0% found this document useful (0 votes)
20 views39 pages

Analysis of Ceramic Compositional Data From Late Developmental Period Sites in The Tewa Basin New Mexico

This study analyzes ceramic compositional data from Late Developmental period sites in the Tewa Basin, New Mexico, focusing on the presence of Cibola white ware ceramics as indicators of cultural interaction with the Chaco regional system. The analysis revealed three compositional groups, including one local and two non-local, with specific production areas identified within the Chaco system. The findings contribute to understanding the cultural history and interactions of communities in the Northern Rio Grande region during this period.

Uploaded by

Saw Tun Lynn
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
20 views39 pages

Analysis of Ceramic Compositional Data From Late Developmental Period Sites in The Tewa Basin New Mexico

This study analyzes ceramic compositional data from Late Developmental period sites in the Tewa Basin, New Mexico, focusing on the presence of Cibola white ware ceramics as indicators of cultural interaction with the Chaco regional system. The analysis revealed three compositional groups, including one local and two non-local, with specific production areas identified within the Chaco system. The findings contribute to understanding the cultural history and interactions of communities in the Northern Rio Grande region during this period.

Uploaded by

Saw Tun Lynn
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 39

KIVA

Journal of Southwestern Anthropology and History

ISSN: 0023-1940 (Print) 2051-6177 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ykiv20

Analysis of Ceramic Compositional Data from Late


Developmental Period Sites in the Tewa Basin,
New Mexico

Michael A. Schillaci, Steven A. Lakatos, Jeffrey R. Ferguson & C. Dean Wilson

To cite this article: Michael A. Schillaci, Steven A. Lakatos, Jeffrey R. Ferguson & C. Dean Wilson
(2020) Analysis of Ceramic Compositional Data from Late Developmental Period Sites in the Tewa
Basin, New Mexico, KIVA, 86:1, 70-107, DOI: 10.1080/00231940.2019.1706034

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00231940.2019.1706034

Published online: 14 Jan 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 76

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at


https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ykiv20
kiva, Vol. 86 No. 1, March, 2020, 70–107

Analysis of Ceramic Compositional Data


from Late Developmental Period Sites in
the Tewa Basin, New Mexico
Michael A. Schillaci1, Steven A. Lakatos2, Jeffrey
R. Ferguson3, and C. Dean Wilson4
1
Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto Scarborough, Toronto,
ON, Canada, [email protected]
2
Environmental Bureau, New Mexico Department of Transportation, Santa
Fe, NM, USA
3
Archaeometry Laboratory, University of Missouri Research Reactor,
Columbia, MO, USA
4
Research Associate, Office of Archaeological Studies, New Mexico
Department of Cultural Affairs, Santa Fe, NM, USA

The presence of Cibola white ware ceramic types at Late Developmental period
sites in the Northern Rio Grande (NRG) region of New Mexico has been inter-
preted as a strong indicator of cultural interaction with, or immigration from,
communities associated with the Chaco regional system in the American
Southwest. We report the results of an analysis of chemical composition
data obtained from neutron activation analysis (NAA) of pottery sherds orig-
inating from three Late Developmental sites in the southern Tewa Basin of
the NRG. Our results revealed three compositional groups, one local and
two non-local. Comparison with existing data sets allowed us to identify
specific production areas and great house communities within the Chaco
regional system as likely sources for one of the two non-local groups. Our find-
ings also revealed five sherds of a local NRG pottery type, Kwahe’e B/w that
were made with non-local clay from the Chaco regional system, but were tem-
pered with local materials.

La presencia de los tipos de tradicion cerámica de Cibola en los sitios arqueo-


lógico en la región norte de Río Grande (NRG) de Nuevo México del período
Late Developmental se ha interpretado como un fuerte indicador de la inter-
acción cultural con las comunidades asociadas con el sistema regional de
Chaco en el suroeste de Estados Unidos o la inmigración. Presentamos los
resultados de un análisis de los datos de composición química obtenidos a

Copyright © 2020 Arizona Archaeological and Historical Society. DOI 10.1080/00231940.2019.1706034


All rights reserved.
ANALYSIS OF CERAMIC COMPOSITIONAL DATA 71

partir del análisis de activación de neutrones (NAA) de tiestos de cerámica ori-


ginados desede tres sitios arqueológico del período Late Developmental en la
Cuenca Tewa. Nuestros resultados revelaron tres agrupaciones compositivas,
una local y dos no locales. La comparación con los conjuntos de datos exis-
tentes nos permitió identificar áreas de producción específicas y grandes
comunidades de viviendas dentro del sistema regional de Chaco como
fuentes probables para uno de los dos grupos no locales. Nuestros hallazgos
también revelaron cinco tiestos de un tipo de cerámica NRG local, Kwahe’e B/
w, que se hicieron con arcilla no local desde el sistema regional del Chaco,
pero se templaron con materiales locales.

keywords Kwahe’e B/w, Cibola white wares, pottery, Chaco Canyon, Northern
Rio Grande, communities of practice, communities of identity, ceramic analysis

Identifying non-local artifacts in archaeological assemblages is essential for inferring


cultural, economic and demographic interaction with other communities or culture
regions (Druc 2013:485). Archaeologists interested in identifying interaction among
communities have typically relied on identifying non-local raw materials in the
analysis of lithic artifacts, or non-local ceramic types. There is a rich history
within Southwestern archaeology of using ceramic types to infer patterns of popu-
lation movement, as well as the geography and magnitude of social, cultural, and
economic interaction among pre-contact communities and culture regions such as
the NRG. Much of the previous work to either define ceramic types in the NRG
(e.g. Mera 1935), or use ceramic types to infer culture areas or cultural interaction
have relied largely on visual assessments of variation in surface treatment, design
elements, paste, and temper (e.g. Wendorf and Reed 1955; McNutt 1969; Ford
et al. 1972; and more recently Wilson 2005). Recent research on this subject has
included analysis of the chemical composition of sourced clay samples and
pottery sherds, often of typed wares, to investigate regional patterns of ceramic pro-
duction, trade and social interaction (e.g. Wiseman and Olinger 1991; Thomas et al.
1992; Fowles 2004; Eiselt and Ford 2007; Fowles et al. 2007; Duwe 2011; Eckert
et al. 2015; Agostini 2018; also see Curewitz and Foit 2018).
Investigating the nature and magnitude of cultural, economic, and demographic
interaction with communities outside the NRG, as well as identifying the regional
sources of that interaction, is critically important for our understanding of the
culture history of the area, and continues to be of considerable research interest.
Much of the recent research on this topic cited above has focused on chemical com-
positional analysis of ceramic types found in Coalition (AD 1200-1350) and Classic
(AD 1350-1540) period site assemblages. To date, very few compositional studies
have focused on Developmental period (AD 600-1200) ceramic types from the
NRG (see Fowles 2004; Fowles et al. 2007). Addressing this dearth of research is
sorely needed if we are to better understand the culture history of the NRG
before the development of larger aggregated communities during the Coalition
Period. The purpose of the present research is to investigate the chemical
72 MICHAEL A. SCHILLACI ET AL.

composition of typed pottery sherds, primarily white wares, from Late Developmen-
tal period (AD 900-1200) communities in the southern Tewa Basin. Situated within
the NRG north of the Santa Fe River, the Tewa Basin is home to present day Tewa
and Northern Tiwa pueblos. Our study focuses on identifying compositional
groups, and determining the potential geographic origins of non-local Cibola
white ware sherds commonly found at Late Developmental period sites. Although
we focus our study on white wares, it is important to point out that they normally
make up only a small percentage (5–15%) of the ceramic assemblages at Late Devel-
opmental sites in the Tewa Basin, including those in the present study. Many of the
sherds that make up the white ware assemblages at Late Developmental sites are
from locally produced Kwahe’e B/w vessels (Figure 1). Defined and named by
H. P. Mera in 1935, Kwahe’e B/w is the first type in the region’s locally produced
white ware ceramic series, which in the past has been referred to as the Rio
Grande, or Tewa ceramic series (Stubbs and Stallings 1953). The Tewa series rep-
resents a very long-lived tradition of white ware pottery production (Wilson
2005:101) that comprises a well-established and coherent progression of ceramic
types that were produced within the Tewa Basin using local clays and tempers
(Wilson 2013; but see Washburn 2014). It has been suggested that Kwahe’e B/w
was produced between about A.D. 1000 and A.D. 1200, and likely developed directly
from a locally produced variant of the non-local Cibola white ware type Red Mesa B/
w1 (Mera 1935; Wendorf and Reed 1955; Wilson 2013; Wiseman 2014; but see dis-
cussion in McNutt 1969). It is important to note that there was a gradual and signifi-
cant increase in Kwahe’e B/w during the latter part of the Late Developmental period.
Earlier assemblages were dominated by white wares assigned to the Cibola tradition,
primarily Red Mesa B/w. The locally made variant of Red Mesa B/w was presumably
produced in the southern Tewa Basin just prior to, and perhaps also contempora-
neous with, the earliest production of Kwahe’e B/w, which began sometime
between about AD 975 and AD 1023 (Schillaci and Lakatos 2017). Red Mesa B/w
(Figure 2) is one among at least 15 white ware types within the Cibola, or Chaco-
Cibola, white ware series with a large production area located principally in
the San Juan Basin (http://ceramics.nmarchaeology.org/typology/ware?p=15). A
number of Cibola white ware types, including Red Mesa B/w, Gallup B/w, and Esca-
vada B/w, are often associated with the geographically large regional polity centered
in Chaco Canyon that included the eastern Red Mesa Valley and upper Rio Puerco
(east) valley, among other areas. As such, the geographic distribution of these types
by way of trade within the Chaco regional system is wide.
Given their association with Chaco culture, the presence of Cibola white ware
types at sites outside the Chaco regional system, such as those in the NRG and
Middle Rio Grande (MRG) regions, has often been used as a relative indicator of
social interaction, including trade, with the regional system, or emigration from
Chaco communities to the west. This approach has been reflected in much of the
research on extra-regional interaction or population movement during the Develop-
mental, or Pueblo I and Pueblo II periods in the NRG and MRG regions (e.g.
Wendorf and Reed 1955; McNutt 1969; Ford et al. 1972; Fowles 2004; Wilson
2005). Although it has been generally understood that the presence of Cibola
white wares at NRG and MRG sites indicates interaction of some sort with the
ANALYSIS OF CERAMIC COMPOSITIONAL DATA 73

figure 1. Early Kwahe’e Black-on-white olla from site LA 391, recovered during the Santa Fe
to Pojoaque Corridor Project. Courtesy of the New Mexico Department of Transportation and
the Office of Archaeological Studies. Photo by Carol Price.

Chaco regional system, specific communities or sub-regions within that geographi-


cally expansive regional system have not been identified in the literature as sources
of that interaction. A comparative study of the chemical composition of pottery
sherds offers a unique opportunity to address this question. If ceramic compositional
profiles from NRG communities can be matched with similar profiles from specific
communities within the Chaco regional system, then the sources of interaction or
immigration could be potentially identified.

Previous Compositional Work in the Northern Rio Grande Region


Initial compositional studies of NRG ceramics were conducted using x-ray fluor-
escence (XRF), and focused mainly on historic or late prehistoric (Coalition and
Classic periods) pottery types (Bower and Snow 1984; Bower et al. 1986; Olinger
1988; Wiseman and Olinger 1991; Thomas et al. 1992; Habicht-Mauche 1993).
Relevant to the present study, Wiseman and Olinger (1991) used XRF to examine
the compositional profiles of white ware sherds found at the Pojoaque Grant Site
74 MICHAEL A. SCHILLACI ET AL.

figure 2. Red Mesa B/w bowl found during the excavation of LA 80934 in McKinley County,
New Mexico. MIAC Cat. #56501 /11, site LA 80934. Collections of the Navajo Nation at the
Museum of Indian Arts & Culture/Laboratory of Anthropology. Photo by Carol Price.

