Webster (PDF) - Archaeology Southwest

TECHNOLOGICAL STYLE AND SOCIAL BOUNDARIESOF PERISHABLE ARTIFACTS OF THE EARLYAGRICULTURAL/BASKETMAKER II PERIODLaurie D. WebsterUniversity of ArizonaABSTRACTAlcove sites in the Greater Southwest have yielded diverse assemblages ofperishable artifacts dating to the Basketmaker II/Early Agricultural period. Thischapter summarizes current knowledge about the major perishable traditions ofthis time period and their geographical, temporal, and cultural patterning. Theconcept of technological style is used to briefly explore the variability of six perishableartifact classes: twined bags, looped fabrics, woven sandals, coiled andplaited basketry, and atlatls. Interpretative problems of the perishable record arediscussed, including the limitations of phase dating, the need for more direct datingof specimens, and the necessity for additional work with large unpublishedmuseum collections.Perishables have long been viewed as importantmarkers of social identities and cultural boundaries.Learned motor habits related to the production ofperishable artifacts, such as textiles and basketry,tend to be culturally ingrained and resistant tochange, making the technological patterns that resultfrom these actions ideal attributes for exploringsocial groups and learning networks (Adovasio 1970,1971; Adovasio and Gunn 1986; Adovasio andPedler 1994; Geib 2000; Haas 2006; Kent 1983;Maslowski 1996; Matson 1991; McBrinn 2002, 2005;Minar 2001; Webster 2007; Webster and Hays-Gilpin1994; Webster and Loma’omvaya 2004). In this chapter,a preliminary examination of perishable patternsin the Greater Southwest is provided, with a focuson technological style and boundaries. After a summaryof the Early Agricultural/Basketmaker II evidencefor the Greater Southwest, the stylistic andtechnological variability of several forms of perishableconstructions, such as twined bags, looped fabrics,sandals, coiled and plaited baskets, and atlatls,is examined. Finally, an overview of what is currentlyknown about major perishable patterns andboundaries during this period in the Greater Southwestis presented (Table 1).In many ways, this article puts the cart before thehorse. Although there are several comprehensivestudies of Early Agricultural/Basketmaker II perishablematerials for the Colorado Plateau (Guernsey1931; Guernsey and Kidder 1921; Kidder and Guernsey1919; Morris and Burgh 1954; Nusbaum 1922)and the Mogollon region (Cosgrove 1947; Martin etal. 1952), large quantities of perishables dating to theEarly Agricultural/Basketmaker II have yet to bestudied in depth. Early collections from Grand Gulchand other areas of southern Utah are a case in point.Because the perishables database from this period isvastly incomplete, archaeologists have yet to conductthe level of analysis to assess technological variabilityfor a broad range of perishable artifacts on a regionalscale. In fact, the most recent synthesis of BasketmakerII variability does not consider perishabletechnologies at all (Charles and Cole 2006). Meaningfulinterpretations of technological style requiredetailed comparisons of low-visibility attributes thatmust be obtained through the direct examination ofa large sample of artifacts from broad geographicalregions. Although some progress has been made (seeHaas 2003, 2006; McBrinn 2002, 2005; McBrinn andSmith 2006), much more work remains to be done.A larger problem is the lack of temporal resolutionfor these collections. Just as direct dating ofmaize has revolutionized the view of the transitionto agriculture, direct dating of large samples of perishableartifacts will transform current understandingof the historical trajectories of perishable technologiesin the Greater Southwest. Of the thousandsof known perishable artifacts considered to date tothe Early Agricultural/Basketmaker II, only a fewhave been directly dated (Geib 2004, 2011:Figure5.33; Geib and Robins 2003:Table 1, Figure 5; Moreno2000; Smiley 1997) (Table 2).

2 The Latest Research on the Earliest FarmersTable 1. Significant distributions of selected perishable classes during the Early Agricultural/Basketmaker II periods in six regions of the Greater Southwest.Sonoran DesertSouthern ColoradoPlateauUpper Gila andMogollon HighlandsSouthern JornadaBasin Trans-Pecos Region Northern MexicoTwined rabbit-fur blanket X X X X X XTwined bag X X X X XLooped bag – X (simple) X (simple, loop-andtwist,on foundationcords)X (simple, loop-andtwist,on foundationcords)X (simple, loop-andtwist)X (simple, loop-andtwist)Coiled basket, 1 rodX X X X X XfoundationCoiled basket, 2 rod-andbundleX X X X – –foundationCoiled basket, bundle– – – X X XfoundationPlaited basket and mat – – – X X XWickerwork sandal with– – X (early?) X X Xfishtail heelsWickerwork sandal withoutX X X X – –fishtail heelsTwined sandal – X – – – –Atlatl X X X X X X

Technological Style and Social Boundaries of Perishable Artifacts of the Early Agricultural/Basketmaker II Period 3Table 2. Directly dated Early Agricultural/Basketmaker II worked perishable artifacts from the Greater Southwest.Site NameObject DatedConventionalRadiocarbonAge Calibrated Range ReferenceBlack Dog Cave, Nevada Twined bag 1740±30 B.P. Not cited in report Winslow 2003:225Desha Cave I, Utah Wickerwork sandal 1800±40 B.P. A.D. 120-350 (2-sigma) Geib and Robins2003:Table 1Falls Creek Rock Shelters Yucca cordage 2300±50 B.P. 410-200 B.C. (2-sigma) Smiley 1997:Table A.1(North Shelter), ColoradoFirebrand Cave, Nevada Coiled basket 3242±153 B.P. 1890-1115 B.C. (2-sigma) Blair and Winslow2006:25; Winslow 2007McEuen Cave, Arizona Twined bag 2240±55 B.P. 400-180 B.C. (2-sigma) Moreno 2000:Table 3Atlatl 2355±65 B.P. 761-260 B.C. (2-sigma) Moreno 2000:Table 3Cradle 2430±55 B.P. 790-400 B.C. (2-sigma) Moreno 2000:Table 3Pictograph Cave, Arizona Tumpline attached to 1770±50 B.P. A.D. 130-410 (2-sigma) Smiley 1997:Table A.1large coiled carryingbasketSand Dune Cave, Utah Prairie dog skin bag 1670±140 B.P. A.D. 50-650 (2-sigma) Geib 2004:Table 1Dog skin bag 1855±50 B.P. A.D. 50-320 (2-sigma) Geib 2004:Table 1Twined bag 1790±50 B.P. A.D. 80-390 (2-sigma) Geib 2004:279, Table 1Ten January Cave,Sonora, MexicoAtlatl 3230±70 B.P. 1691-1325 B.C. (2-sigma) Ferg and Peachey1998:175Current interpretations of Early Agricultural/Basketmaker II perishable artifacts are based largelyon stylistic comparisons with other inadequatelydated collections or on dates derived from maize orcharcoal. This is problematic given the high likelihoodof artifact displacement in cave stratigraphy.Interpretations based on phase dating are also unreliable,because most phases incorporate extremelylong time spans or lack adequate radiocarbon assays.Although the spatial boundaries of many EarlyAgricultural/ Basketmaker II perishable technologiescan be estimated from the literature, their temporalrelationships and cultural origins will remaininadequately understood until large samples of perishableartifacts are directly dated. Thus, all discussionsof cultural origins and influences presentedhere should be viewed as hypotheses to be tested asmore reliable chronological data become available.THE EARLY AGRICULTURAL/BASKETMAKER II PERISHABLESDATABASEThe perishables record of the Greater Southwestis one of the most extensive in the Western Hemisphere,matched only by records from the Great Basinand the dry deserts of Peru and Chile. Geographically,however, the Southwestern record is uneven.Conditions for the preservation of perishable objectsare highly favorable in some environmental settingsand poor to nonexistent in others. The best preser-vation occurs in the San Juan region of the ColoradoPlateau, which is peppered with deep alcoves thatsaw extensive use by Basketmaker II people for burialand storage purposes. Consequently, large anddiverse assemblages of Basketmaker II perishablematerials have survived from this region, for example,Grand Gulch (Blackburn and Williamson 1997),Old Man Cave (Geib and Davidson 1994), AtlatlRock Cave (Geib et al. 1999), numerous sites in theMarsh Pass area of northeastern Arizona and theMonument Valley area of southeastern Utah (Guernsey1931, Guernsey and Kidder 1921, and Kidderand Guernsey 1919), Woodchuck Cave (Lockett andHargrave 1953), Cave du Pont (Nusbaum 1922), FallsCreek Rock Shelters (Morris and Burgh 1954), andBernheimer Alcove and Rehab Center (Sharrock etal. 1963); see also Robins (1997) (Figure 1). Archaicand Basketmaker II perishables have also been preservedat rockshelters just north of the traditionalBasketmaker II boundary, such as at Cowboy Caveand Tabeguache Cave (Hewitt 1980; Hurst 1940,1941, 1942).White Dog Cave, the type site for the earliestphase of Basketmaker II occupation on the ColoradoPlateau, yielded an extensive assemblage of perishables,including decorated coiled baskets, loopedand twined bags (the latter serving a secondary useas mortuary shrouds), vegetal sandals worked inplain weave and twining, hide sandals, twinedmats, twined rabbit-fur blankets, twined hair andyucca aprons, bands worked in warp twining andplain weave, as well as cradles, atlatls, and various

4 The Latest Research on the Earliest FarmersFigure 1. Location of Early Agricultural/Basketmaker II sites mentioned in the text.articles of personal adornment (Guernsey and Kidder1921; Kidder and Guernsey 1919). AcceleratorMass Spectrometry (AMS) dates on bone collagenfrom six burials at White Dog Cave suggest a daterange of circa 480-170 B.C. (Coltrain et al. 2007).Additional burials dated by Coltrain et al. (2007)from Sayodneechee Burial Cave, Kinboko Cave 1,and Marsh Pass Cave 6 in the Kayenta-MonumentValley area are also attributed to this early time period.The assemblage from nearby Sagiotsosi Cave 11has yet to be dated, but the presence of similar artifactssuggests a roughly contemporaneous date. Theonly directly dated artifact assemblage from this area,a hunter’s bag from Sand Dune Cave, produced acalibrated AMS date of A.D. 80-330 (Geib 2004). Earliermaterials may also be present (Lindsay et al. 1968).Tree-ring dates from Falls Creek Rock Shelters,Cave du Pont, and Woodchuck Cave suggest post-A.D. 1 occupation dates for those sites (Dean 1975;Lockett and Hargrave 1953; Morris and Burgh 1954;Nusbaum 1922), but more recent AMS dates onmaize, matting, and cordage from Falls Creek RockShelters (Lister 1997:134; Smiley 1997:27) and bonecollagen from nearby Durango-area sites (Coltrainet al. 2006) indicate a time depth for Basketmaker IIin the Durango area as early as 800 B.C. A reevaluationof the funerary basketry and textiles from FallsCreek Rock Shelters is currently underway (Jolie2011; Webster 2011), but Native American concernsdo not permit the direct dating of these collections.Many other cave collections from the San Juanregion have not yet been analyzed, dated, or studied,including the large Basketmaker collectionsmade by the Wetherill brothers from Grand Gulchfor the Hyde Expedition and by Charles McLoyd,Charles Graham, and Charles Lang from GrandGulch and several tributaries of the Colorado River(Blackburn and Williamson 1997; Pepper 1902). Despitethe wealth of Basketmaker perishable collectionsfrom southeastern Utah, almost nothing is currentlyknown about the dating or technology of theseartifacts. AMS dates on maize and unworked plantmaterials from Butler Wash indicate a BasketmakerII presence in the region by 650 B.C. (Smiley 1997:34).

