PECOS From Folsom to Fogelson: The Cultural Resources Inventory Survey of Pecos National Historical Park

Community development and exchange are the two central themes addressed in the Pecos survey report, focusing on the prehistoric Puebloan occupation of Pecos National Historical Park. In addition, the chapters also summarize ceramic, lithic, and architectural data recorded by the survey, and this is the first time that lithics in the Pecos area have received significant attention. Community development and exchange take place in several spheres, and we are able to examine those through changes in population size and aggregation and the differentiation of activities at the major site types.

In tracing the changes associated with the development of Pecos Pueblo, we examined several key variables from different points of view. Population growth rates and measures of aggregation indicated that people moved into the Pecos area and that aggregates persisted even as population declined. Nearest-neighbor analyses and ceramic compositional studies demonstrated that interpueblo relationships within the Upper Pecos Valley were characterized by cooperation, not competition. Examining the productivity of small catchment areas around site types highlighted the importance of resource productivity for decisions about site location. Ceramic vessel sizes and measures of grinding intensity provided indirect information on agricultural intensification, which we expected to accompany aggregation. The abundance and distribution of nonlocal ceramic types and lithic raw materials gauged change in the direction and intensity of exchange with groups outside the Upper Pecos Valley.

Most analyses of Puebloan materials are organized by time and site type. Powell (Chapter 4) developed a seven-period chronology based on the decorated ceramics recorded at sites. Sites were assigned to periods using probability dating, in which the probability distribution for each ceramic type was based on the median and standard deviation in the known production span for that type. The probability distributions were "averaged" for each site to reflect the statistical probability that a site was occupied in a particular period. If a site's probability of membership in a period was .20 or higher, the site was assigned to that period. Most ceramics are post-1200, covering Periods 2 (A.D. 1200-1325) through 6 (A.D. 1700+).

Head's typology (Chapter 5) assigned sites to functional types that collapse the survey's descriptive types into fewer, more meaningful groups. Three major types—habitation, seasonal, and special use—were defined based on the presence and nature of nonportable features and structures, reflecting duration of occupation and variety of activities. One advantage of using these types is their widespread acceptance among archeologists for categorizing Puebloan systems.

After defining the functional types, Head compared the number of artifact types, the density of artifacts, and the nature of feature groups across the site types and found statistically significant differences between them. Habitation sites include pueblos and communal pueblos. All habitations have features, and they have more artifact types and higher artifact densities than seasonal or special-use sites. Seasonal sites were occupied for short periods of time over several (agricultural) seasons. Shelters at seasonal sites were not substantial and may not have been preserved. Compared to habitations, seasonal site assemblages are less diverse and artifact densities are lower. Special-use sites are situated to exploit a specific resource for a short time. Although they may be used repeatedly, they have few features and artifact assemblages are less complex than at habitations or seasonal sites.

The following discussion summarizes the results of the survey analyses within the temporal framework developed by Powell in Chapter 4. Some ceramic and settlement analyses did not make use of Powell's chronology, and those are discussed separately.

Period 0 (pre A.D. 1075) and Period 1 (A.D. 1075-1200)

The survey recorded five sites dating to Periods 0 or 1. The survey also recorded an isolated, broken Folsom point in the Tecolote Range, indicating temporary or intermittent use of the area by Paleoindian hunters. Three Archaic sites were recorded, all located on ridge slopes and without any features. The two Period 1 sites comprise one seasonal and one special-use site.

Period 2 (A.D. 1200-1325)

There are six habitations, 39 seasonal sites, and 56 special-use sites in Period 2. Because Period 2 is the first period with a significant number of sites, it serves as the baseline against which to compare subsequent periods. The early Puebloan occupation is substantial, and already aggregates are as large as 360 people. The survey did not record any pre A.D. 1200 habitations, so we do not know whether there was a permanent population in situ from which the Period 2 population developed or whether a portion of the people came from elsewhere. The extent of the occupation before 1200 is unknown. A small pithouse village, dating around A.D. 850-900, had been deeply buried and was discovered in the 1970s during NPS-related construction (Nordby and Creutz 1993a). While there probably are more buried habitations dating to the same time, it is impossible to estimate the magnitude of the pithouse occupation. In addition, adobe structures beneath the main occupations at Rowe and Forked Lightning probably date to the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Based on this sparse sample, there were people living in the Pecos area before 1200, but it is not possible to estimate the population.

The population in Period 2 was close to 800 people. We expected conflict or competition over resources to accompany population growth, which would be reflected by a median nearest-neighbor statistic (mNND) indicating even spacing among sites, especially habitations. The mNND, however, reveals clustered distributions between and within all site types. Habitations are clustered, indicating a lack of competition over resources. Special-use sites cluster among themselves and with seasonal sites, probably because wild resources and agricultural land are in similar areas. Seasonal and special-use sites cluster with habitations, which indicates the use of resources close to home.

