hays 1991). Neutron activation studies of Jeddito Yellow Ware sherds from Homol'ovi II (Bishop et al. 1988: 330, tables 6, 7) demonstrate that the yellow ware sample that could be sourced was manufactured on the Hopi Mesas, and that pottery production was village-specific (Bishop et al. 1988: 332). In fact, 96% of the sample (24/25) represent portions of vessels manufactured at the Hopi Mesa site of Awatovi. Use-related surface alteration (primarily basal abrasion) was observed on most of the Jeddito Yellow Ware sherds from the Homol'ovi II collection (Hays 1991), suggesting that the inhabitants were the principal consumers of the yellow wares rather than intermediaries in a major exchange system. From the production perspective, no evidence exists for centrally controlled resources such as clay (Bishop et al. 1988: 332). From the distribution perspective, the large quantities of Jeddito Yellow Ware at Homol'ovi II suggest supply zone behavior (Renfrew 1977: 84), probably the result of reciprocal exchange between Hopi Mesa villages and Homol'ovi II. The high frequency of Jeddito Yellow Ware at Homol'ovi II effectively discounts Upham's contention that Jeddito Yellow Ware was an elite commodity of restricted access. Nevertheless, central places that receive exchanged material are frequently controlled by an elite hierarchy, causing a concentration of material at the central place (Renfrew 1977). But the concentration of Jeddito Yellow Ware in large sites does not necessarily imply restricted access, as contended by Upham (1982). Several lines of evidence can be used to evaluate the likelihood that elites at Homol'ovi II controlled the distribution of Jeddito Yellow Ware (TABLE 4). First, the settlement pattern of 14th-century sites having Jeddito Yellow Ware is not what is predicted by Upham (1982); however, it would fit a supply zone model (Renfrew 1977, table 3). Only 5.10/0 (22) of the sites are large (>75 rooms) and an additional 3.3% (14) contain rooms. About 89% (384) of the yellow ware sites in our sample contain less than three rooms, suggesting that access to Jeddito Yellow Ware was not restricted within the supply zone. Limitations of our database prevent us from exploring the point that archaeological sherd distributions do not reflect the systemic distribution of whole vessels. This problem, however, is shared with previous Yellow Ware distributional studies. A second line of evidence comes from spatial patterning observed in systematic surface collections. There are no concentrations of potentially elite material, such as obsidian, shell, and turquoise, at Homol'ovi II. Their occurrence is apparently random, and their presence in undifferentiated rooms excavated at the pueblo does not support the notion of restricted access to any commodities (see Adams and Hays 1991). In addition, the concentration of most of the population into large pueblos after 1300 does not suggest a tiered residential site hierarchy. In the Homol'ovi area, for example, six sites were occupied in the 14th century. Large Jeddito Yellow Ware frequencies characterize surfaces of three large sites, Homol'ovi I, Homol'ovi II, and Chevelon, ranging from 27.5% to 90.6% of total decorated ceramics (TABLE 5). The frequency of Jeddito Yellow Ware at three smaller pueblos, Homol'ovi III, Cottonwood Creek, and Jackrabbit, ranges from 7.8% to 67.0%. Upham's model predicts lower percentages for the smaller pueblos, and this clearly is not the case at the Homol'ovi pueblos. After six field seasons of intensive survey of a 30 sq-mi area around Homol'ovi I and Homol'ovi II (focused on the east side of the Little Colorado River), site density in the region averages 11 sites per sq mi, ranging from 5 to 17. Over 70% of sites with datable ceramic assemblages in the survey area were occupied during the period (Lange 1989). Over half (55.4%) of the Jeddito

11 Journal of Field ArchaeologylVol. 20) Table 4. Expectations of models assuming the presence or absence of elite individuals at Homol'ovi II. Elite, Supply restricting zone, Supply zone, Model access elite control no elite control Presence of Jeddito Yellow Ware Yes Yes Yes Ubiquitous Jeddito Yellow Ware No Yes Yes Presence of other exchanged items Yes Yes Yes Ubiquitous other exchanged items No Yes Yes Presence of Jeddito Yellow Ware No Yes Yes at small pueblos Ubiquitous Jeddito Yellow Ware No No Yes at small pueblos Presence of Jeddito Yellow Ware No Some Yes at small sites Distribution of small sites having Nonrandom, if any Nonrandom Random Jeddito Yellow Ware Table 5. Percentage of four decorated wares of total decorated ceramics at selected pueblos or pueblo clusters in the study area. White ]eddito Winslow Zuni Mountain Yellow Orange Glaze Site/duster Reference Red Ware Ware Ware Ware Anderson Mesa Cluster Upham Hopi Cluster Upham Middle Little Colorado Cluster Upham Puerco Cluster Upham Puerco Ruin Jennings Puerco Ruin Burton Homol'ovi II Hays Homol'ovi I Dosh Homol'ovi IV Hantman Cottonwood Creek Hantman Chevelon Andrews Jackrabbit Ariwna State Museum Homol'ovi III Andrews Homol'ovi III, early Ariwna State Museum Homol'ovi III, late Ariwna State Museum Yellow Ware sites were associated with agricultural fields, whereas 16% were associated with lithic procurement activities, and 28% had indeterminate functions (from surface indications and associated features