Technological Style and Social Boundaries of Perishable Artifacts of the Early Agricultural/Basketmaker II Period 5Osborne’s (2004) study of Mesa Verde regionperishables provides the first published detaileddescriptions of some of these Utah collections. Morris’sextensive Basketmaker collections from Arizona’sCanyon del Muerto, including the BasketmakerII collections from Battle Cave, are generallyunstudied and unpublished. Geib is currently studyingthe weaponry from Battle Cave and several otherBasketmaker II sites. Recent AMS dates on a carryingbasket from Pictograph Cave and a yucca seedbead from Tseahatso Cave yielded midpoint datesof 1680 and 1710 years before present (circa A.D.270 and A.D. 240, respectively), and maize fromTseahatso Cave yielded a midpoint date of 1930years before present (circa A.D. 20) (Smiley 1997:30-32). Earl Morris’s collections from the Prayer RockDistrict, published by Elizabeth Ann Morris (1980)have been interpreted as Basketmaker III, althoughthey may also contain a Basketmaker II component.None have been directly dated.To obtain additional information about some ofthe unpublished Basketmaker collections, in 2008, Ibriefly surveyed and photographed collections fromGrand Gulch, Canyon del Muerto, and the PrayerRock District at the American Museum of NaturalHistory and the McLoyd and Graham collectionsfrom southeastern Utah at the University of PennsylvaniaMuseum. The following year, I conducteda more intensive survey of collections from southeasternUtah at the Edge of the Cedars Museum inBlanding, Utah (Webster 2009). Although these surveyswere too brief to allow for the collection of detailedtechnological information, they substantiatethe strong research potential of these collections forfuture work.The Mogollon region of southeastern Arizonaand southwestern New Mexico has also yielded anumber of cave collections that have been or coulddate to the Early Agricultural/Basketmaker II period(Webster 2007). Cosgrove’s (1947) work in theUpper Gila region of New Mexico and the Huecoarea of New Mexico and Texas identified a “Basketmaker”component at many of these sites, whileexcavations at Tularosa Cave and other rocksheltersin the Reserve area produced numerous artifactsfrom “pre-pottery” contexts (Martin et al. 1952).Based on stylistic and technological similarities betweenthese artifacts and those recovered by Kidderand Guernsey from Basketmaker II sites in theKayenta area, Early Agricultural period perishablesmay be present in collections from Bear Creek Cave,Steamboat Cave, Mule Creek Cave, and DoolittleCave in the Mimbres branch, Cienega Creek in theBlack River branch, and Bat Cave, Cordova Cave,Kelly Cave, O Block Cave, and Tularosa Cave in theCibola branch (Cosgrove 1947; Dick 1965; Haury1957; Hough 1914; Martin et al. 1952; Martin et al.1954; see also Webster 2007:Table 16.1). To myknowledge, no Early Agricultural artifacts have beenconfirmed by AMS dating at these sites.The most detailed information about Early Agriculturalperishables from the southern Mogollonregion comes from Kelly’s (1937) unpublished manuscripton the McEuen Cave assemblage (see alsoMoreno 2000). Situated north of the Gila River andeast of the San Pedro Valley, McEuen Cave providesstrong evidence for an Early Agricultural periodoccupation (Huckell et al. 1999). Three perishableartifacts from McEuen Cave were AMS dated, producingcalibrated ages of 400-180 B.C. on a twinedbag, 761-260 B.C. on an atlatl, and 790-400 B.C. on acradle (Moreno 2000). The McEuen Cave perishableassemblage strongly resembles the Basketmaker IIassemblage from White Dog Cave and several othersites in the Kayenta region. Similarities includethe presence of twined and looped bags decoratedin the “dry dye” technique (color rubbed on as theweaving progressed), 6-warp wickerwork sandals,warp-twined bands, twined rabbit-fur blankets, cradles,atlatls, and grooved fending sticks. There arealso notable differences, however, including the absenceof twined sandals and twined mats at McEuenCave, the presence of 2-warp wickerwork sandalsat McEuen but not in the north, and different formsof fending sticks and cradles in each region.East of the Mogollon region, large quantities ofperishable artifacts that may date to the Early Agriculturalperiod have been recovered from theJornada Basin, the Hueco area of the Rio GrandeValley, and the Guadalupe Mountains (Cosgrove1947; Howard 1931, 1932, 1935; Hyland 1997;Hyland and Adovasio 2000; Mera 1938; Schroeder1983). They include coiled baskets, plaited basketsand mats, twined bags, wickerwork sandals, atlatls,darts, grooved fending sticks, and hair ornaments.Similar assemblages that also could date to this timeperiod are known from the Trans-Pecos region ofTexas (Andrews and Adovasio 1980; Setzler 1935).A “Basketmaker” perishable pattern is reported asfar east as the panhandle of western Oklahoma,where collections include an atlatl of the San JuanBasketmaker II type, part of a twined bag, a twinedfur blanket, yucca sandals, fire drill hearths, maize,and basketry of “the coiled variety so common inthe Southwest” (Baker and Kidder 1937:51-52; Belland Baerreis 1951:15).In contrast with these extensive perishable assemblagesfrom the San Juan, Mogollon, JornadaMogollon, Hueco, and Big Bend regions, almostnothing is known about the use and production ofperishables in northern Sonora and southern Arizonaduring the Early Agricultural period. Perishablesare not reported from the important Early Agriculturalperiod sites of Cerro Juanaqueña in the

6 The Latest Research on the Earliest Farmersnorthern Chihuahuan Desert, Las Capas or theMilagro site in the Tucson Basin, or La Playa innorthern Sonora (Carpenter et al. 2005; Hard andRoney 1999; Mabry 2008).To my knowledge, the only definite Early Agriculturalperiod perishable artifacts come from TenJanuary Cave in the Sierra Pinacate of Sonora, whichproduced a few wooden artifacts, including an atlatl(Ferg and Peachey 1998). Some artifacts from VentanaCave might also date to this period, based onstylistic similarities between some of the VentanaCave artifacts and Early Agricultural assemblagesfrom the Mogollon region (most notably the wickerworksandals and possibly the two-rod-and-bundlecoiled basketry). Haury (1950:358, 411, 443),however, indicated that perishable materials generallywere not preserved in preceramic levels. Again,direct AMS dating is needed.Stylistic and Technological Diversity in SixPerishable Artifact ClassesTo explore the question of social boundaries inthe Greater Southwest during the Early Agricultural/BasketmakerII periods, stylistic and technologicalvariability is examined in several kinds of perishableartifacts: twined bags, looped fabrics,sandals, coiled and plaited baskets, and atlatls. Oneof the most valuable frameworks for assessing artifactvariability is the concept of technological style.This approach is based on the assumptions that individualsin small-scale societies customarily learnthe culturally correct way of “doing things” throughdirect observation and first-hand instruction, thatthese patterns are maintained through the conservativelearning process, and that this technicalknowledge is passed down through kin groups orother learning networks.The learned motor habits and production sequencesembedded in an artifact’s technology anddesign can be studied (Lave and Wenger 1991;Lechtman 1977; Lemonnier 1986; see also Adovasioand Pedler 1994; Carr 1995; Clark 2001). Unlike highvisibilityattributes, such as form, function, and decorativestyle, which can be easily imitated by peopleoutside of one’s social network, low-visibilityattributes are difficult to replicate without close observationand first-hand knowledge. For these reasons,though low-visibility attributes are more reliableindicators of population movement,enculturation processes, shared social histories, andcultural boundaries. Coiled basket foundations, basketrysplice techniques, selvage finishes, warp andweft configurations, cordage-twist direction, andwoodworking techniques are examples of low-visibilityattributes embodied by perishable artifacts.Twined BagsTwined bags (Figure 2) are a hallmark of BasketmakerII culture on the Colorado Plateau. Guernseyand Kidder (1921:66, 111) considered them “peculiarlycharacteristic of Basket-maker culture” in theKayenta region and the most elaborate of all BasketmakerII textiles. Twined bags also occur at severalEarly Agricultural sites in the southern Southwestand elsewhere in North America. One of theoldest weaving techniques in the Americas, twiningwas used to produce bags and mats in the GreatBasin during the earliest phases of the Western Archaic(Fowler et al. 2000). Adovasio (1970:16, 21; seealso Hyland and Adovasio 2000:145) has argued thatthe twining technique spread from the eastern GreatBasin into northern Mexico and the southern Southwestat a very early date, perhaps as early as 9000B.C.During the Early Agricultural/Basketmaker IIperiod in the Greater Southwest, a simple twiningtechnique was used to produce bags, fur or featherblankets, mats, and other items. The bags were madeby compact twining (also known as close twining),and the blankets and mats were made by open twining(also known as spaced twining) (Adovasio1977:16, Figure 7) (Figure 3). Wrapped twining, avariation of simple twining (Adovasio 1977:16-19,Figure 11a), was used in the San Juan region forcradleboards, hair ornaments, and some twined sandals.It was here that twined textiles reached theirhighest degree of elaboration during Basketmaker II.Twined artifacts are found in early assemblages fromthe southern Mogollon region, but seem not to be aswidespread as on the Colorado Plateau. Further, ifthe Ventana Cave assemblage is any indication, twiningwas of even less importance in the Sonoran Desert(Adovasio 1971:104; Martin et al. 1952:247).The earliest known compact-twined bags in westernNorth America are from the western Great Basin,where one example produced an AMS date ofapproximately 7000 B.C. (Fowler 2000:134, Figure7.12). Twined bags are also found in southern California,where undated “ancient specimens” are reportedfrom the southern San Joaquin Valley andwhere historic examples were made by theDiegueño, Mohave, and Yuma (Kroeber 1925:722,Plate 63). Closer to the Southwest, fragments of probabletwined bags are reported from Middle to LateArchaic levels at Hogup Cave in the eastern GreatBasin (Aikens 1970:134). Adovasio (1971:104) consideredBasketmaker II twined bags to be derived froma Great Basin tradition (see also Cressman 1942:Figure83 for possible parallels between Basketmakertwined bags and some Great Basin baskets).Twined bags known or suspected to date to theEarly Agricultural/Basketmaker II are reported from

Technological Style and Social Boundaries of Perishable Artifacts of the Early Agricultural/Basketmaker II Period 7Figure 2. Twined bags: (a) White Dog Cave, Kayenta area (adapted from Guernseyand Kidder 1921:Plate 30c); (b) Falls Creek Rock Shelters, Durango area(adapted from Morris and Burgh 1954:Figure 39); (c) McEuen Cave, southeasternArizona (adapted from Moreno 2000:Figure 3); (d) Chavez Cave, Hueco area(adapted from Cosgrove 1947:Figure 80a); (e) Buena Vista Lake, southern California(adapted from Kroeber 1925:Plate 63).southern Nevada, the San Juan region of the ColoradoPlateau, the Upper Gila, Mimbres, Hueco, andBig Bend areas, and as far east as western Oklahoma(Baker and Kidder 1937:52; Cosgrove 1947:80;Geib 2004; Guernsey and Kidder 1921; Morris andBurgh 1954; Nusbaum 1922; Sharrock et al. 1963:209-210; Winslow 2003:225, 236). The only known twinedbag from the Sonoran Desert comes from VentanaCave, but that object is thought to postdate the EarlyAgricultural period by a millenium or more(Haury 1950:410). Twined bags have not been reportedfrom early sites innorthern Mexico, althoughother forms of twined artifactshave been found (Taylor1966:75).Only three directly datedtwined bags are reported fromthe Greater Southwest. A decayedexample from BlackDog Cave near Moapa, Nevada,produced an AMS radiocarbondate of 1740±30 yearsbefore present (Winslow2003:225), another from SandDune Cave in northern Arizonareturned a date of 1790±50years before present (Geib2004:279, Table 1), and an examplefrom McEuen Cave insoutheastern Arizona produceda date of 2240±55 yearsbefore present, or a calibrateddate of 400-180 B.C. (Moreno2000:353) (see Figure 2c). TheMcEuen Cave bag enclosedthe skeletal remains of anadult male, an atlatl, a pipe, apair of sandals, and a coarselooped and knotted bag. A secondundated bag fromMcEuen Cave and two undatedbags from Kelly Cave in theCibola branch and DoolittleCave in the Mimbres branchmight also date to this earlytime period (see Cosgrove1947:70, footnote 4).Twined bags served as containersfor a variety of items.Blackburn and Williamson(1997:94) illustrate an unfinishedbag from Grand Gulchfilled with cornmeal, andNusbaum (1922:104-107, PlateLVI) describes a bag fromCave du Pont that containedsunflower seeds and hanks of yarn. Another smallbag from Falls Creek Rock Shelters contained amaranthseeds (Morris and Burgh 1954:94). A twinedbag from Sand Dune Cave, found inside a larger hidebag, contained feathers and bone gaming pieces, andwas probably part of a hunter’s cache (Geib 2004).Large twined bags also assumed secondary useas mortuary shrouds in some regions. This practiceis reported from Glen Canyon, Grand Gulch, andthe Kayenta area of the San Juan region, fromMcEuen Cave in southeastern Arizona, and from

8 The Latest Research on the Earliest FarmersII is provided. Of the estimated 50-70 twined bagsfrom this time in museum collections, fewer thanhalf (perhaps 15-20) have been analyzed at this levelof detail. To assess the local and regional variabilityof twined bag construction, information wouldneed to be collected at this level of detail for a muchlarger sample.FormFigure 3. Simple twining technique: (a) compact or close2-strand twining; (b) open or spaced 2-strand twining(adapted from Adovasio 1977:Figure 7).Burnet Cave in the Guadalupe Mountains of southwesternNew Mexico (Blackburn and Williamson1997:73-74; Guernsey and Kidder 1921:110, Plate 8a;Howard 1931:11, Plate V, 1932:11, Plate 2, 1935:67-69; Moreno 2000:351; Sharrock et al. 1963:46-53, 84,209-210, Figure 27). The practice was not universalduring this time period, however. For example, inhumationsfrom Cave du Pont and Falls Creek RockShelters were not enclosed in twined bags (Morrisand Burgh 1954; Nusbaum 1922).The funerary treatment of the mortuary remainsinterred in twined bags also varies by region. In theSan Juan region and at McEuen Cave, the twinedbags enclosed inhumations, whereas at Burnet Cave,they served as containers for cremations. Treatmentof the interments inside the twined bags from BuenaVista Lake in the southern San Joaquin Valley ofCalifornia is unspecified (Kroeber 1925:722, Plate 63).In the southern Southwest, a variety of containers,such as twined bags, looped bags, and coiled baskets,were used to hold skeletal and cremated remainsduring the Early Agricultural period (Haury1957; Schroeder 1983).Twined Bags: A Case Studyin Technological StyleIn the following section, current knowledge aboutthe form, technology, and decoration of twined bagsis summarized, and an example of the detailed levelof analysis that would be required to assess the stylisticand technological variability of twined bag constructionduring the Early Agricultural/BasketmakerAll twined bags from the San Juan region of theColorado Plateau are flexible cylindrical sacks withrounded bodies and elongated, truncated necks(Guernsey and Kidder 1921:Plate 30; Morris andBurgh 1954:67, Figures 39-40) (see Figure 2a-b). Theyrange in size from very small bags about 10 cm inlength, to bags more than 0.5 m long. The bags fromMcEuen Cave in southeastern Arizona are incomplete,but appear to resemble the San Juan examplesin form, technique, and decoration (Kelly 1937:39)(see Figure 2c). The bags from Burnet Cave in theGuadalupe Mountains also reportedly resemble theSan Juan examples (Howard 1935:67-69). In contrast,the bag from the Hueco site of Chavez Cave is squatand globular, and it differs considerably from theothers (Cosgrove 1947:Figure 80a) (see Figure 2d).TechnologyAll known examples of twined bags from theGreater Southwest are worked in compact, 2-strandtwining (see Figure 3a). Wefts in all examples twistaround each other in a Z-wise fashion (Z-twist wefts)(Adovasio 1977:20). Guernsey and Kidder (1921:65-76, Figures 12-14, Plates 25-30) provide a detailedanalysis of the twined bags from White Dog Caveand other Kayenta area sites, and subsequent researchershave compared their bags to the Kayentaexamples (see Cosgrove 1947:70-71, Figures 24-25,79-80; Kelly 1937:39-43, Plate XIV; Martin et al.1952:247, 303, Figure 113; Morris and Burgh 1954:67,Figures 39-41, 100c-d; Nusbaum 1922:Plate LVIX,endnote 13; Sharrock et al. 1963:209-210; Webster1988). A decent level of comparability exists fortwined bags across the region, although the sampleis relatively small and incomplete. For example,twined bags from Grand Gulch and several otherareas of southeastern Utah have yet to be analyzed.Twined-bag data from published collections aresummarized in Table 3.Method of Starting the BaseAll twined bags from the Greater Southwest werestarted at the base and twined in a spiral fashiontoward the rim. Guernsey and Kidder (1921:66, Figure12) report two primary techniques for starting