(LA 835), a Late Developmental site in the southern Tewa Basin also included in the
present study. That study identified two compositional groups, one local and one
non-local. The local group was composed primarily of Kwahe’e B/w sherds. The
non-local group, composed primarily of Red Mesa B/w sherds, was presumed to
largely represent ceramic vessels manufactured in areas to the west, possibly in
the Rio Puerco (east) valley (Wiseman and Olinger 1991:215). Interestingly, their
compositional results indicated that a small proportion of the sherds identified
visually as Cibola white ware types fell within the local group (14/247, 5.7%),
suggesting they originated from vessels manufactured in the Tewa Basin using
locally available clay.
More recent compositional studies have utilized other techniques such as NAA
and laser ablation-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS)
(e.g. Fowles 2004; Eiselt and Ford 2007; Fowles et al. 2007; Duwe 2011; Eckert
et al. 2015). A study by Eiselt and Ford (2007) examined historic micaceous
pottery and raw clays using NAA, and matched Northern Tiwa, Tewa, and Jicarilla
Apache pottery sherds with specific regional clay sources within the NRG. Fowles
(2004), and Fowles et al. (2007), compared the chemical composition of Late Devel-
opmental and Coalition period (ca. AD 1050-1320) pottery sherds with the
ANALYSIS OF CERAMIC COMPOSITIONAL DATA 75

composition of local clay sources and “waster sherds”2 associated with pottery pro-
duction in the Taos Valley. That study identified multiple local and non-local com-
positional groups. Local clay sources generally corresponded with the local
compositional groups, including wasters. Relevant to the present study, Fowles
et al. (2007), concluded that one of their non-local groups, which was composed
almost entirely of Kwahe’e B/w, likely originated from an unidentified production
area in the Española Basin (Tewa Basin). That study also concluded that the
village aggregation corresponding with the emergence of the Coalition period
from the Developmental period was associated with a curtailment of clay procure-
ment, perhaps in response to threats of inter-village hostility (Fowles et al.
2007:146–147). In a study using a type of LA-ICP-MS, Duwe (2011) identified
two compositional groups in his analysis of locally sourced clay samples and
pottery sherds from Coalition and Classic period Tewa series wares including
Santa Fe B/w, Wiyo B/w, Abiquiu Black-on-gray, Bandelier Black-on-gray, and
Sankawi Black-on-cream—all originating from sub-regions within the Tewa Basin.
In their study of ceramic production and circulation during the transition from
the Late Coalition to the Early Classic periods (AD 1250-1350) in the NRG,
Eckert et al. (2015) conducted a compositional analysis of Santa Fe B/w sherds
using NAA. The results of their study revealed at least three broad production pro-
venances (Santa Fe vicinity, Pajarito Plateau, Arroyo Hondo). Combined with the
results of petrography and assessment of design style, the authors identified three
different communities of practice within a single community of identity established
through a long residency within the region (Eckert et al. 2015:1).
The chemical compositional studies discussed above have advanced our knowl-
edge regarding pottery production and trade in the NRG by demonstrating that
pottery produced within different communities are typically identifiable as compo-
sitional groups that can often be linked to local clay sources. These previous studies
have also provided the basis for identifying sherds derived from non-local vessels
produced outside the NRG, something that is essential to our study. With the excep-
tion of Wiseman and Olinger (1991) and Fowles et al. (2007; also see Fowles 2004),
none of these previous compositional studies focusing on the NRG examined Devel-
opmental period sites, Cibola white wares, or Kwahe’e B/w. The purpose of the
research presented here was to investigate the chemical composition of typed
pottery sherds, predominantly local and non-local white wares, from Late Develop-
mental period (AD 900-1200) communities in the southern Tewa Basin. We define
“local” as the southern Tewa Basin, while “non-local” is presumed to be from
locations outside the NRG (see Druc 2013 for discussion). We were primarily inter-
ested in identifying source communities within the Chaco regional system associated
with the production of the non-local Cibola white wares found on Late Develop-
mental period sites.

Methods
Ninety-nine pottery sherds were selected from assemblages excavated from three
Late Developmental period (AD 900-1200) settlements (LA 835, LA 388, LA
76 MICHAEL A. SCHILLACI ET AL.

6579) in the Tewa Basin (Appendix I; Figure 3). In addition to these sherds, 6 fired
ceramic tiles made from four local Tewa Basin clay sources were included in the
analysis.
Clay samples for analysis were taken from Tertiary period sedimentary deposits of
the Tesuque Formation (Miocene-Pliocene) near present-day Santa Fe (Bishop’s
Lodge and Santa Fe Ranch samples), Quaternary period (late Pleistocene) lacustrine
sediments on the east side of the Rio Grande near the mouth of Cañada Ancha just
south of the former town of Buckman (“Culebra Lake” samples3) (see Galusha and
Blick 1971; Reneau and Dethier 1996), and Tertiary period (latest Pliocene) lacus-
trine Culebra Lake sediments directly underlying the Guaje Pumice Bed of the
Otowi member of the Banderlier Tuff (Crowe et al. 1978:9–10; also see Turbeville
et al. 1989; Waresback and Turbeville 1990; Dethier and Fagenholz 2007) along
NM State Road 502 west of Totavi (Totavi sample4). The Otowi member at this
location was deposited approximately 1.6 mya and unconformably overlies the
Culebra Lake deposits (see Dethier and Fagenholz 2007:388, 390). It is important
to note that these Tewa Basin clays are derived from geological formations not
found elsewhere in the southwest, and are not geologically, or geomorphologically

figure 3. Map of the study area showing the locations of archaeological settlements and
clay samples used in the study.
ANALYSIS OF CERAMIC COMPOSITIONAL DATA 77

associated with the Jurassic, Cretaceous, and Tertiary sedimentary formations that
yield clays or temper materials used for ceramic production by Chaco communities
in the San Juan Basin (see Neitzel et al. 2002), or clays from the Jurassic and Cretac-
eous, or Eocene-Oligocene formations of the Galisteo Basin south of the Santa Fe
River (see Eckert et al. 2018). Results from previous ceramic re-firing experiments
have revealed similarities in paste color and texture between clays from these
local Tewa Basin sources and the local white ware type Kwahe’e B/w (Wilson
2005). Re-firing of Kwahe’e B/w sherds yielded yellow-red colors and paste
texture similar to those noted for local clays with high volcanic ash content
(Wilson 2005:126). Unlike Kwahe’e B/w, sherds assigned to the non-local Cibola
white ware types (e.g. Red Mesa B/w) tended to have blocky pastes and fired to
lighter buff and pink colors in oxidizing atmospheres, reflecting use of low-iron
shale clays found in the Jurassic, Cretaceous, and Tertiary sedimentary formations
available in the San Juan Basin (Wilson 2005:126). In other words, the clays
included in the present study can be considered geologically endemic to the Tewa
Basin, and differ from other clay sources used in the manufacture of contempora-
neous ceramics types in the San Juan Basin and elsewhere in the Southwest.
The chemical composition of the sherds, as well as the fired ceramic tiles, was
measured using NAA. Elemental analysis involved standard ceramic NAA routinely
undertaken at MURR (Glascock 1992; Neff 2000, 2002). Fragments of approxi-
mately 1 square centimeter were burred using a silicon carbide bit to remove poten-
tial surface contamination as well as slips and paints. They were then washed in
deionized water, dried, and then ground to a fine powder using a high purity
mortar and pestle. The samples were further dried in an oven at 90 degrees
Celsius prior to weighing. We used a two sample, three count irradiation procedure
to produce ppm data for 32 elements for each specimen.
Determinations of temper from broken sherds (i.e. not from thin sections) were
made using a binocular microscope. While not as comprehensive as temper determi-
nations based on thin-section, determination based on microscopy of broken sherds
was appropriate given the aims and scope of the study, and the significant visual
differences between Cibola white wares and the local ceramic type Kwahe’e B/w
in paste and temper. Type determinations were made based on paste characteristics,
temper, surface treatment, decoration (design elements), and execution of design
elements. All ceramic type and temper determinations were made by C. Dean
Wilson. Sampling of sherds focused on ceramic types and sherd size. The primary
objective of the study was to assess if any interregional trade and interaction with
the Chaco regional system could be confirmed. We therefore selected sherds from
Cibola white ware types commonly found at Chaco culture sites in the San Juan
Basin and elsewhere to the west of the NRG. These types included Red Mesa
Black-on-white (Red Mesa B/w; N = 32), Gallup B/w (N = 9), and Escavada B/w
(N = 5). The production period for these ceramic types range from AD 875-1050
for Red Mesa B/w to AD 980-1150 for Gallup B/w (see http://ceramics.
nmarchaeology.org/typology/ware?p=15). Because we needed to establish which
sherds were locally produced and which might have been produced at centers
within the Chaco regional system, we also selected sherds from ceramic types that
make up the local Rio Grande, or Tewa, ceramic series. These local types included
78 MICHAEL A. SCHILLACI ET AL.

Kwahe’e B/w (N = 37), Santa Fe B/w (N = 1), indented corrugated (N = 6), smeared
neckbanded (N = 1), smeared corrugated utility ware (N = 2), as well as wide-neck
banded (N = 5) and clapboard (N = 1) utility wares.

Statistical Analyses
Data from NAA of Late Developmental pottery sherds and wood-fired local clay
samples from the southern Tewa Basin were combined with data (Appendix II)
from a study of Chaco culture ceramics from sites located in the San Juan Basin
and elsewhere in the northern southwest (Neitzel et al. 2002). The data were ana-
lyzed using principal components analysis (PCA), as well as cluster analysis using
k-means and UPGMA methods. We used PCA as a multivariate ordination tech-
nique to reveal compositional groups, and to explore how such groups may differ
from each other in terms of their chemical (elemental) composition. Principal com-
ponents analysis was conducted using a correlation matrix (raw data), which is
equivalent to an analysis using a covariance matrix of standardized (z-score) data.
Using a correlation matrix prevents differences in higher magnitude elements from
disproportionately impacting the analysis. Plots of principal component scores
were interpreted visually. In principle, compositional groups would be represented
by discrete clusters of data points in multivariate space defined by the principal com-
ponents. We conducted three principal components analyses with various combi-
nations of identified local and non-local groups, including those comprising
sherds collected from Chacoan sites outside the Tewa Basin. Elements were ident-
ified as being important contributors to multivariate compositional space by evalu-
ating eigenvector loadings from PCA. These variables were then used in bivariate
analyses. We used k-means clustering to evaluate the legitimacy of visually identified
compositional groups determined from PCA. K-means clustering is a non-
hierarchical clustering method that assigns n observations into k clusters, where k
is a predetermined number of hypothetical clusters (Jain 2010). For the present
study, the number of clusters (k), or compositional groups, was determined visually
from plots of principal component scores. We used UPGMA cluster analysis of
Euclidian distances derived from the log-transformed data as a second way to ident-
ify compositional groups. UPGMA (unweighted pair group method with arithmetic
mean) is an agglomerative hierarchical clustering method that groups similar obser-
vations into nested clusters (Manly 2005).