Because Period 2 had the lowest population and smallest aggregates, we expected less dependence on agriculture than in periods with more people or larger aggregates. Therefore, we expected less evidence for the consumption and storage of corn during Period 2 than in subsequent periods. Undecorated jar sherds dominate the Period 2 ceramic assemblage, comprising almost 60 percent of the sherds. The prevalence of cooking jars indicates that cooking was a dominant activity. The sizes of ceramic vessels were expected to increase through time as aggregation and agricultural intensification increased. Cooking jars generally are smaller in Period 2, but none of the differences in vessel size through time are significant. Storage (decorated) jars are slightly larger than in Periods 3 and 4, but they make up a small percentage of the Period 2 ceramic assemblage. Serving (decorated) bowls are smaller than in subsequent periods, and they comprise a smaller percentage of the assemblage than in later periods except Period 5.

Flaked lithics add to our insight regarding subsistence during the early Puebloan occupation of the Pecos area. High-energy tools are significantly more abundant at the earlier pueblos. The tools were not manufactured at the habitations, based on the amount of debitage but were discarded there more often. The large amount of mule deer bones at Rowe (Cordell 1998) and Pecos Pueblo (Kidder 1932) indicate that hunting contributed more to the diet in the Upper Pecos Valley than at other northern Rio Grande pueblos (Cordell 1998). The abundance of high-energy tools, therefore, probably reflects a higher dependence on hunting.

Ceramics and lithics both indicate trade between the Pecos area and other parts of the northern Rio Grande Valley during Period 2. Forked Lightning, the earliest pueblo in the Pecos survey area, is one of only two pueblos with nonlocally tempered utility ware. Forked Lightning is the only pueblo in which the nonlocal temper is sanidine, which probably originated on the Pajarito Plateau. In addition, a small percentage of utility ware at Period 2 habitations have nonlocal micaceous pastes. Approximately 20 percent of the white ware at Forked Lightning has either nonlocal temper or paste. The percentage increases to 50 percent if sherd-tempered (grog) white ware was imported. Much of the sherd temper contains nonlocal volcanics; thus, these wares were either traded into the area or Pecos potters selectively ground volcanic-tempered imports to use for temper. Dick's Ruin, which was occupied slightly later in Period 2 than Forked Lightning, has a smaller percentage of grog-tempered white ware but a higher percentage of nonlocal tempers or pastes than Forked Lightning.

Obsidian from the Jemez Mountains sources—Cerro Toledo, Valle Grande, and El Rechuelos—is present at Forked Lightning Pueblo. At Dick's Ruin, Cerro Toledo and El Rechuelos obsidian are the most common, but there is no Valle Grande obsidian, and the amount from Bland Canyon is small.

Despite differences in the specific sources, the presence of nonlocal materials in the ceramic and lithic assemblages at Forked Lightning and Dick's Ruin indicate that Pecos had exchange ties to the Rio Grande Valley. The origins of the raw materials suggest that the focus of trade during Period 2 was with the Rio Grande pueblos in the vicinity of the Pajarito Plateau and Jemez Mountains.

Period 3 (A.D. 1325-1450)

The number of sites increased in Period 3. There are 10 habitations, 104 seasonal sites, and 188 special-use sites. The human population in the valley is estimated at over 2,000 people, more than double the Period 2 (A.D. 1200-1325) population. Period 3 marks the peak of the pre-historic population, and the 0.8 percent growth rate from Period 2 to Period 3 is higher than that expected through natural growth (Hassan 1981). There are 564 people at the largest aggregate in Period 3, an increase of approximately 200 people over Period 2.

It appears that the Upper Pecos Valley attracted people from other areas, which could be related to climate and agricultural productivity. The dryness index devised by Orcutt and Benedict (Chapter 6) for the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) indicates that potential agricultural productivity improved in Period 3. Period 2 (A.D. 1200-1325) was drier and the yearly PDSI values indicate high variability between 1270 and 1298. Moisture availability in Period 3 was much less variable, and a lower percentage of years were very dry. The improved climate possibly led to increased agricultural productivity and predictability, and may have helped attract people to the valley.

We expected competition over resources to arise in Period 3 because of the large population increase. The mNND, however, indicates that sites, including habitations, remain clustered. We assume there was no animosity between communities and that resource exploitation continued to focus on nearby resources. If competition or conflict over resources was a factor in site locations, habitations in particular would be evenly spaced, or possibly randomly spaced, but not clustered.

Greater locational diversity accompanies the increase in people and sites in Period 3. Land-form is the most useful environmental variable recorded by the survey, and the number of occupied landforms increases.

Greater social stress is a consequence of aggregation because the chances for interpersonal conflict increase with larger groups. We expected to find evidence for integration of larger numbers of people through community rituals. Because rituals usually involved kivas, we expected larger kivas to accompany aggregation as communities incorporated more people into their ceremonies. The number of kivas peaks in Period 3, and the kivas are slightly larger than in Period 2. Population growth, therefore, did lead to more kivas, and increased aggregation led to a small increase in the average kiva size. Seven is the maximum number of kivas at one site in Periods 2 and 3, and the ratio of habitation rooms to kivas doubles in Period 3.