Technological Style and Social Boundaries of Perishable Artifacts of the Early Agricultural/Basketmaker II Period 9Table 3. Variability in Early Agricultural/Basketmaker II twined bag manufacture, decoration, and context, based on published examples.Sites/Areas with Definite orPossible Early Agricultural/Basketmaker II ExamplesGreat Basin andSouthern California: Sonoran DesertHogup Cave inEastern Great Basin;Buena Vista Lake inSouthern San JoaquinValley (Undated)None from thisPeriodSan Juan Region ofthe Colorado Plateau:Kayenta Region(Numerous Sites),Grand Gulch,Colorado RiverCanyons, Cave duPont, Falls CreekRock SheltersUpper and MiddleGila:Doolittle Cave, KellyCave, McEuen CaveJornada Basin andHueco Area: Trans-Pecos Region:Ceremonial Cave,Chavez Cave, BurnetCaveChisos MountainsPrincipal twining direction Z – Z Z Z ZUndecorated X (Hogup Cave) – – – – –Simple stripes – – X X X –Self-patterned bands (beaded X (Buena Vista Lake) – X X X –designs)Self-patterned bands (countered– – X (Kayenta region) X (McEuen Cave) – –twining)Painted designs – – X – – XDry-dyed wefts (color rubbed on as– – X X X –weaving progressed)–Method of starting the base – – Methods A and B(Kayenta region),variation ofMethod A (FallsCreek Rock Shelters)Method of adding new warps – – Methods C and D(Kayenta region),Method C (Cave duPont), Method C andseveral variationsofMethod C (FallsCreek Rock Shelters)Rim finish – – Methods F, G, H(Kayenta region)– Variation of MethodA (Chavez Cave)Method E (McEuenCave)Method F (McEuenCave)Method D and one ofthe same variationsof Method C found atFalls Creek RockShelters (ChavezCave)Method H (ChavezCave)Associated with inhumations X (Buena Vista Lake) – X X – –Associated with cremations – – – – X –Recovered from non-mortuary X (Hogup Cave) – X X X Xcontexts––

10 The Latest Research on the Earliest Farmersthe Kayenta bags, one common, andthe other rare. In the more commontechnique (labeled Method A herefor comparability purposes), threestrands were laid perpendicular tothree other strands, and these werethen bent into a spoke-like arrangementof 12 radiating warps (Figure4a). A weft strand was interlacedthrough the warps, with the twoends brought together to create apair of strands for weft twining. Inthe less common method (referredto here as Method B), three yarnswere twisted together and their endswere separated to form six radiatingwarps (Figure 4d). Weft twining wasbegun in the same manner as describedabove.The techniques used to start thebags from Falls Creek Rock Shelters(Figure 4b) and Chavez Cave (Figure4c) are most similar to MethodA, but differ slightly (Cosgrove1947:Figure 24a; Morris and Burgh1954:Figure 41k-l). Guernsey andKidder (1921) illustrate the directionof twining in the Kayenta bags asclockwise (see Figure 4a, d), whilethe twining of the Durango andChavez Cave bags is shown as counterclockwise(see Figure 4c-d). It isunclear, however, if all analysts were describing thebags from the same perspective, that is, the inner orouter face. Both McEuen Cave bags are missing theirbases (see Figure 2c), so the method of starting thesebags is unknown (Webster 1988).Method of Adding New WarpsGuernsey and Kidder (1921:68) describe twomethods of inserting new warps to increase the diameterof bags from the Kayenta region. In the first(referred to here as Method C), a new warp was foldedand anchored to the existing warp by untwistingthe new warp and inserting an existing warpthrough it (Guernsey and Kidder 1921:Plate 27a)(Figure 5a). In the second method (referred to hereas Method D), a new warp was folded and laid betweentwo existing warps (Guernsey and Kidder1921:Plate 27b) (Figure 5e). The warps of the twinedbag from Cave du Pont were added by Method C(Nusbaum 1922:endnote 13), whereas the Falls CreekRock Shelters and Chavez Cave examples incorporatemultiple techniques within a single bag. TheFalls Creek bags use Method C (Morris and Burgh1954:Figure 41g) (Figure 5b), as well as several variationsof Method C, including one in which a newFigure 4. Methods of starting the base of twined bags: (a) Method A,Kayenta area (adapted from Guernsey and Kidder 1921:Figure 12a); (b)variation of Method A, Falls Creek Rock Shelters, Durango area (adaptedfrom Morris and Burgh 1954:Figure 41l); (c) variation of Method A, ChavezCave, Hueco area (adapted from Cosgrove 1947:Figure 24a); (d) MethodB, Kayenta area (adapted from Guernsey and Kidder 1921:Figure 12b).(Method designations assigned by the author to enable comparisons.)warp was folded and laid across an existing warp(Morris and Burgh 1954:Figure 41h) (Figure 5c). Thetwined bag from Chavez Cave in the Hueco areaincorporates Method D (Cosgrove 1947:Figure 24b)(Figure 5f), as well as the same variation of MethodC described for the Falls Creek bags (Cosgrove1947:Figure 24c) (Figure 5d).A completely different technique is described forone of the McEuen Cave twined bags. In that example,a new warp was knotted and laid over an existingwarp, and then the two warps were used togetherfor a distance before being separated (referred tohere as Method E) (not illustrated). Knots are visibleon the surface where the new warps were added(Webster 1988). With one possible exception(Sharrock et al. 1963:209), the use of knots is not reportedfor Basketmaker twined bags on the ColoradoPlateau (Morris and Burgh 1954:67).Rim FinishGuernsey and Kidder (1921:69, Figure 14) identifiedthree methods of finishing the upper edges ofthe Kayenta bags. In the first (referred to here asMethod F), the warp ends were folded over an addededge cord, inserted back into the warp channel,

Technological Style and Social Boundaries of Perishable Artifacts of the Early Agricultural/Basketmaker II Period 11Figure 5. Methods of adding new warps during twinedbag manufacture: (a) Method C, in which new warp ispierced by existing warp, Kayenta area (adapted fromGuernsey and Kidder 1921:Plate 27a); (b) Method C, FallsCreek Rock Shelters, Durango area (adapted from Morrisand Burgh 1954:Figure 41g); (c) variation of Method C, inwhich new warp is placed adjacent to existing warp, FallsCreek Rock Shelters (adapted from Morris and Burgh1954:Figure 41h); (d) same variation of Method C as (c),Chavez Cave, Hueco area (adapted from Cosgrove1947:Figure 24c); (e) Method D, in which new warp is insertedbetween existing warps, Kayenta area (adaptedfrom Guernsey and Kidder 1921:Plate 27b); (f) MethodD, Chavez Cave, Hueco area (adapted from Cosgrove1947:Figure 24b).and then clipped off (Figure 6a). In the second (referredto here as Method G), the warp ends weregathered into bundles of four or five, tucked backinto the fabric, and clipped (Figure 6b). In the third(referred to here as Method H), each warp was foldedand inserted into the neighboring warp channel,and were then clipped (Figure 6c). The Hueco bagfrom Chavez Cave utilizes Method H (Cosgrove1947:71, Figure 80a), and the aforementionedMcEuen Cave bag is finished by Method F (Webster1988). The original finishes are no longer intact onthe Falls Creek bags (Morris and Burgh 1954:67).Based on the discovery of some partially wovenbags, some twined bags appear to have been intentionallyleft unfinished (Blackburn and Williamson1997:55).DecorationAlthough some twined bags are undecorated,most are decorated with woven self-patterned orpainted designs. The self-patterned designs wereFigure 6. Methods of finishing the upper rims of twinedbags: (a) Method F, warp ends folded over an added cord;(b) Method G, warp ends gathered into bundles andtucked into fabric; (c) Method H, warp ends inserted intoadjacent warp channel (adapted from Guernsey and Kidder1921:Figure 14).produced in a variety of ways (Figure 7). Late Agricultural/BasketmakerII weavers on the ColoradoPlateau and in the Upper and Middle Gila andHueco areas created solid-colored bands by usingpaired wefts of the same color and made “beaded”designs by pairing wefts of two different colors. Solidand beaded rows were combined to produce vertical,horizontal, or diagonal patterns (Cosgrove1947:70-71, Figure 25; Guernsey and Kidder 1921:65-74, Plate 29; Kelly 1937:Plate XIV; Morris and Burgh1954:Figures 39-40; Webster 1988). In the Kayentaregion and at McEuen Cave, weavers sometimesalternated the twining-twist direction of successiveweft rows to produce chevron-like bands in a techniqueknown as countered weft twining (Guernseyand Kidder 1921:Plate 29e; Webster 1988; see alsoEmery 1966:Figures 307-308) (see Figure 7e). Mineralpigments of various colors (red, black, yellow)were typically rubbed onto the yarns as the weavingprogressed, a method known as the “dry dye”or “dyed weft” technique (Guernsey and Kidder1921:70).A few twined bags from the San Juan region andthe Chisos Mountains of the Big Bend area were decoratedby painting. Some of the painted San Juan bagshave bold geometric designs (Figure 8) that resemblethose found on Basketmaker II coiled baskets andtwined sandals (compare Figure 8 with Kankainen1995:53, 90). According to Guernsey and Kidder(1921:72, Plates 28, 30), if a bag was intended to be

12 The Latest Research on the Earliest Farmersa.b.c.d.e.f.g.Figure 8. Twined bag with painted design, White DogCave, Kayenta region (adapted from Guernsey and Kidder1921:Plate 28).Figure 7. Self-patterned designs on twined bags (adaptedfrom Guernsey and Kidder 1921:Plate 29).painted, markers were woven in the bag to enablethe duplication of a design on both faces. Two fragmentsof painted twined bags are reported from theBig Bend region, but the decoration is not described(Setzler 1935:106).SummaryAlthough subtle technological differences aredocumented among regions, the existing literaturesuggests twined bags from the Colorado Plateau,Mogollon, and Hueco areas are more similar thandifferent (Cosgrove 1947:80; Morris and Burgh1954:67). Based on the small sample of bags discussedhere, the preliminary comparisons in Table3 suggest some technological attributes are sharedby the McEuen Cave and the Kayenta twined bags,for example, one rim finish technique and counteredweft twining, while others are shared by the FallsCreek Rock Shelters and Chavez Cave bags, such asone method of starting the base and one method ofadding new warps. The Chavez Cave bag also sharessimilarities with the Kayenta bags (one method ofadding new warps and one rim-finish method). Thechronological relationship of these bags to each otheris yet to be determined by direct dating. The greatestdiversity in size, form, and decoration is foundin the Western San Juan (Kayenta) region, althoughthis area has also produced the largest publishedsample of twined bags. Banded designs are moreelaborate in the Kayenta region than in the south,and the painted designs from this region are unparalleled.Looped Bags and LeggingsLooping, also known as coil without foundationor knotless netting, was another important fingerweavetechnique during the Early Agricultural/BasketmakerII, when it was used to produce flexiblecontainers and leggings (Kent 1983:47-54). Simplelooping (Figure 9a) reportedly had a wide distributionin Mexico by the Middle Archaic period (Mac-Neish et al. 1967:196, Figure 157) and appears to be