Results
Analysis 1
The initial PCA was conducted on the compositional data from fired clay tiles and
the sherds collected from Late Developmental period sites in the Tewa Basin (N =
105). A visual assessment of the plot of the first two principal components describing
63% of the total variation across 32 elements indicated three groups (Table 1,
Figure 4A). These groups were also identified by k-means clustering of scores
from the first two principal components. Corresponding 95% confidence ellipses
ANALYSIS OF CERAMIC COMPOSITIONAL DATA
figure 4. A. Plot of the first two principal components describing multivariate compositional space for one local and two non-local sherd groups. B.
Plot of the first and third principal components describing multivariate compositional space. 95% confidence ellipses are shown. Principal com-
ponents were based on a correlation matrix of elemental concentration values (ppm) for 32 elements. Plot symbols include black circles,
Kwahe’e B/w; gray triangles, fired clay tiles; gray circles, gray wares; gray diamonds, Non-local Group 1; asterisks, Non-local Group 2.

79
80 MICHAEL A. SCHILLACI ET AL.

TABLE 1.
RESULTS FROM A PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS BASED ON A CORRELATION MATRIX OF PPM
CONCENTRATIONS FOR 32 ELEMENTS MEASURED IN FIRED CLAY TILES AND 99 POTTERY SHERDS
COLLECTED FROM 3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN THE TEWA BASIN.

PC Eigenvalue % variance Cumulative % variance

1 15.3287 47.902 47.902


2 4.85984 15.187 63.089
3 3.77271 11.790 74.879
Eigenvector loadings
Element PC 1 PC 2 PC 3
As −0.04317 −0.14007 0.02843
La 0.23667 0.06057 0.11254
Lu 0.22418 0.10966 0.11835
Nd 0.21076 0.16375 0.15249
Sm 0.21279 0.19936 0.15009
U 0.16868 0.00699 0.15942
Yb 0.22350 0.15591 0.09622
Ce 0.22818 0.08363 0.14544
Co −0.18301 0.14680 0.27457
Cr −0.05309 −0.13378 0.43129
Cs −0.06654 −0.30402 0.01358
Eu 0.19088 0.24012 0.13145
Fe −0.16257 0.09831 0.32159
Hf 0.20593 −0.03577 −0.14574
Rb −0.15339 −0.05859 0.25742
Sb 0.05446 −0.30471 0.10654
Sc 0.02387 −0.21934 0.41831
Sr −0.15721 0.16751 0.07177
Ta 0.19805 −0.00451 −0.01678
Tb 0.17855 0.27093 0.09876
Th 0.23275 −0.12816 0.03113
Zn −0.17768 0.07111 0.28237
Zr 0.21299 −0.00386 −0.06724
Al 0.22553 −0.11747 0.046419
Ba −0.14377 0.09351 −0.08360
Ca −0.16784 0.23969 0.09290
Dy 0.20189 0.22964 0.07170
K −0.14538 −0.00242 0.12733
Mn −0.19970 0.23419 0.08214
Na −0.20393 0.16616 −0.06600
Ti 0.16881 −0.27940 0.05233
V 0.01140 −0.32508 0.24784

Note: Only the results for the first three principal components are shown.
ANALYSIS OF CERAMIC COMPOSITIONAL DATA 81

were subsequently fit to these groups. The first group included 55 sherds, almost
entirely of local types including Kwahe’e B/w (N = 33, 60% of sherds in group),
Santa Fe B/w (N = 1, 1.8%), indented or smeared indented corrugated (N = 8,
14.5%), wide neck-banded (N = 5, 9%), and clapboard neck-banded (N = 1,
1.8%). Also included within this group were a single sherd of Gallup B/w, and the
6 fired tiles of local clay samples. Given the prevalence of local types and the
inclusion of the fired tiles from local clay sources, we identified this as a local
group (Local Group) reflecting local manufacture of ceramic vessels using
locally-available clays. The lone non-local white ware sherd of Gallup B/w
(OAS044) identified based on stylistic attributes is unlikely to be a misidentified
local type (i.e. Kwahe’e B/w) because it exhibited sherd temper, which is common
for Cibola white wares such as Gallup B/w, but not typically, if ever, observed in
the local white wares from the NRG. The second group (Non-local Group 1) com-
prised principal component scores from 34 sherds, mostly non-local Cibola white
ware types including Red Mesa B/w (N = 20, 59%), Escavada B/w (N = 5, 15%),
and Gallup B/w (N = 4, 12%). Also included in this group were five sherds (15%)
of the local type Kwahe’e B/w (OAS076, OAS104, OAS118, OAS119, OAS124).5
All five Kwahe’e B/w sherds in the group exhibited tuff and sand temper normally
indicative of locally manufactured white wares. None exhibited sherd temper.
Based on the prevalence of Cibola white wares in the group (85%), we identified
this group as non-local (Non-local Group 1). The third group (Non-local group
2) consisted of 16 sherds of non-local types, including Red Mesa B/w (N = 12,
75%), and Gallup B/w (N = 4, 25%). We designated this third grouping as non-local
(Non-local Group 2).
A comparative assessment of eigenvector loadings for the first principal com-
ponent describing 48% of the total variation (Table 1) revealed a number of
elements with high positive loadings (La, Lu, Nd, Sn, Yb, Ce, Hf, Th, Zr, Al, Dy),
as well as low negative loadings (Na, Mn, Zn, Co, Ca), indicating these elements
are important drivers of variation along this multivariate compositional vector
which separates the three groups. The second principal component separates Non-
local Group 1 from the Local Group and Non-local Group 2. For the second prin-
cipal component Tb, Eu, Ca, and Mn exhibit comparatively high loadings, while V,
Cs, Sb, and Ti exhibit comparatively low loadings. A plot of scores for the first and
third principal components revealed the same three groups, albeit along the first
principal component only. Although the three groups are not separated along the
third principal component (Figure 4B), there is separation of utility wares and
Kwahe’e B/w white sherds within the local group. The fired clay tiles from local
sources, as well as the lone sherd of Santa Fe B/w, are positioned between these
two local subgroups. Based on the eigenvector loadings, variation along the third
principal component is being driven primarily by Co, Cr, and Zn (high positive load-
ings), and Hf (low negative loading).
The results from the UPGMA cluster analysis (Figure 5) supported the compo-
sitional groups identified by PCA, with the exception of OAS131 (Escavada B/w),
which was positioned within Non-local Group 1 in the PCA analysis, and
OAS121 (Escavada B/w), which did not cluster in either of two non-local groups.
The same five Kwahe’e B/w sherds (OAS076, OAS104, OAS118, OAS119,
82 MICHAEL A. SCHILLACI ET AL.

figure 5. Dendrogram from UPGMA cluster analysis of Euclidian distances derived from the
log-transformed elemental concentration values (ppm) for 32 elements. Asterisks denote the
five sherds of Kwahe’e B/w manufactured with nonlocal clay (OAS076, OAS104, OAS118,
OAS119, OAS124).
ANALYSIS OF CERAMIC COMPOSITIONAL DATA 83

OAS124) that fell within Non-local Group 1 in the PCA analysis also clustered with
this non-local group in the UPGMA analysis. The single sherd of Gallup B/w
(OAS044) manufactured with sherd temper also clustered with the Local Group
in the UPGMA results.

Analysis 2
The second PCA focused on sherds from the non-local groups. The objective of
this analysis was to identify possible sources for the non-local Cibola white wares
found on the Late Developmental period sites from the southern Tewa Basin.
Data from the two non-local ceramic groups (Non-local Group 1 and 2) were
included in this analysis. Because the non-local sherds were Cibola white ware
types associated with Chaco culture, we pooled our data with data from Chacoan
sites analyzed by Neitzel et al. (2002) for comparison. Specifically, we used their com-
positional groups representing ceramic production areas or zones within the Chaco
regional system. These compositional groups for the most part comprised sherds
collected from multiple great houses. Results from this PCA are presented in
Table 2. We plotted the scores from the two non-local Tewa Basin groups on the
convex hulls describing the distributions of principal component scores for
Neitzel and colleagues’ compositional groups. Figure 6 shows that the principal
component scores for the Non-local Group 1 from the Tewa Basin—including
the 5 sherds of Kwahe’e B/w made with non-local clay and tuff and sand temper
identified in Analysis 1—plot within the convex hulls of Neitzel and colleagues’
Chaco Reference, Guadalupe, Kin Ya’a, and Chimney Rock compositional
groups, but not within the convex hulls of the Tocito and Chimney Rock A
groups. The Non-local Group 2 from the Tewa Basin is separated from all Chaco
groups in multivariate compositional space. Plots of subsequent principal
components were uninformative, revealing largely overlapping groups.

Analysis 3
The third PCA included compositional data from select Chaco communities
included in the study by Neitzel et al. (2002) rather than compositional
groups representing broad production zones. The Chaco Reference Group
(MURR data only) identified by that study is an aggregate grouping of sherds
from multiple sites within the Chaco regional system. Based on the provenience
of the sherds included in the Chaco Reference Group, Neitzel et al. (2002:53)
interpret this group as representing a broad production zone for Dogoszhi
style Cibola white wares (e.g. Gallup B/w) that lies between the Chuska Moun-
tains and Chaco Canyon. Because the Chaco Reference group was an aggregate
of multiple production centers, and we were interested in estimating where more
specifically within this broad production zone the non-local sherds at Late
Developmental sites in the Tewa Basin may have originated from, we selected
data from individual Chacoan communities provided by Neitzel et al.’s study.
For the most part we did not include data from the Neitzel et al. (2002)
Chaco Reference, Tocito, or Chimney Rock A groups representing larger pro-
duction zones. Based on the results of analysis 2, we included only those data
84 MICHAEL A. SCHILLACI ET AL.

TABLE 2.
RESULTS FROM A PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS BASED ON A CORRELATION MATRIX OF PPM
CONCENTRATIONS FOR 32 ELEMENTS MEASURED IN 184 POTTERY SHERDS FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
WITHIN THE CHACO REGIONAL SYSTEM (DATA FROM NIETZEL ET AL [2002]) AND FROM THE TEWA BASIN.

PC Eigenvalue % variance Cumulative % variance

1 11.1212 34.754 34.754


2 7.13995 22.312 57.066
3 3.46315 10.822 67.888
Eigenvector loadings
Element PC 1 PC 2 PC 3
As 0.07949 −0.06071 0.006917
La 0.28526 0.07778 0.025446
Lu 0.08719 0.32945 0.027867
Nd 0.27739 0.07311 0.038327
Sm 0.27273 0.11996 0.034646
U 0.11083 0.20899 0.092201
Yb 0.08767 0.32963 0.082849
Ce 0.28060 0.10308 0.030847
Co 0.07875 −0.06625 0.14499
Cr 0.21253 −0.19324 −0.13172
Cs −0.04237 −0.03356 0.48161
Eu 0.28037 0.05645 0.04421
Fe 0.18096 −0.19506 −0.14854
Hf 0.09508 0.20680 −0.24485
Rb 0.16258 −0.11035 0.32621
Sb −0.09034 −0.08875 0.25531
Sc 0.09973 −0.05558 0.38201
Sr 0.22249 −0.18538 −0.09890
Ta 0.16840 0.10240 −0.12757
Tb 0.18724 0.21198 0.070371
Th 0.23653 0.08739 −0.00723
Zn 0.12934 −0.21108 0.21666
Zr 0.12557 0.22533 −0.14534
Al −0.06874 0.24257 0.24007
Ba 0.17735 −0.20530 0.01924
Ca 0.18283 −0.15035 −0.15485
Dy 0.16577 0.26267 0.11237
K 0.21987 −0.11084 0.16995
Mn 0.19665 −0.22326 −0.09918
Na 0.15215 −0.19258 −0.15481
Ti 0.14020 0.00319 −0.11866
V 0.09109 −0.25388 0.19294
Note: Only the results for the first three principal components are shown.
ANALYSIS OF CERAMIC COMPOSITIONAL DATA 85

figure 6. Plot of the first two principal components describing multivariate compositional
space for the two non-local sherd groups from the Tewa Basin, and Chaco compositional
groups representing production zones (data from Neitzel et al. 2002). Compositional
groups are represented by convex hulls. Non-local Group 1 sherd values are represented
by grey diamond symbols. Black diamond symbols represent the five Kwahe’e B/w sherds
manufactured with non-local clay. Principal components were based on a correlation
matrix of elemental concentration values (ppm) for 32 elements.

from the great house communities of Guadalupe, Kin Ya’a, and Chimney Rock
that were also part of the compositional groups assigned to those sites by Nietzel
et al. For example, we only included sherds from the Chimney Rock compo-
sitional group that were collected from the Chimney Rock great house. We
also included data from Pueblo Pintado, as a representative of the regional
system’s core at Chaco Canyon. We interpret these data as representing commu-
nity level production centers.
The results of this third PCA (Table 3, Figure 7) revealed that all of the sherds from
Guadalupe, Kin Ya’a, and Pueblo Pintado fall within the 95% confidence ellipse of
Non-local Group 1. In addition, 2 of 5 sherds from Chimney Rock also fall with this
86 MICHAEL A. SCHILLACI ET AL.