Undecorated utility ware, consisting of plain, corrugated, and unknown types, continues to dominate the ceramic assemblage. Undecorated (cooking) jars are more common than decorated (serving) bowls or decorated (storage) jars, although they represent a smaller percentage of the Period 3 ceramic assemblage than they did in Period 2. In Period 3, decorated (serving) bowls and decorated (storage) jars become a larger part of the ceramic assemblage. Increased serving and storage, and probably cooking, could be the result of a higher population, however, given the proportional composition of the assemblages, it would appear that agricultural intensification may have been a factor.

Vessel sizes suggest that agriculture was intensified in Period 3. Cooking jars and serving bowls are slightly larger, indicating either greater consumption of agricultural products or increased household size accompanying population aggregation. Storage jars decrease slightly in size, which does not contradict our expectations for greater storage resulting from agricultural intensification because decorated jars comprise a larger percentage of the ceramic assemblage than in Period 2 (A.D. 1200-1325).

High-energy lithic tools continue to occur more frequently at habitations, as they did in Period 2. Thus, hunting appears to maintain its importance in the diet, even with the increase in agriculture. We also expected grinding intensity to increase with agricultural intensification and aggregation. Compared to Period 2, which provides the baseline data for grinding intensity, the opposite occurs. Mano profiles show a decrease in grinding intensity in Period 3, which means that a mano was used for a short time, then discarded. A possible explanation lies in the local abundance of suitable cobbles for manos, making it easier to discard a worn mano than to invest energy in maintenance.

We expected an increase in agricultural features with the formation of Pecos Pueblo and greater dependence on agriculture. The survey recorded 38 agricultural features, so they are not very common. The number of features doubles in Period 3, and there are a greater number of agricultural feature types. In addition, there are more complex features such as a reservoir, systems of terraces or field borders, and grid gardens. Generally, this helps confirm the increased importance of agriculture in Period 3.

Ceramic petrography indicates that trade ware constitutes up to 50 percent of the white ware at Period 3 sites if sherd-tempered (grog) white ware is considered nonlocal. The percentage of grog-tempered white ware declines within Period 3 sites when Dick's Ruin, Loma Lothrop, and Pecos Pueblo are ordered temporally. As grog temper declines, the percentage of sherds with definitively nonlocal paste or temper increases. Approximately half of the white ware sherds from Pecos Pueblo have nonlocal temper or paste, although the sample of white ware is small (n=10). There is no evidence that any single pueblo controlled ceramic trade, suggesting this was a cooperative enterprise.

Period 3 marks the appearance of glaze ware in the Pecos area and the Rio Grande in general. Shepard's work (Kidder and Shepard 1936) indicates that while most Glaze I sherds are nonlocal, poorer quality, locally-tempered ceramics appear, and by late in Glaze I, Pecos potters are making their own glaze ware.

We expected standardization or specialization in ceramic production to accompany aggregation and agricultural intensification at Pecos Pueblo, and the petrographic data suggest this did occur. There is less variability in utility and white ware tempers and pastes at Pecos Pueblo than at contemporaneous but slightly earlier pueblos. There are seven to nine utility ware paste groups at the earlier pueblos and only four at Pecos Pueblo. There are five to six utility ware temper groups at the earlier pueblos and only three at Pecos Pueblo. The trend is not as clear in white ware, probably because there is more trade in white ware. Four to eight white ware paste groups are represented at earlier pueblos, but Pecos Pueblo has three groups. Six to eight white ware temper groups are found at earlier pueblos, and there are six at Pecos Pueblo.

The volume of obsidian increases slightly in Period 3 assemblages, indicating that trade for some lithic raw materials remained oriented towards the Jemez Mountains. There are shifts in the specific sources—at Loma Lothrop, El Rechuelos declines and Bland Canyon is high. Although the volume of nonlocal chert triples in Period 3, it is low compared to Periods 4 and 5. The increase in nonlocal chert signals the beginning of the shift in trade networks towards the Plains. The patterns of use and conservation of obsidian and nonlocal chert are different. Most of the obsidian in Period 3 was used for high-energy tools while most of the nonlocal chert was used for low-energy tools. There may have been less concern with maximizing the use of "rare" materials, possibly because the nonlocal chert came into the area as a subsidiary to other more important Plains trade items such as bison products.

Period 4 (A.D. 1450-1575)

The number of sites declined sharply in Period 4. There are three Puebloan habitations, 90 seasonal sites, and 142 special-use sites. Pecos Pueblo is the primary residence, and the other habitation probably represents seasonal use of Long House, which was a habitation in Period 3 (A.D. 1325-1450). Population declines in the Pecos area as a whole, but the aggregate at Pecos Pueblo increases to almost 900 people according to the survey data.

The PDSI dryness index indicates high potential agricultural productivity so the population decline may not be related to moisture or agricultural productivity. One possibility is that people reorganized to cope with environmental degradation resulting from over 200 years of land use. Another is that increased interaction with Plains tribes, and the potential conflict accompanying that relationship, encouraged aggregation in a central and defendable location. There also may have been conflict with other Rio Grande pueblos. The North Pueblo Quadrangle, with its encircling wall, obviously is a defensive structure, and it dates to Period 4.