Technological Style and Social Boundaries of Perishable Artifacts of the Early Agricultural/Basketmaker II Period 13Figure 9. Looping techniques: (a) simple looping; (b) loopand-twist;(c) looping on foundation cords (adapted fromKent 1983:Figure 14c, b, and d, respectively).present in Tamaulipas, Coahuila, the Trans-Pecosregion, the Hueco area (Figure 10c), and the southernMogollon region by the Early Agricultural period(Coffin 1932:41; Cosgrove 1947:71-72, Figure 80b;Johnson 1971:306, Figure 3; Kelly 1937:35-39; Mac-Neish 1958:101; Martin 1933:48, Plates XLIV, no. 1,XIV, Nos. 1 and 2; Taylor 1948:159; 1966:75). Therelated technique of loop-and-twist (Figure 9b), usedfor coarse containers and nets, has a similar distributionduring this time (Coffin 1932:41; Cosgrove1947:71-72, Figure 26b; Johnson 1971:308; Kelly1937:38; MacNeish 1958:101; MacNeish et al.1967:196, 218, Figure 157) (Figure 10d). None of theseartifacts have been directly dated.Another variant, looping on foundation cords(Figure 9c), is generally confined to the Mogollonand Jornada Mogollon regions. Examples that coulddate to the Early Agricultural period include a flexiblebag decorated in the dry-dye technique that mayhave been associated with an AMS-dated cremation(250 B.C.-A.D. 160) from Pratt Cave in theGuadalupe Mountains (Schroeder 1983:42, 51, 122),an undated bag from Steamboat Cave in the UpperGila also decorated in the dry-dye technique(Cosgrove 1947:72, Figure 26d) (Figure 10e), and anundated, undecorated bag from McEuen Cave (Kelly1937:39, Figure 11, Plate XIII). The bags from PrattCave and Steamboat Cave are nearly identical.As discussed, the dry-dye technique, in whichpigment was applied to a yarn as the weaving progressed,is also documented for Early Agricultural/Basketmaker II twined bags (Guernsey and Kidder1921:71, 77). A bag from U-Bar Cave in southernNew Mexico, illustrated and described by Lambertand Ambler (1961:49, Figure 31) as “plain coilednetting” (that is, simple looping), appears from theillustration to be another possible example of loopingon foundation cords. Lambert and Ambler proposedan A.D. 1350 date for the bag, but Matson(1991:291) suggests it could date to the Early Agriculturaloccupation, which seems feasible. Again,direct dating is needed.Simple looping, but not loop-and-twist or loopingon foundation cords, is reported from BasketmakerII sites in the central portion of the San Juanregion. An example of loop-and-twist is known froma site near Dolores, Colorado, but it dates to the laterPueblo period (see Blinman 1986:60, Figure 2.7.)Fabrics worked in simple looping are reported fromWhite Dog Cave (decorated bag) (Figure 10a),Sayodneecheee Burial Cave (unidentified fragment),Kinboko Cave 1 (possible human hair legging), andSand Dune Cave (undecorated bag) (Guernsey andKidder 1921:77, Plate 25; Kidder and Guernsey1919:173; Lindsay et al. 1968:88). Osborne (2004:167)also describes a looped human-hair bag fromMcLoyd and Graham’s unpublished collections fromsoutheastern Utah. Unpublished examples of probableBasketmaker II looped bags are also present inthe American Museum of Natural History collectionsfrom Grand Gulch, Utah (Figure 10b), and BattleCave in Canyon del Muerto, Arizona. Decoratedexamples of looped bags appear to be colored bythe dry-dye technique. Looped fabrics are not reportedfrom Black Dog Cave near Moapa, Nevada,Cave du Pont near Kanab, Utah, or Falls Creek RockShelters in southwestern Colorado.SummaryJust as twining played a central role in the textiletechnology of the San Juan region during the LateAgricultural/Basketmaker II, looping appears tohave been a very important and highly developedtechnique in the southern Southwest. The greatestdiversity of looping techniques is reported fromCoahuila, the Trans-Pecos region, and southern NewMexico. On the Colorado Plateau, looping is reportedfrom Basketmaker II sites in the Kayenta region,Grand Gulch, Canyon del Muerto, and the NavajoMountain area, but has not been reported from theeastern or western fringes of Basketmaker II settlement.The popularity and diversity of looped constructionsin the southern Southwest and northernMexico suggests looping may have spread northwardonto the Colorado Plateau, although directdates are necessary to test this hypothesis. More informationis also needed about the early occurrenceof looping in southern California before that areacan be ruled out as a possible source.

14 The Latest Research on the Earliest FarmersFigure 10. Looped artifacts: (a) close-up of bag made by simple looping, White Dog Cave, Kayenta area (adapted fromGuernsey and Kidder 1921:Plate 25d); (b) bag made by simple looping, Cave 12, Grand Gulch, southeastern Utah(American Museum of Natural History catalog number H-13411, courtesy of the Division of Anthropology, AmericanMuseum of Natural History); (c) bag made by simple looping, Chavez Cave, Hueco Area (adapted from Cosgrove1947:Figure 80b); (d) coarse carrying net made by loop-and-twist technique, Steamboat Cave, Upper Gila (adaptedfrom Cosgrove 1947:Figure 81f); (e) bag made by looping on foundation cords, Steamboat Cave, Upper Gila (adaptedfrom Cosgrove 1947:Figure 79e).SandalsEarly Agricultural/Basketmaker II people probablywent barefoot much of the time, but when sandalswere worn, distinctive styles were used in differentareas (see Cosgrove 1947:Figure 32). Sandalsappear to have served as important markers of socialidentity. During this time, most groups in theGreater Southwest used some type of weft-facedplain-weave sandal (Figure 11), although there areregional differences in form and method of manufacture(Kidder and Guernsey 1919:158; Morris andBurgh 1954:65). For example, during the Archaic andEarly Agricultural periods, people in the Trans-Pecosregion, Jornada Basin, northern Coahuila, and probablyChihuahua typically used a short “scuffer toe”

Technological Style and Social Boundaries of Perishable Artifacts of the Early Agricultural/Basketmaker II Period 15Figure 11. Plain-weave (wickerwork) sandals: (a) two-warp scuffer-toe sandalwith fishtail heel, Hueco area, unidentified site (adapted from Cosgrove 1947,Figure 90:Type 4b); (b) two-warp scuffer-toe sandal, Hueco area, unidentifiedsite (adapted from Cosgrove 1947, Figure 87:Type 2b); (c) Mogollon full-lengthtwo-warp sandal, Tularosa or Cordova cave (adapted from Martin et al. 1952,Figure 88c); (d) Mogollon full-length four-warp sandal with warp elements foldedback over toe, Tularosa or Cordova cave (adapted from Martin et al. 1952, Figure90 center); (e) Mogollon full-length five-warp sandal, unidentified site (adaptedfrom Cosgrove 1947, Figure 92:Type 12); (f) Basketmaker II four-warp sandal,Cave 1, Kinboko Canyon, Kayenta area (adapted from Kidder and Guernsey 1919,Plate 67a).sandal that covered just the ball and instep of thefoot (see Figure 11a-b). Many of these sandals had a“fishtail” heel in which the warps protruded at therear (Cosgrove 1947:Figures 87-90, Types 1-5) (seeFigure 11a).A different style of wickerwork sandal was wornin the San Juan region of the Colorado Plateau, theMimbres and Reserve branches of the Mogollon region,and the western Sonoran Desert. In these areas,people wore full-length wickerwork sandals thatwere oval to rectangular in outline and lacked thefishtail heel (see Figure 11c-f). Instead of protrudingbeyond the heel of the sandal, the warps of thesesandals were knotted and trimmed close to the sandalbody (Cosgrove 1947:Figures 91-92, Type 8; Kidderand Guernsey 1919:Figure71; Martin et al. 1952:Figures87-88; McBrinn 2002, 2005). Inthe Jornada Basin and someareas farther north along theRio Grande, both the scuffertoeand full-length styles werereportedly used by Late Archaic-EarlyAgricultural groups(McBrinn 2002:Tables 21-22).Scuffer-toe and fishtail sandalsare not reported from the SanJuan region.Wickerwork sandals are theearliest sandal style in the Mogollonregion and the predominanttype from the Early Agriculturalperiod through the SanFrancisco phase (Cosgrove1947:82-98; Webster 2007:304-306). Most Mogollon wickerworksandals are woven in 1/1 plain weave, are full-length,and lack the fishtail heel (seeFigure 11c-e). Only a fewscuffer-toe or fishtail sandalsare reported from the Mogollonregion, for example,Doolittle Cave on the MimbresRiver, Bat Cave on the Plainsof San Augustin, and a few sitesin the San Simon region (seeCosgrove 1947). The temporalrelationship of the scuffer-toeand fishtail sandals to the fulllengthstyle has yet to be determinedby direct AMS dating.Two-warp wickerworksandals with a yucca-leaf warpand shredded fiber weft occurat nearly all Mogollon siteswith perishables and are reportedlythe earliest type ofplain-weave sandal in the region (see Figure 11c).This style is especially prevalent at sites in theMimbres and Reserve areas. Wickerwork sandalswith four, five, or six warps also occur in the Mogollonregion. The warp elements of some of thesesandals are folded over 180 degrees at the toe (seeFigure 11d). Most of these multiple-warp sandals arereported from the Reserve area, and some may dateto the late Early Agricultural period. A variation ofthis style in which the warps are not folded over atthe toe also occurs in the Reserve area (see Figure11e). These latter sandals bear a resemblance to BasketmakerII wickerwork sandals with four, five, andsix warps from the Colorado Plateau (see Figure 11f).Evidence from Tularosa and Cordova caves suggests

16 The Latest Research on the Earliest Farmersthe two-warp and four-or-more-warp varieties ofwickerwork sandals are contemporaneous (Martinet al. 1952:233-235).Although populations in the San Juan, Mogollon,Sonoran Desert, and eastern Great Basin regionsused a similar ovoid form of wickerwork sandal,regional differences are seen in technological style.Basketmaker II groups in the San Juan region usedplain-weave sandals with three, four, five, six, ormore warps, with four and six the most common(Kidder and Guernsey 1919:158, Plate 67; Morris andBurgh 1954:65) (see Figure 11f). Early Agriculturalpopulations in the Mogollon region reportedly usedsandals with two, four, five, and six warps (Cosgrove1947:Types 11-14) (see Figure 11c-e). Two-warpwickerwork sandals are not found in the San Juanregion during this time. Strong stylistic and technologicalresemblances are seen among some earlyMogollon and San Juan Basketmaker II four-, five-,and six-warp wickerwork sandals (Cosgrove1947:Figure 92, Type 12 and Figure 93b; see alsoKidder and Guernsey 1919:Plate 67a; Morris andBurgh 1954:Figure 34) (compare Figure 11e and 11f),whereas other styles differ considerably betweenthese regions (compare Martin et al. 1952:Figure 90and Kidder and Guernsey 1919:Figure 71).Two-warp wickerwork sandals are the only styleof wickerwork sandal reported from Ventana Caveand the eastern Great Basin site of Etna Cave (Haury1950:433-435; Wheeler 1973:18-21, Figures 17-18, 41).Although two-warp wickerwork sandals were widespreadacross the southern Southwest, those fromVentana Cave exhibit a slightly different warp constructionthan those from Tularosa Cave and sites inthe Upper Gila. The warps of the Ventana Cave sandalsconsist of a continuous leaf knotted at the heel,while those from the Mogollon region were typicallyfabricated from two leaves looped around eachother at the toe and tied together at the heel (Martinet al. 1952:234). As noted, it has yet to be determinedby AMS dating if any woven perishables from VentanaCave date to the Early Agricultural period.Plain-weave (wickerwork) sandals with four,five, or six warps are also the earliest style in theSan Juan region during Basketmaker II (Kidder andGuernsey 1919:Figure 158) (see Figure 11f). Fourwarpwickerwork sandals also occur north of thetraditional Basketmaker II boundary at sites withearly maize during this time (Hurst 1941:18, PlateIII, Figure 26).The most distinctive style of Basketmaker II sandalon the Colorado Plateau is the finely woven cordagesandal with a square toe, sometimes with anadded decorative fringe and raised reinforcementon the sole (Figure 12). In contrast to wickerworksandals, which were woven of yucca leaves andcould be produced relatively quickly, these sandalswere made from highly processed yucca fiber thatwas spun into cordage, requiring a much greaterinvestment of time and labor. Some of the coarserexamples are woven in plain weave, but the morefinely woven and elaborate sandals are twined orincorporate a combination of twined and plainweavestructures. Although a comprehensive technologicalstudy of these sandals, commonly knownas twined sandals, has yet to be conducted, existingdata suggest considerable stylistic and technologicaldiversity in shape, weave structure, fringed toeconstruction, sandal tie configuration, and coloreddecoration across the Colorado Plateau (Blackburnand Williamson 1997:96; Guernsey 1931:Plate 47d;Kidder and Guernsey 1919:Plate 68b-d; Nusbaum1922:Plates XXXVI-XXXVIII; Osborne 2004:Figures63, 64). Basketmaker II cordage sandals occur as fareast as the Chinle drainage and as far west as BlackDog Cave in southern Nevada, an area consideredto be the western extent of Basketmaker II culture(Winslow 2003:308-315, Figures 27-29). They are notknown to occur in the southern Basin and Range.Twined sandals were not recovered from FallsCreek Rock Shelters near Durango, one of severaldifferences cited by Morris and Burgh (1954:75-78)between the material culture of the Durango andClassic San Juan Basketmakers. The Falls Creek RockShelters produced the same general style of wickerworksandal as more western Basketmaker assemblages,but the Durango examples lack the toe fringefound on some Classic San Juan examples (Kidderand Guernsey 1919:158, Figure 71, Type 1a). Anothersandal type recovered from Falls Creek Rock Shelters,but not from any western Basketmaker II sites,is a 2/2 diagonal-twill plaited sandal with a squaretoe and tapered heel, which Morris and Burgh(1954:64, Figures 33, 99e) attributed to the BasketmakerII occupation (Figure 13). The twill-plaitedsandals from Falls Creek are almost identical to sandalsrecovered from some of the Prayer Rock caves,attributed to Basketmaker III (Morris 1980:Figures79a, c). None of the Falls Creek or Prayer Rock sandalshave been directly dated, so it is unclear wherethey fall in the Basketmaker sequence. It currentlyappears that the twined sandals of the San Juan regionmay be more closely tied to a Great Basin perishabletradition and the Basketmaker twill-plaitedsandals from Falls Creek may be more closely linkedto the perishable traditions of Trans-Pecos Texas andnortheastern Mexico. However, a large sandal samplemust be directly dated to test this hypothesis.AtlatlsFerg and Peachey (1998) provide a good summaryof atlatl diversity in the Greater Southwest during