and artifacts). The association of yellow ware with a wide range of contemporaneous site types suggests that Jeddito Yellow Ware was not restricted to large sites within the Homol'ovi area, but instead appears on all types of sites. Mirroring the Homol'ovi area pattern is that of the Colorado Plateau's Northern Frontier (FIG. 1) where more than 100 small Jeddito Yellow Ware sites have been documented (see TABLE 2). Issues of contemporaneity must be resolved to understand the yellow ware distribution in our study area. The use of Jeddito Yellow wares lasted nearly three centuries, so not all sites with such pottery were occupied at the same time. The alliance model, in its construction of ware distribution clusters, ignores temporal variability that may mask significant patterns (also see Graves 1987). For example, is the variability in frequency of four major regional decorated wares by site in Table 5 due to distance from production areas or to differences in age of the sites? Note how the grouping of sites into clusters smooths this variability. Based on the Homol'ovi example that follows, we contend that some, and perhaps many, of the sites listed in each "cluster" may not have been occupied at the same time. Two sites in the Homol'ovi group, Homol'ovi III and Homol'ovi IV, have exceptionally high Winslow Orange Ware frequencies and very low Jeddito Yellow Ware frequencies (TABLE 5). Calibrated radiocarbon dates from Homol'ovi III excavations place the first of two occupa-

12 14 Ceramic Distribution and Exchange/Adams) Stark) and Dosh tions between A.C and 1300, and the second at ca. 1330/1340 (Adams 1989a). Winslow Orange Ware dominates both occupations of the site, but Jeddito Yellow Ware frequencies increase almost ninefold from the first to the second occupation (Adams 1989a). At the later site ofhomol'ovi II, however, Jeddito Yellow Wares dominate the decorated assemblage (TABLE 5). This pottery, therefore, attained "dominance" in the Homol' ovi area at the peak of its production period in the latter half of the 14th century. The appearance and frequency of Jeddito Yellow Ware in the excavated assemblages from Homol'ovi sites change through time and therefore can be used as useful predictors of relative dates of deposits and survey sites. Averaging the ceramic frequencies from the seven Homol'ovi sites yields figures quite similar to those used by Upham (1982: table 29): 38.3% Jeddito Yellow Ware, 36.2% Winslow Orange Ware, 4.7% White Mountain Red Ware, and 0.4% Zuni Glaze Ware.,Yet this averaging totally misrepresents temporal variability in the sites. 2 Following the alliance model, the large quantities of Jeddito Yellow Ware recovered from Homol'ovi II suggests one of two hypotheses (Upham 1982): 1) the Homol'ovi site was inhabited by Jeddito Yellow Ware-using elite individuals, and non-elites lived elsewhere in sites that have been identified as agricultural in function; or 2) Jeddito Yellow Ware was not a high-status commodity. Available data support the second hypothesis. Evidence remains slim that exchange between the Hopi and Homol'ovi communities was structured along elite lines. Prehistoric elites are notoriously difficult to identify, since goods that accurately reflect status, authority, and restricted access to power are elusive in the archaeological record (Adams 1975). Lightfoot's (1979) study of food redistribution in the same area is interesting in the context of subsistence exchange systems. He argues that subsistence exchange may have buffered late prehistoric populations against periods of stress in the Mogollon Rim/Colorado Plateau areas. 2. The frequencies of Winslow Orange Ware in central Little Colorado River Valley settlements are in some cases double those attributed to Anderson Mesa by Upham (1982: table 29) and more than double the rate that Upham attributed to the area by averaging several villages into a composite. This clearly indicates that the center of Winslow Orange Ware production was the central Little Colorado River Valley. Puerco Ruin has an almost identical frequency to that attributed by Upham to the Anderson Mesa pueblos, when one uses excavation data from Jennings (1980) and Burton (1990). Since Puerco Ruin is equidistant from the Homol'ovi settlements as Chavez Pass, Upham's entire discussion of Winslow Orange Ware (in which Anderson Mesa is the production center) is untenable. Pottery trade between Chavez Pass and the Homol'ovi settlements probably began in the later 13th century and focused on Winslow Orange Ware. This was probably gradually replaced by Jeddito Yellow Ware. Both wares also occur in the Verde Valley. Comparative ethnoarchaeological data highlight a similar widespread pattern, in which productive specialization and exchange are associated with resource-poor areas (Arnold 1985; Stark 1991). These findings provide a more parsimonious alternative to the model of elite-controlled distribution proposed by alliance theorists (Plog 1983; Upham 1982). The prospect of a Jeddito Yellow Ware regional exchange system exhibiting supply zone behavior raises two issues. The first concerns the factors contributing to extensive importation of Jeddito Yellow Wares into Homol'ovi II. The second focuses on the possible goods exchanged by Homol'ovi II inhabitants for Jeddito Yellow Ware ceramics. The local Homol'ovi ceramic