TABLE 3.
RESULTS FROM A PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS BASED ON A CORRELATION MATRIX OF PPM
CONCENTRATIONS FOR 32 ELEMENTS MEASURED IN 138 POTTERY SHERDS FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
WITHIN THE CHACO REGIONAL SYSTEM (DATA FROM NIETZEL ET AL [2002]) AND FROM THE TEWA BASIN.

PC Eigenvalue % variance Cumulative % variance

1 12.1695 38.030 38.030


2 5.85431 18.295 56.325
3 3.93624 12.301 68.626
Eigenvector loadings
Element PC 1 PC 2 PC 3
As −0.03686 −0.01016 0.1291
La 0.24722 0.15391 0.10604
Lu 0.23329 0.17531 −0.00628
Nd 0.21306 0.21886 0.12236
Sm 0.21656 0.25770 0.05927
U 0.18439 0.05668 0.07349
Yb 0.23528 0.19164 −0.00531
Ce 0.23552 0.18218 0.11671
Co −0.02347 −0.05127 0.20081
Cr −0.03620 0.01874 0.36251
Cs −0.00935 −0.14689 0.30264
Eu 0.19394 0.26801 0.06483
Fe −0.15685 0.20908 0.17793
Hf 0.19549 −0.08989 −0.14616
Rb −0.10264 0.12943 0.35752
Sb 0.04894 −0.29517 0.12878
Sc 0.05281 −0.09431 0.43042
Sr −0.15631 0.19541 0.029521
Ta 0.20520 −0.04521 −0.06071
Tb 0.18264 0.25806 −0.02415
Th 0.25530 −0.12143 0.06375
Zn −0.17375 0.1323 0.24078
Zr 0.21438 −0.05303 −0.09262
Al 0.23786 −0.13721 0.08899
Ba −0.13727 0.04696 0.03988
Ca −0.17846 0.23232 −0.03140
Dy 0.21747 0.21844 −0.02674
K −0.10890 0.18505 0.24669
Mn −0.21086 0.23696 −0.03044
Na −0.21024 0.19916 −0.08897
Ti 0.17465 −0.23337 0.08797
V 0.03277 −0.21898 0.34625
Note: Only the results for the first three principal components are shown.
ANALYSIS OF CERAMIC COMPOSITIONAL DATA 87

figure 7. Plot of the first two principal components describing multivariate compositional
space for one local and two non-local sherd groups, as well as Chaco sherd values (data from
Neitzel et al. 2002). 95% confidence ellipses are shown for Tewa Basin groups only. Principal
components were based on a correlation matrix of elemental concentration values (ppm) for
32 elements. Sherd values from various Chaco great house communities are individually
plotted: squares, Guadalupe; rectangle, Chimney Rock; gray circle; Pueblo Pintado; gray tri-
angle, Kin Ya’a; black circles, Kwahe’e B/w sherds manufactured with non-local clay.

same confidence ellipse. The same five sherds of Kwahe’e B/w with local temper that
fell within the confidence ellipse of Non-local Group 1 in analysis 1, were similarly
positioned in analysis 3. As expected based on the results of analysis 2, none of the
sherds from these Chaco groups fell within the 95% confidence ellipse of Non-local
Group 2.

Bivariate Analysis
A comparison of eigenvector loadings from analysis 1 and 3 (cf. Tables 1 and 3)
revealed a very similar pattern of elements with high positive loadings and low nega-
tive loadings for the first principal component, along which most of the separation
among the three compositional groups is observed. The comparatively high positive
loadings in common between analysis 1 and 3 include La, Lu, Nd, Sm, Yb, Ce, Th,
88 MICHAEL A. SCHILLACI ET AL.

Zr, Al, and Dy. The shared low negative loadings include Na, Mn, Zn, and Sr.
Among these elements lanthanum (La) and manganese (Mn) had the highest (or
near highest) and lowest (or near highest) loadings respectively in analysis 3,
which included data from Chaco great house ceramic assemblages representing
community level production centers. After examining other elemental pairings,
these two elements provided the best bivariate separation of the compositional
groups determined by PCA. Using the analysis 3 data set, a bivariate plot of lantha-
num and manganese values (Figure 8) indicates that the local sherds from the Tewa
Basin exhibit higher concentrations of manganese compared to the non-local Cibola
white wares. The Non-local Group 2 is marginally separated from Non-local Group
1 and the Chaco groups by exhibiting higher concentrations of lanthanum. The
same five sherds of Kwahe’e B/w with local temper that fell within the confidence
ellipse of Non-local Group 1 in PCA analysis 1 and 3, also fell well within the

figure 8. Bivariate plot of log-transformed (log10) lanthanum (La) and manganese (Mn)
values (ppm). 95% confidence ellipses are shown for Tewa Basin groups only. Sherd
values from various Chaco great house communities (data from Neitzel et al. 2002) are indi-
vidually plotted: squares, Guadalupe; rectangle, Chimney Rock; gray circle; Pueblo Pintado;
gray triangle, Kin Ya’a; black circles, Kwahe’e B/w sherds manufactured with non-local clay.
ANALYSIS OF CERAMIC COMPOSITIONAL DATA 89

TABLE 4.
COMPOSITIONAL GROUP MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE 32 ELEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE
NAA OF POT SHERDS FROM LATE DEVELOPMENTAL PERIOD SITES IN THE TEWA BASIN.

Local (N = 55)n Non-local 1 (N = 34) Non-local 2 (N = 16)

Mean (ppm) SD Mean (ppm) SD Mean (ppm) SD

As 3.829 1.229 5.128 3.201 2.586 0.506


La 40.639 3.723 48.222 6.886 67.296 7.009
Lu 0.528 0.069 0.589 0.103 0.917 0.116
Nd 36.279 3.934 38.016 6.354 55.777 6.094
Sm 7.496 0.750 7.503 1.196 11.778 1.197
U 5.538 1.570 6.790 2.559 10.135 2.781
Yb 3.422 0.374 3.599 0.484 5.541 0.486
Ce 86.905 9.027 98.849 15.397 137.521 13.795
Co 13.226 3.183 5.090 2.140 3.121 0.841
Cr 60.959 17.753 62.782 12.405 43.497 8.711
Cs 9.816 1.409 12.158 2.681 7.152 1.572
Eu 1.393 0.109 1.325 0.228 2.055 0.219
Fe 36092.150 7315.593 23362.140 6900.571 16885.220 1327.489
Hf 5.763 0.758 7.894 1.617 9.758 0.606
Rb 133.252 14.433 125.170 17.016 94.469 13.419
Sb 0.661 0.207 1.013 0.304 0.741 0.104
Sc 13.708 2.757 15.390 1.806 13.081 1.384
Sr 257.730 58.757 169.021 63.751 144.860 30.635
Ta 1.397 0.166 1.604 0.288 1.970 0.190
Tb 0.981 0.098 0.876 0.150 1.498 0.173
Th 12.537 1.321 19.273 3.066 23.743 2.393
Zn 93.887 17.235 62.669 20.489 42.613 6.374
Zr 163.652 24.603 211.189 40.510 273.869 27.200
Al 80118.070 6728.646 105028.100 12727.100 126885.400 12710.250
Ba 642.104 202.805 496.494 128.900 382.669 54.549
Ca 29649.360 7736.534 8379.247 7490.582 8956.631 2600.222
Dy 5.250 0.514 4.948 0.699 8.713 0.984
K 26435.050 2684.300 24363.010 4360.258 19819.640 2842.814
Mn 649.316 105.905 90.824 28.496 74.746 12.431
Na 9943.307 2145.089 4526.503 1902.361 2086.269 489.275
Ti 4087.905 472.240 5962.900 767.022 5570.800 255.474
V 85.489 23.585 116.938 17.062 74.333 15.033
1
N = 55 includes six fired tiles made from local Tewa Basin clays.
90 MICHAEL A. SCHILLACI ET AL.

figure 9. Map showing Chaco great house communities included in the study. Inset box
denotes area represented by the regional map (cf. Figure 3).

bivariate distribution for Non-local Group 1 in this comparison of lanthanum and


manganese concentrations. The results of this bivariate analysis are supported by a
comparison of mean values among the three compositional groupings (Table 4),
which also shows a higher mean concentration of lanthanum for Non-local
Group 2, as well as higher mean concentration of manganese for the Local Group
from the Tewa Basin.

Discussion
We draw three primary conclusions from the results of our study of compositional
data derived from NAA of ceramic sherds and fired clay tiles. First, the sherds from
the Tewa Basin sites included in the study formed three major compositional groups,
one local and two non-local. The local group is made up of two sub-groups, one
comprising local white ware sherds exhibiting primarily tuff, or tuff and sand
temper, and another comprising utility gray wares exhibiting mica and granite
temper. Second, based on the overlap of Non-local Group 1 and various Chaco com-
positional groups in multivariate compositional space, as well as overlap in bivariate
ANALYSIS OF CERAMIC COMPOSITIONAL DATA 91