Technological Style and Social Boundaries of Perishable Artifacts of the Early Agricultural/Basketmaker II Period 17a. b.Figure 12. Twined cordage sandal with buckskin fringe,Cave I, Kinboko Canyon, Kayenta region: (a) upper face;(b) lower face, showing raised reinforcement on sole(adapted from Kidder and Guernsey 1919, Plate 68b, c).Figure 13. Twill-plaited sandal, 2/2 weave, Falls CreekRock Shelters (North Shelter), Durango area (adaptedfrom Morris and Burgh 1954, Figure 33).the Late Agricultural/Basketmaker II, and much ofthe following discussion is summarized from theirwork. The key attributes of atlatl style and technologythat vary by region are: (1) how the butt of thedart articulates with the atlatl (described as male,female, or mixed); (2) the construction of the grip,including the presence and type of finger notchesand finger loops; and (3) the presence and types ofaccessories and decoration.Male atlatls have a projecting hook or spur onthe interior surface or face, whereas female atlatlslack a projecting hook and have a groove carved intothe top. Mixed atlatls have a groove ending in a hookor spur. Flush spurs are typically a northern trait,and projecting spurs a southern one. The two typesoverlap in the Hueco-Guadalupe Mountains area(Ferg and Peachey 1998:191, Figure 8).The geographical distribution of grip types is lesswell defined. In general, carved finger notches withbuckskin finger loops are more common in the north,carved finger notches in the south, and straight-sidedboards in the Hueco-Guadalupe Mountains andCoahuila. Ferg and Peachey (1988:191) suggest thestraight-sided boards once held stone or shell fingerloops secured with elaborate bindings, similar tothose found on Aztec atlatls.Accessories and decoration also vary by region.The use of stone charms is considered a San Juantrait, but pictographs from Chihuahua suggestcharms may also have been used in this region (Fergand Peachey 1988:191). Decoration with red pigmentis characteristic of atlatls from southern Arizona, theHueco-Guadalupe mountains of southern New Mexicoand West Texas, and the Mexican states of Chihuahua,Coahuila, and Sonora. This type of decorationis also found on Great Basin atlatls, but is notdocumented on atlatls from the San Juan region. Inciseddesigns are also more of a southern pattern.Atlatls from the San Juan region typically haveflush spurs, elaborate buckskin finger loops, and asmany as four stone charms lashed to the back of theboard (Figure 14). All lack red pigmentation andmost lack incised designs. A few deviations fromthis pattern are reported from Broken Roof Cave(possible projecting spur), Canyon del Muerto (definiteprojecting spur), and Falls Creek Rock Shelters(incised designs) (Cressman 1942:69, Figure 93a;Guernsey 1931:72; Morris and Burgh 1954:68, Figure43). Another atlatl from Canyon del Muerto hasthe more typical flush spur. Atlatls from the Mogollonregion resemble those from the north but arethought to lack the stone charms (Ferg and Peachey1998:189, Table 1).A complete atlatl from McEuen Cave in thesouthern Mogollon region exhibits a mix of northernand southern characteristics (Ferg and Peachey1998:182, 191, Table 1). This atlatl produced a calibratedAMS age of 761-260 B.C. (Moreno 2000:Table3). Like atlatls from the San Juan region, theMcEuen example has a flush spur and finger loops.Its hide/fur charm is also more typical of northernatlatls. However, the board is painted red, a typicalsouthern feature. Kelly (1937:67) noted its similarityto atlatls from the Hueco area.Atlatls from the Hueco and Guadalupe mountainsexhibit a broad mix of northern and southernattributes. Flush and projecting spurs, grips with

18 The Latest Research on the Earliest Farmersand Peachey 1988: 190). A mixedtypeatlatl with a ventral grooveand projecting spur, opposed fingernotches, and traces of red paint,dated to 1502 B.C., was recoveredfrom Ten January Cave in the SierraPinacate of Sonora (Ferg andPeachey 1998:175). This is one ofthe few perishable artifacts reportedfrom the Sonoran Desert.SummaryFigure 14. Atlatls with flush spurs, buckskin finger loops, and stone charmsfrom White Dog Cave, Kayenta region: (b) and (c) are opposite faces of sameatlatl (adapted from Guernsey and Kidder 1921, Plate 33).Because atlatls were almost certainlymade and used by men, theyprovide an opportunity to exploremale learning networks at variousscales. Large-scale networks can beexamined through the regional distributionsof basic atlatl-dart articulationmethods and grip types,while low-visibility attributes, suchas finger-grip construction, can beused to investigate male learningnetworks at smaller scales. Ambler’s(see Lindsay et al. 1968: 64-67) detaileddescription of the atlatl fromSand Dune Cave in northern Arizonaprovides a model for this levelof analysis (Phil Geib, personalcommunication 2008).The Hueco-Guadalupe Mountainsarea is one region wherenorthern and southern atlatl stylesoverlapped (Ferg and Peachey1988:Figure 8). Other significantatlatl patterns are: (1) the similaritiesof atlatls from the San Juan andMogollon regions, and (2) southerninfluences in atlatls from FallsCreek Rock Shelters, Canyon delMuerto, and Broken Roof Cave.These patterns suggest the existenceof shared, large-scale malelearning networks between the SanJuan and Mogollon regions.finger notches, finger notches with finger loops,boards with straight edges, red paint, incised designs,and a stone charm are reported from variousexamples from this region (Ferg and Peachey1988:189). Farther south, a mixed-type atlatl with redpaint and shallow finger notches is reported fromChihuahua, and both mixed and male-type atlatlswith variable grips are known from Coahuila (FergBasketryCoiled BasketryCoiled baskets offer several low-visibility attributesfor study, including foundation structure,splicing techniques, and the ways in which the elementsarticulate, for example, interlocking or non-

Technological Style and Social Boundaries of Perishable Artifacts of the Early Agricultural/Basketmaker II Period 19interlocking stitches (Adovasio1977). In this section, somebroad geographical patternsfor three common foundationstructures in the GreaterSouthwest during the Archaicand Late Agricultural/BasketmakerII are summarized (seeAdovasio 1970; Morris andBurgh 1941; Weltfish 1932).Coiled Baskets with One-rodFoundationsa.b.Close coiling on a one-rodfoundation (Figure 15a) is theoldest coiling technique inwestern North America. Anexample from Cowboy Cave insouthern Utah, north of the SanJuan region, produced an AMSdate of 7960±50 before present,making it the earliest directlydated coiled basket from the Americas (Geib andJolie 2008). Adovasio (1970:16) postulated that onerodcoiling, together with twining, diffused southwardinto Mexico during the Middle Archaic period,forming the basis for subsequent coiled baskettraditions in the Greater Southwest.In the San Juan region, one-rod coiling was associatedwith Early Archaic Desha levels at Dust Deviland Sand Dune caves (Lindsay et al. 1968:99, 102,119, 120). This coiled basket structure also occurs inBasketmaker II assemblages, but in much smallerproportions than the more common two-rod-andbundlecoiling (Kidder and Guernsey 1919:168, Plate76a; Morris and Burgh 1941:7). One variant of onerodcoiling found at Basketmaker II sites is spacedcoiling on a one-rod foundation (Figure 15b), whichwas used to make sifter-like baskets (Morris andBurgh 1941:17-18, Figure 5g; Nusbaum 1922:96-97).A few close-coiled baskets with a one-rod foundationare reported from Mogollon sites dating tothe Early Agricultural period. The earliest well-datedMogollon example comes from Cienega Creeknear Point of Pines, where a coiled basket with aone-rod-foundation basket and noninterlockingstitches was associated with a cremation dated circa100 B.C.-A.D 100 (Haury 1957:19). The same cremationalso yielded a coiled basket with a two-rodand-bundlefoundation. Another possible EarlyAgricultural period (or earlier?) example of one-rodbasketry with interlocking stitches is reported fromBat Cave (Dick 1965:71-72), although there could beproblems with the dating (Wills 1988). Two complete,undated close-coiled baskets with a one-rodc. d.Figure 15. Coiled basket foundation structures: (a) close coiling on a one-rodfoundation with interlocking stitches; (b) spaced coiling with an intricate stitchon a one-rod foundation with interlocking stitches; (c) close coiling on a two-rodand-bundlefoundation with (primarily) noninterlocking stitches; (d) close coilingon a bundle foundation with noninterlocking stitches (adapted from Morrisand Burgh 1941, Figures 3a, 5g, 3j, and 3e, respectively).foundation from McEuen Cave, one with a woveninblack design, the other with a red painted decorationapplied as the coiling progressed (Kelly1937:22) may also date to this early time period. Themethod of applying color to the latter basket is reminiscentof the dry-dyeing technique used to decorateEarly Agricultural period twined and loopedbags.Hyland and Adovasio (2000:147) argue for thepresence of one-rod coiling in the Jornada Mogollonregion by 3900-2500 B.C. Undated coiled basketswith a one-rod foundation and split and interlockedstitches that could date to the EarlyAgricultural period are reported from CeremonialCave and Chavez Cave in the Hueco area (Cosgrove1947:99, Figures 33h-i, 94a-b). Two sites in theGuadalupe Mountains, Burnet Cave and CremationCave, yielded cremated human bones in associationwith one-rod coiled baskets (Howard 1935:68; Mera1938). The artifacts from Cremation Cave resemblethose from Pratt Cave in the Guadalupe Mountains,and they could be roughly contemporaneous. A cremationin a looped bag from the latter site produceda radiocarbon date of 2200±60 years before present(Schroeder 1983). This is roughly the same time asthe basket cremations from Cienega Creek near Pointof Pines.Coiled Baskets with Two-rod-and-bundle FoundationsClose coiling with a two-rod-and-bundle foundationand non-interlocking stitches (Figure 15c) wasthe most common coiling technique in the San Juan

20 The Latest Research on the Earliest Farmersregion from Basketmaker II into the Pueblo III (Morrisand Burgh 1941:12). Most of the coiled basketryrecovered by Kidder and Guernsey at BasketmakerII sites in the Kayenta region were of this type(Guernsey and Kidder 1921:59). These baskets assumedvarious forms, including carrying baskets,trays, bowls, and trinket baskets. None of these basketshave been directly dated, but the tumpline attachmenton an elaborately decorated carrying basketfrom Pictograph Cave in Canyon del Muertoyielded a calibrated date span of 1820-1540 yearsbefore present, or A.D. 130-410 (Smiley 1997:30, Figure2.13, Table A.1). Basket assemblages from thefar western Basketmaker II sites of Cave du Pont(Nusbaum 1922:90) and Black Dog Cave (Winslow2003:208-216) were also dominated by two-rod-andbundlecoiled basketry. The earliest reported directdate on a two-rod-and-bundle basket (1890-1115B.C.) comes from Firebrand Cave in southern Nevada(Blair and Winslow 2006:25; Winslow 2007).In contrast to the predominance of two-rod-andbundlefoundations at these western Basketmakersites, only one basket made in this technique wasidentified at Falls Creek Rock Shelters near Durango.Instead, that assemblage was dominated by half-rodand-bundlebasketry, which has ties to earlier andmore northern basket traditions (Morris and Burgh1954:67).In the Mogollon region, coiled baskets with tworod-and-bundlefoundations are also the most prevalenttype during this period. Significant quantitieswere recovered from pre-pottery levels at TularosaCave (Martin et al. 1952:250), and, as noted, a coiledbasket with a two-rod-and-bundle foundation wasassociated with an Early Agricultural period cremationat Cienega Creek (Haury 1957:19). In the SonoranDesert, the oldest basketry from Ventana Caveis reportedly of this type (Haury 1950:406). As noted,however, Haury (1950:358, 411, 443) questionsthe presence of preceramic perishables at the site.In the Jornada Mogollon region, Hyland et al.(2003:342) reported two-rod-and-bundle-foundationcoiling in Fresnal levels at Pendejo Cave in theTularosa Basin by roughly 1200 B.C. These basketswere not directly dated. Two-rod-and-bundle coilingis also present in the Hueco area, but is a minoritytype. Twenty percent of the Hueco coiled basketryreported by Cosgrove (1947:105, 167) had atwo-rod-and-bundle foundation, compared to 90percent of the coiled basketry from the Mimbres-Gilaarea.In the Guadalupe Mountains of southern NewMexico, coiled baskets with a two-rod-and-bundlefoundation were used as containers for inhumationsand cremations. At Burnet Cave, a large basket traycontained human bones (Howard 1935:67-69), andanother two-rod-and-bundle basket served as a lid(Cosgrove 1947:162). At the same site, a two-rodand-bundlecoiled basket contained a bag with crematedbones. Mera (1938:50, Plate 14, nos. 2, 3, 7)also reported two-rod-and-bundle basketry with cremationsat Cremation Cave and with an inhumationat Burial Cave.Only one example of two-rod-and-bundle coiledbasketry is known from Chihuahua, Mexico (King1974:106). This foundation type is not reported fromTaylor’s (1966) Coahuila caves or from the Trans-Pecos region (Andrews and Adovasio 1980; McGregor1992). Its absence from the Trans-Pecos regionand Coahuila seems to preclude a southeastern originfor this foundation type in the U.S. Southwest.Coiled Baskets with Bundle FoundationsIn contrast with two-rod-and-bundle coiled basketry,the use of a bundle foundation (Figure 15d)appears to have a more southern origin. This foundationtype is rare in the Four Corners region untilthe Protohistoric period, and is not characteristic ofBasketmaker II sites on the Colorado Plateau (Morrisand Burgh 1941). A recent survey of the Mogollonperishables literature failed to reveal any EarlyAgricultural period examples of bundle-foundationcoiling in this region (Webster 2007). Bundle-foundationcoiling was the most popular foundationstructure at Ventana Cave, but most, if not all, ofthese specimens appear to date to the later O’odhamoccupation (Haury 1950:402-403).Hyland and Adovasio (2000:147; see also Mac-Neish 1993) date the appearance of bundle-foundationcoiling in the Jornada Basin to the Fresnal phase,circa 2500-900 B.C. Another technique thought to beof southern origin, plaiting, also appeared in the regionduring this time. Hyland and Adovasio (2000)link the appearance of bundle-foundation coilingand plaiting to new southern projectile point styles,changes in settlement and subsistence patterns, andthe appearance of new cultigens in the region.Bundle-foundation coiling is the principal basketrytechnique at Cosgrove’s (1947:105) Hueco sites,and it is also reported from Early Agricultural contextsin the Guadalupe Mountains (Ferdon 1946:15,Plate VII; Howard 1935:68-69; Mera 1938:Plate 14).At Pratt Cave in the Guadalupe Mountains, a fragmentof bundle-foundation basketry was among thematerials found in the vicinity of a cremation thatproduced a radiocarbon date of 2200±60 beforepresent (Schroeder 1983:42).Bundle-foundation coiling with noninterlockingstitches appears to be quite ancient in Coahuila andthe Trans-Pecos region, where examples are attributedto the Middle and Late Archaic periods(Andrews and Adovasio 1980; McGregor 1992;Setzler 1932:138; Taylor 1966). This is also reportedly