Because people were concentrated in one major habitation, we expected to see changes in the nearest-neighbor relationships among site types. The nearest-neighbor analysis used a database with three habitation sites—Pecos Pueblo, one small Puebloan habitation, and one Euro-American site. The habitations are randomly distributed, which probably reflects a desire to locate away from the large aggregate at Pecos Pueblo to find locations with sufficient local resources. If the other habitations, especially the Puebloan one, are actually seasonal sites, this also could account for the randomness among the three sites.

Nearest-neighbor distances among and between nonhabitation site types indicate clustering, so there is no change from previous periods. Habitation and special-use sites continue to cluster in Period 4. Seasonal sites no longer cluster with habitations, possibly reflecting a need to find arable land farther from the aggregate, either because nearby fields had gone out of production or there was greater use of irrigable fields northeast of Pecos Pueblo outside the boundaries of the park.

Despite fewer sites, seasonal and special-use sites continue to occupy a diversity of landforms. Ridge slopes comprise a higher percentage of the locations than in Periods 2 or 3, which could be related to resource availability or might reflect a need to view the surrounding landscape.

We expected the size of the basal social unit to increase and the number of social units to decrease to relieve the stress caused by a larger community. Specifically, integrative mechanisms such as larger kivas that accommodated more people should appear in Period 4.

There are fewer kivas in Period 4, and the number of rooms per kiva declines. The maximum number of kivas at one site more than doubles from seven in Period 3 to 15 in Period 4. More kivas suggests an increase in the number of basal social units instead of a decrease. Average kiva size, however, doubles in Period 4, indicating that larger groups were integrated as aggregation increased. A large integrative structure, Kiva 12, was built at Pecos Pueblo that is four times the size of the next largest kiva. Kidder (1958:218) felt the kiva was not completed and never was used because it was unroofed and seemed to have filled rapidly. Integrative structures without roofs are now known across the Southwest, however. The appearance of such a large kiva at the peak of aggregation suggests the development of community-level rituals that were not present earlier.

Period 4 is the only one in which undecorated utility ware jars do not dominate the ceramic assemblage. As seen elsewhere in the northern Rio Grande at this time, decorated wares increase to half of the ceramic assemblage at sites. As the percentage of decorated jars increased, the percentages of undecorated cooking jars and decorated bowls decreased. The decline in undecorated cooking jars is larger than the decrease in serving bowls. The increase in storage jars lends some support to our contention that storage should increase as larger aggregates intensify agriculture.

The patterns in vessel size through time are interesting, but they are not statistically significant. In general, although vessels are smaller in Period 4, the difference is slight, and it appears that the assemblages in Periods 3 and 4 are very similar. We expected larger households or commensal units, and possibly communal feasting, as aggregation increased, all of which should be reflected in larger cooking and serving vessels. It does not appear that increased aggregation led to a change in the size of the group cooked for or served during this period. When decorated bowls are sized by ceramic type, however, Biscuit A and B bowls, which date to late Period 3 through most of Period 4, are larger than contemporaneous glaze ware bowls. If communal feasting took place, it appears that Biscuit ware bowls were used. Later in Period 4, as Biscuit ware declines, Glaze V bowls take over the communal feasting role.

We expected increased grinding intensity in Period 4 to go along with aggregation and agricultural intensification. It does appear that manos were used longer before being discarded; however, the level of intensity is not high. As stated before, there is an abundant. supply of natural cobbles in the area so there may not have been much incentive to refurbish worn manos.

Based on Kidder's (1958) assertion that the Quadrangle was built for defense, we expected more high-energy tools in Period 4 if increased numbers of projectile points were used during confrontations. This is not the case, and the significant occurrence of high-energy tools in previous periods is attributed to the importance of hunting. It is likely that projectile points were not manufactured specifically for defense. Certainly, they could have been used when needed for that purpose without causing an increase in their frequency.

As an outgrowth of agricultural intensification, we expected more agricultural features and more complex agricultural features that were built and maintained at the community level. We expected this to occur in Period 3, when population peaked and Pecos Pueblo was formed, and it did. We expected the number and complexity of features to remain high in Period 4; however, that is not the case. It is likely that if agriculture was further intensified, it was done so northeast of the pueblo, outside the boundaries of Pecos National Historical Park, where irrigation was possible.

Ceramics and lithics indicate the importance of trade in Period 4. Approximately 20 percent of the striated utility ware at Pecos Pueblo has nonlocal igneous temper. Obsidian continues to increase slowly through time in lithic assemblages. Most of the obsidian in Period 4 is from the Cerro Toledo and Valle Grande sources. Nonlocal chert, such as Alibates flint, increases sharply in Period 4, indicating that trade and interaction with Plains groups intensified. The change in the direction of trade coincides with high aggregation rather than the peak in population size. Most of the exotic chert is in the form of cores, expedient tools, and low-energy tools, indicating that these rare materials were not conserved in the same way as obsidian. It is possible that the chert was a secondary byproduct of trade for more desirable Plains resources. The amount of obsidian at sites in the southern High Plains increases during the late prehistoric, and it is likely that Pecos Pueblo was the conduit for much of that obsidian. Obsidian may have had a higher "value" because of its importance as an export.