tradition, begun in the late 13th century (Adams 1989b), declined in response to population increase and associated resource depletions in the Little Colorado River Valley. These trends necessitated an increase in ceramic production, and available wood provided poor quality fuel for firing the vessels (Miksicek 1991). Arnold's (1985: 50) cross-culturally-derived distance thresholds regarding access to pottery resources suggest the 20 km gap between Homol'ovi residents and good quality fuel (in the Sunset Pass region, to the south) may have proven prohibitive. One alternative to using more suitable tree wood for firing pottery would be to rely on local fuels and to produce lower-fired, inferior vessels. Refiring experiments indicate original firing temperatures of Winslow Orange Wares that remained below C (Block 1985). Thirty percent of the Winslow Orange Wares examined from Homol'ovi II were underfired or misfired, 3 suggesting considerable experimentation with local fuels as substitutes for the less-accessible juniper sources (Hays 1991). A better alternative may have been the exchange of other subsistence goods for the coal-fired Jeddito ceramics of the Hopi Mesas (Adams 1989a). The movement of Jeddito Yellow Ware to the Homol'- ovi pueblos began after A.C as one component of a larger subsistence exchange network. Ceramic exchange between the Hopi Mesas and Homol'ovi II was unidirectional (Bishop et ale 1988: 330), as the Hopi Mesas supplied the Homol'ovi sites with decorated and utility wares. By A.C. 1350, Winslow Orange Ware production ceased, and Homol'ovi II imported all of its decorated ceramics from the Hopi Mesas. Specialized production and subsistence exchange between the Hopi Mesa sites and the Homol'ovi sites may have existed to compensate for ecological imbalances. 3. Firing temperature estimates of the underfired ceramics were made by measuring thennal expansion in a dilatometer.

13 Journal of Field ArchaeologylVol. 20) Table 6. Frequencies of Jeddito Yellow Ware and distance of nearest pueblos from Homol'ovi II. Site Homol'ovi II Homol'ovi I Chevelon Nuvakwewtaqa Distance o % ] eddito Yellow Ware Reference Hays 1991 Weaver, Dosh, and Miller 1982 Andrews 1982 Upham 1982 Corn, riparian plants and animals, feathers (Senior and Pierce 1989), and possibly raw materials used in pottery production (e.g., clays or pigments: Bishop et al. 1988: 318) may have been included in such exchange. Archaeobotanical evidence suggests that the Homol'ovi communities produced abundant cotton, which could then be exported to the Hopi Mesas (Adams 1989a: 189). Analysis of the Homol'ovi II and III assemblages indicates a concomitant increase in the frequency of cotton seeds with the appearance of Jeddito Yellow Wares in the assemblage (Miksicek 1991). Increasing populations in 14th-century Hopi Mesas settlements may have generated a demand for cotton that could not be satisfied through local cultivation of the crop. Ethnohistorical and ethnographic data support the model for specialized cotton production. The 16th- and 17th-century Spanish explorers report that the Hopi were known for their cotton textiles (Brew 1949; Coues 1900). A primary factor in the establishment of Moenkopi village by Hopi from Oraibi pueblo was that the climate in the former area was suitable for cotton production (Nagata 1970; Page 1940). Moenkopi shares climatic characteristics with the central Little Colorado River Valley that are ideal for cotton agriculture: an elevation of about 4700 ft, sufficient water, and a long growing season. Consideration of the mechanisms responsible for the distribution of Jeddito Yellow Ware to points farther south and west (e.g., Chavez Pass, Rye Creek and the Verde Valley) is beyond the scope of this study. Homol'- ovi Research Program data, however, do not support a model in which the Homol'ovi sites served as redistributive centers for Jeddito Yellow Wares. Table 6 presents the frequencies of Jeddito Yellow Ware at four large sites (i.e., >50 rooms), and exhibits an exponential distancedecay relationship, suggesting down-the-line exchange (Renfrew 1977), a pattern suggested by Upham (1982) for Winslow Orange Wares and Zuni Glaze Wares. This type of relationship results when the amount traded to the next village is proportional to the amount that is left. If communities received Jeddito Yellow Wares from Homol'ovi II, the distance from Homol'ovi II to the secondary receiving centers explains frequencies among these sites. Upham (1982) asserts that a pattern of directed exchange, not one of down-the-line exchange, characterized elitecontrolled distribution of Jeddito Yellow Ware. Homol'ovi survey and excavation data, incorporating artifactual and ethnobotanical evidence, suggest that Jeddito Yellow Ware was, instead, one product involved in a regional exchange system that incorporated Homol'ovi and Hopi communities. For Homol'ovi populations, Jeddito Yellow Wares provided a higher-quality alternative to inferior local ceramics. Hopi groups may have processed Homol'ovi cotton, which facilitated the exchange of Hopi textiles for other commodities from the distant reaches of the greater Southwest (Riley 1987). Finally, the Homol'- ovi data clearly indicate that Jeddito Yellow Ware and other products of exchange, such as obsidian, were available to most, if not all, members of the population (Harry 1989; Hays 1991). Summary and Discussion This paper has examined survey and excavation data related to the distribution of Jeddito Yellow Ware in the late prehistoric northern Southwest. Our data set challenges the "Jeddito Alliance" component of Upham's (1982) model for late prehistoric sociopolitical complexity. For the area considered in this study, Jeddito Yellow Ware is represented in high frequencies and does not indicate a system of restricted access. The vast majority of Jeddito Yellow Ware sites (950/0)in our inventory contain fewer than 50 rooms. Jeddito Yellow Ware was used and discarded in a variety of contexts, from ephemeral artifact scatters and field houses to agricultural sites and large settlements (populations in the Hopi Mesas-Homol'ovi areas used a wide range of site types surrounding their large pueblos in a catchment area of perhaps 10 km radius [Sullivan 1987]). To summarize, the Jeddito Yellow Ware site distribution suggests regional patterns characterized by size differentiation and clustering, with one larger village typically accompanied by two or more smaller villages one-half to two-thirds its size and a plethora of small agricultural sites (some with one or two rooms but most lacking visible architecture), located within 10 km of the large settlement. Major population centers on the Hopi Mesas and along

14 16 Ceramic Distribution and Exchange/Adams) Stark) and Dash the central Little Colorado River Valley participated in a regional exchange system until the abandonment of the Homol'ovi sites. Some goods from the Hopi Mesas likely passed through the Homol'ovi settlements to points farther south, but the Homol'ovi residents appear to have been the primary consumers of Jeddito Yellow Ware. Lack of adequate resources for localized pottery production may have required the import of large amounts of pottery into the Homol'ovi sites. This regional exchange system explains the Jeddito Yellow Ware distribution in the center of our study area without reliance on elite-mediated distributional systems. Specialization and complexity have been discussed extensively in archaeological studies worldwide (e.g., Brumfiel and Earle 1987). The alliance model uses ceramic distributions to posit elite-controlled, regional networks that operated on the southern Colorado Plateau wherein restricted access to goods such as Yellow Wares both created and sustained their value >~sprestige items. Our distributional data do not support a hierarchical model of elite control and region-wide "alliances." This is not to deny the importance of interaction between communities during the late prehistoric period, nor do we deny the existence of some types of leaders within densely populated communities. On the contrary, we believe that communities interacted closely in relationships of economic interdependence during the 14th century. Reciprocal exchange apparently linked the Hopi Mesas to the Homol'ovi villages, but no archaeological evidence for elite control over distribution exists to support a "Jeddito Alliance." We may now review expectations derived from the alliance model. The first expectation, that "elite" goods would be concentrated in large sites (i.e., those with more than 50 rooms recorded), was neither confirmed nor denied. We suggest that large settlements have higher frequencies of "prestige goods" than do small sites for two reasons: 1) large sites, like Homol'ovi II or Chavez Pass, have extensive occupational sequences in contrast to small sites (including field houses); and 2) most 14th-century individuals resided in large settlements. By implication, most goods-luxury or utilitarian-were also stored in large settlements, irrespective of particular social structure (see also Graves 1987). Distributional patterning of Jeddito Yellow Ware suggests "supply wne" behavior, as the linear relationship between distance from Hopi and Jeddito Yellow Ware frequency explains 94.4% of the variability. Chronological factors associated with the manufacture of types within the Jeddito Wares account for differing frequencies of Jeddito Yellow Ware on the Homol'ovi area sites. The second, related expectation-that small sites beyond the area of ceramic production (i.e., the Hopi Mesas) contain no Jeddito Yellow Ware in their assemblages-is not supported. Yellow ware sites are located in most parts of the study area, and are associated with a number of activities. The third expectation-that "elite" wares exported from the production centers were concentrated at large pueblos (or "central places") can only be evaluated using data from our study area. The value accorded the yellow ware may indeed have increased with its rarity in areas farther removed from the Hopi Mesas, but not in the "polities" proposed in the alliance model. The exchange model that best fits the Jeddito Yellow Ware distribution is neither down-the-line nor directional, as proposed in the alliance model. Instead, the distancedependent decrease in Jeddito Yellow Ware frequencies is linear and best fits supply wne behavior. The distribution of Jeddito Yellow Ware outside NE Ariwna remains unexplained. Beyond the greater production area (and beyond the Little Colorado River Valley), Jeddito Yellow Ware may have been valued as a prestige item. In the future, detailed surface collections of Jeddito Yellow Ware sites in