space describing variation in lanthanum and manganese concentrations, we infer


that sherds from Non-local Group 1 likely originated from Cibola white ware
vessels produced within the Chaco regional system more than 100 km to the west
of the Tewa Basin. From analysis 3 we further infer that many of these vessels origi-
nated from community level production centers including great house communities
within Chaco Canyon (Pueblo Pintado), as well as south (Kin Ya’a), north (Chimney
Rock), and east (Guadalupe) of Chaco Canyon, but not communities in the greater
Chuska region (Tocito)(Figure 9). Third, not all of the Cibola white ware vessels
were brought in from the great house communities listed above, or from the
broad production zone for Cibola white wares that lies between the Chuska Moun-
tains and Chaco Canyon, because none of the comparative compositional groups
included in our study overlapped with Non-local Group 2, leaving the geographic
origin of production for this compositional group unknown. The Rio Puerco
(east) valley and Rio San Jose valley regions are possible sources of production
for this non-local group. Previously, we suggested that the sudden population
increase in the Tewa Basin beginning around A.D. 900 could represent an influx
of Proto-Tewa-Tiwa-speakers from the Rio San Jose valley, the Rio Puerco (east)
valley, and/or the MRG, including the Santo Domingo Basin and Albuquerque
Valley (Lakatos and Wilson 2012; Schillaci and Lakatos 2017). The movement of
these Proto-Tewa-Tiwa groups north through the Santo Domingo Basin to the
Tewa Basin during the A.D. 800s, therefore, could have resulted in the introduction
to the Tewa Basin of both the Proto-Tewa-Tiwa language and Cibola white wares
including Red Mesa B/w. Similar scenarios, either in part or in whole, have been pre-
sented by others (cf. Mera 1935; Wendorf 1954; Wendorf and Reed 1955; McNutt
1969; Ford et al. 1972; Boyer et al. 2010; but see Ortman 2012 for alternative view).
Additional chemical compositional research with provenienced sherds and sourced
clay samples from the Rio San Jose valley, the Rio Puerco (east) valley, and the Santo
Domingo Basin are needed to assess this proposed scenario.
Our results yielded unexpected and interesting secondary findings. Originating
from a vessel manufactured with local clay, the single sherd of the non-local type
Gallup B/w (OAS044) was likely typed correctly given it exhibited sherd temper,
which is uncharacteristic of local production. This suggests that at least a small
number of Cibola white ware vessels were manufactured in the southern Tewa
Basin, possibly by re-located Chaco community potters using local materials
(clay) with Cibola tradition manufacturing techniques (sherd temper, Dogoszhi
style design elements) This finding compliments those presented by Wiseman and
Olinger (1991, Table 1) who identified 14 Cibola white ware sherds from LA 835
(K’uːyemuge ʔówîŋge) that fell into their local group composed primarily of
Kwahe’e B/w. Surprisingly, our results also identified five sherds of Kwahe’e B/w
originating from two sites (K’uːyemuge ʔówîŋge [LA 835] and LA 6579) with com-
positional profiles placing them firmly within Non-local Group 1, which as we have
shown, comprises Cibola white ware sherds produced at various Chaco great house
communities in the San Juan Basin, including one from Chaco Canyon. Parentheti-
cally, one of these sites, K’uːyemuge ʔówîŋge (LA 835), has been identified by mul-
tiple Tewa consultants6 as being an ancestral Tewa settlement (see Schillaci et al.
2017). The fact that these five Kwahe’e B/w sherds exhibit tuff temper typical of
92 MICHAEL A. SCHILLACI ET AL.

local production means that a local pottery type, Kwahe’e B/w, was made with non-
local clay (Non-local Group 1) from the Chaco regional system to the west, and tem-
pered with local materials (tuff, or sand and tuff), indicating that both finished
ceramic vessels and raw untempered clay were brought, or traded, from Chaco com-
munities to ancestral Tewa communities in the NRG. Our findings again compli-
ment those presented by Wiseman and Olinger (1991, Table 1) who identified 6
of 61 Kwahe’e B/w sherds with non-local compositional profiles, presumably reflect-
ing production areas to the west. We can only speculate as to why non-local clay
would be brought in from a considerable distance when suitable clay from local
sources was available. Ethnographic data suggests an upper threshold limit of
about 7–9 km for raw clay procurement (Arnold 1985; Druc 2013:502). Such a
threshold is largely consistent with the results of our compositional analysis indicating
use of Tewa Basin clays in the production of Kwahe’e B/w.
Recently Eckert et al. (2015) employed communities of practice and identity (see
discussions in Eckert 2008, 2012; Cordell and Habicht-Mauche 2012; Joyce 2012)
as a conceptual framework in their study of the production of Santa Fe B/w in the
NRG. They defined communities of practice as social networks in which potters
share a technological tradition (Eckert et al. 2015:8). The authors explained that
the selection of clay and temper are early steps in the production process, and
that these choices are affected by a potter’s community of practice, as are choices
made later during construction of a vessel, including choices regarding decoration
style and the use of particular design elements (Eckert et al. 2015:8). Eckert et al.
(2015:2) defined communities of identity as social networks in which potters
share a group identity, and explained that as individuals move between different
social contexts, they will emphasize membership in the community of identity
(e.g. ethnicity, language, class, lineage) that most benefits them within a particular
social context. We suggest that the use of local temper, local clay—as revealed by
our compositional analysis—and a distinctive decoration style in the production
of Kwahe’e B/w is consistent with a communities of practice and identity
framework.
We propose that the enigmatic Kwahe’e B/w vessels constructed from non-local
clay from Chaco regional sources might also reflect local Tewa Basin communities
of identity and practice. Druc (2013:487), drawing on Shepard (1968) and others,
outlines a number of possible scenarios that can obscure the identification of local
and nonlocal ceramic production. Of these scenarios, we see two that could apply
to a community of practice framework for interpreting the production of Kwahe’e
B/w using non-local clay. For the first scenario, migrants from Chaco communities
to the west brought clay with them to the Tewa Basin that they obtained from their
local clay sources in the San Juan Basin. These re-located or migrant potters then
used their transported non-local clay to produce a local Tewa Basin ceramic type
in the local Tewa ceramic tradition to establish membership in a new social
network (community of practice) with a new shared group identity (community of
identity). We have no way of knowing for certain, however, if clay was transported
by Chaco migrants when relocating to the Tewa Basin, or if migrant potters made
return trips to obtain clay from San Juan Basin sources, or even if they continued
their participation in a Chacoan procurement network (Huntley et al. 2012), thus
ANALYSIS OF CERAMIC COMPOSITIONAL DATA 93

implying a preference for non-local (i.e, outside the Tewa Basin) materials for
ceramic production. The ethnographic data mentioned earlier indicates return
trips to the San Juan Basin to collect clay were unlikely. A preference for non-local
materials also seems unlikely given the fact that the Kwahe’e B/w vessels in question
were produced using local temper materials (tuff), which we view as indicative of a
local community of practice. A reviewer of this manuscript suggested that use of
non-local clay might reflect a potter’s effort to remain symbolically connected to
their Chaco homeland, or perhaps a blending of communities of practice. Both sug-
gestions are possible. Here it is important to reiterate that because at least one of the
settlements included in the present study, K’uːyemuge ʔówîŋge, is ancestral Tewa,
communities of identity and practice engaged in the production of Kwahe’e B/w
comprised primarily, but perhaps not entirely, local ancestral Tewa potters. Non-
local potters—likely females from Chaco communities who married into local ances-
tral Tewa communities7—would have participated in the social network producing
ceramic vessels in the local Tewa tradition as a means for integrating themselves into
a new local community.
For the second scenario, non-local clay was obtained by way of trade and used by
local ancestral Tewa potters to produce the local ceramic type Kwahe’e B/w consist-
ent with the local community of practice to assert or reflect a shared group identity
(community of identity). This scenario would require that the potter’s choice of clay
not be an essential component to the local ceramic tradition and community of prac-
tice. Trade of non-local clays associated with Chaco ceramic production suggests
ancestral communities in the Tewa Basin may have participated in a large extra-
regional procurement network associated with the Chaco regional system. This
notion is supported by the presence of obsidian and turquoise originating from
the NRG at Chaco communities (see Moore et al. 2020).
We believe that the production of Kwahe’e B/w embodied communities of iden-
tity and practice that were directly ancestral to those described by Eckert et al.
(2015) for Santa Fe B/w, and that the local Tewa ceramic series, to which
Kwahe’e B/w and Santa Fe B/w belong, reflects enduring cultural cohesion and
continuity. It is interesting to note that communities of identity and practice are
also reflected in the vernacular pit-house architecture of the Late Developmental
period in the NRG. As we have discussed elsewhere (Lakatos and Wilson 2012;
Schillaci and Lakatos 2017), the continuity and conservatism reflected by the
Tewa ceramic series is homologous to the continuity and conservatism reflected
in pit-house architecture described by Lakatos (2003, 2006, 2007). This continuity
in ceramic tradition and vernacular architecture both stem from the same
communities of identity and practice, and embody the same conservative cultural
habitus.

Conclusion
Despite representing only a small percentage of overall ceramic assemblages, the
Cibola white wares present at Late Developmental sites in the Tewa Basin, and else-
where in the NRG, have been regarded as evidence for interaction with Chaco
94 MICHAEL A. SCHILLACI ET AL.

communities in the San Juan Basin. The present study offers additional empirical
evidence that such interaction occurred. In addition to a larger production zone
within the Chaco regional system, we identified individual Chaco great house com-
munities, including one within the Chaco core, as likely sources of this interaction.
As pointed out by an anonymous reviewer of this paper, our results not only estab-
lish that there was significant interaction between Late Developmental period com-
munities in the Tewa Basin and Chaco communities, they also challenge the ways
archaeologists identify local and non-local ceramics. Our study identified a single
sherd of a non-local type (Gallup B/w), exhibiting a local clay compositional
profile, but manufactured using a non-local technique (sherd temper). We also
uncovered evidence of raw untempered clay being traded or brought into Tewa
communities from Chaco sources, and adapted to local manufacture techniques.
These secondary findings suggest that there may have been flexibility in the use of
raw materials in the construction of ware types within regional ceramic traditions,
and that such flexibility can be accommodated within local communities of practice
and identity. Future research exploring ceramic trade to the NRG should include
comparative compositional data from Chaco communities in the Rio San Jose and
Rio Puerco (east) valleys, as well as from fired clay samples originating from these
potential production areas.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the Office of Archaeological Studies, particularly E.
Blinman, for facilitating this research, and Julia Clifton from the Museum of
Indian Arts and Culture for facilitating access to the photos used here. We are grate-
ful to D. Nikitovic for her help drafting figures, and to M. O’Rourke for producing
the maps. This work rests squarely on the shoulders of H.P. Mera, Stanley Stubbs,
Stewart Peckham, Helene Warren and others who pioneered Northern Rio
Grande ceramic research. We would like to thank Reggie Wiseman for his
research and insight on the makeup of Late Developmental ceramics assemblages.
Our appreciation also goes to Stephen Post and Roland and Martha Mace who
were fundamental in the identification of clay sources and the replication of
ceramic vessels.

Funding
This work was supported by a National Science Foundation grant (1621158) to the
MURR Archaeometry Laboratory and the University of Toronto Scarborough:
[Grant Number internal].

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ANALYSIS OF CERAMIC COMPOSITIONAL DATA 95

Notes
1 We would include late Kiatuthlana B/w and the local white ware type Santa Fe B/w which exhibits
early Red Mesa B/w variants. organic paint.
2 Wasters are protective covering sherds used during 6 The Late Developmental period site LA 835 (aka
pottery firings. “Pojoaque Grant Site” also includes LA 833 and
3 Kelley (1948, 6) referred to these deposits as LA 834) has been identified by at least two differ-
“Culebra Lake clay”. Strictly speaking, deposition ent Tewa consultants on separate occasions as the
of these Late Pleistocene lacustrine clays was not ancestral Tewa settlement K’uːyemuge ʔówîŋge
associated with the Late Pliocene Culebra Lake (see Schillaci et al. 2017). This site is listed on
(see Dethier and Fagenholz 2007). Previous the National Register of Historic Places in large
pottery replication experiments have demon- part because Pojoaque Pueblo oral tradition main-
strated that the Late Pleistocene “Culebra Lake” tains that K’uːyemuge ʔówîŋge was an ancestral
clays from Cañada Ancha are suitable for con- Tewa village that continues to have spiritual
struction of coiled vessels (Lakatos 1995). importance to the pueblo, which maintains tra-
4 Figure 5 in in Crowe et al. (1978) depicts the ditional connections to the site (U.S. Department
actual sampling location of the Totavi clay used of Interior, August 3, 2015).
in the present study. A description of the geology 7 The notion of female migrants from Chaco com-
of this location is presented on pages 9 and 10, munities is particularly interesting considering
where Crowe et al. describe the lacustrine sedi- recent research (Kennett et al. 2017) indicating
ments as “tuffaceous siltstone” rather than tuffac- matrilocality at the great house community of
eous clay. Pueblo Bonito (contra Schillaci and Stojanowski
5 It is important to note that these sherds exhibited 2002, 2003; Stojanowski and Schillaci 2006;
mineral paint, thus distinguishing them from the also see discussions in Ensor et al. 2017; Schillaci
and Stojanowski 2017).