Period 5 (A.D. 1575-1700)

Many changes occurred in the Puebloan system in Period 5 as a result of Spanish colonization, the establishment of missions, the Pueblo Revolt (1680), and the Reconquest (1692). The number of Puebloan sites continued to decline in Period 5. Pecos Pueblo is the only Native American habitation, and there are 67 seasonal sites and 107 special-use sites. According to the survey data for Pecos Pueblo, population declined slightly, to around 750 people; however, figures based on Kidder's excavation data place the population between 800 and 1,100 people. Whatever the actual size, Pecos Pueblo is the only aggregate in the Upper Pecos Valley.

The PDSI dryness index indicates that Period 5 is similar to Periods 3 and 4. Drier spikes in the yearly PDSI values are not as sharp as previous periods, and variability is low until approximately 1680-1700, which coincides with the Pueblo Revolt and Reconquest. Climatic factors, therefore, are not expected to be important in subsistence or settlement shifts. Of greater impact should be the Euro-American settlers in the area who needed land for agriculture and grazing.

Nearest-neighbor distances suggest some reorganization in settlement relations. Non-habitation sites remain clustered within and between the two site types. Habitations and special-use sites are randomly located with respect to each other, possibly reflecting resource depletion near Pecos Pueblo that forced people to go farther for suitable resources. The sites used in the nearest neighbor analysis included Euro-American habitations in addition to Pecos Pueblo. These other habitations are randomly located with respect to Pecos Pueblo because they are part of a different social and economic system. Seasonal sites and habitations are randomly distributed with respect to each other, a trend that began in Period 4, which may reflect depletion of fields around Pecos Pueblo or the use of irrigable fields outside the park boundaries. Because of Spanish settlement, it is not possible to interpret Puebloan social and economic systems the same way we did for earlier periods.

Declining site numbers did not affect the diversity of site locations. Seasonal and special-use sites are in a variety of settings. A higher percentage of sites are on ridge slopes than in the earlier periods, continuing a pattern that began in Period 3.

Integrative mechanisms persist at Pecos Pueblo. Although the number of kivas declines, the number of rooms per kiva is more than double what it was in Period 4, indicating that the ritual system integrated more people. Average kiva size declines in Period 5, but one large kiva may have been a community integrative structure.

Undecorated cooking jars once again dominate the ceramic assemblage, after their decline in Period 4. The number of cooking jars increases, and they comprise nearly 50 percent of the assemblage. The quantity and percentage of decorated storage jars also increase, the only vessel form to do so from Periods 2 through 5. The number of decorated serving bowls decreases in Period 5, however, which is puzzling given the apparent increase in cooking.

Decorated serving bowls and undecorated cooking jars are not much larger in Period 5; however, decorated storage jars did increase in size. The increases in the number and size of storage jars suggests that larger quantities of food were stored in jars than before. Glaze V bowls, which are significantly larger than bowls of other ceramic types, may have been used for communal feasting as in Period 4.

The percentage of low-energy tools at habitations in Period 5 is significantly higher, as is the percentage of Class 2 debitage at seasonal and special-use sites. Thus, it appears that tool maintenance occurred at nonhabitations, but tools were discarded at habitations. Grinding was slightly more intensive than in Period 4. Grinders tended to use manos a little longer before abandoning them; however, mano profiles indicate less intensive use than expected. The total number of agricultural features declines and so do the more complex agricultural features. As in Period 4, we suspect that primary fields were northeast of Pecos Pueblo outside the park where irrigation was feasible. Therefore, we probably are not measuring the full extent of agricultural investment.

One indication of Pecos's status as a major trade center is the presence of Pecos Glaze V at other sites in the northern Rio Grande in the 1500s and 1600s. However, Shepard's petrographic analyses of glaze ware indicate that although Glaze V was produced at Pecos Pueblo, Glaze VI, which appears ca. 1625, was nonlocal.

Obsidian and nonlocal chert increased in Period 5. While trade with groups near the Jemez Mountains remained consistent, Plains trade increased in Periods 4 and 5. As in Period 4, obsidian was conserved more than nonlocal chert, indicating that the chert was a less important element of trade than bison or obsidian.

Period 6 (post A.D. 1700)

The number of sites in the Pecos area continued to decline. Pecos Pueblo is the only Puebloan habitation, and there are 20 seasonal and 34 special-use sites relating to the Native American occupation. The Puebloan population declines, and the aggregate at Pecos Pueblo shrinks to 455 people based on the survey data. According to Kessell (1987:490), 800-1,000 people lived at Pecos Pueblo in the late 1690s and early 1700s, and that number steadily dropped to 449 people in 1750. In 1838, the 18 people in residence left the pueblo.