areas west and south of our study area would help ascertain whether access to these ceramics was indeed restricted within sites. Some of the distribution also reflects post-depositional formation processes, including Yellow Ware site re-occupation (at sites like Homol'ovi III; Adams 1989a) and sherd curation (in regions north of the Hopi Mesas). Jeddito Yellow Ware sherd curation has been documented for the following: 1) establishing indigenous land claims (Adams and Adams 1987); 2) as sources of designs for Hopi-Tewa potters (Stanislawski 1969; Sullivan 1988); 3) and as components of visits to ancestral Hopi shrines that are still in use. The distribution of Jeddito Yellow Ware as currently documented likely reflects a multi-century process of deposition. These behaviors may help to explain "outlier" sites in the distribution. Conclusions Our study has suggested that the "Jeddito alliance" model of late prehistoric complexity (Upham 1982) is simply not supportable when a full range of archaeological site data are employed. Residents of the large 14th-century settlements likely engaged in regional systems of community-based specialization that required no elaborate, elite-mediated system of distribution. Given that site size in the study area had more than doubled by the early 16th century, the complexity suggested for the 14th century western Pueblo area could have been important for maintaining enlarged, aggregated

15 Journal of Field ArchaeologylVol. 20) Table 7. Sites occupied after A.C and into A.C Size Number Hopi Mesas Little Colorado River Hopi Buttes Northern frontier rooms rooms rooms 1-2 rooms, artifact scatter Total Awatovi* Kuchaptevela* Oraibi* Shungopavi* Sikyatki* Chakpahu Mishongnovi* Kokopnyama Old Moenkopi* 2 3 *Pueblos occupied before A.C that were still occupied after A.C populations at the time of Spanish Contact, rather than a century earlier (TABLE 7). Although status differentiation was present in Pueblo groups at contact, it had not led to economic rankings or the accumulation of wealth as predicted in the alliance model (Riley 1987: 199). Historical Pueblo data, although not directly comparable with pre-contact Pueblo society, present a strong case against 14th-century political complexity. Puebloan social organization undoubtedly changed in response to external pressures during the protohistoric and historical periods (Spicer 1962), but frequent and customary subsistence exchanges are integral parts of Pueblo tradition. 4 Complementary exchange may have functioned effectively at the household level in the Southwest and elsewhere, thereby precluding our need for models dependent on elite-based redistribution systems (cf. Brumfiel and Earle 1987). It is encouraging that extensive review of broad sets of data from the Southwest has led researchers to reevaluate their assumptions about hierarchical organization of prehistoric societies (see Upham, Lightfoot, and Jewett 1989). Prehistoric organizational structures in the Southwest indeed were varied, and archaeological as well as cross-cultural studies provide necessary analogies to understand this organization. Nevertheless, many researchers continue to portray historical Pueblo societies as organizationally simple and redundant. The diversity and organizational complexity of historical and modern Pueblo culture must be better understood by Southwestern ar- 4. Early 20th-century ethnographers documented the exchange of commodities among Hopi groups as payment for agricultural labor; for participation in communal work parties and salt-collecting expeditions; in exchange for game; as gifts to ceremonial parents and game winners; and to visitors from other settlements during weddings and less formal occasions (Eggan 1950: 33, 50-51; Parsons 1925: 18, 38, 55; Stephen 1936: 1000; Titiev 1944: 37-38). Exchange systems were widespread among Pueblos until recently (Ford 1983), and commodities involved ranged from manufactured goods (earthenware, basketry, and textiles) and food products (both agricultural and collected) to services that involved ceremonial specialists, midwives, and marriage partners. chaeologists before new models are constructed comparing the prehistoric record to its post-contact counterparts. Acknowledgments We are grateful to the Department of Anthropology Writers' Group for comments on this paper's various incarnations, and especially to Jenny Adams, Catherine Cameron, Douglas Craig, Mark Elson, Kelley Hays, Laura Levi, Barbara Montgomery, Masa Tani, Douglas Wilson, and Lisa Young. We also thank Alan Sullivan and David Wilcox for useful critiques and valuable suggestions. Additional thanks are extended to anonymous reviewers who pointed out inadequacies in our treatment of exchange models. Ron Beckwith drafted Figure 1, and Douglas Gann drafted Figures 2-4. Richard Lange compiled the data on survey information in the Homol'ovi area. We are grateful to all these people. Despite these acknowledgments, we accept full responsibility for any errors in the paper's content. E. Charles Adams isassociate Curator of Archaeology at the Arizona State Museum and Research Associate Professor in the Department of Anthropology. He directs the HomoPovi Research Program) which focuses on survey and excavation of several ancestral Hopi pueblos in NE Arizona) which have been incorporated into a new state park. Mailing address: Arizona State Museum) University of Arizona) Tucson) AZ Miriam T. Stark is a doctoral candidate whose researchfocuses on ceramic production and distribution in archaeological and ethnoarchaeological perspective. Her areal concerns inelude the American Southwest and Southeast Asia. Mailing address: Department ofanthropology, University ofarizona) Tucson) AZ Deborah S. Dosh has ama.fromnorthernarizona University and is a research archaeologist specializing in ceramic manufacture and exchange on the Colorado Plateau. Mailing