References
Agostini, Mark R.
2018 Becoming Tewa on the Pajarito Plateau and in the Rio Grande Valley: A Compositional Study of
Ancestral Pueblo Pottery in the Tewa Basin, New Mexico. Poster presented at the Society for
American Archaeology 83rd Annual Meetings, Washington, D.C.
Arnold, Dean E.
1985 Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bower, Nathan W., and David H. Snow
1984 A Comparative Study of Early Historic ‘Tewa’ Pottery. In New Mexico Geological Society
Guidebook, 35th Field Conference, Rio Grande Rift: Northern New Mexico, pp. 291–295. New
Mexico Geological Society, Socorro, NM.
Bower, Nathan W., Steve Faciszewski, Stephen Renwick, and Stewart Peckham
1986 A Preliminary Analysis of Rio Grande Glazes of the Classic Period Using Scanning Electron
Microscopy with X-ray Fluorescence. Journal of Field Archaeology 13(3):307–315.
Boyer, Jeffrey L., James L. Moore, Steven A. Lakatos, Nancy J. Akins, C. Dean Wilson, and Eric Blinman
2010 Remodeling Immigration: A Northern Rio Grande Perspective on Depopulation, Migration, and
Donation-side Models. In Leaving Mesa Verde: Peril and Change in the Thirteenth-century
Southwest, edited by Kohler, Timothy A., Mark D. Varien, and Aaron M. Wright, pp. 285–323.
University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Cordell, Linda S., and Judith A. Habicht-Mauche
2012 Practice Theory and Social Dynamics among Prehispanic and Colonial Communities in the American
Southwest. In Potters and Communities of Practice: Glaze Paint and Polychrome Pottery in the
American Southwest, AD 1250 1700, edited by Cordell, Linda S., and Judith A. Habicht-Mauche,
96 MICHAEL A. SCHILLACI ET AL.

Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona, vol. 75. pp. 1–7. The University of Arizona
Press, Tucson.
Crowe, Bruce M., George W. Linn, Grant Heiken, and Mary Lou Bevier
1978 Stratigraphy of the Bandelier Tuff in the Pajarito Plateau. Applications to Waste Management.
Report No. LA-7225-MS. Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico.
Curewitz, Diane C., and Franklin F. Foit, Jr.
2018 Shards in Sherds: Identifying Production Locations and Exchange Patterns Using Electron
Microprobe Analysis of Volcanic Ash Temper in Northern Rio Grande Biscuit ware. Journal of
Archaeological Science: Reports 18:487–498.
Dethier, David P. and Andrew D. Fagenholz
2007 Late Pliocene deposition in Culebra Lake and Pleistocene Erosion of Lake Sediment, Northeastern
Pajarito Plateau. In New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook, 58th Field Conference, Geology
of the Jemez Mountain Region II, edited by Barry S. Kues, Shari A. Kelley, and Virgil W. Lueth,
pp. 388–397. New Mexico Geological Society, Socorro.
Druc, Isabelle
2013 What Is Local? Looking at Ceramic Production in the Peruvian Highlands and Beyond. Journal of
Anthropological Research 69(4):485–513.
Duwe, Samuel G.
2011 The Prehispanic Tewa World: Space, Time, and Becoming in the Pueblo Southwest. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona.
Eckert, Suzanne L.
2008 Pottery and Practice: the Expression of Identity at Pottery Mound and Hummingbird Pueblo.
University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
2012 Choosing Clays and Painting Pots in the Fourteenth-Century Zuni Region. In Potters and
Communities of Practice: Glaze Paint and Polychrome Pottery in the American Southwest, AD
1250 1700, edited by Cordell, Linda S., and Judith A. Habicht-Mauche, Anthropological Papers
of the University of Arizona, vol. 75. pp. 55–64. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Eckert, Suzanne L., Kari L. Schleher, and William D. James
2015 Communities of Identity, Communities of Practice: Understanding Santa Fe Black-on-white Pottery
in the Española Basin of New Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Science 63:1–12.
Eckert, Suzanne L., Kari L. Schleher, and David H. Snow
2018 Following the Yellow Brick Road: Yellow Slip Clays and the Production of Rio Grande Glaze Ware in
North Central New Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 21:565–574.
Eiselt, B. Sunday, and Richard I. Ford
2007 Sangre de Cristo Micaceous Clays: Geochemical Indices for Source and Raw Material Distribution,
Past and Present. Kiva 73(2):219–238.
Ensor, Bradley E., Joel D. Irish, William F. Keegan
2017 The Bioarchaeology of Kinship: Proposed Revisions to Assumptions Guiding Interpretation. Current
Anthropology 58(6):739–761.
Ford, Richard I., Albert H. Schroeder, and Stewart L. Peckham
1972 Three Perspectives on Puebloan Prehistory. In New Perspectives on the Pueblos, edited by Alfonso
Ortiz, pp. 19–39. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Fowles, Severin M.
2004 The Making of Made People: The Prehistoric: Evolution of Hierocracy Among the Northern Tiwa of
New Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Fowles, Severin M., Leah Minc, Samuel Duwe, and David V. Hill
2007 Clay, Conflict, and Village Aggregation: Compositional Analyses of Pre-Classic Pottery from Taos,
New Mexico. American Antiquity 72(1):125–152.
Galusha, Ted, and John C. Blick
1971 Stratigraphy of the Santa Fe Group, New Mexico. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural
History 144, article 1.
ANALYSIS OF CERAMIC COMPOSITIONAL DATA 97

Glascock, Michael D.
1992 Characterization of Archaeological Ceramics at MURR by Neutron Activation Analysis and
Multivariate Statistics. In Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology, edited by
Hector Neff, pp. 11–26. Prehistory Press, Madison, WI.
Habicht-Mauche, Judith A.
1993 The Pottery from Arroyo Hondo Pueblo, New Mexico: Tribalization and Trade in the Northern Rio
Grande. Arroyo Hondo Archaeological Series 8. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.
Huntley, Deborah L., Thomas R. Fenn, Judith A. Habicht-Mauche, and Barbara Mills
2012 Embedded Networks? Pigments and Long-Distance Procurement Strategies in the Late Prehispanic
Southwest. In Potters and Communities of Practice: Glaze Paint and Polychrome Pottery in the
American Southwest, AD 1250 1700, edited by Cordell, Linda S., and Judith A. Habicht-Mauche,
Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona, vol. 75. pp. 8–18. The University of Arizona
Press, Tucson.
Jain, Anil K.
2010 Data Clustering: 50 years Beyond K-means. Pattern Recognition Letters 31(8):651–666.
Joyce, Rosemary A.
2012 Thinking About Pottery Production as Community Practice. In Potters and Communities of Practice:
Glaze Paint and Polychrome Pottery in the American Southwest, AD 1250 1700, edited by Cordell,
Linda S., and Judith A. Habicht-Mauche, Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona, vol.
75. pp. 149–154. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Kelley, Vincent C.
1948 Geology and Pumice Deposits of the Pajarito Plateau, Sandoval, Santa Fe, and Rio Arriba Counties,
New Mexico: Los Alamos Project—Pumice Investigations Contract No. AT (29-1)-553, Final Report
No. 2—Field Survey, 16 p. (University of New Mexico copy 17).
Kennett, Douglas J., Stephen Plog, Richard J. George, Brendan J. Culleton, Adam S. Watson, Pontus Skoglund,
Nadin Rohland, Swapan Mallick, Kristin Stewardson, Logan Kistler, Steven A. LeBlanc, Peter M. Whiteley,
David Reich, and George H. Perry
2017 Archaeogenomic Evidence Reveals Prehistoric Matrilineal dynasty. Nature Communications
8:14115.
Lakatos, Steven A.
1995 The Culebra Lake Formation and the Production of Santa Fe Black-on-white Pottery at Las
Campanas. Pottery Southwest 22(3):1–4.
2003 Pit Structure Architecture of the Developmental Period (AD 600-1200). In Anasazi Archaeology at
the Millennium: Proceedings of the Sixth Occasional Anasazi Symposium, edited by Paul F. Reed,
pp. 49–56. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.
2006 Cultural Continuity in the Northern Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico, AD 600–AD 1200. Master’s
Thesis, New Mexico Highlands University, Las Vegas.
2007 Cultural Continuity and the Development of Integrative Architecture in the Northern Rio Grande
Valley of New Mexico, AD 600-1200. Kiva 73(1):31–66.
Lakatos, Steven A., and C. Dean Wilson
2012 The Unexpected Stability of Rio Grande Communities During the Early Developmental Period. In
Crucible of Pueblos: The Early Pueblo Period in the Northern Southwest, edited by James R.
Allison, Gregson Schachner, and Richard H. Wilshusen, pp. 127–145. Monograph 71. Cotsen
Institute of Archaeology Press, University of California, Los Angeles.
Manly, Brian F. J.
2005 Multivariate Statistical Methods, A Primer. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton.
McNutt, Charles H.
1969 Early Puebloan Occupations at Tesuque By-pass and the Upper Rio Grande Valley. Anthropological
Papers No. 40. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
98 MICHAEL A. SCHILLACI ET AL.

Mera, H. P.
1935 Ceramic Clues to the Prehistory of North Central New Mexico. Technical Series Bulletin No. 8.
Laboratory of Anthropology, Santa Fe.
Moore, James L., Eric Blinman, and M. Steven Shackley
2020 Temporal Variation in Obsidian Procurement in the Northern Rio Grande and Its Implications for
Obsidian Movement into the San Juan Area. American Antiquity 85(1):152–170. DOI:10.1017/
aaq.2019.69.
Neff, Hector
2000 Neutron Activation Analysis for Provenance Determination in Archaeology. In Modern Analytical
Methods in Art and Archaeology, edited by Enrico Ciliberto, and Giuseppe Spoto, pp. 81–134.
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
2002 Quantitative Techniques for Analyzing Ceramic Compositional Data. In Ceramic Production and
Circulation in the Greater Southwest, Source Determination by INAA and Complimentary
Mineralogical Investigations, edited by Donna M. Glowacki and Hector Neff. Monograph 44, pp.
15–36. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA, Los Angeles.
Neitzel, Jill E., Hector Neff, Michael D. Glascock, and Ronald L. Bishop
2002 Chaco and the Production and Exchange of Dogoszhi-Style Pottery. In Ceramic Production and
Circulation in the Greater Southwest, Source Determination by INAA and Complimentary
Mineralogical Investigations, edited by Donna M. Glowacki and Hector Neff. Monograph 44, pp.
47–65. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA, Los Angeles.
Olinger, Bart
1988 Pottery Studies Using X-ray Fluorescence, Part 3: the Historic Pottery of the N. Tewa. Pottery
Southwest 15(4):1–6.
Ortman, Scott G.
2012 Winds from the North: Tewa Origins and Historical Anthropology. University of Utah Press, Salt
Lake City.
Reneau, Steven L. and David P. Dethier
1996 Late Pleistocene Landslide-dammed Lakes along the Rio Grande, White Rock Canyon, New Mexico.
Geological Society of America Bulletin 108(11):1492–1507.
Schillaci, Michael A., and Steven A. Lakatos
2017 The Emergence of Kwahe’e Black-on-White Pottery in the Tewa Basin, New Mexico. Journal of Field
Archaeology 42(2):152–160.
Schillaci, Michael A., Steven A. Lakatos, and Logan D. Sutton
2017 Tewa Place names for Early Habitation Sites in the Northern Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico.
Journal of Field Archaeology 42(2):142–151.
Schillaci, Michael A., and Christopher M. Stojanowski
2002 A Reassessment of Matrilocality in Chacoan culture. American Antiquity 67:343–356.
2003 Postmarital Residence and Biological Variation at Pueblo Bonito. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 120(1):1–15.
2017 Comment on “The Bioarchaeology of Kinship: Proposed Revisions to Assumptions Guiding
Interpretation” by Ensor BD, Irish JD, Keegan WF. Current Anthropology 58(6):755–756.
Shepard, Anna O.
1968 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington.
Stojanowski Christopher M., and Michael A. Schillaci
2006 Phenotypic approaches for understanding patterns of intracemetery biological variation. Yearbook
of Physical Anthropology 131(S43):49–88.
Stubbs, Stanley A., and William Sidney Stallings,
1953 The Excavations of Pindi Pueblo, New Mexico. Monographs of the School of American Research
and the Laboratory of Anthropology, No. 10. S.A.R. and Laboratory of Anthropology, Santa Fe.
ANALYSIS OF CERAMIC COMPOSITIONAL DATA 99