We did not examine the PDSI for Period 6 because climate was only one small factor with which the Puebloans had to cope. At the least, conflict with Apachean and Comanche groups, tense relationships with settlers and traders, the rise of the economic importance of Hispanic villages, and European diseases accelerated the population decline at Pecos Pueblo.

Sites are located on a diversity of landforms. The distribution of special-use sites differs from previous periods in that several landforms each make up more than 10 percent of those occupied. The nearest-neighbor distances also indicate changes in settlement configuration. For the first time, special-use sites are randomly distributed rather than clustered with each other. Special-use and habitation sites are randomly associated, as in Period 5. Habitations are randomly distributed relative to each other, but only one is Native American. Seasonal sites continue to be randomly distributed relative to habitations. It is possible that the random distributions among site types are the result of many fewer sites; however, it most likely reflects social factors that constrained Puebloan movement and land use across the landscape.

Kivas were used at Pecos Pueblo in Period 6, although they may not have been the only form of social integration. The mission complex probably assumed an integrative role through a combination of voluntary and involuntary participation in Christian ceremonies. There are fewer kivas in Period 6, which would be expected with population decline, and fewer rooms per kiva, indicating decreased integration through the rituals associated with kivas. The average Period 6 kiva is only slightly smaller than in Period 5.

The number of decorated bowls, decorated jars, and undecorated jars each decrease in Period 6, which corresponds to the population decline. The proportional composition of the ceramic assemblage indicates slight decreases in decorated (storage) jars and undecorated (cooking) jars. The percentage of decorated (serving) bowls increased, however. Cooking jars are smaller. Serving bowls are slightly smaller, but very close in size to Periods 3, 4, and 5. Storage jars are larger, although they make up a slightly smaller percentage of the ceramic assemblage. In general, it appears that traditional domestic activities continued at Pecos Pueblo in Period 6. Glaze VI bowls are significantly smaller than Glaze V bowls, suggesting that commensal group size declined or communal feasting disappeared.

Flaked lithics did not change significantly in Period 6, and grinding intensity was not measured. Glaze ware was not made after 1700, possibly because the Spanish controlled the lead-ore sources in the Cerrillos Hills. Glaze ware was replaced by a variety of matte-paint ware. While some of the historic matte-paint wares probably were made locally, many were imports from other pueblos in the northern Rio Grande. Euro-American settlers used Puebloan ceramics, and new shapes and designs were developed to meet their needs.

The amount of obsidian at Period 6 sites, mostly as high-energy tools, is equal to Period 5. The disruption of Plains-oriented trade, however, is obvious from the drastic decline in nonlocal chert to Period 2 levels.

Site Types

Some ceramic and settlement analyses were structured by functional site type without temporal divisions. These analyses provide insight into aspects of subsistence, site function, and household organization.

Ceramics across Site Types

The survey recorded 30,709 sherds, representing a minimum of nearly 7,500 vessels. Utility ware, Rio Grande Glaze Ware, and Pajarito White Ware are the most common ones recorded, in that order. We expected ceramic assemblages to differ among the site types based on the differences in site function.

Habitations are long-term residences at which a wide variety of activities occurred. As a result, we expected a range of ceramic wares and vessel forms, and we expected larger vessels for storing, preparing, and serving food to the entire household (at a minimum). We also expected more trade wares at habitations than nonhabitations.

Seasonal sites are short-term, part-time residences usually associated with tending crops. There are fewer people and activities at seasonal sites so there should be less variety in ceramic assemblages, and vessels should be smaller because food is prepared and served to a smaller group. Trade wares should be rare at seasonal sites.

Special-use sites represent short-term procurement or processing episodes. We expected a limited variety of ceramic types, small vessels, and no trade wares at special-use sites.

There is a variety of wares at habitation sites, as expected; however, variety also is high at seasonal and special-use sites, contrary to expectations. White Mountain Red Ware, which is nonlocal, is most common at seasonal sites and occurs in equal percentages at habitations and special-use sites. Glazes and historic polychromes occur in higher percentages at nonhabitations than habitations, which also is contrary to our expectations. There appears to be more variety in the domestic activities at nonhabitations than we predicted, and trade wares are not limited to habitation sites.

Vessel forms confirm that a range of domestic activities occurred at nonhabitations. Undecorated (cooking) jars are most common at habitations, as expected. The percentages of decorated (serving) bowls and decorated (storage) jars, however, are higher at nonhabitations. Only 18 percent of the storage jars are at habitations. Several factors could account for the vessel form discrepancies. Vessels probably are taken from the household assemblage at the habitation for use at short-term activity sites. Vessel form functions may become blurred at nonhabitations because some pots could assume multiple functions. Breakage may have been higher at nonhabitations if vessels were used for multiple functions. It also is possible that vessels were used to store nonfood items left at the nonhabitations from season to season. In general, these findings are consonant with evidence from other studies demonstrating that sites occupied fewer than 10 years can differ greatly in ceramic functional classes despite having the same site function (Mills 1989).