16 18 Ceramic Distribution and Exchange/Adams) Stark) and Dosh 330 East Papago Drive) Flags- address: KinlaniArchaeology) taff; AZ Adams, E. Charles 1981 "The View From the Hopi Mesas," in David R. Wilcox and W. Bruce Masse, eds., The Protohistoric Period in the North American Southwest) A.D Arizona State University) Anthropological Research Papers 24. Tempe: Ariwna State University, a "Homol'ovi III: A Pueblo Hamlet in the Middle Little Colorado River Valley," Kiva 54: b "The Homol'ovi Research Program," Kiva 54: Adams, E. Charles, and Jenny L. Adams 1987 "Thirteenth Century Abandonment of the Four Corners: A Re-evaluation," manuscript on file, Ariwna State Museum, University of Ariwna, Tucson. Adams, E. Charles, and Kelley Ann Hays, eds HomoPovi II: Archaeology of an Ancestral Hopi Village) Arizona. Anthropological Papers) University of Arizona 55. Tucson. Adams, Robert McC ''The Emerging Place of Trade in Civilizational Studies," in Jeremy Sabloff and C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, eds., Ancient Civilizations and Trade. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, Ambler, J. Richard, and Mark Q. Sutton 1989 ''The Anasazi Abandonment of the San Juan Drainage and the Numic Expansion," North American Archaeologist 10: Ambler, J. Richard, Alexander J. Lindsay, and Mary Anne Stein 1964 Survey and Excavations on Cummings Mesa) Arizona and Utah) Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 39. Glen Canyon Series 5. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Ariwna. Andrews, Michael J "An Archaeological Assessment of Homol'ovi III and Chevelon Ruin, Northern Ariwna," report prepared for the Ariwna State Land Department, Phoenix. Manuscript on file, Northern Ariwna University, Flagstaff. Arnold, Dean 1985 Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beaglehole, Ernest 1937 Notes on Hopi Economic Life. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 15. New Haven: Yale University Press. Bishop, Ronald, Veletta Canouts, Suzanne De Atley, Alfred Qoyawayma, and C.W. Aikens 1988 ''The Formation of Ceramic Analytical Groups: Hopi Pottery Production and Exchange, A.C ," Journal offield Archaeology 15: Block, Rebecca 1985 ''Thermal Expansion Measurements of Ceramics at Homol'ovi III," manuscript on file, Laboratory of Traditional Technology, University of Ariwna, Tucson. Breternitz, David A An Appraisal of Tree-ring Dated Pottery in the Southwest. Anthropological Papers 10. Tucson: University of Arirona. Brew, J.O "Preliminary Report of the Peabody Museum Awatovi Expedition of 1939," Plateau 13(3): ''The History of Awatovi," in R.G. Montgomery, W. Smith, and J.O. Brew, FranciscanAwatovi: The Excavation and Conjectural Reconstrnction of a 17th Century Spanish Mission Establishment at a Hopi Indian Town in Northeastern Arizona. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and EthnologJy Harvard University 36. Cambridge: Peabody Museum, Brumfiel, Elizabeth, and Timothy Earle "Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies: An Introduction," in Elizabeth Brumfiel and Timothy Earle, eds., Specialization) Exchange) and Complex Societies.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-9. Burton, Jeffrey F Archaeological Investigations at Puerco Ruin) Petrified Forest National Park) Arizona. Western Archeological and Conservation Center Publications in Anthropology 54. Tucson: National Park Service. Colton, Harold S Pottery Types of the Southwest. Museum ofnorthern Arizona Ceramic Series 3C. Flagstaff. Colton, Harold S., and Lyndon Hargrave 1937 Handbook of Northern Arizona Pottery Wares. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 11. Flagstaff. Cordell, Linda S "History and Theory in Reconstructing Southwestern Sociopolitical Organization," in Steadman Upham, Kent G. Lightfoot, and Roberta A. Jewett, eds., The SocWpolitcal Strncture of Prehistoric Southwestern Societies.Boulder: Westview Press, Cordell, Linda S., and George J. Gumerman 1989 "Cultural Interaction in the Prehistoric Southwest," in Linda S. Cordell and George Gumerman, eds., Dynamics of Southwestern Prehistory. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, Cordell, Linda S., and Fred Plog 1979 "Escaping the Confines of Normative Thought: A Reevaluation of Puebloan Prehistory," American Antiquity 44: Cordell, Linda, Steadman Upham, and Sharon Brock 1987 "Obscuring Cultural Patterns in the Archaeological Record: A Discussion from Southwestern Archaeology," American Antiquity 52: Coues, Elliott 1900 On the Trail of a Spanish Pioneer: The Diary and Itinerary of Francisco Garces) ) Vols. 1 and 2. New York: Francis P. Harper. Dosh, Steven G ''The Emergency Protection of Homol'ovi I Ruin," report prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix. Manuscript on file, Museum of Northern Arirona, Flagstaff.