Thomas, William J., Nathan W. Bower, John W. Kantner, Marianne L. Stoller, and David H. Snow
1992 An X-ray Fluorescence-Pattern Recognition Analysis of Pottery from an Early Historic Hispanic
Settlement Near Santa Fe, New Mexico. Historical Archaeology 26(2):24–36.
Turbeville, B. N., Damon B. Waresback, and Stephen Self
1989 Lava-dome Growth and Explosive Volcanism in the Jemez Mountains, New Mexico: Evidence from
the Plio-Pleistocene Puye Alluvial fan. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 36(4):267–
291.
U.S. Department of Interior
2015 National Register of Historic Places, August 3, 2015. “K’uuyemugeh” No. 15000496.
Waresback, Damon B. and B.N. Turbeville
1990 Evolution of a Plio-Pleistocene Volcanogenic-alluvial Fan: the Puye Formation, Jemez Mountains,
New Mexico. Geological Society of America Bulletin 102(3):298–314.
Washburn, Dorothy K.
2014 Continuity and Changes in the Structure of Ceramic Design: A Record of Migration and Social
Change in the Rio Grande Pueblos. Kiva 79:27–53.
Wendorf, Fred
1954 A Reconstruction of Northern Rio Grande Prehistory. American Anthropologist 56(2):200–227.
Wendorf, Fred and Erik K. Reed
1955 An Alternative Reconstruction of Northern Rio Grande Prehistory. El Palacio 62(5-6):131–173.
Wilson, C. Dean
2005 Ceramic Artifacts. In: Excavations at LA 103919, a Developmental Period Site Near Nambe Pueblo,
Santa Fe County, New Mexico, edited by Stephen C. Lentz, pp. 89–150. Archaeology Notes No. 199.
Office of Archaeological Studies, Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe, NM.
2013 The Gradual Development of Systems of Pottery Production and Distribution Across Northern Rio
Grande Landscapes. In From Mountain Top to Valley Bottom. Understanding Land use in the
Northern Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico, edited by Bradley J. Vierra, pp. 161–197. University
of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Wiseman, Regge N.
2014 Introduction to Mera’s Ceramic Clues to the Prehistory of North Central New Mexico. In The
Original Eleven Bulletins, with Essays and Opinions Derived from Recent Research, Special
Publication No. 5, edited by Emily J. Brown, Regge N. Wiseman, and Rory P. Gauthier, with contri-
butions by Hayward H. Franklin and Theodore R. Frisbie, pp. 197–223. Archaeological Society of
New Mexico, Albuquerque.
Wiseman, Regge N., and Bart Olinger
1991 Initial Production of Painted Pottery in the Rio Grande: The Perspective from LA 835, The Pojoaque
Grant Site. In Puebloan Past and Present: Papers in Honor of Stewart Peckham, edited by Meliha S.
Duran and David T. Kirkpatrick, pp. 209–217. Papers of the Archaeological Society of New
Mexico 17. Archaeological Society of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
100 MICHAEL A. SCHILLACI ET AL.

Appendix I. Descriptive information for sherds from the Tewa


Basin used in the analysis.

ID Site Type Group Vessel Temper

OAS026 Totavi NRGtile Local Group Tile self-tempered


OAS027 Culebra Lake NRGtile Local Group Tile self-tempered, sand
OAS028 Culebra Lake NRGtile Local Group Tile self-tempered
OAS029 Culebra Lake NRGtile Local Group Tile self-tempered
OAS030 Bishop’s Lodge NRGtile Local Group Tile volcanic ash
OAS031 Santa Fe Ranch NRGtile Local Group Tile volcanic ash
OAS036 LA 388 Kwahe’e B/w Local Group Bowl body tuff, sand
OAS044 LA 388 Gallup B/w Local Group Jar body sherd, sand
OAS049 LA 388 Wide Neckbanded Local Group Jar rim mica, granite
OAS050 LA 388 Wide Neckbanded Local Group Jar body mica, granite
OAS053 LA 388 Indented Corrugated Local Group Jar neck mica, granite
OAS054 LA 388 Clapboard Neck Local Group Jar body mica, granite
OAS055 LA 388 Wide Neckbanded Local Group Jar neck mica, granite
OAS062 LA 6579 Smeared Neckbanded Local Group Jar neck mica, granite
OAS063 LA 6579 Smeared Indented Local Group Jar body mica, granite
OAS065 LA 6579 Indented Corrugated Local Group Jar body mica, granite
OAS066 LA 6579 Kwahe’e B/w Local Group Bowl body tuff, sand
OAS067 LA 6579 Kwahe’e B/w Local Group Bowl body tuff, sand
OAS068 LA 6579 Kwahe’e B/w Local Group Bowl rim tuff
OAS070 LA 6579 Kwahe’e B/w Local Group Jar body tuff
OAS071 LA 6579 Kwahe’e B/w Local Group Bowl body tuff, sand
OAS072 LA 6579 Santa Fe B/w Local Group Bowl body tuff
OAS073 LA 6579 Kwahe’e B/w Local Group Indet. rim tuff
OAS074 LA 6579 Kwahe’e B/w Local Group Jar body tuff, sand
OAS075 LA 6579 Kwahe’e B/w Local Group Jar neck tuff
OAS077 LA 6579 Kwahe’e B/w Local Group Bowl body tuff, sand
OAS078 LA 6579 Kwahe’e B/w Local Group Bowl body tuff
OAS079 LA 6579 Kwahe’e B/w Local Group Bowl body tuff
OAS080 LA 6579 Kwahe’e B/w Local Group Jar body tuff
OAS081 LA 6579 Kwahe’e B/w Local Group Jar body tuff
OAS082 LA 6579 Kwahe’e B/w Local Group Bowl body tuff
OAS083 LA 6579 Indented Corrugated Local Group Jar body mica, granite
OAS084 LA 6579 Indented Corrugated Local Group Jar rim mica, granite
OAS088 LA 835 Kwahe’e B/w Local Group Bowl rim fine silt
Continued
ANALYSIS OF CERAMIC COMPOSITIONAL DATA 101

CONTINUED
ID Site Type Group Vessel Temper

OAS095 LA 835 Kwahe’e B/w Local Group Bowl body tuff, sand
OAS096 LA 835 Kwahe’e B/w Local Group Bowl rim tuff
OAS097 LA 835 Kwahe’e B/w Local Group Bowl rim tuff
OAS098 LA 835 Kwahe’e B/w Local Group Bowl rim fine sand, silt
OAS100 LA 835 Kwahe’e B/w Local Group Bowl rim fine silt, sand
OAS101 LA 835 Kwahe’e B/w Local Group Bowl rim fine silt, sand
OAS105 LA 835 Kwahe’e B/w Local Group Bowl rim tuff, sand
OAS106 LA 835 Kwahe’e B/w Local Group Bowl body tuff, sand
OAS109 LA 835 Kwahe’e B/w Local Group Bowl rim tuff, sand
OAS112 LA 835 Kwahe’e B/w Local Group Bowl body tuff, sand
OAS113 LA 835 Wide Neckbanded Local Group Jar rim granite, mica
OAS114 LA 835 Wide Neckbanded Local Group Jar neck granite, mica
OAS115 LA 835 Indented Corrugated Local Group Jar neck granite, mica
OAS116 LA 835 Kwahe’e B/w Local Group Jar body tuff, sand
OAS120 LA 835 Kwahe’e B/w Local Group Bowl body tuff, sand
OAS122 LA 835 Kwahe’e B/w Local Group Bowl rim tuff, sand
OAS123 LA 835 Kwahe’e B/w Local Group Bowl body tuff, sand
OAS125 LA 835 Kwahe’e B/w Local Group Bowl body tuff, sand
OAS126 LA 835 Smeared Corrugated Local Group Jar body granite, mica
OAS127 LA 835 Indented Corrugated Local Group Jar body granite, mica
OAS129 LA 835 Kwahe’e B/w Local Group Bowl rim tuff
OAS033 LA 388 Red Mesa B/w Non-local Group 1 Bowl body fine sandstone
OAS034 LA 388 Red Mesa B/w Non-local Group 1 Bowl body sherd, sand
OAS035 LA 388 Red Mesa B/w Non-local Group 1 Jar body tuff, sand
OAS037 LA 388 Red Mesa B/w Non-local Group 1 Jar body sherd, sand
OAS039 LA 388 Red Mesa B/w Non-local Group 1 Bowl rim fine sandstone
OAS041 LA 388 Red Mesa B/w Non-local Group 1 Bowl body sherd, sand
OAS042 LA 388 Red Mesa B/w Non-local Group 1 Jar body sherd, sand
OAS043 LA 388 Red Mesa B/w Non-local Group 1 Bowl body sherd, sand
OAS048 LA 388 Red Mesa B/w Non-local Group 1 Jar body sherd, sand
OAS051 LA 388 Red Mesa B/w Non-local Group 1 Bowl body fine sandstone
OAS052 LA 388 Red Mesa B/w Non-local Group 1 Jar neck fine sandstone
OAS057 LA 388 Red Mesa B/w Non-local Group 1 Bowl rim sherd, sand
OAS058 LA 388 Gallup B/w Non-local Group 1 Bowl rim sherd
OAS059 LA 388 Red Mesa B/w Non-local Group 1 Bowl rim sherd, sand
OAS061 LA 388 Red Mesa B/w Non-local Group 1 Jar body sherd, sand
Continued
102 MICHAEL A. SCHILLACI ET AL.