Technological Style and Social Boundaries of Perishable Artifacts of the Early Agricultural/Basketmaker II Period 21the earliest coiled basketry tradition in the TehuacanValley, where it was associated with El Riego phase(6500-4800 B.C.) contexts (MacNeish 1962:33; Mac-Neish et al. 1967:10, 11, 164). Reliable AMS assaysfor this phase are lacking, however, and recent datinghas shown many artifacts from the TehuacanValley to be much younger than originally claimed(Phil Geib, personal communication 2008).Plaited BasketryAdovasio (1971:105) has argued that the roots ofplaiting in the Greater Southwest lie in Mexico. Plaitingwas reportedly the most common basketry techniquein early levels (circa 5000-6000 B.C.) at Taylor’s(1966:62, 73-74, Figures 15-17) Coahuila caves,where it appeared in the form of narrow bands andsandals. Plaiting was also reportedly present in theMexican state of Tamaulipas prior to 3000 B.C. (Mac-Neish et al. 1967:166). Again, direct dating of specimensis necessary to confirm these early dates. Inthe Tehuacan Valley, MacNeish (1962:38-40; also,MacNeish et al. 1967:12, 164, 166) recovered twillplaitedbasketry from agricultural, ceramic-producingvillages dated to the Santa Maria period, circa900-200 B.C.Both simple plaiting, also known as checkerweave(Figure 16a), and twill plaiting, in which theweaver varies the rhythm to produce a diagonaldesign (Figure 16b), were common early in theTrans-Pecos region. It has been suggested that simpleplaiting (1/1) from Hinds Cave in the lowerPecos Valley could date to Paleoindian times, and2/2 twill plaiting is reported from levels dated to7500 B.C. (Andrews and Adovasio 1980:333; McGregor1992:64). Simple and twilled plaited mats werereportedly common in the Trans-Pecos region after4000 B.C. (Andrews and Adovasio 1980:366).Adovasio (1970:16) has proposed that plaitingentered the U.S. Southwest through the southernJornada Basin. The technique was reportedly presentin the region as early as the Fresnal phase, circa 2500-900 B.C. (Hyland and Adovasio 2000:147, 151-152).Evidence from the Hueco-Guadalupe Mountainsarea supports the presence of plaiting there by theEarly Agricultural period. Mera (1938:52, Plate 13,no. B3) reported a 1/1 plaited yucca tray with a twigwoven into the rim, possibly an early ring basket,from Burial Cave, a site that appears to date to theEarly Agricultural period, and Cosgrove (1947:37,161, Figure 101a) described a square pail-like basketwoven in 1/1 simple plaiting (“checkerweave”)in association with a flexed “basket-maker” burialfrom Cave 1 in the Hueco Mountains.Despite the popularity of plaiting east of the RioGrande during this period, it appears not to becomecommon in the Mogollon Highlands or in otherFigure 16. Plaiting structures: (a) 1/1 simple plaiting; (b)2/2 twill plaiting (adapted from Adovasio 1977, Figures117 and 118, respectively).Mogollon branches until considerably later(Adovasio 1970:104). Nor does plaiting seem to bean early technique at Ventana Cave (Haury 1950:401-402). Based on the limited evidence from the southerndeserts, plaiting appears to have been less popularin the Hohokam region than in other parts of theSouthwest.Current evidence from the Colorado Plateau suggeststwill-plaiting may have been more popularamong eastern Basketmaker groups than in the west.The Falls Creek Rock Shelters yielded three 2/2 twillplaitedsandals, a 2/2 twill-plaited “tule” tumpband,and a 2/2-twill braided rabbit-hair sash (Morris andBurgh 1954:Figures 37-38, 100b). The plaited sandalsand tumpband from Falls Creek are currently theearliest reported examples of these artifact types onthe Colorado Plateau. They have not been directlydated, however, so this may change as more plaitedartifacts are dated. The only twill-plaited artifactspresently identified from more western BasketmakerII sites are two coarsely woven flexible bag-likebaskets woven in 2/2 twill from White Dog Caveand Kinboko Cave 1 (Guernsey and Kidder 1921:63)and several 2/2-braided bands of human and animalhair from various sites across the region (Haury1945:37, Plate 14; Judd 1926:Plate 54b). Twill plaitingis absent from the eastern Great Basin (Adovasio1970:13), but its early presence in Mexico and theTrans-Pecos region (Andrews and Adovasio 1980:366-

22 The Latest Research on the Earliest Farmers367) suggests the technique may have spread ontothe Colorado Plateau from the east or southeast. Alarge sample of twill-plaited artifacts from differentregions must be dated to test this hypothesis.SummaryTwo-rod-and-bundle coiling was the principalcoiling technique in the San Juan and Mogollon regionsduring the Late Agricultural/Basketmaker II,a pattern that continued into Pueblo III times. Bundle-foundationcoiling was the dominant coiling techniquein the Hueco Mountains and Trans-Pecos Texas.Plaited basketry was also common in the Huecoand Trans-Pecos regions. The Hueco-Jornada Mogollonregion was the major region of overlap for thesebasketry techniques during the Early Agriculturalperiod, just as it was for wickerwork sandals andatlatl styles (Cosgrove 1947:Figure 32; Ferg andPeachey 1998:Figure 8).Major Perishable Patterns and Boundariesin the Greater SouthwestA broad Early Agricultural adaptation has beendocumented for the Greater Southwest roughlybounded by the eastern Great Basin on the west,Utah and Colorado on the north, western Oklahomaand the Trans-Pecos region on the east, and inlandnorthern Mexico on the south (Baker and Kidder1937; Haury 1957; Howard 1932, 1935; Guernseyand Kidder 1921; Kelly 1937; Kidder and Guernsey1919; Mera 1938; Moreno 2000; Schroeder 1983).Patterns common to this tradition include the use ofcaves for burial purposes, temporary camps, andstorage; interment of the dead in woven containers(inhumations or cremations in coiled baskets or flexiblefiber bags); and a distinctive suite of perishablematerial culture, including twined rabbit-fur blankets,coarse plain-weave (wickerwork) sandals, nets,coiled baskets, twined and looped bags, and woodenfending sticks and atlatls. Most of these assemblagesalso contained maize, although not all groupswere fully committed to agriculture.Between 1000 and 500 B.C., this pattern becamemore localized in different parts of the Southwest.Adovasio (1971:106; see also Hyland and Adovasio2000) has suggested that Southwestern textile andbasketry traditions were stimulated early by diffusionfrom the eastern Great Basin and later by developmentsfrom Mexico. In his reconstruction, perishabletraditions, such as twining and one-rodcoiling, spread from the Great Basin into the Southwestand northern Mexico, and bundle-foundationcoiling and twill plaiting spread north from Mexico.However, the recent dating of a 9,000-year-oldcoiled basket with a one-rod foundation from CowboyCave in southern Utah raises questions aboutthe Great Basin origin of coiling, and highlights theimportance of direct dating (Geib and Jolie 2008).The origins of Basketmaker II culture on the ColoradoPlateau are still widely debated, with influencessuggested from such diverse regions as the northernColorado Plateau (Matson 1991), southern Arizonaand New Mexico (Berry 1982; Matson 1991;Morris and Burgh 1954:85), northern Mexico (Guernseyand Kidder 1921:115), California (Guernsey andKidder 1921:62; Kidder and Guernsey 1919:210), theeastern and northern Great Basin (Adovasio1971:103-104; Cressman 1942:3-4), and the northernplateau (Osborne 2004:88, 520). As noted by Geib(2004:280; also in his chapter in this online presentation),the degree of cultural continuity from theArchaic period to Basketmaker II on the ColoradoPlateau has yet to be resolved. Basketmaker II textileand basketry assemblages are characterized bya suite of perishable artifacts that include twinedrobes (fur, feather, or both), twined and looped bags,twined mats, twined aprons, flat braided bands andsashes, coiled basketry dominated by two-rod-andbundlefoundations, and a diversity of sandalstyles—coarse wickerwork (plain weave) sandalswith three-or-more warps across the region, finesquare-toed cordage sandals in the western and centralareas, and coarse twill-plaited sandals in the east.Based on current evidence, western BasketmakerII perishable traditions appear to show closer affinitiesto Great Basin and Californian coiling andtwining industries, while the eastern Basketmakertradition, exemplified by the Falls Creek Rock Sheltersassemblage, appears to combine a regional twiningtradition with coiled basketry more characteristicof Archaic traditions on the Colorado Plateau andtwill-plaiting with possible connections to the south.Larger samples of directly dated artifacts are neededto refine these spatial patterns.Early perishables from the Mogollon region arereported from rockshelters on the margins of theMimbres, Pinos Altos, and southern Mogollonmountains and the Plains of San Augustín (Cosgrove1947; Dick 1965; Huckell 1995; Martin et al. 1952;Martin et al. 1954; Moreno 2000; Wills 1988). Basedon stylistic criteria, most of these artifacts appear todate to 800 B.C.-A.D. 150, the Cienega phase of theEarly Agricultural period, but more direct dates areneeded. Hallmarks of the Early Agricultural traditionin the Mogollon region include twined rabbitfurrobes, twined and looped bags, two- and fourwarpwickerwork sandals, and coiled baskets withone-rod, two-rod-and-bundle, and bundle-with-rodcorefoundations. Many of these technologies persistin the region throughout the first millenniumA.D. (Webster 2007).

Technological Style and Social Boundaries of Perishable Artifacts of the Early Agricultural/Basketmaker II Period 23The lower Rio Grande Valley of present-daynorthern Chihuahua, West Texas, and southern NewMexico (also known as the “Hueco area”) exhibits ablend of Cochise and Trans-Pecos traditions, suggestinga high degree of population mobility andsocial interaction during the Late Archaic and EarlyAgricultural periods (Cosgrove 1947; McBrinn 2002).A mixture of atlatl styles, wickerwork sandals (twoandfour-warp, some with fishtail heels), coiled baskettechniques (including two-rod-and-bundle foundationand bundle foundation), plaited baskets andmats, and many other perishable artifacts have beenrecovered from sites in the region. Adovasio(1970:19-23; see also Hyland and Adovasio 2000)considered this area the dispersal point for manyMexican perishable technologies into the Southwestand linked the northward expansion of Trans-Pecosbasedtechnologies, such as plaited baskets and mats,bundle-foundation coiled baskets, and wickerworksandals with fishtail heels, to the diffusion of agriculturefrom Mexico. Hyland and Adovasio(2000:158; also, Hyland 1997) interpreted the presenceof these artifacts in the southern Jornada Basinas evidence for multiple population migration andhybridization events. Atlatl and sandal distributionsin the Hueco and Highland Mogollon regions(Cosgrove 1947:Figure 32; Ferg and Peachey1998:Figure 8) suggest the presence of a socialboundary between these groups.Perishable data from the Sonoran Desert are extremelylimited at present. The little evidence thatdoes exist suggests the Sonoran Desert perishabletradition derives primarily from an admixture ofeastern Great Basin and northern Mexican traits (seesandal and atlatl discussions). Differences in coiledbasketry and wickerwork sandals from VentanaCave and early sites in the Mogollon region hint atthe presence of a technological and stylistic boundarybetween the western Sonoran Desert/easternGreat Basin and the Mogollon region by the EarlyAgricultural period. More data are needed from thewestern region to test this hypothesis.Similarities among perishable assemblages fromsome sites in the Mogollon region and the Kayentaarea of the Colorado Plateau suggest a historical relationshipbetween Early Agricultural populationsin these regions. The San Juan Basketmaker II perishabletradition shows stronger influences from theGreat Basin, such as a greater use of twining, whereasMogollon traditions incorporate influences fromthe Trans-Pecos area and northern Mexico, such astwo-warp wickerwork sandals. Differences betweenthe Mogollon and Kayenta regions are offset by theirmany similarities, however, such as the shared useof four-or-more-warp wickerwork sandals and thepredominance of two-rod-and-bundle coiled basketryin both regions. This close relationship in perishabletechnologies continues through the prehispanicsequence (Webster 2007).Assemblages from White Dog Cave and KinbokoCave 1 in the Kayenta region and McEuen Cave insoutheastern Arizona provide a case in point. Commonalitiesinclude decorated twined and loopedyucca bags, looped human hair leggings, narrowtwined bands used to tie fur blankets around inhumations,and plain-weave (wickerwork) sandalswith three-or-more warps that lack the fishtail heel.The atlatl from McEuen Cave shares the heartshapedgroove, flush hook or spur, buckskin fingerloops, and accessory charm with atlatls from the SanJuan region (Ferg and Peachey 1998:189; Guernseyand Kidder 1921:Plate 33f; Moreno 2000:348). Theprojectile points are also quite similar (Matson 1991).Further, the McEuen assemblage exhibits featuresnot found in the north, such as red pigment on theatlatl and two-warp wickerwork sandals.Another shared pattern between McEuen Caveand the San Juan region during the Early Agricultural/BasketmakerII is the mortuary practice of interringinhumations in twined bags. Although thiswas common in the Kayenta area of the ColoradoPlateau, it was not the predominant burial patternin the southern Southwest, where both cremationand inhumation were practiced and various formsof containers were used.For example, human cremations were interredin coiled baskets at several sites in the southernSouthwest, including Cienega Creek in eastern Arizona(Haury 1957) and Pratt Cave (Schroeder1983:234), Cremation Cave (Mera 1938:41-43), andBurnet Cave (Howard 1935:67-69) in the GuadalupeMountains of the Hueco area. At Burnet Cave, onecremation was interred with an atlatl in a coiledbasket with a two-rod-and-bundle foundation, andanother was deposited in a coiled basket with a onerodfoundation. The same two foundation structureswere reported for the coiled baskets from CienegaCreek.Woven bags were also used to hold cremationsin the southern Southwest. A cremation in a twinedbag is reported from Burnet Cave (Howard 1935:67),and a cremation from Pratt Cave may have beenassociated with a looped bag (Schroeder 1983). Aninfant burial at McEuen Cave was also associatedwith a looped bag (Kelly 1937:35, 38). Therefore, althoughthe McEuen Cave assemblage exhibits strongsimilarities to some northern Basketmaker II assemblages,it also fits comfortably within the broaderpatterns of the southern Southwest.With AMS dates of 761-260 B.C. (atlatl), 790-400B.C. (cradle), and 400-180 B.C. (twined bag), theMcEuen Cave assemblage appears to overlap northernBasketmaker II assemblages with comparablesuites of material culture. AMS-dated Basketmaker