Vessel sizes follow expectations slightly better than wares or vessel forms. We expected larger vessels at habitations, and smaller ones at seasonal and special-use sites, respectively. Although the results are not statistically significant, the trends generally are as predicted. Decorated (storage) jars are larger at habitations than at seasonal or special-use sites (in that order). Undecorated (cooking) jars are the same size, however, at habitations and seasonal sites. Decorated (serving) bowls are larger at seasonal sites, followed by habitations and special-use sites. Vessels always are smaller at special-use sites, which fits our expectations. Again, it is possible that vessel form functions are less specific at seasonal sites. Perhaps vessels are taken from the household assemblage with multiple functions in mind, which might lead to selection for larger vessels.

Site Types and Plant Productivity

A recent soil survey at Pecos National Historical Park provided information on the relative productivity of plant types for different soil types. Using a 100-m buffer to characterize the immediate environment around each site type, we examined the selection of site locations according to the potential productivity of soils for three classes of food resources—grains and seeds, grasses, and herbaceous plants—and two classes of fuel resources—coniferous species and shrubs. To assess the significance of the immediate site environment, the resources within the 100-m buffers were compared to everything outside the buffers.

Relatively low food and high coniferous potentials characterize habitation locations. The choice of locations with abundant coniferous resources places residences close to fuel and building materials.

Slightly higher potential food productivity characterizes seasonal site locations, but the associations are lower than expected for the highest level of productivity. The analysis identified two sets of site locations for seasonal sites. One group is in areas of potentially high coniferous productivity, and the other set is in locations with low coniferous productivity. Locations with low conifer productivity may have been easier to clear for fields, while those associated with higher conifer productivity may have lent themselves to exploiting fuel or construction materials. It is likely that functions overlapped, and the areas cleared of timber were used for fields.

Special-use sites are associated with intermediate potentials for all food resources, which may indicate the exploitation of a variety of wild foods. One set of sites is associated with high conifer and shrub potentials while another set is in areas of low conifer and shrub potentials. The sites in areas with high wood potentials probably were there to facilitate gathering fuel or arboreal food resources. Those in areas with low conifer and shrub potentials may have been situated to exploit food resources that do not coexist with coniferous species.

The settlement analyses by site type confirm the general functional differences among the site types. Site locations differ among the site types, and significant associations indicate complex relationships between soil productivity and site types.

Euro-American Sites

Fifty-three sites, consisting of 54 components, are historic Euro-American. The construction of the Lost Church in the early 1600s marks the beginning of the material Spanish presence in the Pecos area. In addition to the Lost Church, three other sites, all in the vicinity of the mission complex, are attributed to the Spanish. Very few Euro-American artifacts are associated with these early sites. Instead, Euro-American occupants depended on Puebloan potters to supply European vessel forms, such as soup plates and candlesticks, made from native materials using traditional techniques.

Most of the datable historic artifact assemblages fall into two of the periods outlined in the Cultural Landscape Overview for Pecos National Historical Park (Cowley et al. 1998). Six sites belong in the Spanish Colonial/Mexican/Hispanic Settlement, Santa Fe Trail, Civil War Period (A.D. 1812-1880) and 15 date to the Railroad/Tourism Period (A.D. 1880-1941).

Three of the five Hispanic homesteads can be tied to specific families through historic records and maps. Occupation spans were estimated using historic artifacts and comparisons with historic documents.

Until the 1820s, the focus of trade was on Mexican goods. The Santa Fe Trail, which provided the first major connection to the United States, introduced the Pecos and Santa Fe areas to goods from the east. Several segments of the Santa Fe Trail are visible within Pecos National Historical Park. The success of trade over the Santa Fe Trail attracted railroad promoters, and in 1880 a railroad line to Santa Fe, passing through the Pecos area, was completed. The efficiency of shipping goods by rail opened up a variety of economic opportunities to Pecos area residents and brought more people to the area.

Census records between 1860 and 1920 document the economic and social changes in the Pecos area. From a subsistence-based economy focused on farming and domestic stock, the primarily Hispanic communities were later joined by non-Hispanics and tradesmen who were not directly tied to agrarian activities. Change accelerated in 1880 with the completion of the railroad. Wage and contract labor became more prevalent, and by 1900 merchants in the Village of Pecos were bringing a variety of goods into the region. By 1910, the railroad made transport easier, which encouraged the development of commercial pastoralism as markets in the east opened up to western ranchers. These trends continued into the 1920s.

The occupation of Pecos Pueblo declined steadily with the spread of Euro-American settlement. After the pueblo was abandoned, roof beams were scavenged for construction and firewood, and the Quadrangle was used to house prisoners in 1841.

Conclusions

A place is nothing in itself. It has no meaning, it can hardly be said to exist, except in terms of human perception, use, and response.

Wallace Stegner, This Is Dinosaur

The preceding chapters serve as the final report on the cultural resources inventory survey of Pecos National Historical Park. Because Puebloan materials are the most prevalent in the park, this volume focuses on the development of the Pecos community during the Puebloan occupation of the Upper Pecos Valley. Our purpose was not to explain village formation at Pecos. Our goal was to help "unpack" the concept of aggregation (Kohler 1989) by examining its affect on social integration, agricultural intensification, settlement behavior, and exchange.

Increased social integration accompanied the growth in aggregate size in the Pecos area. Kivas became larger, and there are two very large kivas at Pecos Pueblo, one in Period 4 (A.D. 1450-1575) and one in Period 5 (A.D. 1575-1700), that probably served as community kivas. In addition, large Biscuit ware and Glaze V bowls may indicate communal feasting in Periods 4 and 5. Evidence for social integration disappears in Period 6 (A.D. 1700+) with the number of kivas and size of serving bowls declining as population decreases.

The prevalence of cooking jars in all periods indicates the importance of agriculture throughout the Puebloan occupation. Hunting was important in Periods 2 (A.D. 1200-1325) and 3 (A.D. 1325-1450) based on the abundance of high-energy lithic tools. The measures of agricultural intensification through time are mixed. Ceramic vessel forms and size suggest that storage in jars and serving in bowls may have increased, possibly indicating that agriculture increased in importance. The number and complexity of agricultural features peak in Period 3, then both decline in subsequent periods. Most likely, the best land for intensification was outside Pecos National Historical Park near the present town of Pecos where irrigation was possible. Grinding intensity, measured through mano shape as another potential indication of agricultural intensification, decreased in Period 3, and although it increased in Periods 4 (A.D. 1450-1575) and 5 (A.D. 1575-1700), grinding intensity was less than expected. Abundant raw materials for manos probably render this measurement less useful because new manos were readily available to replace slightly worn ones.

Aspects of settlement changed with aggregation. Based on our assumption that Pecos Pueblo outcompeted the other aggregates in the valley, it is interesting that the pueblos in Periods 2 (A.D. 1200-1325) and 3 (A.D. 1325-1450) are clustered, indicating a lack of competition among "competing" aggregates. Possibly, the competition was not over local resources, which is why it is not reflected in the nearest-neighbor distributions, but was related to competition and exchange with groups outside the Upper Pecos Valley. This reinforces a picture of the people of the Upper Pecos Valley living as a single community, though in different residences. The Pecos mesilla may have been the best highly visible and defendable location for a centralized trade center and from which to monitor movement through the valley. The transition to a single large aggregate there may have been accomplished with little internal conflict.

Trade relations were present throughout the Puebloan occupation of the valley. Nonlocal temper in utility and white ware in Periods 2 (A.D. 1200-1325) and 3 (A.D. 1325-1450) indicate trade primarily was with groups to the west. In Period 3, approximately half of the white ware was nonlocal, and most of the Glaze I ceramics were traded in to the valley. Later in Period 3, Pecos potters began making their own glazes, which they continued to do until they began importing Glaze VI in Period 5 (A.D. 1575-1700). Pecos Glaze V is found in small quantities at other Rio Grande sites. Obsidian was the primary nonlocal lithic raw material in Periods 2 and 3, although nonlocal chert increased slightly in Period 3. It was not until Period 4 (A.D. 1450-1575) that nonlocal chert from the Plains became common, indicating a switch in trade focus to the east. The shift in the direction of trade coincided with aggregation at Pecos Pueblo. The quantity of obsidian also increased in Periods 4 and 5, and it probably was one of the resources traded eastward for bison products. In Period 6 (A.D. 1700+), significant trade with the Plains ended, but obsidian and historic matte-paint ceramics indicate that trade with the west continued. Despite its strong economic ties to the Plains and the increasing presence of Europeans in the valley, Pecos was firmly rooted in the Pueblo world.

From the beginning of the permanent Euro-American presence in the early 1600s, the social and economic focus in the valley changed. Pecos Pueblo's residents attempted to maintain their traditional social, economic, and religious cycles under the close scrutiny of a new religious body. Population declined rapidly at Pecos Pueblo and the last few occupants left in 1838. They turned to Jemez Pueblo, where the Pecos roots are still strong and where the Pecos people maintain their identity over a century later.

In contrast to the decline at Pecos Pueblo, the Euro-American population in the valley grew quickly, especially in the 1800s after the Santa Fe Trail opened the area to a wider exchange network. The success of trade over the Santa Fe Trail led to the coming of the railroad, which encouraged more people to establish businesses in the Upper Pecos Valley. Economic booms in other parts of the country enabled Tex Austin, E. E. Fogelson, and others to create large ranches in the valley, a trend that continues to this day.

The Upper Pecos Valley is a relatively small place, only about eight miles long from where the river emerges on the flats just north of the village of Pecos, to the southern end of the valley just south of the railroad town of Rowe; and only two to four miles wide from the base of Glorieta Mesa to the toes of the Tecolote Mountains. Yet the expanse of human history at Pecos is vast. We hope the results reported in this volume contribute to the continued creation and recreation of Pecos through research and interpretation. We also hope they will assist those entrusted with the care of Pecos National Historical Park in making wise management and preservation decisions.