CONTINUED
ID Site Type Group Vessel Temper

OAS069 LA 6579 Red Mesa B/w Non-local Group 1 Bowl body sand
OAS076 LA 6579 Kwahe’e B/w Non-local Group 1 Bowl body tuff, sand
OAS085 LA 835 Gallup B/w Non-local Group 1 Jar body fine sandstone
OAS087 LA 835 Escavada B/w Non-local Group 1 Bowl rim fine sandstone
OAS090 LA 835 Red Mesa B/w Non-local Group 1 Bowl body sherd, sand
OAS092 LA 835 Escavada B/w Non-local Group 1 Bowl rim sherd, sand
OAS093 LA 835 Escavada B/w Non-local Group 1 Bowl rim sherd, sand
OAS094 LA 835 Red Mesa B/w Non-local Group 1 Bowl rim sherd, sand
OAS099 LA 835 Red Mesa B/w Non-local Group 1 Bowl rim fine sandstone
OAS104 LA 835 Kwahe’e B/w Non-local Group 1 Bowl body tuff, sand
OAS108 LA 835 Gallup B/w Non-local Group 1 Bowl body sherd, sand
OAS110 LA 835 Gallup B/w Non-local Group 1 Bowl rim sand
OAS111 LA 835 Red Mesa B/w Non-local Group 1 Bowl rim sand, sherd
OAS118 LA 835 Kwahe’e B/w Non-local Group 1 Bowl body tuff, sand
OAS119 LA 835 Kwahe’e B/w Non-local Group 1 Bowl body tuff, sand
OAS121 LA 835 Escavada B/w Non-local Group 1 Bowl rim sherd, sand
OAS124 LA 835 Kwahe’e B/w Non-local Group 1 Bowl body tuff, sand
OAS128 LA 835 Red Mesa B/w Non-local Group 1 Bowl rim sherd, sand
OAS131 LA 835 Escavada B/w Non-local Group 1 Jar body fine sandstone
OAS032 LA 388 Gallup B/w Non-local Group 2 Jar body sherd, sand
OAS038 LA 388 Red Mesa B/w Non-local Group 2 Bowl rim sherd, sand
OAS040 LA 388 Red Mesa B/w Non-local Group 2 Bowl body shale
OAS045 LA 388 Red Mesa B/w Non-local Group 2 Bowl body sherd
OAS046 LA 388 Red Mesa B/w Non-local Group 2 Jar neck sherd, sand
OAS047 LA 388 Red Mesa B/w Non-local Group 2 Bowl body sherd, sand
OAS056 LA 388 Red Mesa B/w Non-local Group 2 Bowl rim sherd, sand
OAS060 LA 388 Gallup B/w Non-local Group 2 Jar body sherd, sand
OAS064 LA 6579 Red Mesa B/w Non-local Group 2 Jar body sand
OAS086 LA 835 Red Mesa B/w Non-local Group 2 Bowl body sherd, sand
OAS089 LA 835 Red Mesa B/w Non-local Group 2 Bowl rim sherd, sand
OAS091 LA 835 Red Mesa B/w Non-local Group 2 Bowl body sherd, sand
OAS103 LA 835 Red Mesa B/w Non-local Group 2 Bowl body sherd, sand
OAS107 LA 835 Gallup B/w Non-local Group 2 Bowl body sand, sherd
OAS117 LA 835 Gallup B/w Non-local Group 2 Bowl rim sherd, sand
OAS130 LA 835 Red Mesa B/w Non-local Group 2 Jar body fine sandstone
ANALYSIS OF CERAMIC COMPOSITIONAL DATA 103

Appendix II: Descriptive information for sherds from Neitzel et al.


(2002) used in the present study.

ID Site Compositional Group

Analysis 2
JNE003 Wallace Ruin Chaco Reference
JNE004 Wallace Ruin Chaco Reference
JNE007 Wallace Ruin Chaco Reference
JNE011 Wallace Ruin Chaco Reference
JNE017 Chimney Rock Chaco Reference
JNE018 Chimney Rock Chaco Reference
JNE022 Chimney Rock Chaco Reference
JNE031 Morris 41 Chaco Reference
JNE036 Morris 41 Chaco Reference
JNE037 Morris 41 Chaco Reference
JNE038 Morris 41 Chaco Reference
JNE041 Morris 41 Chaco Reference
JNE043 Morris 41 Chaco Reference
JNE046 Salmon Ruin Chaco Reference
JNE048 Salmon Ruin Chaco Reference
JNE049 Salmon Ruin Chaco Reference
JNE052 Salmon Ruin Chaco Reference
JNE055 Salmon Ruin Chaco Reference
JNE058 Salmon Ruin Chaco Reference
JNE061 Four Clowns Chaco Reference
JNE062 Four Clowns Chaco Reference
JNE063 Four Clowns Chaco Reference
JNE064 Four Clowns Chaco Reference
JNE065 Four Clowns Chaco Reference
JNE068 Four Clowns Chaco Reference
JNE069 Four Clowns Chaco Reference
JNE072 Four Clowns Chaco Reference
JNE073 Four Clowns Chaco Reference
JNE092 Indian Creek Chaco Reference
JNE094 Indian Creek Chaco Reference
JNE095 Indian Creek Chaco Reference
JNE096 Indian Creek Chaco Reference
JNE098 Indian Creek Chaco Reference
JNE099 Indian Creek Chaco Reference
Continued
104 MICHAEL A. SCHILLACI ET AL.

CONTINUED
ID Site Compositional Group

JNE100 Indian Creek Chaco Reference


JNE101 Indian Creek Chaco Reference
JNE102 Indian Creek Chaco Reference
JNE103 Indian Creek Chaco Reference
JNE108 Aztec West Chaco Reference
JNE109 Aztec West Chaco Reference
JNE111 Aztec West Chaco Reference
JNE113 Aztec West Chaco Reference
JNE114 Aztec West Chaco Reference
JNE115 Aztec West Chaco Reference
JNE116 Aztec West Chaco Reference
JNE120 Aztec West Chaco Reference
JNE121 Pueblo Pintado Chaco Reference
JNE123 Pueblo Pintado Chaco Reference
JNE127 Pueblo Pintado Chaco Reference
JNE131 Pueblo Pintado Chaco Reference
JNE132 Pueblo Pintado Chaco Reference
JNE136 Kin Ya’a Chaco Reference
JNE139 Kin Ya’a Chaco Reference
JNE142 Kin Ya’a Chaco Reference
JNE144 Skunk Springs Chaco Reference
JNE146 Skunk Springs Chaco Reference
JNE147 Skunk Springs Chaco Reference
JNE148 Skunk Springs Chaco Reference
JNE149 Skunk Springs Chaco Reference
JNE150 Skunk Springs Chaco Reference
JNE151 Skunk Springs Chaco Reference
JNE152 Skunk Springs Chaco Reference
JNE154 Skunk Springs Chaco Reference
JNE155 Skunk Springs Chaco Reference
JNE156 Skunk Springs Chaco Reference
JNE157 Skunk Springs Chaco Reference
JNE158 Skunk Springs Chaco Reference
JNE160 Tocito Chaco Reference
JNE162 Tocito Chaco Reference
JNE173 Tocito Chaco Reference
Continued
ANALYSIS OF CERAMIC COMPOSITIONAL DATA 105

CONTINUED
ID Site Compositional Group

JNE176 Peach Springs Chaco Reference


JNE177 Peach Springs Chaco Reference
JNE178 Peach Springs Chaco Reference
JNE181 Peach Springs Chaco Reference
JNE183 Peach Springs Chaco Reference
JNE184 Peach Springs Chaco Reference
JNE188 Peach Springs Chaco Reference
JNE008 Wallace Ruin Chimney Rock
JNE016 Chimney Rock Chimney Rock
JNE019 Chimney Rock Chimney Rock
JNE027 Chimney Rock Chimney Rock
JNE028 Chimney Rock Chimney Rock
JNE030 Chimney Rock Chimney Rock
JNE033 Morris 41 Chimney Rock
JNE039 Morris 41 Chimney Rock
JNE050 Salmon Ruin Chimney Rock
JNE051 Salmon Ruin Chimney Rock
JNE053 Salmon Ruin Chimney Rock
JNE075 Four Clowns Chimney Rock
JNE110 Aztec West Chimney Rock
JNE122 Pueblo Pintado Chimney Rock
JNE124 Pueblo Pintado Chimney Rock
JNE145 Skunk Springs Chimney Rock
JNE175 Peach Springs Chimney Rock
JNE185 Peach Springs Chimney Rock
JNE186 Peach Springs Chimney Rock
JNE020 Chimney Rock Chimney Rock A
JNE021 Chimney Rock Chimney Rock A
JNE023 Chimney Rock Chimney Rock A
JNE024 Chimney Rock Chimney Rock A
JNE029 Chimney Rock Chimney Rock A
JNE078 Guadalupe Guadalupe
JNE079 Guadalupe Guadalupe
JNE083 Guadalupe Guadalupe
JNE084 Guadalupe Guadalupe
JNE085 Guadalupe Guadalupe
Continued
106 MICHAEL A. SCHILLACI ET AL.

CONTINUED
ID Site Compositional Group

JNE087 Guadalupe Guadalupe


JNE088 Guadalupe Guadalupe
JNE089 Guadalupe Guadalupe
JNE066 Four Clowns Kin Ya’a
JNE093 Indian Creek Kin Ya’a
JNE097 Indian Creek Kin Ya’a
JNE125 Pueblo Pintado Kin Ya’a
JNE129 Pueblo Pintado Kin Ya’a
JNE130 Pueblo Pintado Kin Ya’a
JNE134 Pueblo Pintado Kin Ya’a
JNE137 Kin Ya’a Kin Ya’a
JNE140 Kin Ya’a Kin Ya’a
JNE141 Kin Ya’a Kin Ya’a
JNE026 Chimney Rock Tocito
JNE059 Salmon Ruin Tocito
JNE060 Salmon Ruin Tocito
JNE159 Tocito Tocito
JNE161 Tocito Tocito
JNE163 Tocito Tocito
JNE164 Tocito Tocito
JNE165 Tocito Tocito
JNE166 Tocito Tocito
JNE167 Tocito Tocito
JNE168 Tocito Tocito
JNE169 Tocito Tocito
JNE170 Tocito Tocito
JNE171 Tocito Tocito
JNE172 Tocito Tocito
Analysis 3
JNE016 Chimney Rock Chimney Rock
JNE019 Chimney Rock Chimney Rock
JNE027 Chimney Rock Chimney Rock
JNE028 Chimney Rock Chimney Rock
JNE030 Chimney Rock Chimney Rock
JNE078 Guadalupe Guadalupe
JNE079 Guadalupe Guadalupe
Continued
ANALYSIS OF CERAMIC COMPOSITIONAL DATA 107

CONTINUED
ID Site Compositional Group

JNE083 Guadalupe Guadalupe


JNE084 Guadalupe Guadalupe
JNE085 Guadalupe Guadalupe
JNE087 Guadalupe Guadalupe
JNE088 Guadalupe Guadalupe
JNE089 Guadalupe Guadalupe
JNE121 Pueblo Pintado Chaco Core
JNE122 Pueblo Pintado Chaco Core
JNE123 Pueblo Pintado Chaco Core
JNE124 Pueblo Pintado Chaco Core
JNE125 Pueblo Pintado Chaco Core
JNE126 Pueblo Pintado Chaco Core
JNE127 Pueblo Pintado Chaco Core
JNE129 Pueblo Pintado Chaco Core
JNE130 Pueblo Pintado Chaco Core
JNE131 Pueblo Pintado Chaco Core
JNE132 Pueblo Pintado Chaco Core
JNE133 Pueblo Pintado Chaco Core
JNE134 Pueblo Pintado Chaco Core
JNE135 Pueblo Pintado Chaco Core
JNE136 Kin Ya’a Kin Ya’a
JNE137 Kin Ya’a Kin Ya’a
JNE139 Kin Ya’a Kin Ya’a
JNE140 Kin Ya’a Kin Ya’a
JNE141 Kin Ya’a Kin Ya’a
JNE142 Kin Ya’a Kin Ya’a

You might also like