24 The Latest Research on the Earliest FarmersII burials from the Kayenta area fall into the rangeof 500 B.C-A.D. 1 (Coltrain et al. 2007:Table 1). Thedirect AMS dating of a large sample of perishableartifacts from McEuen Cave and the Kayenta alcoveswould help clarify the time depth of relationshipsbetween northern and southern Early Agriculturalpopulations and refine understanding of the directionalmovement of influences.Morris and Burgh (1954:75-78) observed severaldifferences in the material culture of the Durangoand Kayenta area basketmakers, including: (1) theabsence of twined sandals, decorated baskets, plainwovenand looped fabrics, fending sticks, and elaboratehair treatments at Falls Creek Rock Shelters;(2) the absence of (twill-) plaited sandals andtumpbands in the Kayenta area; and (3) an emphasison different coiled basketry structures in theseregions. Despite these differences, a 70 percent correlationin the material culture of these regions wasnoted. More recently, Matson (1991) has argued forethnic differences among these groups, suggestingwestern Basketmaker populations were primarilycomposed of San Pedro Cochise populations whomigrated from southern Arizona, bringing agriculture,southern projectile point styles, and two-rodand-bundlebasketry, among other attributes, whereaseastern Basketmaker II groups were descendedfrom Colorado Plateau Archaic groups.The perishable record suggests a more complicatedpicture for Basketmaker II origins. Althoughsome western Basketmaker II material culture traditionsmay derive from the south, others, such astwined sandals, decorated coiled baskets, and hideindustries, suggest strong influences from the GreatBasin, the northern plateau, or California. Matson(1991) has argued that the principal coiled basketrytradition of the western Basketmakers, two-rod-andbundlecoiling, was introduced from southern Arizonaor northern Mexico, but there is currenetly littledirect evidence to support that view. This is arelatively unimportant foundation type at VentanaCave, and examples are lacking from northern Mexico.The direct dating of a large sample of specimensis needed to determine if two-rod-and-bundle coilingis earlier in the southern Mogollon and JornadaMogollon regions than on the Colorado Plateau.Adovasio (1971:103-105) has argued that two-rodand-bundlecoiling developed in situ on the ColoradoPlateau, but recent AMS dating is revising this.Presently, the earliest directly dated example of tworod-and-bundlebasketry is reported from southernNevada (Blair and Winslow 2006; Winslow 2007),where a fragment from Firebrand Cave produced acalibrated date of 1890-1115 B.C. This suggests theeastern Great Basin or southern California as a possiblesource for the technique, as well as some westernBasketmaker II populations. The designs andforms of Basketmaker II two-rod-and-bundle coiledbaskets from the Kayenta area also suggest affinitiesto California (Guernsey and Kidder 1921:62; Kidderand Guernsey 1919:210; see also Washburn andWebster 2006:260). Linguistic evidence further supportsa California connection (Matson 1991:319).As noted by Morris and Burgh (1954:68) andMatson (1991:47), the half-rod-and-bundle coilingtechnique of the eastern Basketmaker is related toLate Archaic traditions on the Colorado Plateau andthe eastern Great Basin, as well as to the later Fremonttradition. However, it may be too simplisticto paint Basketmaker societies at the eastern end ofthe Colorado Plateau as a purely northern group.The presence of several twill-plaited artifacts at FallsCreek Rock Shelters raises the possibility of connectionswith the south or southeast.At least some regional variability in BasketmakerII perishable traditions is undoubtedly attributableto social factors. For example, Basketmaker IItextiles and baskets from the Kayenta region (andthe central San Juan region as a whole) are morehighly decorated and functionally and technologicallydiverse than those from the Durango area(Webster and Hays-Gilpin 1994). The greater populationdensity in this core region and increased opportunitiesfor social interaction likely promoted amore active role for clothing and baskets in communicatingsocial information through ritual andpublic display (see Geib 2004:280).If Basketmaker II culture is not unified, whichseems to be the case, perishable studies offer theopportunity to explore Basketmaker origins and influencesat multiple levels of analysis. The widerange of Basketmaker perishable artifacts presumablymade and used by people of different genders—atlatls and possibly sandals by men, and twinedbags, coiled baskets, and aprons by women—providesan avenue to compare Basketmaker II learningnetworks at various scales. A major study of thetechnological style of Early Agricultural/BasketmakerII perishables, in conjunction with the directdating of large numbers of these artifacts, wouldgreatly enhance current understanding of the culturalorigins and identities of these populations andthe processes of ethnogenesis linked to the adoptionand intensification of agriculture.

REFERENCES CITEDAdovasio, James M.1970 The Origin, Development and Distributionof Western Archaic Textiles. Tebiwa 13(2):1-40.1971 Some Comments on the Relationship ofGreat Basin Textiles to Textiles from theSouthwest. In Great Basin AnthropologicalConference 1970, Selected Papers, edited byC. M. Aikens, pp. 103-108. AnthropologicalPapers No. 1. University of Oregon, Eugene.1977 Basketry Technology: A Guide to Identificationand Analysis. Aldine Publishing Company,Chicago.Adovasio, James M., and Joel D. Gunn1986 The Antelope House Basketry Industry. InArchaeological Investigations at AntelopeHouse, by D. P. Morris, pp. 306-397. NationalPark Service, U.S. Department of theInterior, Washington, D.C.Adovasio, James M., and David R. Pedler1994 A Tisket, a Tasket: Looking at Numic SpeakersThrough the “Lens” of a Basket. InAcross the West: Human Population Movementand the Expansion of the Numa, edited by D.B. Madsen and D. H. Rhode, pp. 114-123.University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Aikens, C. Melvin1970 Hogup Cave. Anthropological Papers No. 93.University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Andrews, Rhonda L., and James M. Adovasio1980 Perishable Industries from Hinds Cave, ValVerde County, Texas. Ethnology MonographsNo. 5. Department of Anthropology,University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.Baker, W. E., and Alfred V. Kidder1937 A Spear Thrower from Oklahoma. AmericanAntiquity 3:51-52.Bell, Robert E., and David A. Baerreis1951 A Survey of Oklahoma Archaeology. Bulletinof the Texas Archeological and PaleontologicalSociety 22:7-100.Berry, Michael S.1982 Time, Space, and Transition in Anasazi Prehistory.University of Utah Press, Salt LakeCity.Blackburn, Fred M., and Ray A. Williamson1997 Cowboys and Cave Dwellers: BasketmakerArchaeology in Utah’s Grand Gulch. Schoolof American Research Press, Santa Fe.Blair, Lynda M., and Diane L. Winslow2006 Firebrand Cave: An Archaic Site in SouthernNevada. Anthropological Series Vol. 1(1).Harry Reid Center for Environmental Studies,Division of Cultural Resources, Universityof Nevada, Las Vegas.Blinman, Eric1986 Additive Technologies Group Final Report.In Dolores Archaeological Program: Vol. 9. FinalSynthetic Report, compiled by D. A.Breternitz, C. K. Robinson, and G. T. Gross,pp. 53-101. U.S. Department of the Interior,Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering andResearch Center, Denver.Carpenter, John P., Guadalupe Sanchez, and M. ElisaVillalpando2005 The Late Archaic/Early Agricultural Periodin Sonora, Mexico. In The Late ArchaicAcross the Borderlands: From Foraging toFarming, edited by B. J. Vierra, pp. 13-40.University of Texas Press, Austin.Carr, Christopher1995 A Unified Middle-Range Theory of ArtifactDesign. In Style, Society, and Person: Archaeologicaland Ethnological Perspectives, editedby C. Carr and J. E. Neitzel, pp. 171-258.Plenum Press, New York.Charles, Mona C., and Sally J. Cole2006 Chronology and Cultural Variation in BasketmakerII. Kiva 72:167-216Clark, Jeffery J.2001 Tracking Prehistoric Migrations: Pueblo Settlersamong the Tonto Basin Hohokam. AnthropologicalPapers No. 65. University of ArizonaPress, Tucson.

26 The Latest Research on the Earliest FarmersCoffin, Edwin F.1932 Archaeological Exploration of a Rock Shelter inBrewster County, Texas. Indian Notes andMonographs No. 48. Museum of the AmericanIndian, Heye Foundation, New York.Coltrain, Joan B., Joel C. Janetski, and Shawn W.Carlyle2006 The Stable and Radio-Isotope Chemistry ofEastern Basketmaker and Pueblo Groups inthe Four Corners Region of the AmericanSouthwest: Implications for Anasazi Diets,Origins and Abandonments. In Stories ofMaize: Multidisciplinary Approaches to thePrehistory, Biogeography, Domestication, andEvolution of Maize (Zea mays L.), edited by J.E. Staller, R. H. Tykot, and B. F. Benz, pp.275-287. Elsevier, San Diego.2007 The Stable- and Radio-Isotope Chemistry ofWestern Basketmaker Burials: Implicationsfor Early Puebloan Diets and Origins.American Antiquity 72:301-321.Cosgrove, C. Burton1947 Caves of the Upper Gila and Hueco Areas inNew Mexico and Texas. Papers of the PeabodyMuseum of American Archaeologyand Ethnology Vol. 24(2). Harvard University,Cambridge, Massachusetts.Cressman, Luther S.1942 Archaeological Researches in the NorthernGreat Basin. Publication No. 538. CarnegieInstitution of Washington, Washington,D.C.Dean, Jeffrey S.1975 Tree-Ring Dates from Colorado W, DurangoArea. Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research,University of Arizona, Tucson.Dick, Herbert W.1965 Bat Cave, Catron County, New Mexico. MonographNo. 27. School of American Research,Santa Fe.Emery, Irene1966 The Primary Structures of Fabrics. The TextileMuseum, Washington, D.C.Ferdon, Edwin N. Jr.1946 An Excavation of Hermit’s Cave, New Mexico.Monograph No. 10. School of AmericanResearch, Santa Fe.Ferg, Alan, and William D. Peachey1998 An Atlatl from the Sierra Pinacate. Kiva64:175-200.Fowler, Catherine S., Eugene M. Hattori, and AmyJ. Dansie2000 Ancient Matting from Spirit Cave, Nevada:Technical Implications. In Beyond Cloth andCordage: Archaeological Textile Research in theAmericas, edited by P. B. Drooker and L. D.Webster, pp. 119-139. University of UtahPress, Salt Lake City.Geib, Phil2000 Sandal Types and Archaic Prehistory on theColorado Plateau. American Antiquity65:509-524.2004 AMS Dating of a Basketmaker II Hunter’sBag (Cache 1) from Sand Dune Cave, Utah.Kiva 69:271-282.2011 Summary and Interpretation of BasketmakerII Remains. In Foragers and Farmersof the Northern Kayenta Region: Excavationsalong the Navajo Mountain Road, by P. R.Geib. University of Utah Press, Salt LakeCity.Geib, Phil R., and Dale Davidson1994 Anasazi Origins: A Perspective from PreliminaryWork at Old Man Cave. Kiva60:191202.Geib, Phil R., and Edward A. Jolie2008 The Role of Basketry in Early HoloceneSmall Seed Exploitation: Implications of aCa. 9,000 Year-Old Basket from CowboyCave, Utah. American Antiquity 73:83-102.Geib, Phil R., and Michael R. Robins2003 The Desha Caves: Radiocarbon Dating andCoprolite Analysis. Utah Archaeology 16:81-94.Geib, Phil R., Nancy J. Coulam, Victoria H. Clark,Kelley Ann HaysGilpin, and John D.Goodman II1999 Atlatl Rock Cave: Findings from the Investigationand Remediation of Looter Damage. ReportNo. 93-121, Navajo Nation ArchaeologyDepartment, Window Rock, Arizona.