17 Journal of Field A rchaeologyl Vol. 20) Downum, Christian E., ed Archaeology of the Pueblo Grande Platfonn Mound and Surrounding Features. Pueblo Grande Museum Anthropological Papers 1, 3 vols. Phoenix. Dozier, Edward 1970 "Making Inferences from the Present to the Past," in William A. Longacre, ed., Reconstructing Pueblo Societies. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, Eggan, Fred 1950 The Social 01lJanization of the Western Pueblos. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Elson, Mark D., and Douglas Craig, eds The Rye Creek Project: Archaeology in the Upper Tonto Basin. Anthropological Papers 14. Tucson: Center for Desert Archaeology. Ford, Richard I "Barter, Gift or Violence: an Analysis of Tewa Intertribal Exchange," in Edwin Wilmsen, ed., Social Exchange and Interaction. Anthropological Papers of the Museum of Anthropology 51. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, "Inter- Indian Exchange in the Southwest," in Alfonso Ortiz, ed., Handbook ofn orth American Indians 10, Southwest. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, Graves, Michael 1987 "Rending Reality in Archaeological Analyses: A Reply to Upham and Plog," Journal of Field Archaeology 14: Gumerman, George J., and S. Alan Skinner 1968 "A Synthesis of the Prehistory of the Central Little Colorado Valley, Arizona," American Antiquity 33: Hantman, Jeffrey L "A Long Term Management Plan for Significant Sites in the Vicinity of Winslow, Arizona," report prepared for the Ariwna State Land Department, Phoenix, by Soil Systems, Inc., Phoenix. Manuscript on file, Ariwna State Museum Library, University of Arizona, Tucson "Surplus Production and Complexity in the Upper Little Colorado Province, East-Central Arizona," in Steadman Upham, Kent G. Lightfoot, and Roberta A. Jewett, eds., The SociopoliticalStructure of Prehistoric Southwestern Societies. Boulder: Westview Press, Hargrave, Lyndon L "Recently Dated Pueblo Ruins in Arizona-Excavations at Kintiel and Kokopnyama," Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections82(1): Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Guide to Forty Pottery Typesfrom the Hopi Country and the San Francisco Mountains) Arizona. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 1. Flagstaff. Harry, Karen G "An Analysis of the Obsidian Assemblage of Homol'ovi III: Social and Economic Implications," Kiva 54: Haury, Emil W The Excavations of Los Muertos and Neighboring Ruins on the Salt River Valley) Southern Arizona. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 24(1). Cambridge: Peabody Museum, Harvard University. Hayes, Alden, Jon Nathan Young, and A.H. Warren 1981 Excavation of Mound 7: Gran Quivira National Monument) New Mexico. National Park Service Publications in Archeology 16. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior. Hays, Kelley A "Ceramics," in E. Charles Adams and Kelley Ann Hays, eds., HomoPovi II: Archaeology of an Ancestral Hopi Village) Arizona. Anthropological Papers) University of Arizona 55. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, Hibben, Frank C "Excavations at Pottery Mound, New Mexico," American Antiquity 21: Hough, Walter 1903 "Archaeological Field-work in Northeastern Arizona, the Museum-Gates Expedition of 1901," Annual Report of the United States National Museum for Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, James, Harry C Pages from Hopi History. Tucson: University of Ariwna Press. Jennings, Calvin H "Further Investigations at Puerco Ruin, Petrified Forest National Park, Ariwna," report prepared for the Western Archeological Center, Tucson. Manuscript on file, Laboratory of Public Archaeology, Colorado State U niversity, Fort Collins. Kidder, Alfred V The Pottery of Pecos)Vol. II. New Haven: Yale University Press. Kintigh, Keith 1985 Settlement) Subsistence) and Society in Late Zuni Prehistory. Anthropological Papers) University of Arizona 44. Tucson. Lange, Richard C "The Survey of the Homol'ovi Ruins State Park," Kiva 54: Lightfoot, Kent G "Food Redistribution among Prehistoric Pueblo Groups," The Kiva 44: Prehistoric Political Dynamics: A Case Study from the American Southwest. Dekalb: Northern Illinois University Press. Miksicek, Charles H "Paleoethnobotany," in E. Charles Adams and Kelley Ann Hays, eds., HomoPovi II: Archaeology of an Ancestral Hopi Village) Arizona. Anthropological Papers) University of Arizona 55. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, Morris, Earl 1928 "Kawaikuh," manuscript in Earl Morris Collection, University of Colorado Museum, Boulder.