Technological Style and Social Boundaries of Perishable Artifacts of the Early Agricultural/Basketmaker II Period 27Guernsey, Samuel J.1931 Explorations in Northeastern Arizona, Reporton the Archaeological Fieldwork of 1920-1923.Papers of the Peabody Museum of AmericanArchaeology and Ethnography Vol.12(1). Harvard University, Cambridge,Massachusetts.Guernsey, Samuel J., and Alfred V. Kidder1921 Basketmaker Caves of Northeastern Arizona.Papers of the Peabody Museum of AmericanArchaeology and Ethnology Vol. 8(2).Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Haas, William Randall Jr.2003 The Social Implications of Basketmaker IICordage Style Distribution. UnpublishedMaster’s thesis, Department of Anthropology,Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.2006 The Social Implications of Basketmaker IICordage Design Distribution. Kiva 71:275-298.Hard, Robert J., and John R. Roney1999 Cerro Juanaqueña. Archaeology Southwest13(1):4-5.Haury, Emil W.1945 Painted Cave in Northeastern Arizona. TechnicalReport No. 3. The Amerind Foundation,Inc., Dragoon, Arizona.1950 The Stratigraphy and Archaeology of VentanaCave. University of Arizona Press, Tucson,and University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.1957 An Alluvial Site on the San Carlos IndianReservation, Arizona. American Antiquity23:2-27.Hewitt, Nancy1980 Fiber Artifacts. In Cowboy Cave, by J. D. Jennings,pp. 49-73. Anthropological PapersNo. 104. University of Utah, Salt Lake City.Hough, Walter1914 Culture of the Ancient Pueblos of the Upper GilaRiver Region, New Mexico and Arizona. BulletinNo. 87. Smithsonian Institution, Washington,D.C.Howard, E. B.1931 Field-work in the Southwest. The UniversityMuseum Bulletin 3:11-14.1932 Caves Along the Slopes of the GuadalupeMountains. Bulletin of the Texas Archaeologicaland Paleontological Society 4:7-19.1935 Evidence of Early Man in North America.The Museum Journal 24:61-175.Huckell, Bruce B.1995 Of Marshes and Maize: Preceramic AgriculturalSettlements in the Cienega Valley, SoutheasternArizona. Anthropological Papers No.59. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Huckell, Bruce, Lisa W. Huckell, and M. StevenShackley1999 McEuen Cave. Archaeology Southwest13(1):12.Hurst, C. T.1940 Preliminary Work at Tabeguache Cave-1939. Southwestern Lore 6(1):4-18.1941 Second Season in Tabeguache Cave. SouthwesternLore 7(1):4-19.1942 Completion of Work in Tabeguache Cave.Southwestern Lore 8(1):7-16.Hyland, David C.1997 Perishable Industries from the Jornada Basin,South-central New Mexico. UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh,Pittsburgh.Hyland, David C., and James M. Adovasio2000 The Mexican Connection: A Study ofSociotechnical Change in Perishable Manufactureand Food Production in PrehistoricNew Mexico. In Beyond Cloth and Cordage:Archaeological Textile Research in the Americas,edited by P. B. Drooker and L. D.Webster, pp. 141-159. University of UtahPress, Salt Lake City.Hyland, David C., James M. Adovasio, and J. S.Illingworth2003 The Perishable Artifacts. In Pendejo Cave,edited by R. S. MacNeish and J. G. Libby,pp. 297-416. University of New MexicoPress, Albuquerque.

28 The Latest Research on the Earliest FarmersJohnson, Irmgard Weitlaner1971 Basketry and Textiles. In Handbook of MiddleAmerican Indians, vol. 10, part 1, edited byG. F. Ekholm and I. Bernal, pp. 297-321.University of Texas Press, Austin.Jolie, Edward2011 Analysis of the Basketry from the FallsCreek Rock Shelters. Ms. in possession ofthe author.Judd, Neil M.1926 Archeological Observations North of the RioColorado. Bureau of American EthnologyBulletin No. 82. Smithsonian Institution,Washington, D.C.Kankainen, Kathy (editor)1995 Treading in the Past: Sandals of the Anasazi.Utah Museum of Natural History, in associationwith the University of Utah Press,Salt Lake City.Kelly, Dorothea S.1937 McEuen Cave Study. Ms. on file, ArizonaState Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson.Kent, Kate Peck1983 Prehistoric Textiles of the Southwest. Schoolof American Research, Santa Fe, and Universityof New Mexico, Albuquerque.Kidder, Alfred V., and Samuel J. Guernsey1919 Archaeological Explorations in NortheasternArizona. Bureau of American EthnologyBulletin No. 65. Smithsonian Institution.U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,D.C.King, Mary Elizabeth1974 Medio Period Perishable Artifacts. In CasasGrandes: A Fallen Trading Center of the GranChichimeca, vol. 8, by C. C. DePeso, J. B.Rinaldo, and G. J. Fenner, pp. 76-119. TheAmerind Foundation, Dragoon, Arizona,and Northland Press, Flagstaff.Kroeber, A. L.1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureauof American Ethnology Bulletin No. 78.Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.Lambert, Marjorie F, and J. Richard Ambler1961 A Survey and Excavation of Caves in HidalgoCounty, New Mexico. Monograph No. 25.School of American Research, Santa Fe.Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger1991 Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, England.Lechtman, Heather1977 Style in Technology—Some Early Thoughts.In Material Culture: Styles, Organization, andDynamics of Technology, edited by H.Lechtman and R. S. Merrill, pp. 3-20. WestPublishing, St. Paul, Minnesota.Lemonnier, Pierre1986 The Study of Material Culture Today: Towardsan Anthropology of Technical Systems.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology5:147-186.Lindsay, Alexander J. Jr., Richard Ambler, MaryAnne Stein, and Philip M. Hobler1968 Survey and Excavations North and East ofNavajo Mountain, Utah, 1959-1962. GlenCanyon Series No. 8, Museum of NorthernArizona Bulletin No. 45. Northern ArizonaSociety of Science and Art, Flagstaff.Lister, Florence C.1997 Prehistory in Peril:The Worst and Best ofDurango Archaeology. University Press ofColorado, Niwot.Lockett, H. Claiborne, and Lyndon L. Hargrave1953 Woodchuck Cave: A Basketmaker II Site in TsegiCanyon, Arizona. Museum of Northern ArizonaBulletin No. 26. Northern ArizonaSociety of Science and Art, Inc., Flagstaff,Arizona.Mabry, Jonathan B. (editor)2008 Las Capas: Early Irrigation and Sedentism in aSouthwestern Floodplain. AnthropologicalPaper No. 28. Center for Desert Archaeology,Tucson.MacNeish, Richard S.1958 Preliminary Archaeological Investigations inthe Sierra de Tamaulipas, Mexico. Transactionsof the American Philosophical Society(new series) Vol. 48(6).1962 Second Annual Report of the Tehuacan Archaeological-BotanicalProject. Robert S. PeabodyFoundation for Archaeology. PhillipsAcademy, Andover.

Technological Style and Social Boundaries of Perishable Artifacts of the Early Agricultural/Basketmaker II Period 29MacNeish, Richard S. (editor)1993 Preliminary Investigations of the Archaic in theRegion of Las Cruces, New Mexico. U.S. ArmyAir Defense Artillery Center, Cultural ResourcesManagement Branch, Historic andNatural Resources Report No. 9. Fort Bliss,Texas.MacNeish, Richard S., Antoinette Nelken-Terner,and Irmgard W. Johnson1967 The Prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley: Vol.Two. Nonceramic Artifacts. University ofTexas Press, Austin.Martin, George C.1933 Archaeological Exploration of the ShumlaCaves. Big Bend Basket-Maker Papers No.3. Southwest Texas Archaeological Societyof the Witte Memorial Museum, San Antonio,Texas.Martin, Paul Sidney, John B. Rinaldo, and ElaineBluhm1954 Caves of the Reserve Area. Fieldiana No. 42.Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago.Martin, Paul Sidney, John B. Rinaldo, Elaine Bluhm,Hugh C. Cutler, and Roger Grange, Jr.1952 Mogollon Cultural Continuity and Change:The Stratigraphic Analysis of Tularosa andCordova Caves. Fieldiana No. 40. Field Museumof Natural History, Chicago.Maslowski, Robert F.1996 Cordage Twist and Ethnicity. In A Most IndispensableArt: Native Fiber Industries fromEastern North America, edited by J. B.Petersen, pp. 88-99. University of TennesseePress, Knoxville.Matson, R. G.1991 The Origins of Southwestern Agriculture. Universityof Arizona Press, Tucson.McBrinn, Maxine E.2002 Social Identity and Risk Sharing among theMobile Hunters and Gatherers of the ArchaicSouthwest. Ph.D. dissertation, Departmentof Anthropology, University of Colorado,Boulder. University Microfilms International,Ann Arbor, Michigan.2005 Social Identities among Archaic Mobile Huntersand Gatherers in the American Southwest.Archaeological Series No. 197. ArizonaState Museum , University of Arizona, Tucson.McBrinn, Maxine E., and Cristina P. Smith2006 A New Spin on Cordage: The Effects ofMaterial and Culture. Kiva 71:265-274.McGregor, Roberta1992 Prehistoric Basketry of the Lower Pecos, Texas.Monographs in World Archaeology No. 6.Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.Mera, H. P.1938 Reconnaissance and Excavation in SoutheasternNew Mexico. Memoirs of the AmericanAnthropological Associaton No. 51. AmericanAnthropological Association, Menasha,Wisconsin.Minar, Jill2001 Material Culture and the Identification ofPrehistoric Cultural Groups. In FleetingIdentities: Perishable Material Culture in ArchaeologicalResearch, edited by P. B.Drooker, pp. 94-113. Occasional Paper No.28. Center for Archaeological Investigations,Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.Moreno, Teresa K.2000 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Dates fromMcEuen Cave. Kiva 65:341-360.Morris, Earl H., and Robert F. Burgh1941 Anasazi Basketry: Basket Maker II ThroughPueblo III. Publication No. 533. CarnegieInstitution of Washington, U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington, D.C.1954 Basketmaker II Sites Near Durango, Colorado.Publication No. 604. Carnegie Institute ofWashington, U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Washington, D.C.Morris, Elizabeth Ann1980 Basketmaker Caves in the Prayer Rock District,Northeastern Arizona. Anthropological PapersNo. 35. University of Arizona Press,Tucson.Nusbaum, Jesse L.1922 A Basket-Maker Cave in Kane County, Utah.Indian Notes and Monographs No. 29, ASeries of Publications Relating to the AmericanAborigines, edited by F. W. Hodge.Museum of the American Indian, HeyeFoundation, New York.

30 The Latest Research on the Earliest FarmersOsborne, Carolyn M.2004 The Wetherill Collections and Perishable Itemsfrom Mesa Verde. .Pepper, George H.1902 The Ancient Basket Makers of SoutheasternUtah. Supplement to American MuseumJournal Vol. II(4), Guide Leaflet No. 6.American Museum of Natural History,New York.Robins, Michael R.1997 A Brief Description of a Selection of BasketmakerII Rockshelter Sites in the NorthernSouthwest. In Early Farmers in the NorthernSouthwest: Papers on Chronometry, SocialDynamics, and Ecology, edited by F. E. Smileyand M. R. Robins, pp. 43-58. Animas-LaPlata Archaeological Project Research PaperNo. 7. Northern Arizona University,Flagstaff.Schroeder, Albert H. (assembler)1983 The Pratt Cave Studies. The Artifact 21(1-4).El Paso Archaeological Society, Inc., El Paso,Texas.Setzler, Frank M.1932 A Prehistoric Cave in Texas. In SmithsonianInstitution, Exploration and Fieldwork in 1931,pp. 133-140. Washington, D.C.1935 A Prehistoric Cave Culture in SouthwesternTexas. American Anthropologist (new series)37:104-110.Sharrock, Floyd, Kent Day, and David Dibble1963 1961 Excavations, Glen Canyon Area. AnthropologicalPapers No. 63. University of UtahPress, Salt Lake City.Smiley, Francis E.1997 Toward Chronometric Resolution for EarlyAgriculture in the Northern Southwest. InEarly Farmers in the Northern Southwest: Paperson Chronometry, Social Dynamics, andEcology, edited by F. E. Smiley and M. R.Robins, pp. 13-58. Animas-La Plata ArchaeologicalProject Research Paper No. 7.Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.Taylor, Walter W.1948 A Study of Archeology. Memoirs of theAmerican Anthropological Association No.69. American Anthropological Association,Menasha, Wisconsin.1966 Archaic Cultures Adjacent to the NortheasternFrontiers of Mesoamerica. In Handbookof Middle American Indians: Vol. 4. ArchaeologicalFrontiers and External Connections,edited by G. F. Ekholm and G. R. Willey,pp. 59-94. University of Texas Press, Austin.Washburn, Dorothy K., and Laurie D. Webster2006 Symmetry and Color Perspectives on BasketmakerCultural Identities: Evidence fromDesigns on Coiled Baskets and Ceramics.Kiva 71:235-264.Webster, Laurie D.1988 Textile Analysis: Notes on Cataloged Specimensfrom McEuen Cave. Ms. on file, CollectionsDivision, Arizona State Museum,University of Arizona, Tucson.2007 Mogollon and Zuni Perishable Traditionsand the Question of Zuni Origins. In ZuniOrigins: Toward a New Synthesis of SouthwesternArchaeology, edited by D. A. Gregoryand D. R. Wilcox, pp. 270-317. Universityof Arizona Press, Tucson.2009 Unpublished data presented to the Edge ofthe Cedars Museum after completion of the“Archaeological Perishables: Survey andDocumentation Project.” Edge of the CedarsMuseum, Blanding, Utah.2011 Analysis of the Textiles and Worked Hidefrom the Falls Creek Rock Shelters. Ms. inpossession of the author.Webster, Laurie D., and Kelley A. Hays-Gilpin1994 New Trails for Old Shoes: Sandals, Textiles,and Baskets in Basketmaker Culture. Kiva60:313-327.Webster, Laurie D., and Micah Loma’omvaya2004 Textiles, Baskets, and Hopi Cultural Identity.In Identity, Feasting, and the Archaeologyof the Greater Southwest: Proceedings ofthe 2002 Southwest Symposium, edited by B.J. Mills, pp. 74-92. University Press of Colorado,Boulder.Weltfish, Gene1932 Preliminary Classification of Prehistoric SouthwesternBasketry. Smithsonian MiscellaneousCollections No. 87(7). Washington,D.C.

Technological Style and Social Boundaries of Perishable Artifacts of the Early Agricultural/Basketmaker II Period 31Wheeler, S. M.1973 The Archaeology of Etna Cave, Lincoln County,Nevada. Annotated reprint of the 1942 edition,edited by D. D. Fowler. Publicationsin the Social Sciences No. 7. Desert ResearchInstitute, Reno and Las Vegas.Wills, W. H.1988 Early Prehistoric Agriculture in the AmericanSouthwest. School of American ResearchPress, Santa Fe.Winslow, Diane L.2003 Black Dog Mesa Archaeological Complex: Vol.II. Black Dog Cave. Harry Reid Center forEnvironmental Studies, University of Nevada,Las Vegas.2007 Firebrand Cave: Gateway to the SacredPlace. Paper presented at the 72nd AnnualMeeting of the Society for American Archaeology,Austin.