18 20 Ceramic Distribution and Exchange/Adams) Stark) and Dosh Nagata, Shuichi 1970 Modern Transfonnations of Moenkopi Pueblo. Illinois Studies in Anthropology 6. Urbana: University of Illinois. Page, Gordon 1940 Hopi Agricultural Notes. Washington, D.C.: Soil Conservation Service. Page, Jake 1982 "Inside the Sacred Hopi Homeland," National Geographic Magazine 162: Parsons, Elsie Clews 1925 A Pueblo Indian Journal. Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association 39. Menasha. Plog, Fred 1983 "Political and Economic Alliances on the Colorado Plateaus, A.D ," in Fred Wendorf and Angela Close, eds., Advances in WorldArchaeology 2. New York: Academic Press, "Status and Death at Grasshopper Pueblo: The Homogenization of Reality," in M. Thompson, M.T. Garcia, and F. J. Kense, eds., Status) Struaure and Stratification: Current Archaeological Reconstruaions) Proceedings of the 1983 Chacmool Conference. Calgary, Alberta: University of Calgary, Ramenofsky, Ann F Veaors of Death: The Archaeology of European Contact. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Reid, J. Jefferson 1985 "Organizational Correlates of Settlement Behavior: Methodological Considerations," in M. Thompson, M.T. Garcia, and F.J. Kense, eds., Status) Struaure and Stratification: Current Archaeological Reconstruaions) Proceedings of the 1983 Chacmool Conftrence. Calgary, Alberta: University of Calgary, Reid, J. Jefferson, Michael B. Schiffer, Stephanie W. Whittlesey, Madeleine J. Hinkes, Alan P. Sullivan, III, Christian E. Downum, William A. Longacre, and H. David Tuggle 1989 "Perception and Interpretation in Contemporary Southwestern Archaeology: Comments on Cordell, Upham and Brock," American Antiquity 54: Renfrew, Colin 1977 "Alternative Models for Exchange and Spatial Distribution," in Timothy K. Earle and Jonathon E. Ericson, eds., Exchange Systems in Prehistory. New York: Academic Press, Riley, Carroll L The Frontier People: The Greater Southwest in the Protohistoric Period. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Ruppe, Reynold J., and A.E. Dittert 1952 "The Archaeology of Cebolleta Mesa and Acoma Pueblo: A Preliminary Report Based on Further Investigation," EI Palacio 59: Schaefer, Paul 1969 "Prehistoric Trade in the Southwest and the Distribution of Pueblo IV Hopi Jeddito Black-on-Yellow," Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers 41: Berkeley: University of California. Senior, Louise M., and Linda J. Pierce 1989 ''Turkeys and Domestication in the Southwest: Implications from Homol'ovi III," Kiva 54: Smith, Watson 1971 Painted Ceramics of the Western Mound at Awatovi. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 38. Cambridge: Harvard University. Snow, David H "Protohistoric Rio Grande Pueblo Economics: A Review of Trends," in David R. Wilcox and W. Bruce Masse, eds., The Protohistoric Period in the North American Southwest) AD Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers 24. Tempe: Arizona State University, Spicer, Edward H Cycles of Conquest. Tucson: University of Ariwna Press. Spielmann, Katherine 1986 "Interdependence Among Egalitarian Societies," Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5: Stanislawski, Michael 1969 ''What Good is a Broken Pot?" Southwestern Lore 35: Stark, Miriam 1991 "Ceramic Production and Community Specialization: A Kalinga Ethnoarchaeological Study," World Archaeology 23(1): Stephen, Alexander M Hopi Journal of Alexander M. Stephen) 2 vols, edited by Elsie Clews Parsons. New York: Columbia University Press. Sullivan, Alan P "Artifact Scatters, Adaptive Diversity and Southwestern Abandonment: The Upham Hypothesis Reconsidered," Journal of Anthropological Research 43: "Prehistoric Southwestern Ceramic Manufacture: The Limitations of Current Evidence," American Antiquity 53: Talayesva, Don 1942 Sun Chief: The Autobiography of a Hopi Indian) edited by Leo Simmons. New Haven: Yale University Press. Thomas, David Hurst, ed Columbian Consequences: Archaeological and Historical Perspeaives on the Spanish Borderlands West. Washington: Smithsonian Institution. Titiev, Mischa 1937 "A Hopi Salt Expedition," American Anthropologist 39: Old Oraibi: A Study of the Hopi Indians of Third Mesa. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 22(1). Cambridge: Harvard University. Ubelaker, Douglas H "North American Indian Population Size, A.D to 1985," American Journal of Physical Anthropology 77: