Intermountain Cultural Resources Management 

Archeology Program 

The El Malpais Archeological Survey 

Phase I 

EDITED BY ROBERT P. POWERS AND 

JANET D. ORCUTT 

Intermountain Cultural Resources Management 

Professional Paper No. 70 
Cover: The Cebollita Valley, looking south to the Narrows across the eastern edge of 

what is now HI Malpais National Monument. Photograph by Adam Clark 

Vroman, 1899. Courtesy of the National Anthropological Archives, Negative 

No. 2467B2. 
Intermountain Cultural Resources Management 

Professional Paper No. 70 

The El Malpais Archeological Survey 

Phase I 

Edited by 

Robert P. Powers and Janet D. Orcntt 

With contributions by 

Hannah V. Fretwell 

Cynthia L. Herhahn 

Deborah L. Huntley 

J. David Kilby 

Janet L. Mc Vickar 

Janet D. Orcntt 

Robert P. Powers 

Gregson Schachner 

Archeology Program 

Cultural Resources Management Division 

Intermountain Region 

National Park Service 

Department of the Interior 

2005 
Foreword 

Traveling in the summer of 1629 between the 

Pueblos of Acoma and Zuni. Father Esteban Perea 

passed by what is now El Malpais National 

Monument and described the expansive lava flows 

as ten leagues of burnt cliffs (Sanchez n.d.). Few 

descriptions of El Malpais—the badlands—have 

so aptly described the rugged and isolated volcanic 

landscape between Acoma and Zuni. This 

forbidding terrain is a geologic record of lava 

flows and other volcanic activity that date as far 

back as 700,000 years and as recently as 3,000 

years ago (Laughlin and WoldeGabriel 1997). 

Cinder cone volcanoes, spatter cones, winding 

lava tube systems, ice caves, and kipukas (areas 

around which the lava flowed) create a landscape 

unique to the southern Colorado Plateau. Born of 

fire and cooled by time. El Malpais is a land of 

sharp contrasts—a land of fire and ice. 

This unforgiving natural landscape is also a 

sacred cultural landscape. El Malpais is imbedded 

in the origin stories, ceremonies, and continuing 

traditions of the Acoma, Laguna, Navajo, and 

Zuni (Holmes 1989). The volcanic terrain comes 

alive in ancient stories as the congealed blood of 

slain monsters or as the melted pitch of a fire set to 

burn the countryside by a beaten and angered 

gambler. These stories—epics really—are still 

told today and connect present generations to the 

past, allowing long-practiced cultural traditions to 

continue. 

Europeans brought different views of El 

Malpais. Spanish explorers and colonists were 

happy to skirt its perimeters. Much later, with the 

introduction of the railroad in the late 1800s, 

grazing and logging in and around El Malpais 

became important industries. As transportation 

systems developed and Route 66 linked east and 

west, El Malpais became a refuge for Depression 

era homesteaders seeking a new start. Their 

aspirations fueled new legends telling of outlaw 

hideouts and hidden gold. 

This intertwining of natural landscapes and 

diverse cultural heritage illustrates the significance 

of El Malpais. On the last day of 1987, through an 

act of Congress, the American people set aside this 

remarkable area as a national monument. The 

burnt cliffs Father Perea described in the early 

seventeenth century are now El Malpais National 

Monument and part of the National Park System. 

As such, the National Park Service is mandated to 

preserve and protect El Malpais unimpaired for the 

enjoyment of current and future generations. In 

order for the National Park Service to be 

successful in this endeavor, though, we must 

identify and understand the cultural significance of 

the heritage resources that exist within the 

monument. 

Prior to the beginning of Phase I of the El 

Malpais Archeological Inventory Survey, El 

Malpais National Monument had never been the 

focus of an extensive systematic archeological 

survey. Though known to contain nationally 

significant archeological sites, only a few dozen 

had been recorded prior to the beginning of this 

project. The majority of recorded sites were 

located along the monument's eastern boundary, 

near Las Ventanas (Candelaria Pueblo)—a Chacostyle great house. This area is located between 

Cebollita Mesa and the rugged McCartys lava 

flow within a small portion of the monument 

where there are no volcanic features. Even fewer 

sites were known within the various lava fields of 

El Malpais. The nature and extent of most of the 

monument's archeological record was relatively 

unknown. 

This lack of information prompted the 

National Park Service to fund a multi-year 

archeological inventory of El Malpais National 

Monument. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2000, the 

Anthropology Program of the National Park 

Service's Intermountain Support Office began 

developing the scope and direction of the survey. 

iii 
Working with the staff at El Malpais, a research 

design and sampling strategy were designed to 

meet both management and research needs. The 

guidance provided by these documents was crucial 

to development of the project and beneficial to 

managers of the monument. 

This report will prove even more beneficial to 

El Malpais National Monument. It presents the 

results of the most extensive archeological survey 

yet conducted in the El Malpais area. Though 

only the first phase of a three-phase project, the 

preliminary results and interpretations presented 

are the first to put the archeological record of El 

Malpais in context within the surrounding region. 

The survey results demonstrate that the 

archeology of El Malpais follows many of the 

general patterns found throughout this region. 

Population density prior to historic times rises to 

its highest levels between A.D. 1050 and the early 

to middle 1100s, displaying the same trend as 

many other areas on the southern Colorado 

Plateau. Construction of Las Ventanas during this 

time signals participation of the El Malpais 

population in the region-wide economic, political, 

and religious system centered on Chaco Canyon. 

Sites that are typically found with Chaco-style 

great houses—including small pueblos, great 

kivas, roads, field houses, and petroglyphs—were 

recorded by the survey. 

The survey results also demonstrate how 

utterly different the archeological record of El 

Malpais National Monument is compared to the 

surrounding region. The uniqueness of the natural 

volcanic landscape and its spiritual and economic 

importance to surrounding communities are 

responsible for the monument's unusual and 

fascinating array of archeological sites. Here, 

archeologists may study the religious and 

economic significance of ancient trail systems, the 

archeology of ice caves, or even the creation and 

maintenance of ceremonial landscapes. 

Because El Malpais is a spiritual place, 

Acoma, Laguna, Zuni and Navajo religious groups 

continue to practice traditional activities and 

ceremonies within the monument. Visitors to the 

monument are taken by its rugged beauty, and 

know too, that El Malpais is a special place. To 

many, El Malpais is spiritually alive, and its 

archeological record—from great kivas to nearly 

imperceptible shrines—is a reflection of how 

people have been nourished by, and interacted 

with, the sacred places across its landscape. 

This report is but one step in better 

understanding the complex archeological record 

we find at El Malpais National Monument. It 

provides an important contribution to the 

archeology of El Malpais and to Southwest 

Archeology in general. Future studies will 

undoubtedly add to these contributions. With over 

90 percent of the monument unsurveyed, much is 

still unknown. Bob Powers and Jan Orcutt and 

their colleagues have set the stage well for those 

future studies, while providing important 

information needed to better manage the cultural 

resources of El Malpais National Monument. 

James W. Kendrick. Archeologist 

El Morro and El Malpais National Monuments 

iv 
Acknowledgments 

This report is the result of the efforts of a large 

number of individuals who committed their time, 

energy, and hearts to the success of the El Malpais 

survey. It is a pleasure to acknowledge their 

contributions here. At El Malpais National 

Monument, Superintendent John Lujan was 

instrumental in providing managerial, financial, 

logistical, and moral support during his tenure as 

park superintendent from 2000 to the spring of 

2004. Present Superintendent Kayci Cook Collins 

has been equally supportive and helpful since her 

arrival at the park. 

Former Chief Ranger Ken Maybery provided 

early guidance and assistance, and his successor, 

Herschel Schulz, has provided enthusiastic and 

practical aid since the beginning of the project. 

During all three field seasons Herschel provided 

on-the-spot assistance with logistics, crew 

orientation, equipment, maps, radios, and other 

day-to-day needs. Park Ranger Jeanne Ratlief 

produced a number of GIS maps of park 

boundaries, bum units, and the boundaries of the 

Cherry Fire, often on short notice, and on several 

occasions on her own time. Personnel Specialist 

Sari Stein helped us adhere to federal personnel 

rules and regulations while enabling several of the 

authors to complete their writing duties from their 

homes. Park archeologist James Kendrick has 

helped us plan and execute virtually every stage of 

the project since his arrival at the park in 2001. 

Without Jim's unstinting support, wise counsel, 

and deep concern for the park's cultural resources, 

the project and the present report could not have 

been brought to such a successful conclusion. 

Among my staff in the former Anthropology 

Program, Archeologist Janet McVickar directed 

the project from its inception in 2000 through to 

the spring of 2002. The project research design, 

sampling strategy, 2000 pilot survey, a 

preliminary report of the 2000 survey, and the 

2001 survey were conducted under Janet's careful 

direction. Archeologist Melissa Powell skillfully 

led the 2002 field season. 

During the 2000 pilot survey season, Janet 

was assisted by crew members Gregson Schachner 

and Kathy Helton, and volunteer Jim Ladd. Kathy 

Helton entered much of the site data into the 

project data base following the field season. Peter 

McKenna. of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Division of Environment. Safety, and Cultural 

Resources, graciously provided assistance in the 

classification and identification of El Malpais area 

ceramics. 

During the 2001 field season, the field crewincluded Janet McVickar and Louis Neff (crew 

chiefs), Hannah Fretwell, Michael Aiuvalasit, 

Mary Prasciunas (crew members), Mary HolyokeDail (camp cook). Jan Orcutt (lab archeologist), 

and volunteers Susannah Daniels. Anna Grafton, 

and Emily Lecroix. Art Krupicz verified photo 

records and assisted Jan Orcutt with data entry 

following the field season. In spring of 2002, 

Janet McVickar led a single field session devoted 

to detailed recording of the Las Ventanas site. 

Joining Janet were Hannah Fretwell, Robert 

Davide. Michael Aiuvalasit, David Barsanti, J. 

David Kilby. and Thomas Windes. 

For the 2002 field season, Melissa Powell. 

Deborah Fluntley. and Hannah Fretwell served as 

crew chiefs. Crew members included Matt 

Basham, Eleanor Dahlin, Robert Davide, James 

Harrison, Catherine Heyne, and Heather Richards. 

Lara Anderson was camp cook, and Valerie King 

performed the lab archeologist duties. Volunteers 

were Carolyn Keenan, Lauren Benz. Stephanie 

Trudel, Chris Reed, Theresa Stoner, and the 

indefatigable Howard Newman. Greg Schachner, 

David Kilby, and Trevor Kludt assisted for 

portions of the season. After the season Marianne 

Tyndall checked the photo records and Jan Orcutt 

entered the season's data into the project data 

base. 

Bruce Huckell and David Kilby generously 

submitted a late Paleoindian obsidian point base 

recovered durins: the 2000 field season to the 

V 
Berkeley Archeological X-Ray Fluorescence Lab 

for source identification. April Molina of the 

Intermountain Support Office's GIS Program 

produced interim maps of the areas surveyed 

following the 2000 and 2001 field seasons. 

During the 2001 and 2002 seasons, Charles 

Haecker provided welcome assistance with 

documentation of historic period sites, and 

Thomas Windes, assisted by his loyal cadre of 

volunteers, prepared plane table maps of key sites. 

A number of Tom's maps are included herein. 

During both the 2001 and 2002 seasons, Sarah 

Bishop, President of Partners in Parks, provided 

critical aid in finding volunteers, without whose 

dedicated assistance we would have accomplished 

much less. 

Following the final field season. Melissa 

Powell, Jan Orcutt. and Jim Kendrick helped me 

plan and develop this report. Jan also worked 

diligently for months adding, correcting, and 

conforming the project data into the final data base 

used for the analyses reported here. 

The authors of this volume have contributed to 

the success of the project in more ways than it is 

possible to enumerate. Jan Orcutt performed 

much of the environmental and cultural background research and developed the project 

research design. Jan has also lent her considerable 

demographic and settlement analysis skills to the 

volume. Cynthia Herhahn painstakingly developed the survey sampling design and created the 

geographic information system data base 

necessary to manipulate the many sample layers. 

Greg Schachner developed the ceramic recording 

system used by the project and established the 

ceramic chronology without which our analyses 

would have been impossible. Likewise. David 

Kilby created the lithic recording system. I would 

like to thank Greg and David for their sustained 

interest and innovative analyses of the survey 

ceramic and lithic data over the course of the 

project. Deborah Huntley cheerfully and 

efficiently assumed the daunting task of making 

sense of the survey's many historic sites. Hannah 

Fretwell has provided a useful examination of the 

challenges facing ceramicists investigating the 

sources of El Malpais ceramics. Because of tight 

budget and schedule constraints much of the report 

was drafted within a two-month period, a 

limitation that seemed to bring out only the best in 

each of the authors. 

Drafts of this report were carefully reviewed 

and critiqued by Jim Kendrick, Herschel Schulz, 

Melissa Powell, and Janet McVickar. The volume 

was edited, designed, formatted, and indexed by 

Heidi Reed, who carefully and patiently 

incorporated dozens of corrections and text 

changes over many months to transform the 

manuscript into its final form. Nancy Lamm 

prepared the excellent line drawings, and David 

Kilby prepared the computer illustrations 

complementing his appendix on lithic material 

sources. The survey sample and site distribution 

maps were prepared by Kerri Mich and David 

Jones of the Intermountain Support Office's GIS 

Program. 

Finally, but most importantly, I would like to 

thank James Bradford for his patience, 

understanding, and support over the past two 

years. Without Jim's efforts, the El Malpais 

survey would have been a victim of internal 

reorganization, downsizing, and competitive 

outsourcing initiatives that spanned the entire 

period of the report's preparation. 

To all of those mentioned, as well as any 

others who I may have unintentionally, and 

regrettably omitted, I extend my sincere thanks for 

making this volume possible. 

Robert P. Powers 

vi 
Contents 

FOREWORD iii 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS v 

LIST OF TABLES xiii 

LIST OF FIGURES xv 

LIST OF APPENDICES xvii 

1. INTRODUCTION 

By Janet D. Orcutt, Robert P. Powers, Cynthia L. Herhahn, Janet L. McVickar, and J. David Kilby... 1 

Report Purpose and Organization 1 

Background 2 

Research Domains 6 

Chronology 7 

Site Function 7 

Population Dynamics and Climatic Variability 8 

Settlement Behavior and Land Use 10 

Interaction and Exchange 11 

Sampling Design 14 

The Probabilistic Sample 15 

Survey Sectors 15 

Survey Strata 15 

Open Lava 15 

One Kilometer Buffer 19 

Non-Lava and Old Lava 19 

Kipukas 19 

Lava Tube/Ice Cave System 19 

The Judgmental Sample 19 

The Phase I Survey Sample 20 

Field Survey and Site Recording Methods 23 

Site Classification and Provenience Hierarchy 27 

2. ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL BACKGROUND 

By Janet D. Orcutt. Janet L. McVickar, and J. David Kilby 3 1 

Physiography and Geology 31 

Soils 34 

Hydrology 34 

Vegetation 35 

vii 
Fauna 36 

Climate 37 

Paleoclimate 37 

Previous Investigations 37 

Culture History 38 

Paleoindian 38 

Archaic 39 

Basketmaker and Puebloan Periods 39 

Basketmaker III (A.D. 400/500 to 700/720) 39 

Pueblo I (A.D. 700/720 to 900/950) 40 

Pueblo II (A.D. 900/950 to 1125/1175) 40 

Pueblo III (A.D. 1125/1175 to 1320/1325) 41 

Pueblo IV (A.D. 1320/1325 to 1540) 43 

Post-1540 43 

3. ARCHAIC AND PUEBLOAN CHRONOLOGY 

By Gregson Schachner and J. David Kilby 45 

Paleoindian, Archaic, and Basketmaker Component Dating and Temporal Placement 45 

Paleoindian Period 46 

Archaic and Basketmaker Periods 46 

Puebloan Component Dating 47 

Ceramic Sampling and Classification 48 

Sampling 48 

Ceramic Classification 48 

Gray ware 51 

Brown ware 52 

White ware 52 

Red ware 54 

Ceramic Sedation 54 

Cluster 1 (A.D. 870 to 1050) 63 

Cluster 2 (A.D. 1050 to 1125) 64 

Cluster 3 (A.D. 950 to 1125) 65 

Cluster4(A.D. 1100 to 1150) 66 

Cluster 5 (A.D. 1125 to 1200) 66 

Qualitative Assignments 67 

Summary 67 

Chronological Range and Trends 67 

lemporal Relationship to Occupations in Adjacent Areas 68 

4. SITE TYPOLOGY, ARCHITECTURE, POPULATION AND SETTLEMENT PATTERNS 

By Robert P. Powers and Janet D. Orcutt 71 

Cultural Affiliation 71 

Components 72 

Component Types 72 

Non-Puebloan Component Types 72 

Puebloan Components and Features 73 

viii 
Description of Puebloan Component Types 74 

Great House 74 

Pueblos 78 

Small Structures 83 

Possible Structures 84 

Rockshelters 85 

Stone Circles 85 

Camps 86 

Shrines 86 

Agricultural 86 

Thermal Features 86 

Storage 86 

Bedrock Features 86 

Trails 88 

Rock Art 88 

Cairns 88 

Rock Alignment 88 

Lithic/Ceramic Scatters, Ceramic Scatters and Lithic Scatters 88 

Habitations versus Non-Habitations 88 

Population Dynamics 90 

Settlement Patterns and Land Use 93 

Comparison of Flabitation and Non-Habitation Locations 96 

5. INTERACTION AND EXCHANGE 

By Gregson Schachner and J. David Kilby 99 

Ceramics 99 

Local and Non-Local Ceramic Types 99 

Spatial Distribution of Ceramic Types 101 

Temporal Changes in Ceramic Exchange Patterns 104 

Evaluation of the Research Design Exchange Model 106 

Lithic Artifacts 108 

Previous El Malpais Lithic Investigations 108 

Lithic Data Collection Methods 108 

Raw Materials 109 

Debitage 1 11 

Reduction Mode and Size 1 1 1 

Cortex 113 

Thermal Alteration 116 

Lithic Tools 117 

Tool Types 117 

Cores 117 

Flake Tools 117 

Bifacial Tools 120 

Ground-Stone Tools 121 

Other Tools 121 

Prehistoric Interaction and Exchange 122 

Raw Material Use Through Time: Regional-Scale Patterns 122 

ix 
Archaic/Basketmaker 123 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 123 

Late Cebolleta 124 

Late Cebolleta/Pilares 124 

Raw Material Use Across Space: Local-Scale Patterns 125 

Summary and Conclusions 128 

6. HISTORIC PERIOD SITES 

By Deborah L. Huntley 129 

Historic Period Background 129 

Historic Native American Land Use 129 

Homesteading and Ranching 130 

Logging and Mining 130 

Other Activities 131 

Recorded Historic Resources in and Around the Monument 131 

Historic Site Function 132 

Camps Without Structure(s) 132 

Camps With Structure(s) 138 

Roads 141 

Trash Dumps 141 

Ranching/Herding Activity 141 

Agricultural Features 141 

Logging Activity 141 

Homestead/Habitation Sites 142 

Mining Activity 144 

Ice/Water Collection 144 

Other/Unknown 145 

Isolated Artifacts/Features 145 

Artifact Assemblages 145 

Metal Containers 146 

Glass 146 

Historic Ceramics 151 

Miscellaneous Artifacts 153 

Summary 157 

Chronology. Cultural Affiliation and Patterns of Land Use 157 

Component Chronology 157 

Cultural Affiliation 159 

Historic Land Use Patterns 159 

Summary and Conclusions 162 

7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

By Janet D. Orcutt and Robert P. Powers 165 

Survey Coverage and Sites Identified 165 

Archaic and Basketmaker II 166 

Puebloan 166 

Ceramic Dating 166 

x 
Puebloan Components 167 

Habitation versus Non-Habitation 168 

Research Objectives 169 

Population and Settlement 169 

Interaction and Exchange 170 

Ceramics 170 

Lithics 172 

Historic Cultural Resources 173 

Concluding Remarks 174 

APPENDICES 177 

REFERENCES 251 

INDEX 263 

xi 
List of Tables 

1.1 El Malpais National Monument area 14 

1.2 El Malpais inventory sample composition 14 

1.3 Probabilistic sampling design strata and hectare estimates for El Malpais National Monument 17 

1.4 Total area and percent surveyed during Phase 1 23 

1.5 Random sample areas showing stratum size, target sample, areas surveyed, number of sites and 

site density 24 

1.6 Judgmental sample (Priority Areas) showing stratum size, areas surveyed, number of sites and 

site density 25 

1.7 Other judgmental sample areas showing area surveyed, number of sites and site density 25 

2.1 Paleoclimate 37 

3.1 Archaic and Basketmaker sites and site components 47 

3.2 Anomalous Archaic and Basketmaker points from other sites 48 

3.3 El Malpais National Monument survey ceramic types and vessel forms 49 

3.4 El Malpais National Monument survey site chronological assignments 57 

3.5 K-means cluster memberships and phase designations 66 

3.6 El Malpais ceramic cluster characteristics 66 

4.1 Archaic, Basketmaker II, Native American, and Unknown component types 72 

4.2 Puebloan component types and frequencies 73 

4.3 Puebloan architectural feature types and frequencies 73 

4.4 Puebloan non-architectural feature types and frequencies 74 

4.5 Puebloan scatter feature types and frequencies 74 

4.6 Architectural features at component types 75 

4.7 Non-architectural features at component types 76 

4.8 Scatter features at component types 78 

4.9 Classification of intermediate sized Puebloan structures 91 

5.1 Ceramic wares by survey areas (all sites) 101 

5.2 Ceramic wares by survey area 102 

5.3 Ceramic wares by time period (all sites) 105 

5.4 Ceramic wares by time period 106 

5.5 Raw material sources and availability relative to El Malpais National Monument 111 

5.6 Raw material frequencies for chipped stone artifacts 112 

5.7 Raw material frequencies for ground stone and other lithic artifacts 114 

5.8 Cross-tabulation of flake type and raw material group 115 

5.9 Cross-tabulation of exterior cortical cover and raw material group 116 

5.10 Heat alteration of raw materials 117 

5.11 Frequencies of tool classes and types 1 18 

5.12 Frequencies of retouch methods, number of use edges, and edge damage classes for flake 

tools 119 

xiii 
5.13 Frequencies of projectile point styles from sites and isolated occurrences 120 

5.14 Raw material use across time periods 122 

5.15 Use of selected raw materials across geographic areas by tiine period 127 

6.1 Site category, cultural affiliation, dates, and artifact sample information for historic sites 133 

6.2 Architectural feature types by site category 136 

6.3 Non-architectural feature types by site category 137 

6.4 Metal container class, type and contents by site category 147 

6.5 Glass artifact classes and types by site category 149 

6.6 Historic ceramic artifact class, body type, and vessel type by site category 152 

6.7 Miscellaneous artifact class and type by site category 154 

6.8 Site category by location 162 

6.9 Cultural affiliation and date range by location 163 

Appendix 2. Table 1 Sites listed by ELMA number. LA number, and site name 210 

Appendix 2, Table 2 Sites listed by LA number, ELMA number, and site name 213 

Appendix 3. Table 1 Collected clays and geologic formations 220 

Appendix 3. Table 2 Properties of unfired clays 222 

Appendix 3. Table 3 Properties of sherds before firing 223 

Appendix 3. Table 4 Munsell color groups 224 

Appendix 3. Table 5 Color groups for tired clay samples and refired sherds 225 

Appendix 3, Table 6 Apparent porosity of clays 226 

Appendix 3. Table 7 ANOV A table for apparent porosity of Plain Gray sherds between sampled 

sites 227 

Appendix 3. Table 8 ANOVA table for apparent porosity of Cebolleta Black-on-white sherds 

between sites 228 

Appendix 4. Table 1 Geologic units used in text and figures 238 

Appendix 4. Table 2 Raw material sources and availability in the El Malpais area 248 

xiv 
List of Figures 

1.1 El Malpais National Monument and vicinity back pocket 

1.2 Ponderosa pine and aspen growing from old lava in the El Calderon area 4 

1.3 Pinyon/juniper grassland on old lava in the El Calderon area 4 

1.4 Crew recording ELMA 47. a Cebolleta phase pueblo in Two Kipuka 5 

1.5 Ice stalagtites and pool in the interior of Rusty Barrel Cave 5 

1.6 Las Ventanas (Candelaria Pueblo) great house rubble mound, looking west 6 

1.7 El Malpais National Monument showing survey strata, random sample grid and survey sectors 16 

1.8 El Malpais National Monument survey strata 18 

1.9 El Malpais National Monument survey sample showing random sample units and 

Priority Areas 1 through 4 21 

1.10 El Malpais National Monument Phase I sample showing random and priority areas surveyed 22 

1.11 Example of site classification and provenience hierarchy 28 

2.1 Looking south along the edge of the McCartys Flow near the mouth of Las Ventanas Canyon 32 

2.2 Bandera Flow ua lava at ELMA 271 33 

2.3 Ropy pahoehoe lava in the McCartys Flow near North Pasture 33 

2.4 Partially collapsed lava tube forming a cave in the Bandera Flow, El Calderon area 34 

2.5 Cretaceous-age sedimentary cliffs and pedestals in the Sandstone Bluffs area along the east 

perimeter of the McCartys Flow 35 

3.1 El Malpais ceramic cluster groups, selected phase sequences and Pecos Classification periods 56 

3.2 Statistically and qualitatively dated components 61 

3.3 Correspondence analysis plot 63 

3.4 Close-up of correspondence analysis plot 64 

3.5 Additional close-up of correspondence analysis plot 65 

4.1 Plan view of Las Ventanas (Candelaria Ruin) great house and associated features 79 

4.2 Plan view of Las Ventanas great house 80 

4.3 Plan view of Las Ventanas great kiva 81 

4.4 Plan view of large Late Cebolleta phase (A.D. 1050 to 1 125) pueblo at ELMA 73 82 

4.5 View of possible kiva in pueblo at ELMA 73 83 

4.6 Two room Cebolleta phase (A.D. 950 to 1 125) small structure at ELMA 145 84 

4.7 Late Cebolleta phase (A.D. 1050 to 1 125) stone circle at ELMA 271 85 

4.8 Plan view of Late Cebolleta phase dams and small structure at ELMA 133 87 

4.9 Number of estimated rooms for all Puebloan structures 89 

4.10 Estimated number of people in Population Period 1 (A.D. 870 to 1050) and Period 2 

(1050 to 1125/1150) 92 

4.11 Habitation sites occupied during Population Period 1 (A.D. 870 to 1050) 94 

4.12 Habitation sites occupied during Population Period 2 (A.D. 1050 to 1125/1150) 95 

5.1 Major raw material source locations in the El Malpais region and western New Mexico 1 10 

5.2 Use of local and non-local lithic raw materials through time 124 

5.3 Three study units containing survey areas used in comparative analysis of raw material 

distributions 126 

xv 
6.1 Plan view of Kovvina phase (A.D. 1200 to 1300) stone circle complex and Historic Unknown 

camp with structure (1920s to 1950s) at ELM A 227 139 

6.2 Plan view of Historic Unknown camp with structure (1920s to 1950s) at ELMA 286 140 

6.3 Remains of early twentieth century (1900 to 1950) sawmill at Euroamerican logging camp 

(ELMA 201) 142 

6.4 Plan view of Euroamerican logging camp (1950s to 1960s) at ELMA 213 143 

6.5 Main habitation at Garrett Homestead (ELMA 190) 144 

6.6 Frequencies of historic component categories by time period 158 

6.7 Frequency of components and isolated occurrences of Acoma, Indeterminate Puebloan, Euroamerican. Hispanic and Unknown cultural affiliation by time period 160 

6.8 Historic component locations 161 

Appendix 3. Figure 1 Mean percent of apparent porosity of Plain Gray by site 227 

Appendix 3. Figure 2 Mean percent of apparent porosity of Cebolleta Black-on-white by site 228 

Appendix 4, Figure 1 Physiographic overview showing locations of survey 236 

Appendix 4. Figure 2 Surface geology overview showing locations of survey 236 

Appendix 4. Figure 3 Zuni Mountains East Survey Area 237 

Appendix 4, Figure 4 Zuni Mountains Survey Area 239 

Appendix 4. Figure 5 Cerritos de Jaspe Survey Area 239 

Appendix 4, Figure 6 Cebollita North Survey Area 240 

Appendix 4, Figure 7 Cebollita South Survey Area 240 

xvi 
List of Appendices 

1 Site Recording Manuals and Forms 1 77 

2 Site Number Concordance 209 

3 A Preliminary Ceramic Sourcing Study for the Las Ventanas Area of the Cebollita Mesa Region, 

El Malpais National Monument 

by Hannah V. Fretwell 217 

4 A Survey of Lithic Raw Material Sources In and Around El Malpais National Monument 

by J. David Kilby 233 

xvn 
1 

Introduction 

Janet D. Orcutt, Robert P. Powers, Cynthia L. Herhahn, Janet L. McVickar, and J. David Kilby 

This report is a description of the results of the 

first, three-year phase (Phase I) of an 

archeological inventory survey of El Malpais 

National Monument in west-central New Mexico. 

The inventory' was designed to be conducted in 

three phases, each of three years duration, with the 

goal of systematically surveying approximately 

7,082 ha (17,500 acres), or 15.9 percent of the 

total surface area of the monument. Because 

funding under the National Park Service's Cultural 

Resource Preservation Program is awarded in 

three-year increments, funding of Phases II and III 

must be awarded separately. As of this writing, 

funding for Phase II has not been granted, and 

there is no guarantee that this funding will be 

obtained, although it is being vigorously pursued. 

Despite the uncertain future of the survey, the 

work reported here is presented as an interim 

report on the first phase of a carefully planned, 

staged research program. When, and if, additional 

funding is obtained, the survey should be carried 

to completion. The overall purpose of the 

inventor>' is to collect a wide variety of 

archeological data needed to preserve, protect, 

manage, and interpret the monument's largely 

unknown archeological resources. 

During Phase I of the inventory, a pilot survey 

was conducted (2000), a research and sampling 

design was prepared (Orcutt et al. 2001), and two 

seasons of archeological survey (2001 and 2002) 

were completed. The results of the pilot survey, 

which were intended to aid in the preparation of 

the research and sampling design, are described by 

McVickar (2001a). The purpose of this report is 

to describe the archeological materials found 

during all three years of survey and to use the data 

collected to address, albeit in a preliminary 

fashion, the research problems proposed in the 

research design. When carried to completion, the 

survey will provide an abundance of newly 

available, detailed archeological and historical 

data to monument staff, cultural resource 

professionals, and monument visitors. 

Contingent on approval of current funding 

requests, three additional field seasons of 

archeological survey will be conducted during 

Phase II. During the following Phase III, 

archeological data from all six seasons will be 

analyzed, the research design questions will be 

thoroughly addressed, and a technical monograph 

describing the findings of the entire inventory will 

be prepared and published. 

Report Purpose and Organization 

The purpose of this report is to concisely 

describe the archeological remains documented 

during Phase I and to begin to address, at a very 

basic level, the research questions identified in the 

inventory research design. Because of severe time 

and funding constraints, and because the survey 

sample is still limited in size, not all research 

questions have been addressed, nor has it been 

possible to examine the research questions with 

the detail or thoroughness that might be expected 

in the final report. Nonetheless, it is hoped that 

this initial examination of some of the research 

questions will provide a foundation for further 

1 
2 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

refinement and investigation in the later phases of 

the inventory. 

The remainder of this chapter provides a brief 

introduction to El Malpais National Monument, 

presents the inventory research domains that will 

be investigated with the inventory data, and 

describes the survey sampling design and field 

methodology. 

Chapter 2 describes the modern environment 

and paleoenvironments of El Malpais. reviews 

prior archeological investigations in and around 

the monument, and closes with a brief cultural 

history of the monument and surrounding area. 

Chapter 3 places the Paleoindian. Archaic, and 

Puebloan cultural materials identified by the 

survey into a chronological framework based upon 

temporally diagnostic surface materials. To the 

extent possible, individual site components are 

placed into time periods or phases, and groupings 

of contemporaneous or closely contemporaneous 

components are identified as a basis for analysis 

and comparison in the following chapters. 

Chapter 4 presents a site typology for 

Puebloan site components, identifying both 

habitation and non-habitation components. 

Human population is estimated based on 

temporally placed habitation components. Lastly. 

Puebloan settlement and land use patterns are 

described and evaluated. 

Chapter 5 is an examination of surface 

ceramic and lithic assemblages documented by the 

survey, for ceramics, local and non-local pottery 

types are identified, the spatial distribution of the 

types is examined, and changes in the production 

and exchange of ceramics over time are 

investigated using the research design exchange 

model. Lithic artifact sampling methods and 

classification are described in the second portion 

of the chapter. Basic attributes of the lithic 

assemblage are presented, local and non-local 

materials and their source areas are characterized, 

differences in material usage and technology over 

time are examined, and finally, procurement and 

exchange of lithic raw materials and tools are 

evaluated with the exchange model. 

Chapter 6 describes the numerous historic 

components of both Native American and Euroamerican affiliation. The author establishes a 

temporal chronology for the components, develops 

a functional typology, examines settlement pattern 

and land use. and describes the historic artifacts 

found on the components. The chapter concludes 

with an examination of the role of these components in relation to local history and economy. 

Concluding the volume. Chapter 7 summarizes the Phase I archeological site data chronologically and discusses the results of the analyses 

pertaining to each of the research domains. 

Background 

EI Malpais National Monument was 

established on December 31. 1987 "in order to 

preserve for the benefit and enjoyment of present 

and future generations that area in western New 

Mexico containing the nationally significant 

Grants Lava Flow, the Las Ventanas Archeological Site, and other significant natural and cultural 

resources" [El Malpais National Monument and 

Conservation Area Act. U.S. Code. Vol. 16. sees. 

46()uii 1-50(1987)]. 

The monument is located approximately 20 

km (12 miles) southwest of Grants. New Mexico 

(Figure 1.1 [see back pocket]). Extending 

approximately 64 km (40 miles) south of Grants 

and ranging from 8 to 24 km (5 to 15 miles) wide, 

El Malpais is 46.247 ha (114. 277 acres) in size. 

The monument is bordered on the east, south, and 

west sides by El Malpais National Conservation 

Area, managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM). State Highway 117 forms 

portions of the eastern border. State Highway 53 

marks a portion of the northern limit, and County 

Road 42 partially coincides with the northwestern 

edge of the monument. 
INTRODUCTION 3 

El Malpais. or "the bad country." was named 

by the Spanish conquistadors (Mangum 1990:1) 

because the sharp, jagged, uneven lava surface 

played havoc with their horses' hooves. Formed 

by numerous distinct lava flows ranging in age 

from the recent past to over 700,000 years old. the 

malpais contains a wide variety of volcanic 

features that form a rugged and chaotic landscape 

that is both inhospitable and intriguing. 

El Malpais contains an unusual array of flora 

and fauna specially adapted to survival on lava 

flows and craters and within lava tubes and ice 

caves. Growing around and on the malpais' older 

flows are Douglas fir, aspen, Ponderosa pine, 

pinyon. and juniper (Figures 1.2 and 1.3). A 

surprising variety of shrubs thrive on moisture 

trapped beneath the rugged lava surfaces, and 

grasses are abundant in kipukcts or encierros -

hidden islands of soil completely surrounded by 

lava (Figure 1.4). In addition to predators such as 

mountain lion and bear, mammals range from 

antelope and elk. to deer and rabbit. Turkey are 

also present. The skeletal remains of bighorn 

sheep, now extirpated, are present in barricaded 

sections of the lava tubes where they were trapped 

and hunted by Puebloans (Windes 1999). 

Collapsed lava tube sections or caves have 

constant interior temperatures near freezing and. in 

addition to ice stalagtites and stalagmites, contain 

frozen pools of water. The cave openings and 

interiors support a variety of lichens and insects 

adapted to dark, cool conditions. The caves 

appear to have been used as shrines, cache 

locations, and sources of water by Puebloans 

during prehistoric and historic periods (Figure 

1.5). 

sites that were used periodically over both the 

prehistoric and historic periods. Many of the trails 

and camps appear to provide access and resting 

spots enroute to specific features within El 

Malpais. but others, such as the widely known 

Zuni-Acoma Trail, are long-distance routes 

designed to cross the malpais. The Zuni-Acoma 

Trail which traverses the narrow, northern neck of 

El Malpais. has been used for centuries by 

Puebloans. the Navajo, and Spanish and American 

explorers and travelers journeying between Zuni 

and Acoma (Bandelicr 1892:323-324: Holmes 

1989:23: Mangum 1990:1: Zedeno et al. 

2001:1 1 1). 

Because of its varied resources. El Malpais 

has a rich cultural history that brackets the 

continuum of human history in the Southwest. 

Paleoindian tools and Archaic camps in kipukas 

and around the margins of the lava flows testify to 

use of the malpais by early hunters and later 

hunters and gatherers (Broster 1980: Broster and 

Harrill 1982: Elyea 1990; Elyea et al. 1994; 

McVickar 2001a: McVickar et al. 2002). Intensive 

occupation of the perimeters of El Malpais and the 

immediately surrounding valleys and mesas by 

sedentary Ancestral Puebloan farmers has long 

been recognized (Bandelier 1892: Hodge 1914: 

Spier 1917). Although sparsely occupied during 

the Basketmaker III (A.D. 500 to 700) and Pueblo 

1 (A.D. 700 to 900) periods, the malpais and its 

edges were intensively used during the Pueblo II 

(A.D. 900 to 1 125) and Pueblo [II (A.D. 1 125 to 

1325) periods (Dittert 1949, 1959; Doleman 1990: 

Elyea 1990: Elyea et al. 1994; Marshall 1993: 

Marshall et al. 1979: Ruppe 1953. 1966: fainter 

and Gillio 1980; Wozniak and Marshall 1991). 

Kipukas provide havens for plants and animals 

and rich resource zones for humans. 

Prehistorically kipukas were used for plant 

collecting, hunting, and possibly agriculture. In 

recent centuries Native American and Euroamerican herders have grazed cattle and sheep in 

many of the kipukas. although a number are 

inaccessible to livestock. Linking the caves. 

kipukas, and other features of El Malpais is a 

complex system of cairn-marked trails and camp 

Las Ventanas (also known as the Candelaria 

Ruin), a Chacoan great house occupied during the 

late 1000s and early 1100s, is associated with a 

large community of smaller pueblos and an 

isolated great kiva (Figure 1.6). Most lower 

elevations in El Malpais. including the Las 

Ventanas community were abandoned as 

habitation areas by approximately A.D. 1 150, but 

Puebloan use of El Malpais for farming, hunting, 

herding, resource collection and ceremonial 
4 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Figure 1.2. Ponderosa pine and aspen growing from old lava in the El Calderon area. 

Figure 1.3. Pinyon/juniper grassland on old lava in the El Calderon area. Looking south 

to the Cerritos de Jaspe 
INTRODUCTION 5 

Figure 1.4. Crew recording ELMA 47, a Cebolleta phase (A.D. 950 to 1125) 

pueblo in Two Kipuka. Two Kipuka is an island of Cretaceous-age 

sedimentary deposits and Quaternary aeolian and alluvial deposits 

surrounded by the recent (ca. 3,200 to 3,600 years ago) McCartys 

Flow. 

Figure 1.5. Ice stalagtites and pool in the interior of Rusty Barrel Cave. The 

cave appears to have been used as a water source by prehistoric 

Puebloans, as indicated by black-on-white jar sherds encased in the 

ice. Photo courtesy of James Kendrick and Anna Larsen. 
6 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Figure 1.6. Las Ventanas (Candelaria Pueblo) great house rubble mound, looking west. The 

backfilled tower kiva is situated on the left mound promontory. 

purposes has continued through the historic period 

to the present da\ (Elyea et al. 1994: Holmes 

1989: Zedeno et al. 2001*: Tainter and Gillio 1980; 

Wozniak and Marshall 1991). Since the midnineteenth century increasing numbers of Euroamericans, including surveyors, soldiers, ranchers, 

homesteaders. loggers, and government 

employees, have explored the area, exploited its 

resources, and more recently, strived to protect 

and preserve its unique natural and cultural 

features. 

Research Domains 

The central concept guiding the inventory 

research is that the monument is on the periphery 

of two or three different culture areas that butted 

against and spilled over onto the lava. The bulk of 

the cultural remains in the monument are 

prehistoric, and there are several research domains 

or topics of critical importance to understanding 

the dynamics of that occupation. Based on 

previous work around the monument, we expect 

"cultural" differences to appear in the Archaic 

with the potential for a mix of Oshara and Cochise 

materials. During the Ancestral Puebloan or 

Puebloan occupation, at least two or three groups 

may have used the area. Possible geographic 

divisions exhibiting different cultural 

characteristics include areas to the south and 

southeast, north and northeast, and west of the 

monument. We examine several specific topics 

aimed at identifying when, where, how, and why 

the monument was used. Our primary interests lie 

in developing a chronological framework and 

functional typology; identifying climatic and 

environmental variability that may have 

encouraged or discouraged occupation; describing 

population dynamics, including population size, 

growth, and aggregation through time; identifying 

patterns of settlement behavior and land use, 

including the environmental settings associated 
INTRODUCTION 7 

with different site types through time: and 

identifying the dynamics of interaction and 

exchange as illustrated by ceramics, architecture, 

and lithic raw materials. 

Chronology 

Paleoindian and Archaic sites identified 

through archeological survey are commonly dated 

using projectile point styles, and most Puebloan 

sites are dated through ceramic assemblages. 

Paleoindian points are distinctive (e.g.. Clovis and 

Folsom), and at the least, their presence can 

indicate Paleoindian use of the area. Often these 

points are reworked into other tools and 

redeposited on later sites, in which case they 

cannot be used to date the site where found 

(Broster 1980). 

Archaic projectile point styles are based on the 

Cochise (southern) (Sayles and Antevs 1941) and 

Oshara (northern) (Irwin-Williams 1973) cultural 

sequences. Oshara styles are more common in 

northern New Mexico and Cochise styles in 

southern New Mexico (Elyea 1990:41). Mixtures 

of styles are common, which suggests fluid 

boundaries between the two traditions. The NZ 

project found both traditions almost equally 

represented in the Quemado and Acoma areas 

(Elyea 1990:41). 

Some researchers have demonstrated 

differences in lithic reduction strategies between 

earlier Paleoindian and Archaic assemblages, and 

later Puebloan assemblages. 'There tends to be 

more biface reduction (prepared platforms, small 

and thin flakes, a high percentage of debitage 

without cortex) evident in Paleoindian and 

Archaic lithic assemblages than Puebloan 

assemblages. The latter exhibit more core 

reduction (few prepared platforms, large and thick 

flakes, more debitage with cortex) (Elyea 

1990:88). If it can be demonstrated that the same 

relationships are evident in the El Malpais 

materials, it may be possible to separate Puebloan 

from earlier traditions when diagnostic projectile 

points or ceramics are absent. 

Dittert's (1959) phase system for the Puebloan 

occupation of Cebollita Mesa', and the Acoma 

Culture Province in general, forms the basis for 

most temporal schemes used in the El Malpais 

area. Wozniak and Marshall (1991) revised 

Ditterf s system in their Cebolla Canyon survey, 

and Elyea et al. (1994:12) made further 

modifications in their Armijo Canyon survey. 

Because the El Malpais survey will ultimately 

sample a wider geographic area and record more 

sites than Wozniak and Marshall (1991) or Elyea 

et al. (1994), the El Malpais survey has the 

potential to develop a more widely applicable 

temporal framework. 

Therefore ceramic data recorded in the field 

are being used to refine the El Malpais 

chronology. The goal is to devise more precisely 

dated periods based on ceramic assemblages rather 

than individual types (Orcutt 1999; Wozniak and 

Marshall 1991). Sites with ceramics will then be 

dated according to the ceramic assemblages 

associated with specific phases or time periods. 

The success of any attempt to refine the 

chronology and systematically assign individual 

site components to time periods using the 

chronology depends on the amount of variability 

in assemblages and assemblage size at individual 

site components. 

Site Function 

Identifying site function is critical to 

measuring population and describing settlement 

behavior and land use. Site types recorded in the 

field are necessarily descriptive and may not 

directly convey how a site was used. A functional 

site typology is developed by interpreting artifact, 

architectural, and feature assemblages to 

distinguish habitation from non-habitation sites. 

Functional typologies based on surface remains 

generally are broad rather than specific, and our 

primary goal is to subdivide the sites into 

habitation and non-habitation categories. 

Habitations are occupied year-round or for a 

significant part of the year (Powers et al. 
8 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

1999:118). Non-habitations reflect seasonal or 

limited episodes of use by those who reside at the 

habitation sites (Powers et al. 1999:118). One 

important reason for separating these two major 

types is to avoid counting people twice when 

calculating population size. In addition, it is easier 

to interpret settlement behavior and subsistence 

systems when site functions are kept separate. 

Several types of variables are useful in 

identifying functional site types and can be applied 

to both Puebloan and hunter-gatherer sites. These 

variables include site size, artifact frequency and 

density, types of refuse features, diversity indices, 

variety and frequency of features, and differences 

in architecture. A subset of these indicators, 

including number of rooms, type and location of 

refuse deposits, and number of surface artifacts 

have been used to discriminate the Phase I 

habitation and non-habitation sites. 

Population Dynamics and Climatic 

Variability 

Population growth, size, aggregation, and 

movement reflect community development and 

stability. We are best able to address population 

dynamics during Puebloan periods because the 

architecture at habitation sites allows us to use 

room counts to estimate population size. Changes 

in the size and composition of Puebloan 

communities in the Cebollita Mesa region are 

expected to affect population size in El Malpais. 

Because of a lack of permanent water and good 

agricultural areas (Marshall 1993:96). much of El 

Malpais is marginal for farming and habitation. 

For agricultural populations, climate and 

environment are the most important factors 

affecting the suitability of an area for domestic 

crops. Flow people take advantage of good 

environmental conditions or how they cope with 

climatic downturns is affected by population 

density. When population density is low; there is 

more freedom to move to suitable areas if climatic 

conditions warrant a change in location. Mobility 

is restricted when population density is high, and 

social mechanisms become the most common way 

to handle environmental perturbations. 

Dean (1996) identifies several periods of 

resource stress on the Colorado Plateau that may 

have affected agricultural populations. In the 

years between stress periods, environmental 

conditions improve and resource stress declines 

(Dean 1996:Figure 3). The effects of higher and 

lower stress periods on population in El Malpais 

would have depended on regional population 

density and the extent to which populations could 

move to cope with the stress. 

The first period of resource stress, A.D. 200 to 

400, is characterized by high temporal variability 

in climate and alluvial degradation (Dean 

1996:45). Population size across the Colorado 

Plateau is low during this period, so mobility is an 

option for dealing with poor local conditions. 

Dean (1996:45) notes that local population 

aggregates formed in areas suitable for agriculture 

in response to a reduction of available arable land 

through floodplain degradation. These aggregates 

disappeared after A.D. 400 when conditions 

improved. 

Environmental conditions improve in the A.D. 

400 to 750 period. Floodplains generally are 

aggrading, and the water table is high. Temporal 

variability in climate is low (Dean 1996:Figure 3), 

and temperatures are relatively cool (Petersen 

1987, 1988). Although population is growing 

(Dean et al. 1994:Figure 4.12), density is 

relatively low; and the good climatic and 

environmental conditions probably encourage 

habitation in the best agricultural areas with little 

pressure on the resources. 

A.D. 750 to 900 is the next period of 

environmental stress (Dean 1996:45). An episode 

of floodplain degradation is accompanied by high 

temporal climatic variability; low spatial climatic 

variability, and warm temperatures. A loss of 

floodplain acreage and low spatial variability in 

climate, which means everybody is experiencing 
INTRODUCTION 9 

similar climatic conditions, would lessen the 

effectiveness of mobility as a mechanism for 

coping with a reduction in arable land. Unlike the 

stress period between A.D. 200 to 400, population 

density is much higher on the Colorado Plateau, 

although not yet at a level sufficient to invoke 

major regional change (Dean 1996:45-46). 

The next two hundred years, A.D. 900 to 

1100, are marked by improved, although variable, 

environment and climate. Floodplains generally 

are aggrading, but there are fluctuations. The 

water table is rising and high. Temporal 

variability is high early in the period and low later. 

Spatial variability is the opposite of temporal 

variability—low early, high later. Jones et al. 

(1999) identify a drought between A.D. 1065 and 

1100 that is accompanied by cooler temperatures 

(Petersen 1987, 1988). There is rapid population 

growth in the Southwest to a peak in size ca. A.D. 

1000. Although population declines slightly after 

A.D. 1000. it hovers just below the A.D. 1000 

peak until ca. A.D. 1200 (Dean et al. 1994:Figure 

4.12). 

The third period of environmental stress is 

A.D. 1100 to 1200 (Dean 1996:46). Population in 

the Southwest remains high after the A.D. 1000 

peak (Dean et al. 1994:73-74). Between A.D. 

1130 and 1180, high population density in 

conjunction with slight drainage degradation, 

falling water tables, low temporal variability, and 

a drought accompanied by warm temperatures 

(Petersen 1987, 1988) results in major population 

shifts on the Colorado Plateau (Dean 1996:46). 

To cope with climatic and environmental 

reversals, people congregate in fewer large 

pueblos, essentially raising the population density 

in suitable agricultural locales. Spatial variability 

in climate is high during most of this period, 

probably offering more options for site locations 

than when variability is low. 

From A.D. 1200 to 1250, population on the 

Colorado Plateau remains high, although it is 

beginning to decline. Floodplains are aggraded 

and the fluctuating water table generally is high. 

Temporal and spatial variability are low. This 

relatively favorable interlude, however, does not 

last long. 

When the next stress period arrives at A.D. 

1250, the precarious balance between population 

and resources reaches the breaking point in many 

areas. Drainage degradation, low water tables, 

and the Great Drought (A.D. 1275 to 1300) occur 

during this period. From about A.D. 1250 to 

1300, temporal and spatial variability in climate 

are low, but after A.D. 1300 both are high. In 

addition, the centuries-long pattern of bimodal 

summer-winter annual precipitation in the 

northwestern two-thirds of the Southwest and 

unimodal summer-dominant precipitation in the 

southeastern one-third of the Southwest (Dean 

1996:Figures 4 and 5) begins to change. Between 

A.D. 1250 and 1450, the northwestern section is 

characterized by three patterns with "no logical 

geographic patterning" (Dean 1996:43). 

Deterioration of predictable precipitation patterns, 

which had been stable for more than 500 years, 

contributed to "the virtual abandonment of the 

northwestern sector and large-scale movement into 

the climatically more stable southeastern 

subregion" (Dean 1996:47). Climatic downturns 

between A.D. 1250 to 1450 decreased the amount 

of arable land, leading to major population decline 

in several regions and aggregation of people in 

very large pueblos in a few areas (Little Colorado 

River Valley, Mogollon Highlands, Rio Grande 

Valley) (Dean 1996:46). 

Dean et al. (1994:Figure 4.7) present a 

population size curve for Cebollita Mesa based on 

Ditterfs (1959) survey data. Population on 

Cebollita Mesa increases during two of Dean's 

stress periods, A.D. 750 to 900 and A.D. 1100 to 

1200. Perhaps people are attracted to greater 

precipitation in upland areas given the 

entrenchment of so many drainages between A.D. 

1100 and 1200 when population density is high. 

Three surveys closest to El Malpais—of the 

Cerritos de Jaspe, Armijo Canyon and Cebolla 

Canyon areas—are small ones (Figure 1.1 [see 

back pocket]), and the data probably reflect 

localized conditions occurring within Dean's 
10 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

broader view of temporal and spatial 

environmental variability. The Cerritos de Jaspe 

is only populated during Pueblo 11, with its 

population peaking in the late Cebolleta phase 

(A.D. 1050 to 1125). This marginal agricultural 

location (Marshall 1993) clearly is inhabited 

between two of Dean's stress periods, and only 

after major population increase on the Colorado 

Plateau. This also is a period of high spatial 

variability in climate, which would encourage 

occupation of a diversity of environments. The 

Jaspe community is abandoned ca. A.D. 1125. 

shortly after the beginning of a stress period. 

The earliest settlements at the mouths of 

Armijo and Cebolla canyons are late Pueblo 

I/early Pueblo II, but population does not peak in 

either area until after A.D. 1125 (Pueblo III). 

Initial settlement occurs after one of Dean's stress 

intervals. The main occupations of the two 

canyons span the A.D. 1100 to 1200 stress period 

and continue into the A.D. 1250 to 1450 interval 

when the annual precipitation pattern breaks 

down. The El Malpais and Cebollita Mesa areas 

are in the southeastern sector of the Southwest that 

did not suffer a breakdown in the precipitation 

pattern between A.D. 1250 to 1450. 

The NZ project provides a wider regional 

view of population fluctuations (Elyea 1990). 

Based on room counts, population is lowest in late 

Pueblo I. triples in early Pueblo II (A.D. 920 to 

1020). quadruples in late Pueblo II (A.D. 1020 to 

1120), remains stable through early Pueblo III 

(A.D. 1120 to 1220), and hits a peak in Late 

Pueblo III (A.D. 1220 to 1320). Of the 3 10 rooms 

in late Pueblo III, 200 are in one site. This pattern 

appears to lend support to the proposition that the 

southeastern sector of the Southwest is more 

attractive between A.D. 1250 and 1450. 

Settlement Behavior and Land Use 

Settlement behavior refers to how people 

organize and distribute themselves across the 

landscape. Settlement behavior and land use 

reflect decisions based on regional and local 

population density, environmental and climatic 

variability, and subsistence technology and 

organization. For example, an agricultural 

population in a deteriorating environment will 

make different settlement decisions when 

population density is high than when it is low 

because the available coping options are different. 

Mobility, for example, is more limited when 

density is high. 

Paleoindian and Archaic site locations are 

affected more by the spatial distribution and 

productivity of resources than by human 

population density. Because population is 

relatively low, conflict over land, which often 

accompanies higher population densities, is not a 

concern until the late Archaic, at least in some 

areas of the Southwest. Because Paleoindian sites 

are datable primarily through diagnostic projectile 

points, although the presence of channel flakes 

and distinctive scrapers sometimes are used (Elyea 

et al. 1994:7), most of the sites identified are 

associated with hunting. Because of this, we do 

not have a good idea of the Paleoindian settlement 

system or the contribution of vegetal resources to 

the diet. Paleoindian points found in the Acoma 

timber sale survey on Cebollita Mesa are 

associated with playas and Rincon Hondo, 

locations consistent with Paleoindian sites 

elsewhere in the Southwest (Wozniak and 

Marshall 1991:4-2). Other Paleoindian sites are 

along the western edge of the North Plains and on 

a mesa in Armijo Canyon that overlooks the 

playas on the eastern edge of the North Plains 

(Elyea et al. 1994:7, 15). Portions of El Malpais 

near the North Plains may yield Paleoindian 

points, and reworked, curated points may be found 

on pueblo sites, as they are in the surrounding 

areas (Broster 1980; Elyea 1990). 

During the Archaic in the Southwest, the 

reliance on large game decreases and plant 

gathering increases. Partial dependence on 

cultigens by the late Archaic allows people to 

produce more calories per unit area and 

encourages more permanent residences (Wills and 

Huckell 1994:34). The more sedentary, later 
INTRODUCTION 11 

Archaic often is referred to as Basketmaker II 

(Elyea 1990:41). Most Archaic sites found in 

surveys near the monument are on landforms 

overlooking playas or drainages, or are associated 

with springs (Beal 1976:15; Broster and Harrill 

1982:82; Elyea etal 1994:20). 

Puebloan settlement behavior and land use in 

El Malpais may be linked in part to climate and 

population in the larger region, as outlined above 

for population dynamics. Dean's (1996) 

environmental and climatic stress periods as well 

as Grissino-Mayer et al.'s (1997) precipitation 

reconstructions serve as general guides to events 

on the Colorado Plateau and El Malpais National 

Monument in particular. We expect cultural 

responses to good and bad periods to filter down 

to the El Malpais area, especially when population 

on the Colorado Plateau is high and climate is 

good. 

Based on population growth around the 

monument and the two climatic reconstructions, 

we expect Puebloan use of the monument to be 

most intense between A.D. 900 and 1300. The 

heaviest use probably took place between A.D. 

1000 and 1250. during which time precipitation in 

the monument is above normal (Grissino-Mayer et 

al. 1997:Table 3) and population was at a peak in 

the Southwest as a whole. We expect the number 

of settlements along the edge of the lava to 

increase as population adjacent to the monument 

grows, and we expect more evidence for human 

activity inside the lava. With more people living 

and fanning at the edge of the lava, we expect 

habitation to extend to the kipukas. We also 

expect greater use of ice caves for domestic water, 

an increase in caves used as shrines and caches. 

the use of caves as bighorn sheep traps, and the 

development of trails linking the various sites and 

communities. 

Human use of the monument does not end 

with the withdrawal of population to Acoma 

Pueblo around A.D. 1325. Acoma residents 

continue to use shrines on the lava, and they graze 

cattle near the monument. Navajo residents who 

survived the 1863 to 1 868 incarceration at Bosque 

Redondo and returned to El Malpais kept caves 

stocked with provisions in case they needed to 

take refuge for long periods. The Navajo built 

homes and grazed sheep adjacent to the monument 

and used areas within the lava where sheep could 

graze while their owners remained hidden because 

they feared recapture. They also lived in hogans 

on the lava during especially cold winters because 

the lava was warmer (Willmer and Goodman 

1995). 

Interaction and Exchange 

Because of its position on the periphery of 

several culture areas, the spatial distribution of 

artifacts and architectural elements on El Malpais" 

landscape can inform us about the locations of 

these groups or communities and interaction 

between them. One goal of this project is to 

identify boundaries or transition zones in the 

distribution of ceramic types, lithic raw materials, 

and architectural styles. Boundaries or zones may 

reflect ethnic groups; however, ethnicity is 

difficult to substantiate, and usually the symbolism 

denoting ethnicity is subtler than artifact types 

(Vint 1999:408). 

Paleoindian and Archaic hunter-gatherers use 

a variety of lithic raw materials from sources fairly 

distant from El Malpais (Broster and Harrill 

1982). which probably reflect mobility rather than 

exchange. Early hunter-gatherers exploited large 

territories: and "fluid group composition, direct 

access to resources, and direct access to other 

human beings" (Cohen 1985:100) allowed high 

mobility. Paleoindian lithic raw materials 

represented on Cebollita Mesa include several 

non-local cherts, obsidian from the Polvadera and 

Jemez sources, and felsite from Sapello, New 

Mexico (Broster and Harrill 1982). Grants Ridge 

obsidian, from a nearby source, is not a common 

material among the Paleoindian points from 

Cebollita Mesa. In contrast, Archaic obsidian 

points from the mesa are predominantly Grants 

Ridge (Broster and Harrill 1982:82-84), which 

may indicate shrinking exploitation territories, less 

fluid group composition, and constraints on 

mobility. Most Middle Archaic projectile points 
12 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

in the Acoma area are Oshara tradition, but there 

is a mix of Oshara and Cochise points on later 

Archaic sites (Elyea 1990). 

We expect a shift in the use of local and nonlocal lithic materials during the Paleoindian to 

Archaic periods in response to changing types of 

game whose exploitation required different 

technologies. Increasing human population 

density and the adoption of agriculture should 

constrain mobility and affect social structure. 

Identifying the origins of lithic raw materials 

requires mapping local raw materials and chemical 

analyses of materials such as obsidian to identify 

sources. 

Increased population density and greater 

reliance on agriculture during the Puebloan 

occupation leads to a number of social changes. 

Puebloan populations are less mobile than huntergatherers because of their investment in 

agriculture and storage facilities, although 

movement is one of the first options chosen during 

stress periods if population density is low. 

Eventually, increasing population density leads to 

the occupation of more marginal environments, 

which introduces more risk into an already risky 

subsistence system. When movement is not an 

option for coping with subsistence shortfalls, 

social mechanisms become the primary means for 

buffering shortages (Halstead and O'Shea 1989; 

Hegmoii 1989). 

When population density is low and 

communities are small, one way to buffer risk is to 

gain access to a wider, more diverse territory 

through social connections with other populations 

(Habicht-Mauche 1993). Such a broad and open 

economic network allows people to hunt and 

gather in someone else's territory, adding 

necessary diversity to the subsistence system. 

Archeologically. participation in this kind of 

network is marked by a uniform ceramic style 

executed with local materials (Habicht-Mauche 

1993:88-89), a diversity of lithic raw materials, 

and similar architectural stvles. 

As population density increases in an area, 

larger aggregates form, and buffer zones often 

develop between communities to minimize 

competition for arable land (Habicht-Mauche 

1993; Kohler 1989; Orcutt et al. 1990). A network 

of competing entities is characterized by the 

production of locally distinctive ceramics and 

architectural elements. Ceramics are traded 

among those comprising the community or 

alliance. Access to desirable lithic and other raw 

materials is restricted to those in the alliance. 

These material expressions of separateness serve 

to mark and maintain social and geographic 

boundaries between the competing entities 

(Habicht-Mauche 1993:90-94). 

Rival groups may continue to compete, 

perpetuating an unstable social situation, or they 

may decide to form large, cooperative networks 

based on formalized, reciprocal arrangements 

(Habicht-Mauche 1993:94). Long-distance trade 

of regionally specialized products, such as 

ceramics, or of localized, highly desirable natural 

resources such as turquoise, holds the network 

together (Habicht-Mauche 1993:98). 

We might expect the early Puebloan 

occupation of El Malpais to be characterized by an 

open exchange network. Ceramic and 

architectural styles should be similar across a large 

area, and lithic raw materials should come from a 

diversity of sources. As population density 

increases, we expect greater distinction in 

ceramics and architecture between clusters of 

sites, and lithic raw material diversity should 

decrease. Ultimately, in the latter phases of 

occupation, we expect to see evidence for 

participation in much wider exchange networks, 

marked especially by the widespread distribution 

of a limited number of non-local ceramic types. 

Dittert and Ruppe describe differences in 

puebloan material culture between the Los Pilares 

(north) and Los Veteados (south) localities (Dittert 

1959). They interpret the presence of adobe 

architecture and abundance of brown ware in the 
INTRODUCTION 13 

south as evidence of Mogollon influence and 

possibly settlement in the area. 

Probable boundaries of ceramic exchange 

networks are evident in Armijo Canyon (Elyea et 

al. 1994) and Cebolla Canyon (Wozniak and 

Marshall 1991). Although the areas are close 

spatially, higher percentages of Mogollon Brown 

Ware in Armijo Canyon indicate the potential 

boundary of a southern exchange network (Wilson 

1994:64). Although the Phase I inventory did not 

cover 100 percent of the monument, broad geographic coverage eventually will allow us to map the 

frequencies of brown and other wares throughout 

the monument during different time periods. 

White Mountain Red Ware was probably 

traded into the El Malpais area and manufactured 

locally. Because of high frequencies in Cebolla 

Canyon, and the canyon's location within the 

Cibolan district. Marshall (1991:6-36) assumes 

White Mountain Red Ware Apes are local 

ceramics. Wilson (1994:64-65), however, 

considers them non-local, most likely 

manufactured to the west in the Little Colorado 

area. Schachner (see Chapter 5) suggests that 

much of the White Mountain Red Ware was 

probably produced locally after A.D. 1 100. 

Socorro Black-on-white, generally thought to 

have been manufactured to the east of the 

monument (see Chapter 5) (Wilson 1994:54), is 

found at sites in Cebolla and Armijo canyons 

(Marshall 1991:Table 6.9; Wilson 1994:Table 6). 

Socorro Black-on-white does not occur at all site 

types in Cebolla Canyon. Instead, it is 

concentrated at the Skull Site, a Pueblo II great 

house with massive walls, two stories. 10 large 

rooms, a blocked-in kiva, a great kiva. and 

aureola. Socorro Black-on-white also occurs in 

high proportions at Pueblo Cerrito, a Pueblo III 

site adjacent to the Skull Site (Marshall 1991:6-

41). Marshall (1991:6-35) states that the 

"irregular distribution indicates that the 

frequencies of Socorro Black-on-white are relative 

to other cultural factors" that should inform us 

about exchange networks with eastern (Rio 

Grande) groups. In the El Malpais survey, we are 

interested in whether Socorro Black-on-white is 

limited to specific site types, site sizes, or 

geographic areas. 

El Malpais is on the periphery of the San Juan 

Basin and was affected by developments in Chaco 

Canyon in the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth 

centuries. There are Chacoan-style great houses in 

the Cebolla Canyon (Wozniak and Marshall 

1991), Armijo Canyon (Elyea et al. 1994), and Las 

Ventanas (also known as the Candelaria Ruin) 

communities (Marshall et al. 1979), and in the 

smaller Cerritos de Jaspe community there are two 

large kivas identified as community structures 

(Marshall 1993). After the collapse of Chaco 

around A.D. 1 150, great houses continue to exist 

on the margins of the San Juan Basin, including 

the Cebollita Mesa area. Does the presence of the 

Chaco style buildings indicate that Chacoan 

residents established the sites, or does it signify 

local communities participating in a larger 

system? Most likely, this represents an example 

of the widespread influence of a regional center 

(Chaco Canyon) ""exporting" a product (great 

houses) that integrates a large area. If so, lithic 

raw materials and ceramic composition should 

reflect connections to the north when the great 

houses are in existence. 

El Malpais is situated between the historic 

Acoma and Zuni areas. The Ramah Navajo Indian 

Reservation is to the west of the monument, and 

the Ramah Navajo have lived in the area 

surrounding El Malpais since early historic times 

(Zedeno et al. 2001:123). All three groups, Zuni, 

Acoma, and Ramah Navajo, have oral traditions 

regarding the lava, and each maintains shrines and 

sacred sites within or around the monument 

(Holmes 1989; Zedeno et al. 2001). 

The existence of both historic and prehistoric 

trails on the lava is evidence of this use, and, at 

least with respect to prehistoric Puebloans, use of 

the trails may be an indication of interaction 

between local communities. In addition, trails are 

an aspect of settlement behavior because they 

provide a means for travelling between 

habitations, fields, ceremonial areas, and other 
14 EL MALPAIS ARCIIEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Table 1.1. El Malpais National Monument area. 

Land Categories 

Total Park Area (authorized) 

Area not under Park Jurisdiction 

Total Area (Inventory Sample Universe) 

Park Area 

Size (1 lectures) 

45.944.07 

1.541.84 

44.402.23 

Size (Acres) 

113.530.00 

3.810.00 

109.720.00 

Note: The total park area shown here is based on Geographic Information System (GIS) map data. National 

Park Service Land Resource plats for the park indicate a total of 109.606.5 acres within the legislated 

boundaries of the park. Although it is not evident which data set is the most accurate, all survey sampling 

calculations are based on the GIS map data. 

Table 1.2. El Malpais inventory sample composition. 

Sample Type 

Random Sample 

Judgmental Sample 

Priority Areas 1-4 

Other Areas (selected) 

Other Areas (not selected) 

Total judgmental 

Total Sample 

Size (I lectures) 

2.954.27 

3.427.00 

90.65 

610.23 

4.127.88 

7,082.15 

Sample 

Size (Acres) 

7,300 

8.468 

224 

1.508 

10,200 

17.500 

Composition 

Percent of Park 

6.6 

7.7 

0.2 

1.4 

9.3 

15.9 

Percent of Sample 

42 

48 

1 

9 

58 

100 

resource locations. The Acoma-Zuni Trail 

traverses the lava and may be the route Bandelier 

used to go from Cebollita Mesa to Zuni (Ireland 

1988:1). Segments of several trails were 

identified and recorded in 2001 and 2002. Tracing 

the extent of trails will contribute to the settlement 

behavior and exchange research domains. Trails 

may be difficult to date, which will limit temporal 

inferences regarding the flow of people or goods. 

Sampling Design 

With a total area of 459 km2 (177 mi2) El 

Malpais is. by almost any standard, a large park. 

Because nearly 80 percent of this area is lava, the 

terrain in much of the park is extremely rugged 

and presents serious challenges to pedestrian 

survey. Since a 100 percent survey of the park 

surface area will require decades of work, a goal 

well beyond the means of the current project, the 

El Malpais inventor},' has been designed as a 

sample inventory. Through investigation of a 

combination of probabilistic and judgmental 

sample areas, it will be possible to address both 

the research goals presented and the resource 

management needs of the park. Using estimates 

based on prior surveys with similar recording 

methods at Natural Bridges National Monument 

(McVickar 2001b) and Bandelier National 

Monument (Powers and Orcutt 1999), it was 

initially estimated that survey crews would be able 

to inventory a sample of between 6,070 and 7,082 

ha (15.000 and 17.500 acres) over five seasons. 

Based on the total survey coverage of 2.737 ha 

during Phase I, it appears likely that the larger. 

7,082 ha sample will be attainable, so all sample 

calculations presented here are based on this 

higher target. Excluding areas authorized for 

inclusion in the park, but which are not yet under 

National Park Service jurisdiction, the sample 

includes approximately 15.9 percent of current 

monument land (Tables 1.1 and 1.2). 

Of these 7.082 ha. approximately 2.954 ha 

(7300 acres) (42 percent) will be surveyed as part 

of a systematic random sample, resulting in a 6.6 

percent random, or probabilistic sample of the 

entire monument. The remaining 4.128 ha 

(10,200 acres) (58 percent) are composed of areas 

selected judgmentallv on the basis of management 
INTRODUCTION 15 

and logistical concerns, as well as contingencies 

encountered as the survey progresses (Table 1.2). 

Probabilistic samples are distinguished from 

judgmental samples based on the method of 

selection. Probabilistic samples are selected in 

such a way that each unit within the sampling 

strata (described below) has an equal probability 

of being selected. This type of sampling is the 

only statistically valid way of obtaining data that 

can be used to estimate the density and 

distribution of cultural resources within the 

sampled area. Judgmental samples were selected 

purposefully by park and project staff. These units 

cannot be used for statistical estimation, but are 

important for meeting logistical and management 

needs, as well as providing non-statistical 

descriptive data pertinent to the research goals. 

The strategy used for selecting both types of 

samples will now be described in more detail. 

The Probabilistic Sample 

The purpose of the El Malpais probabilistic 

sample is to provide data necessary to estimate the 

density and distribution of cultural resources 

within the monument and to relate these estimates 

to the research domains. The random sample can 

be described as a disproportional stratified random 

sample. It uses geographical strata that are 

divided into arbitrary sample blocks based on a 

500-by-500-meter grid system imposed on the 

monument surface. The geographic strata 

boundaries and the overlying grid system are 

shown in Figure 1.7. The selection of survey areas 

in the probabilistic sample was accomplished by 

sequentially numbering the arbitrary 500-by-500-

meter grid squares within each stratum, then 

selecting randomly the number of squares 

necessary to add up to the sample area total chosen 

for that survey sector. 

Survey Sectors 

Because of the long period of time and 

funding necessary to complete even a 15.9 percent 

sample, the monument was divided into five 

roughly equal sectors (Figure 1.7), which would 

be sampled sequentially, based on their priority. 

Thus, if the sample of the monument was begun 

but not completed, those sectors that were finished 

would still have a valid probabilistic sample that 

could be used to make inferences about the density 

and distribution of cultural resources in that sector 

of the monument. Survey priority was based on 

management concerns, such as identifying and 

protecting sites in prescribed burn and heavy 

visitation areas. Consideration was also given to 

the difficulties of surveying in extremely rough 

terrain of relatively recent lava flows. Based on 

these factors, the strata within each sector were 

sampled in proportion to the overall management 

importance of the sector. 

Survey Strata 

The strata utilized in the random sample 

design are defined by geological differences and 

levels of accessibility. The criteria for recognizing 

the strata are identical across the five sectors 

discussed above. The defining criteria of each 

stratum are described in order of the total area 

covered by each stratum. The acreage for each 

stratum within each sector is presented in Table 

1.3. Figure 1.8 shows the spatial extent of each 

sampling stratum. 

Open Lava 

The largest area of the park is malpais, or 

"open lava." This area was subdivided based on 

the presence of three major geologically recent 

lava flows: the Bandera flow in the north, the 

Hova de Cibola flow in the southwest, and the 

McCartys flow in the east. Each of these flows 

was sampled at approximately 2 to 3 percent of 

their respective surface areas. The sample 

percentage selected for this stratum is low because 

of the large total area covered by lava, as well as 

the logistical difficulties of reaching and surveying 

sample blocks in this extremely rough terrain. 

Combined, the three open-lava strata within the 

five sectors comprise 17.6 percent of the total 

random sample. 
16 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Figure 1.7. El Malpais National Monument showing survey strata, random sample 

grid, and survey sectors. 
z 

—i 

a 

a 

n 

— i 

c 

z 

- J 

ELMA Sampling 

Strata 

Open lava 

McCartys 

Bandera 

Iloyas de 

Cibola 

1 km buffer 

McCartys 

Bandera 

1 loyas de 

Cibola 

Non lava 

Old lava 

(west) 

Sedimentary 

deposits 

(east) 

Kipukas 

(exterior) 

Kipukas(open 

lava) 

Lava Tube/ Ice 

Cave 

Totals 

Ilectares 

2.355 

734 

737 

1.557 

70.3 

266 

1.511 

787 

177 

86 

. 

8.913 

Sector 1 

Percent 

sampled 

2.1 

3.7 

3.5 

5.1 

4.1 

3.4 

15.1 

16.4 

36.7 

16.3 

. 

7.4 

1lectares 

to be 

sampled 

50 

27 

26 

80 

29 

9 

228 

129 

65 

14 

657 

1lectares 

-

1,181 

173 

-

2.938 

693 

4.461 

. 

72 

9.518 

Sector 2 

Percent 

sampled 

-

2.1 

12.7 

-

5.3 

6.5 

15.1 

. 

40.3 

. 

10.0 

I lectares 

to be 

sampled 

-

25 

22 

-

157 

45 

675 

. 

29 

. 

953 

1lectares 

5.637 

1.686 

_ 

2.254 

235 

1 14 

. 

266 

76 

7 

. 

1.0275 

Sector 3 

Percent 

sampled 

2.1 

3.0 

m 

5.2 

11.5 

23.7 

_ 

16.5 

56.6 

100.0 

4.2 

1lectares 

to be 

sampled 

121 

50 

. 

117 

27 

27 

_ 

44 

43 

7 

436 

Ilectares 

-

-

4.388 

-

-

2.086 

732 

142 

18 

7.366 

Sector 4 

Percent 

sampled 

-

-

2.1 

-

-

4.9 

16.4 

52.8 

100.0 

5.5 

Ilectares 

to be 

sampled 

-

-

94 

-

-

102 

120 

75 

18 

409 

1lectares 

4.889 

-

. 

1.719 

-

451 

101 

1.151 

22 

3 

8.336 

Sector 5 

Percent 

sampled 

2.1 

-

_ 

5.4 

-

8.2 

25.7 

14.5 

36.4 

100.0 

5.2 

Ilectares 

to be 

sampled 

105 

-

. 

92 

-

37 

26 

167 

8 

3 

438 

Monument 

whole 

Total 

hectares 

sampled 

276 

102 

142 

289 

213 

220 

1.049 

340 

191 

71 

61 

2.954 

Table 1.3. Probabilistic sampling design strata and hectare estimates for El Malpais National Monument. 
18 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Figure 1.8. El Malpais National Monument survey strata. 
INTRODUCTION 19 

One-kilometer Buffer 

This stratum consists of open lava within one 

kilometer of the lava edge. Similar to the open 

lava, the one-kilometer-buffer stratum contains 

portions of the Bandera. Hoya de Cibola, and 

McCartys Bows and is subdivided accordingly. 

The portions of these flows within the onekilometer-buffer are sampled at approximately 5 

to 6 percent of their areas due to the greater 

probability of access by both ancient and modern 

people, in contrast to areas in the more interior 

portions of the malpais. Together, these sub-strata 

within the five sectors comprise 24.5 percent of 

the total random sample. 

Non-lava and Old Lava 

The strata receiving the highest survey priority 

are areas on the margins of the more recent 

volcanic flows. These areas were broken into two 

substrata for random sampling based on geological 

characteristics. The non-lava stratum is composed 

of areas on the east side of El Malpais that are 

Cretaceous sedimentary deposits (primarily 

Dakota Sandstone and Mancos Shale) and 

Quaternary aeolian and alluvial deposits. The oldlava stratum consists of western areas that are 

geologically old lava flows (Twin Craters flow in 

the north and unspecified "Old basalt flows" in the 

southwest [Maxwell 1986]) that are covered with 

aeolian deposits and weathered until the roughness 

of the lava is significantly reduced. Each stratum 

was sampled at approximately 15 percent of its 

total area. These two substrata account for 47 

percent of the total random sample area. 

Kipukas 

Kipakas. or areas within lava flows that were 

not covered by the flow, are also important areas 

for random sampling. Two kipuka strata were 

defined. The first consists of kipukas with areas 

larger than 2 ha (5 acres) that are within open- and 

old-lava areas. The second stratum consists of 

"exterior" kipukas with areas larger than 2 ha that 

are within the one-kilometer lava perimeter. 

Approximately 43 percent of the total kipuka 

stratum was selected for sampling. This stratum 

accounts for approximately 9 percent of the total 

random sample area. 

Lava tube/Ice cave system 

The lava tube systems were randomly sampled 

based on the number of ice cave openings, rather 

than on the number of hectares composing the 

tube systems. This was necessary because of the 

difficulty of estimating the sizes and the locations 

of the poorly mapped underground tube systems 

and defining lava tube sample units. Given these 

constraints, the tube systems were sampled 

differently. After excluding ice cave openings 

falling outside of the monument boundary, 

openings were grouped by lava tube system. The 

tube systems include: El Calderon. Twin Craters. 

Rendija. Hoya de Cibola, and Lava Crater, in 

addition to the Zuni Cave, eastern Cerro Rendija. 

Anasazi Cave, Navajo Cave, and Outlaw Cave 

sections of the Bandera System. Each system was 

sampled in proportion to the number of known 

openings in the system, resulting in a 10 percent 

sample of all cave openings within park 

boundaries. Forty-nine ice cave openings were 

selected as part of the random sample. No 

estimate of the number of hectares that will be 

included from the ice cave stratum is possible, but 

approximately 61 ha (151 acres) were reserved to 

accommodate these areas. 

The Judgmental Sample 

The second and largest portion of the 

inventory sample was selected judgmentally. The 

major considerations determining placement of 

judgmental survey blocks were monument 

management concerns. Foremost of these, was 

the need to obtain inventors data from high site 

density areas with relatively high visitation and 

possible related visitor impacts. The Las Ventanas 

Ruin (LA 1328) and Sandstone Bluffs areas along 

the northeastern perimeter of the park are prime 

examples of this type of area. Collection of 

archeological site data within fire management 
20 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

units and in wildland/urban interface zones was 

also viewed as critical. In order to integrate these 

requirements into the survey sample, four large 

areas of management concern, termed "priority 

areas." were defined and numbered in priority 

order. Both the random sample units selected for 

survey and the four priority areas are shown in 

Figure 1.9. Priority Area I encompasses the Las 

Ventanas and Sandstone Bluff areas along State 

Highway 117. Priority Areas 2 and 3 include 

areas of moderate site density and high public 

visitation that also fall within high priority burn 

units and wildland/urban interface zones. Priority 

Area 4 combines moderate to low site densities 

with moderate public visitation. These areas, 

which in some cases overlap randomly selected 

sample units, total 3.427 ha (8,468 acres), after the 

random acreage is subtracted (Table 1.2). Two 

smaller areas of management concern. Two 

Kipuka and McCartys Crater and its access trail 

(nearly 91 ha), were also included as part of the 

judgmental sample. An additional 610 ha (1.508 

acres) of the judgmental sample were held in 

reserve to 1111 in gaps between random and 

judgmental survey blocks and to allow selection of 

additional areas based on new information 

obtained during the course of the project. The 

total judgmental sample area is 4.128 ha (10.200 

acres). 

The Phase I Survey Sample 

In response to park management needs and 

priorities, virtually all the areas surveyed during 

Phase I of the project, random and judgmental 

alike, lie within the northeast and northwest 

portions of the park (Figure 1.10). These areas fall 

within Sectors 1 and 2 of the random sample, and 

Priority Areas 1, 2. and 3 of the judgmental 

sample. Unfortunately, due to a variety of 

competing management needs, higher site 

densities in the Sandstone Bluffs and Las 

Ventanas areas, and difficult field logistics, none 

of the sector or priority area samples were 

completely surveyed. Although all but a few 

portions of the Priority Area 1 sample were 

surveyed, much of the Sector 1 random sample 

remains unsurveyed. Substantial portions of 

Priority Areas 2 and 3 were surveyed, and over 

half of the Sector 2 random sample was 

completed. A small judgmental area in Priority 

Area 4. portions of several random sample units in 

Sector 4. and a single random sample unit in 

Sector 3 were also surveyed. No survey was 

conducted at random sample units in Sector 5. 

As shown in Table 1.4. at total of 2.737 ha 

(6.763 acres) were surveyed during Phase I. 

Because the survey goal for Phase I of the project 

was to .survey 2.833 ha (7.000 acres), the survey 

fell 96 ha (237 acres) short of attaining this goal. 

The total area surveyed so far is 39 percent of the 

overall project sample. Further examination of 

Table 1.4 shows that 25 percent of the Phase I 

sample is drawn from random sample areas, while 

the remaining 75 percent is from judgmental areas. 

Since random sample units compose 42 percent of 

the overall sample, and judgmental units. 58 

percent, it is clear that Phase I survey heavily 

favored judgmental areas at the expense of random 

sample units. Much of this imbalance is due to the 

survey of 760 judgmental hectares (1.877 acres) 

that were not included in the original priority areas 

but were later added at the request of park 

management to meet fire management and other 

environmental compliance requirements. Since 

only 610 judgmental hectares (1.508 acres) were 

reserved for later addition, and that amount has 

already been exceeded, some future adjustment of 

the inventory sample will be necessary. 

Potentially, currently unsurveyed judgmental areas 

in the priority areas can be deleted to compensate 

for judgmental areas already surveyed outside the 

priority areas. 

Within the 2.737 ha surveyed, a total of 306 

archeological sites were identified, for a density of 

I site per 8.94 ha (1 site per 22.1 acres). Three 

hundred and sixty-nine isolated occurrences were 

also identified. A breakdown of the Phase I 

sample into its random, priority, and other 

judgmental components provides a more detailed 

sense of the areas surveyed. As shown in Table 

1.5. a total of 87 sites (28 percent of the 306 sites 
INTRODUCTION 21 

Figure 1.9. El Malpais National Monument survey sample showing random sample 

units and Priority Areas 1 through 4. 
22 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Figure 1.10. EI Malpais National Monument Phase I sample showing random and 

priority areas surveyed. 
INTRODUCTION 23 

Table 1.4. Total area and percent surveyed during Phase I. 

Sample Type 

Random Sample 

Judgmental Sample 

Priority Areas 1 and 2 

Other (unseleeted) 

dotal Sample 

Area Surveyed 

(Hectares) 

692.2 

1.285.3 

760 

2.737.5" 

Area Surveyed 

(Aeres) 

1.710.3 

3.176.0 

1.877.1 

6.763.4 

Percent of Phase 1 

Sample 

25 

47 

28 

100 

Percent of Target 

Sample Surveyed 

23 

37 

132 

39 

An estimated 20 hectares (50 acres) of subterranean ice cave openings and lava tubes were surveyed. Phis 

estimated area is not included in the total sample area. .Also not included in this total are an additional 149 hectares 

(368 acres) that were surveyed outside the park boundaries either due to difficulties identifying sample boundaries in 

two units or bv agreement with the Bureau of Land Management in order to evaluate lire impacts associated with the 

Cherry Fire of 2002. 

per 5.5 ha), although the non-lava sample is also 

small. Old-lava and one-kilometer-buffer area site 

densities range from .09 to .12 sites per hectare. 

Generally comparable site densities per hectare are 

indicated for these strata in both the judgmental 

Priority Area and other area samples. 

Field Survey and Site Recording 

Methods 

All areas selected for survey were 

systematically covered by the pedestrian transect 

method. An entire four or five person crew 

traversed the landscape as a single unit with 

individuals walking at intervals of 10 to 15 m. 

Spacing between surveyors varied with 

topography and vegetation, but since much of El 

Malpais" surface area is lava, relatively close 

spacing was maintained much of the time to allow 

identification of small or unobtrusive sites or 

artifacts hidden by the uneven surface of the lava. 

Beginning and end points of the survey unit, 

as well as the strip covered by each traverse were 

marked with flagging tape or pin flags. When the 

end of the transect was reached, the crew pivoted 

and returned in the opposite direction, using the 

flags marking the outer edge of the first transect as 

a guide for the inner boundary of the second. The 

crew member on the outer edge of the new 

transect laid a new flag line, which in turn marked 

the inside edge of the third transect. During 2001 

and 2002, Global Positioning System (GPS) units 

were also used for navigation along sample unit 

recorded) were recorded in random sample units 

for an overall density of .13 sites per hectare. A 

total of 1 1 7 (38 percent) sites were documented in 

the judgmentally selected Priority Areas for a site 

density of .09 sites per hectare (Table 1.6), and the 

remaining 102 (33 percent) sites were discovered 

in the other judgmental areas where a site density 

of .13 sites per hectare was obtained ("Table 1.7). 

Interestingly, the judgmental ly selected Priority 

Areas and other judgmental areas, which might be 

presumed biased towards higher site density areas, 

have comparable site densities to those of the 

random sample units. 

Further examination of Tables 1.5, 1.6, and 

1.7 shows that almost all survey in Phase 1 

occurred within the one-kilometer-buffer and oldlava and non-lava strata. A small amount of 

survey was conducted in kipuka and open-lava 

areas, but most of the sample within the interior 

portions of El Malpais awaits future survey. 

Twelve of the 49 randomly selected ice cave 

openings were also surveyed. and all 

undocumented cave openings within the survey 

areas were investigated." Looking in more detail at 

the random sample, the density of sites per hectare 

is low across all strata (Table 1.5). with exterior 

lava kipukas showing the highest site density (.45 

sites per hectare or 1 site per 2.1 ha). This 

relatively high density may be a product of the 

small kipuka sample. Unsurprisingly, non-lava 

areas on the east perimeter of El Malpais, which 

include the Las Ventanas community, also exhibit 

a higher site density (.19 sites per hectare or 1 site 
Table 1.5. Random sample areas showing stratum size, target sample, areas surveyed, number of sites and site density. 

Sample Strata 

Open Lava 

McCartys 

Bandera 

lloyas de Cibola 

One kilometer Buffer 

McCartys 

Bandera 

1 loyas de Cibola 

Old and Non Lava 

Old Lava (West) 

Non Lava (Last) 

Kipukas 

Exterior Lava 

Open Lava 

LavaTube/Ice Cave 

Totals 

Stratum 

Size 

(hectares) 

21.780 

12.881 

3.601 

5.298 

13.016 

5.530 

3.876 

3.610 

9.009 

6.805 

2.204 

600 

417 

183 

Unknown 

44.405 

Target 

Sample Size 

(hectares) 

520 

276 

lo2 

142 

722 

289 

213 

220 

1.389 

1.049 

340 

202 

191 

71 

61 

2.954 

Target 

Sample 

Percent 

2 

2 

3 

3 

5 

5 

5 

6 

15 

15 

15 

43 

46 

39 

-

6.6 

Phase 1 Area 

Surveyed 

(hectares) 

-

-

-

-

177 

22 

155 

-

482 

386 

96 

33 

33 

-

• >•'• 

692 

Percent of 

Target Sample 

Surveyed 

-

-

-

-

25 

8 

73 

-

35 

37 

28 

13 

17 

-

-

23 

Number of 

Units Surveyed 

-

-

-

-

8 

1 

7 

-

32 

25 

7 

8 

8 

-

-

48 

Number of 

Sites 

-

-

-

-

18 

0 

18 

-

54 

36 

18 

15 

15 

-

-

87 

Density of Sites 

(per hectare) 

-

-

-

-

0.10 

0.00 

0.12 

-

0.11 

0.09 

0.19 

0.45 

0.45 

-

-

0.13 

4-

m 

-

wj 

> 

T. 

> 

73 

n 

x 

-

-

c o 

n 

> — 

-

'A total of 12 previously documented ice cave openings and lava tubes were surveyed as part of the Phase I random sample. 
INTRODUCTION 25 

Table 1.6 Judgmental sample (Priority Areas) showing stratum size, areas surveyed, number of sites 

and site density. 

Priority Area Strata 

Open Lava 

McCartys 

Bandera 

Hoyas de Cibola 

One kilometer Buffer 

McCartys 

Bandera 

Hoyas de Cibola 

Old and New Lava 

Old Lava (West) 

Non Lava (Last) 

Kipukas 

Exterior Lava 

Open Lava 

Lava Tube/Ice Cave 

Totals 

Total Stratum Size 

within Priority 

Areas (hectares) 

112 

0 

6 

Kid 

253 

15 

63 

175 

3.021 

1.486 

1.535 

41 

0 

41 

. 

3.427 

Phase I Area 

Surveyed 

(hectares) 

19 

-

-

19 

141 

5 

6 

130 

1.124 

681 

443 

1 

-

1 

9 

1.285 

Percent of 

Stratum Surveyed 

17 

-

-

18 

56 

33 

9 

74 

37 

46 

29 

2 

-

2 

-

37 

Number of 

Sites 

2 

-

-

2 

2 

1 

1 

0 

113 

40 

73 

0 

-

o 

-

117 

Density of Sites 

(per hectare) 

0.10 

-

-

0.10 

0.01 

0.20 

0.17 

0.00 

0.10 

0.06 

0.16 

0.00 

-

0.00 

-

0.09 

Table 1.7. Other judgmental sample areas showing area surveyed, number 

of sites and site density. 

Other Area Strata 

Open Lava 

McCartvs 

Bandera 

Hoyas de Cibola 

One kilometer Buffer 

McCartvs 

Bandera 

Hoyas de Cibola 

Old and Non Lava 

Old Lava (West) 

Non Lava (Last) 

Kipukas 

Exterior Lava 

Open Lava 

Lava Tube/Ice Cave 

Totals 

Phase 1 Area 

Surveyed (hectares) 

-

1 

0 

0 

174 

117 

38 

19 

581 

472 

109 

4 

4 

0 

9 

760 

Number of Sites 

0 

0 

0 

0 

24 

8 

16 

0 

78 

51 

27 

0 

0 

0 

-

102 

Density of Sites 

(per hectare) 

-

-

-

-

0.14 

0.07 

0.42 

0.00 

0.13 

0.11 

0.25 

0.00 

0.00 

-

-

0.13 
26 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

and transect boundaries, instead of a flag line. 

This technique was particularly helpful for 

identifying the boundaries of random sample units. 

In most instances sites and isolated occurrences 

were recorded as soon as they were identified in 

the transect. 

Both sites and isolated occurrences were 

recognized and recorded by the survey. Sites were 

defined as 10 or more artifacts with or without a 

feature or a feature with or without artifacts. The 

boundary of a site was established when the 

distance between surface artifacts reached 20 m or 

more. Isolated occurrences were defined as single 

artifacts (projectile points, lithic tools, manuports. 

pot drops) or isolated minor features (cairns). The 

absence of additional materials within a 20-meter 

radius around an isolated artifact or feature was 

necessary for the item to be identified as an 

isolate. An isolated occurrence form, describing 

the location, environmental setting, and attributes 

of the feature or artifact, was completed for each 

occurrence. Each isolated occurrence was 

positioned using a hand-held GPS unit. Most 

occurrences were also photographed. 

When cultural remains were identified as a 

site, the site boundary and feature locations 

(including architectural, non-architectural, and 

refuse features) were marked with pin flags. A 

site form designed for the El Malpais inventory 

was completed for each site (See Appendix 1 for 

examples of site recording forms used during the 

2002 season). The site form includes sections for 

recording site classification, location, previous 

investigations, environment and setting, site 

condition, impacts and threats. National Register 

eligibility, site area and deposit types, dating 

potential, architectural and non-architectural 

feature attributes. artifact assemblage 

characteristics, and artifact scatter and artifact 

sampling attributes. An aluminum site stake, 

which also functioned as a mapping datum point, 

bearing the temporary El Malpais site number 

(ELMA ####) was driven into the ground or 

wedged in a lava crevice on each site. Each site 

has also been assigned a permanent Laboratory of 

Anthropology (LA) number as shown in Appendix 

2. 

The position of each site was determined 

using Trimble Geoexplorer 3 GPS units. At small 

sites a single GPS position marking the location of 

the site datum stake was taken; at larger sites both 

the datum point and the perimeter of the site were 

recorded with the GPS unit. To establish each 

GPS position, approximately 120 points were 

taken and then differentially corrected and 

averaged in order to pinpoint the position. For 

immediate field purposes, approximate site 

locations and boundaries were marked on enlarged 

( 1 " = 12,000") topographic maps. Permanent site 

locations and site locational maps, including those 

in this report, have been generated using the 

corrected GPS file data. At least one black-andwhite photograph showing prominent site features 

was taken at each site, and at many sites, multiple 

photographs were taken to record visible 

architectural and non-architectural features. At 

sites with highly representative or visually striking 

features, color slides were also taken at the 

discretion of the crew chief. A scale compass and 

tape/pace map of each site, showing all features, 

scatters, and sample areas, was also prepared. 

During the 2000 and 2001 field seasons, 

individual maps of some complex or large features 

were prepared in addition to the overall site map. 

Most sites displayed prehistoric and/or historic 

artifacts. In 2000 and 2001, if fewer than 200 

sherds and 200 lithics were present, all artifacts 

were analyzed. In 2002, the goal was to analyze at 

least 200 sherds and 1 percent of the lithics in a 

sample area. At prehistoric sites with both 

ceramics and lithics. an initial sample of both 

artifact types, called the core sample, was taken 

from a single area to allow direct comparison of 

the frequency and density of ceramic and lithic 

artifacts. Supplemental samples were taken as 

necessary to add artifacts of one type or another if 

minimum sample numbers were not attained in the 

core area. At large or complex sites with multiple 

refuse features, core and supplemental samples 
INTRODUCTION 27 

were taken from as many features as necessary to 

accurately represent temporal and functional 

diversity within the site. In general, the relatively 

small numbers of surface artifacts at most sites 

precluded the need to sample. On sites that were 

sampled, lithic analysts carefully examined the 

remaining, unsampled areas of the site to identity 

and analyze all visible chipped and ground-stone 

tools. 

The same procedures applied to historic cans, 

glass, ceramic, and miscellaneous artifacts, using 

forms designed for each category of artifacts. All 

items in each sample area were analyzed in the 

field, and once the analysis was complete, items 

were replaced as closely as possible to their 

original position within the sample unit. In 

general, a no-collection policy was followed. 

As noted above, all recording forms used were 

designed specifically for the El Malpais inventory 

in order to capture data in a format best suited to 

addressing the research design questions. 

Additional data fields not needed for park research 

or management purposes were added to ensure 

that all data required for the State of New 

Mexico's Cultural Resources Information System 

(NMCRIS) and the National Park Service's 

Archeological Sites Management Information 

System (ASMIS) were collected. Because the 

State of New Mexico requires paper copies of the 

NMCRIS forms, archeological site data from the 

project data base have been transcribed onto 

NMCRIS site record forms. ASMIS data are 

selected from the project data base and submitted 

to the ASMIS data base electronically. 

Site Classification and Provenience 

Hierarchy 

Since sites identified by the El Malpais survey 

are defined on the basis of the spatial extent of 

features and artifacts, several sets of overlapping 

cultural remains are often present within a single 

site. These features and artifacts often represent 

more than one culture and therefore may include 

several culturally or temporally distinguishable 

occupations. In order to classify the materials 

found at each site culturally and temporally, and to 

identify the relationships between site features, a 

site classification and provenience hierarchy is 

used to structure the recording and sampling 

process at each site (figure 1.11). 

At every site the culturc(s) or cultural 

affiliations represented by visible features are 

identified and categorized as being representative 

of one or more of eight cultural or ethinc 

affiliations. At El Malpais. these cultural 

affiliations are: Archaic. Basketmaker II. 

Pucbloan. Native American. Euroamerican. 

Historic Unknown. Hispanic, and Unknown. 

Determination of affiliation is generally based on 

the presence of diagnostic ceramics, historic 

artifacts, or projectile point styles, although in 

some cases identifications arc based on 

architectural attributes or on ethnicity inferred 

from a name inscription. 

For each set of features with a common 

cultural affiliation, one or more temporal 

components arc also present. The component is 

defined as the group of structural or refuse 

features of a single cultural affiliation that can be 

dated to a specific time interval by their 

association with dated artifacts. For example, at a 

site with Archaic and Puebloan features and 

artifacts, at least two components, one Archaic and 

one Puebloan. are present. If temporal differences 

arc identifiable within the Puebloan materials, 

additional components are defined. For example. 

Puebloan materials consisting of a pueblo with a 

refuse scatter dating to A.D. 900 to 1050 will 

compose one component, while a sherd scatter 

dating to A.D. 1150 to 1200 will form another 

(Figure 1.11). 

For each component defined, a component 

type designation is also assigned. At El Malpais. 

32 component types ranging from presumed 

habitation components such as great house, 

pueblo, and homestead to special use components 

such as prehistoric camp, ceramic scatter, or 

animal husbandry features were assigned. Since 
CO 

SITE 

(ELMA XXXX) 

ANY CLUSTER OF CULTURAL REMAINS CONSISTING OF 10 

OR MORE ARTIFACTS OR ONE OR MORE FEATURES WITH 

OR WITHOUT ARTIFACTS MAY INCLUDE SPATIALLY RELATED 

MATERIALS OF DIFFERENT CULTURES AND TIME PERIODS. 

CULTURAL AFFILIATION ARCHAIC 

COMPONENT NUMBER (COMPONENT 1) 

I 

COMPONENT TYPE LITHIC SCATTER 

COMPONENT DATE (3500-1500 B.P.) 

PUEBLO 

I 

(COMPONENT 2) 

I 

PUEBLO 

I 

(AD. 900-1050) 

COMPONENT: ALL FEATURES (STRUCTURAL AND REFUSE) OF THE SAME 

CULTURAL AFFILIATION AND TIME PERIOD IN THIS EXAMPLE 

THREE COMPONENT TYPES ARE PRESENT. THE PUEBLO 

COMPONENTS HAVE THE SAME CULTURAL AFFILIATION BUT 

ARE DISTINGUISHED BY FEATURES OF DIFFERENT AGES. 

PUEBLO 

(COMPONENT 3) 

SHERD SCATTER 

(AD. 1150-1200) 

FEATURE TYPE 

AND NUMBER 

LITHIC 

SCATTER 1 

LITHIC 

SCATTER 2 HEARTH 1 PUEBLO 1 REFUSE SCATTER 1 

FEATURES: INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURAL OR REFUSE FEATURES COMPOSING 

COMPONENTS 

SHERD SCATTER 1 

NOT ASSOCIATED ASSOCIATED 

ASSOCIATION: SPATIAL AND/OR PRESUMED FUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIP 

BETWEEN FEATURES. IN THIS EXAMPLE THE PUEBLO. HEARTH AND 

REFUSE SCATTER ARE JUDGED ASSOCIATED BASED ON CLOSE 

PHYSICAL PROXIMITY AND CONTEMPORANEOUS SURFACE 

CERAMICS ALTHOUGH THE ARCHAIC LITHIC SCATTERS HAVE 

BEEN PLACED IN THE SAME LATE ARCHAIC COMPONENT THEY 

LACK SUFFICIENT DIAGNOSTIC MATERIAL TO INDICATE A 

FUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIP. 

m 

r S 

> 

r 

> 

> 

73 

n 

-r 

r-i 

O 

r 

c 

o 

n 

> 

r 

t/j 

G 

Figure 1.11. Example of site classification and provenience hierarchy. 

SITE: 
INTRODUCTION 29 

most components recorded by the survey include a 

variety of individual features, the dominant 

structural feature at a component is used to 

establish the component designation. For 

example, a component including a pueblo and a 

refuse scatter is assigned the component type 

pueblo, based on the assumption that the refuse 

scatter and any other, lesser, associated features 

such as cists, hearths, or a trail were created as a 

result of the occupation of the pueblo. Lesser 

component types are assigned only in the absence 

of a dominant feature. Thus, a component 

consisting of a trail, cairns, and a thermal feature 

would receive the type designation trail, again 

based on the assumption that the lesser features 

arc present due to the use of the trail. 

Lithic/ceramic scatter, as well as other types of 

refuse features, became component types only in 

the absence of structural features. 

After component types are identified, the final 

step in the site classification process is to identify 

associations between the various structural 

features and refuse features making up a 

component. Although a cultural and temporal 

relationship between features is assumed by virtue 

of being placed in the same component, 

associations are used to identify closer physical or 

functional relationships between some features. 

For example, at a component with a pueblo, a 

hearth, and a refuse scatter, the pueblo, refuse 

scatter, and hearth are coded as being associated in 

order to indicate that all three features are close to 

each other, have ceramics of the same date, and 

are presumed to have been used by the occupants 

of the pueblo. In comparison, two lithic scatters in 

the Archaic component at the same hypothetical 

site, are not identified as associated because they 

are physically separate and because neither is 

well-dated (Figure 1.11). 

To summarize the site classification and 

provenience hierarchy, each site has three 

provenience levels: the whole site, one or more 

components within the site, and one or more 

features within each component. The site includes 

all materials identified and may consist of 

archeological materials of one or more cultural 

affiliations and time periods. Each cultural 

affiliation and time period defines a separate 

component. Each component is composed of 

features and artifacts of only one cultural 

affiliation and time period. Each component is 

also given a type name indicating the dominant 

feature present. Within the component, 

associations may be identified between individual 

features with close spatial and functional 

relationships. In the analyses presented in the 

following chapters, components are the primary 

analytical unit, unless otherwise noted. 

1

 Dittert (1949. 1959) and Ruppe (1953. 1966) use the 

older, now uncommon spelling of Cebolleta with two e"s. 

Since current United States Geological Survey maps render 

Cebollita with an i. the latter spelling has been used when 

referring to geographic place names in the El Malpais area. 

Dittert and Ruppe's original spelling has been retained for 

phase names, pottery types, and other archeological usages 

established by their research. 

2

 Survey coverage of cave areas was generally limited to 

the cave opening, or if a site extended inward from the 

opening, to the area of the site. Intact, ""dark zone" lava tube 

sections were not systematically surveyed due to the difficulty 

of the tube terrain, presence of branching tunnels, and our 

lack of technical equipment and training. Tube systems were 

generally explored, but because of the difficulties just 

mentioned, coverage was less than systematic. Because we 

did not map cave openings and tube systems lacking sites, it 

is difficult to estimate the total area of these features, but our 

sense is that the total underground area examined is less than 

20 ha (50 acres). 
Environmental and Cultural Background 

Janet D. Or cut t, Janet L. Mc Vickar, and J. David Kilby 

The environmental and cultural background of 

the El Malpais area is described in this chapter. 

Environmental elements discussed include 

physiography and geology, soils, hydrology, 

vegetation, fauna, climate, and paleoclimate. A 

brief history of archeological investigations is 

presented, and the culture history of the area is 

reviewed. 

Physiography and Geology 

El Malpais is part of the southern Colorado 

Plateau at the southern periphery of the San Juan 

Basin (Wozniak and Marshall 1991:2-1). It is on 

the east side of the Zuni Uplift, a northwesterly 

trending anticline extending roughly 121 km (75 

miles). The flanks and crest of the uplift are 

gently warped, resulting in a stepped series of axes 

rather than a single crest (Kelley 1955). The 

Acoma Embayment, an uplifted and folded area 

dipping slightly southwest, borders the eastern 

edge of the Zuni Uplift (Kelley 1955). El Malpais 

National Monument straddles the Zuni Uplift and 

Acoma Embayment. Elevation in the monument 

ranges from approximately 2,112 to 2,560 m 

(6,600 to 8,400 feet). 

The lava flows comprising the monument and 

conservation area extend approximately 64 km (40 

miles) south of Grants and range from 8 to 24 km 

(5 to 15 miles) wide. Volcanic activity began 

700.000 years ago. although the most prominent 

flows date from 100.000 to 3.000 years ago (Eury 

1997:5). The malpais was formed by 

approximately 15 flows, although very little 

remains of the oldest ones that have been covered 

by younger flows over the last 100,000 years. 

The McCartys Flow in the eastern third of the 

monument is the youngest and dates to about 

3.200 to 3,600 years ago (Laughlin and 

WoldeGabriel 1997:26-27) (Figure 2.1). The Bandera Flow, dating to ca. 10,000 to 11,000 years 

ago, covers the upper west to central part of the 

monument (Laughlin and WoldeGabriel 1997:27) 

(Figure 2.2). The Lava Crater and Twin Craters 

Flows are in the northern part of the monument 

and date to 16,000 to 19,000 years ago (Cascadden 

et ah 1997:53; Laughlin and WoldeGabriel 

1997:27). The Hoya de Cibola Flow, covering the 

southwestern part of the monument, occurred 

50.000 years ago (Laughlin and WoldeGabriel 

1997:26-28). The El Calderon Flow, in the north, 

occurred approximately 90,000 to 100,000 years 

ago (Laughlin and WoldeGabriel 1997:28). 

Volcanic eruptions generally produce two 

types of lava flows. One produces a fluid, "ropy" 

lava called pahoehoe (Figure 2.3), and the other, 

rough, jagged, and sharp, is called aa (Figure 2.2). 

Both types of lava are present in El Malpais. 

Other common volcanic features include "grooved 

lava, squeeze-ups. ropes, spatter cones, cracks, 

banded lavas, collapse depressions, flow pressure 

ridges, lava tubes and associated features" (Rose 

n.d.:4). Several systems of subterranean lava 

tubes, formed when the molten lava center 

withdraws, are present at El Malpais (Rogers and 

Mosch 1997) (Figure 2.4). Ice caves also are 

present in El Malpais and are the product of 

below-zero (farenheit) winter temperatures, cave 

31 

2 
32 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Figure 2.1. Looking south along the edge of 

the McCartys Flow near the mouth 

of Las Ventunus Canyon. Recent 

alluvial and ueolian deposits ah at 

the edge of the flow. Cehollita 

Mesa is in the background. 

morphology, and degree of air eireulation 

(Diekfoss et al. 1997). Kipukas, areas of land 

surrounded by lava flows, also are found in the 

monument (Figure 1.4). Because of the presence 

of varied volcanic features, fascinating microenvironments are formed above and below ground in 

the lava. These microcosms encourage floral and 

faunal growth that is often rare or seems out of 

place when compared to the surrounding region. 

A small percentage of non-igneous rock is 

present in the monument, and much of it underlies 

the volcanic flows. A limited exposure of uplifted 

Precambrian granitic rock, exposed during the 

formation of the Xuni Uplift, is visible along State 

Highway 53 on the northwest side of the 

monument. Permian sandstones and limestones 

overlie these ancient rocks and are exposed on the 

northwest side of the monument. These 

formations are the Abo. Yeso. and Glorieta 

Sandstones and the San Andres Limestone. Hie 

Abo Formation directly overlies the Precambrian 

rocks and correlates with the Permian Cutler 

redbeds to the north. It is fluvial in origin and is 

composed of reddish sandstone and shale deposits 

interlaced with marine limestone beds (Baars 

1983). These cross-bedded strata form cliffs and 

steep slopes at the base of which is a conglomerate 

containing white quartz pebbles (Maxwell 1986). 

The Yeso Formation, above the Abo Formation, is 

a pale reddish-brown, medium- to fine-grained, 

water-lain, cross-bedded sandstone and siltstone. 

The upper members of this formation are 

alternating beds of reddish-brown clastic rocks, 

light- to medium-gray limestone, and thin beds of 

dolomite and gypsum. These beds were deposited 

in an enclosed, highly evaporatic marine basin 

environment (Baars 1983). Glorieta Sandstone 

overlies the Yeso Formation. This cliff-forming 

sandstone is fine-grained, well-sorted, light tan to 

white in color and was deposited in thin horizontal 

strata of shallow water interbedded with deeper 

marine deposits of limestone and gypsum. The 

San Andres Limestone, overlying the Glorieta 

Formation, originated in shallow water sediments 

deposited on a broad shallow shelf of a middle 

Permian sea (Baars 1983). Its lower extent is 

composed of thin beds of gray to yellow dolomite, 

sandstone, siltstone, and shale that form a ledgy 

slope between the cliffs of Glorieta Sandstone and 

the massive limestone cliffs of the upper strata of 

the San Andres Formation (Baars 1983). These 

cliffs are composed of fossiliferous lime sands 

interbedded with quartzose beach sands from the 

Glorieta Sandstone. Gypsum bedding to the 

southeast suggests that a deeper evaporatic marine 

basin formed in that location. North of the Zuni 

Mountains this formation grades into red clastic 

sands indicating a continental environment beyond 

the shallow seas. 
ENVIRONMENT AND CULTURAL BACKGROUND 33 

Figure 2.2. Bandera Flow aa lava at ELM A 271. The survey crew member is standing 

on a prehistoric trail marked by a lava cairn in the right foreground. 

Figure 2.3. Ropy pahoehoe lava in the McCartys Flow near North Pasture. 
34 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Figure 2.4. Partially collapsed lava tube forming a cave in the Bandera Flow, El Calderon 

area. The cave was used as a shelter by the Middle Archaic and Basketmaker occupants 

of ELM A 279. 

On the eastern side of the monument are middle 

Jurassic to late Cretaceous sedimentary deposits of 

the Mancos Shale, and the Tres Hermanos. 

Dakota, Zuni, and Entrada Sandstones. These 

formations compose the Sandstone Bluffs along 

State Highway 117 (Figure 2.5), the cliffs near the 

Narrows, and the northwest-facing ridge in the 

large kipuka at Two Kipuka, south of the Narrows. 

Soils 

The older volcanic flows are covered with 

discontinuous sheets of aeolian Holocene deposits 

composed of windblown silt and sand (Maxwell 

1986) (Figure 1.2). This fine-grained material has 

accumulated in some areas to a measurable depth 

such as in El Calderon and Lava Crater where a 

soil profile is visible (National Park Service 1989). 

West-southwest-trending longitudinal dunes and 

sheet deposits of Holocene and Pleistocene 

alluvium extend along the eastern boundary of the 

monument. They are composed of fine-grained 

silt and sand from decomposing sandstone and 

shale with occasional lenses of coarse sand and 

gravels (Figure 2.1). Unlike the aeolian deposits 

on the lava, these deposits are uncompacted and 

erode easily. 

Hydrology 

A few springs of consequence have been 

recorded in the area. Dittert (1949:15) reports one 

at the head of Cebollita Canyon east of the 

malpais and another southeast of the monument. 

Armijo Spring also is southeast of the monument. 

There are intermittent springs or seeps in several 

canyons that drain the west and south sides of 

Cebollita Mesa (Figure 1.1). Wozniak and 

Marshall (1991:2-5) report springs at canyon 

heads, but none with sufficient flow to reach 

farther than one kilometer. During the Phase I 

survey of El Malpais, three sites were recorded 
ENVIRONMENT AND CULTURAL BACKGROUND 35 

Figure 2.5. Cretaceous-age sedimentary cliffs and pedestals in the Sandstone Bluffs area 

along the east perimeter of the McCartys Flow. 

in association with springs. One site (ELMA 133) 

is in the Sandstone Bluffs area, and two (ELMA 

266, ELMA 267) are in the El Calderon area. 

Streams, when they occur, are intermittent and 

flow only when charged with adequate 

precipitation. Two windmills, one at Baca Ranch 

just east of the monument and northeast of Las 

Ventanas Ruin, and another on Bibo Ranch east of 

La Vieja, indicate that water is relatively near the 

surface. The locations may have been surface 

springs prior to windmill and tank construction. 

Paxton Spring is the only reported spring north of 

the monument. Bonita Canyon might have seeps 

that appear after abundant precipitation (McVickar 

2001a: 7). 

Ice in the ice caves is the only significant and 

permanent source of water in the otherwise arid 

malpais. During rainstorms, water tends to pool at 

the edge of the lava flow, sometimes forming 

shallow ponds that can last for several days, but 

they are not permanent (McVickar 2001a: 8). 

Vegetation 

Vegetation on the malpais surface is 

surprisingly dense and varied. Despite its 

inhospitable appearance and hot surface 

temperatures, the lava provides a moister 

environment than similar elevations off the lava. 

According to Bleakly (1997:116), water hitting the 

lava "moves down through the heavily fractured 

surface into areas of high moisture, low 

evaporation, and cool temperatures." This 

situation encourages deeply rooting conifers and 

shrubs, but is less suitable for grasses and other 

plants with shallow roots (Bleakly 1997:116). 

Much of the lava flows support trees and shrubs 

that generally are found at higher elevations off 

the lava. 

Bleakly (1997) identifies four vegetation 

communities. The older flows support a mixed 

conifer-woodland community (Figure 1.2). 

Ponderosa pine {Pinus ponderosa) and pinyon 
36 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

(Pinus edulis) are the most common conifers. 

Douglas fir {Pseudotsuga menziesii) and Rocky 

Mountain juniper (Junipems osteospermd) are 

present at higher elevations. Shrubs, including 

Apache plume (Fallugia paradoxa), wax currant 

(Ribes cereum). and squawbush (Rhus trilobata), 

also occur in the mixed conifer community. The 

shrub/conifer community, which is primarily 

pinyon-juniper woodlands, is found in non-lava 

areas associated with sedimentary substrates 

(Figures 1.4 and 2.5). The third and fourth 

communities, grasslands and grass/shrublands. arc 

most common in alluvial deposits outside the 

flows or on the older flows where sediment has 

accumulated and the lava has decomposed. 

Common grasses and shrubs include various 

gramas (Bouteloua sp.). little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), ring mtihly (Muhlenbergia 

torreyi), rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosus). 

sages (Artemisia spp.). and snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae). The barren to sparse grass/shrubland community is primarily confined to the 

McCartys Flow. Apache plume. New Mexico 

olive (Forestiera pubesceus), and fragrant ash 

(Fraximis cuspidatu) are typical of this community, as are grasses such as blue grama (Bouteloua 

gracilis) and sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula). Stunted conifers also occur in the sparse 

grass/shrub community (Bleakly 1997). Vegetation at the lava edges also is noteworthy (Bleakly 

1997). Aspens (Populus tremuloides), for example, grow at the edge of old flows on the west side 

of the monument, as well as in collapses or cracks 

where moisture accumulates (Figure 1.2). These 

trees usually are found at much higher elevations. 

Cinders and ice caves also provide unique 

environments that support unusual vegetation. 

Accumulations of cinders on cinder cones or in 

deep deposits near the cones retain considerable 

water below the surface. Alligator juniper 

(Junipems deppeand), for example, requires more 

water than other species of juniper and grows only 

on cinders in the monument (Bleakly 1997:118). 

In the ice caves, "gradients of temperature, 

moisture, and light near their entrances have 

allowed the establishment of rare and unusual 

communities" (Bleakly 1997:118). Bands of 

various lichen species occur at different levels in 

the ice caves according to the amount of light and 

moisture present. In addition, liver worts and 

mosses are often found in ice caves. Ribes inerme, 

a type of gooseberry, is found only in ice-cave 

collapses (Bleakly 1997:118). 

Fauna 

The variety of habitats encompassed by the 

lava, lava tubes, cinder cones, sandy dunes, sandstone outcrops, and temporary water catchments 

provide homes for a diversity of fauna (Lightfoot 

1997:139). There are 71 species of mammals in 

the El Malpais area. Rodents are the most abundant, at 3 1 species, and there are 18 species of bats 

in the lava tubes. Cottontail rabbits are frequent in 

lower elevation juniper savannas, pinyon-juniper 

woodlands, and ponderosa pine woodlands: and 

one species of cottontail is found in the higher 

elevation conifer forests (Lightfoot 1997:142). 

Carnivores inhabiting the area include 

coyotes, foxes, raccoons, and badgers. Black 

bears and mountain lions are found in the 

northwestern portion of El Malpais (Lightfoot 

1997:142). Elk, the least common large mammal, 

occasionally come down from the mountains into 

the northwest portion of the monument. Mule 

deer are ubiquitous and are most common in the 

northwest. Pronghorn antelope primarily are 

found in the southwest in open grasslands and 

juniper savannas. Bighorn sheep lived in the area 

as recently as 50 years ago. and their remains 

occasionally are found in the lava tube caves 

(Lightfoot 1997:142: Windes 1999). 

The monument supports 109 bird. 9 

amphibian, and 27 reptile species. Invertebrates, 

mostly arthropods, are the most common animal 

species in the monument, including "millipedes, 

centipedes, scorpions. spiders. crickets, 

grasshoppers, beetles, flies, butterflies, bees, 

wasps, and ants" (Lightfoot 1997:144-145). 
ENVIRONMENT AND CULTURAL BACKGROUND 37 

Table 2.1. Paleoclimate (after Grissino-Mayer 

et al 1997:159) 

Precipitation Dates 

Above normal, episode # I 

Below normal, episode i'2 

Above normal, episode "2 

Below normal, episode #3 

Above normal, episode #3 

Below normal, episode #4 

Above normal, episode #4 

A.D. 81 to 257 

A.D. 258 to 520 

A.D. 521 to 660 

A.D. 661 to 1023 

A.D. 1024 to 1398 

A.D. 1399 to 1790 

A.D. 1791 to 1992 

Climate 

El Malpais has a semiarid, high-desert climate 

typical of much of the Colorado Plateau. Regional 

precipitation averages 30 to 40 cm (12 to 16 

inches) per year, varying with elevation. A high 

percentage of rainfall falls in July. August, and 

September during violent thunderstorms (Tuan et 

al. 1973:18-19). The frost-free season in the 

surrounding area averages 120 to 140 days (Tuan 

et al. 1973:Figure 38). Mean monthly temperatures around Grants range from a high of 73° F 

(July) to a low of 30° F (January). The hottest 

average daytime temperatures are in the high 80s 

(F) and occur during June. July, and August (Tuan 

et al. 1973). December. January, and February 

have the lowest nighttime temperatures, averaging 

in the mid- to high-teens (F) (Tuan et al. 1973) 

Paleoclimate 

Prehistoric climate is one of the few 

environmental factors affecting human behavior 

for which we have data. A 2.129-year tree-ring 

chronology, from 136 B.C. to A.D. 1992. was 

developed from Douglas fir and ponderosa pine 

samples from El Malpais. and it currently is the 

longest tree-ring chronology in the Southwest 

(Grissino-Mayer et al. 1997:158). Tree growth is 

strongly related to annual precipitation from July 

to July (a water year) for the entire tree-ring 

chronology. Grissino-Mayer et al. (1997:159) 

identify seven broad periods of alternating abovenormal and below-normal rainfall (fable 2.1) 

based on the annual precipitation reconstruction. 

Although their climatic periods are too long to 

relate to specific episodes of human adaptation, 

they do suggest broad spans in which conditions 

may have been more favorable for human 

habitation. By combining the climatic periods of 

Grissino-Mayer et al. (1997) with Dean's (1996) 

stress periods, we were able to identify in Chapter 

1 broad periods in which we expect more people 

to use the malpais. 

Previous Archeological Investigations 

Previous archeological investigations in El 

Malpais National Monument are sparse, and most 

of the work adjacent to the monument has been on 

the east side' (Figure 1.1). Bandelier (1892) 

traversed the area, identifying sites and walking a 

trail from Cebollita Mesa to Zuni (Ireland 1988:1). 

The earliest investigations in the general region 

took place at sites in the Zuni area in the 1880s 

and 1890s (dishing 1886: Fewkcs 1891). and 

researchers continued work at Zuni in the first half 

of the twentieth century. 

Between the early 1910s and 1948. 

archeological investigations were sporadic around 

Cebollita Mesa (Dittert 1959:48). In 1913. Hodge 

and Nusbaum (Hodge 1914) conducted a 

reconnaissance survey and small-scale excavations 

in Cebollita Canyon. Nels Nelson collected 

ceramics from the Eos Pi lares area, which Spier 

(1917) used in researching Zuni chronology: and 

Mera and Stubbs also engaged in surveys in the 

area (Tainter and Gillio 1980:21). In the late 

1940s. Dittert and Ruppe began a long-term 

excavation and survey project at Cebollita Mesa 

(Dittert 1949. 1959; Ruppe 1953. 1966).' The 

area has not seen anything as extensive as their 

work since. West of El Malpais. in the El Morro 

Valley, the Woodbury s excavated at Atsinna 

(Woodbury and Woodbury 1956). 

Beginning in the mid-1950s, a number of 

concerns spurred archeological research in westcentral New Mexico. Pipeline and highway 

construction resulted in several projects (Peckham 

1954. 1957. 1962: Wendorf 1954a, 1954b. 1956). 

Native American land claims led to archeological 

and ethnohistoric research to document claims 

(Ellis 1959. 1974a. 1974b). Watson et al. (1980) 

conducted a major research project in the El 

Morro Valley west of El Malpais in the early 

1970s, and investigations of Chacoan outliers 
38 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

extended to the El Malpais area (Marshall et al. 

1979:187-193). 

Because of a lack of mineral development, 

which often provided the impetus for 

archeological work in and around the San Juan 

Basin, no major archeological projects have been 

undertaken since Dittert and Ruppe's work at 

Cebollita Mesa. Investigations increased in the 

1980s in preparation for establishing the 

monument and conservation area. These surveys 

focused primarily on lands east, north, and south 

of the monument. These surveys include Armijo 

Canyon (Elyea et al. 1994). Cerritos de Jaspe 

(Marshall 1993), Cebolla Canyon (Wiseman 1974; 

Wozniak and Marshall 1991), Cebollita Mesa 

(Broster and Harrill 1982), and the Las Ventanas 

area (Beal 1976). During the NZ Project, portions 

of a large area in central and west-central New 

Mexico were surveyed, including areas in and 

adjacent to the Acoma Culture Province (Elyea 

1990). In the 1980s and 1990s, proposed work on 

State Highway 117, along the east edge of the 

monument, resulted in archeological surveys, 

testing, and an ethnoiiistoric study of the highway 

right-of-way (Groody 1982; Willmer and 

Goodman 1995). Rory Gauthier and Charles 

Haecker conducted several small, prescribed-burn 

surveys in the 1990s in the monument that 

produced site forms and letter reports. Phase 1 of 

the El Malpais National Monument inventory 

began in 2000. McVickar also surveyed two 

parcels of BLM land east of the monument in the 

National Conservation Area (NCA) in 2001 

(McVickar et al. 2002). In one of the few surveys 

conducted west of the Monument, Powell 

surveyed nearly 450 acres along the perimeter of 

the 2002 Cherry Fire (Powell et al. 2003). The 

location of this and other recent surveys are shown 

in Figure 1.1 (see back pocket). 

Culture History 

Human occupation in the vicinity of El 

Malpais National Monument began in Paleoindian 

times and continued, sometimes sporadically, into 

the present. The majority of cultural remains are 

Ancestral Puebloan. This section presents a brief 

overview of the culture history of the area 

surrounding the monument. 

Paleoindian 

During a survey of higher elevations between 

7,400 and 8,400 'feet on Cebollita Mesa, 29 

Paleoindian projectile points were found (Broster 

1980; Broster and Harrill 1982). Fifteen of the 

points were reworked and reused, thus it cannot be 

assumed they were deposited originally at these 

elevations (Broster 1980:13). The remaining 14 

points were not reused, and if it is assumed they 

were not redeposited, they represent high elevation 

use of the Rincon Hondo and nearby playas on the 

east side of Cebollita Mesa (Broster 1980:13). 

The points span the time range from Clovis to the 

Cody Complex. These locations suggest that 

Paleoindian populations monitored the movement 

of game in the vicinity of the playas. used the 

mesa scarp in animal drives, and used rincons as 

animal traps by driving herds up the drainages into 

steep drainage heads (Broster 1980:2, 13, 14). 

During the NZ project, conducted on state and 

private lands in central and western New Mexico, 

researchers from the University of New Mexico's 

Office of Contract Archaeology recorded several 

Paleoindian sites as well as projectile points. The 

NZ Paleoindian assemblages are characterized by 

higher percentages of flakes, uniface/scrapers, and 

bifaces (including projectile points) and lower 

percentages of angular debris, cores, retouch, 

hammerstones, and ground stone than other 

periods (Elyea 1990). Portions of Paleoindian 

points were found at two sites in Armijo Canyon 

(Elyea et al. 1994), and a Clovis base was found 

on a Pueblo II site on the east side of El Malpais 

National Monument in 2000 (McVickar 2001a). 

There also is evidence of Paleoindian use south of 

the monument along the western edge of the North 

Plains (Elyea et al. 1994). Volcanic eruptions 

3,000 years ago probably buried other Paleoindian 

evidence in the area. 
ENVIRONMENT AND CULTURAL BACKGROUND 39 

Archaic 

From approximately 5500 B.C. to A.D. 400 or 

600. Archaic hunter-gatherer populations occupied 

the area (Dittert 1959:518; Wozniak and Marshall 

1991). East and south of El Malpais, common 

Archaic site locations include the eastern edge of 

the North Plains and the southwest-facing slopes 

of Putney Mesa. It is possible that some older 

Archaic materials are beneath the most recent lava 

flows. 

Archaic sites in the Cebollita Mesa area 

exhibit at least two styles of stemmed projectile 

points, as well as ground stone, choppers, knives, 

and scrapers (Dittert 1959:518), and higher 

percentages of bifaces and bifacial retouch flakes 

than Ancestral Puebloan sites (Broster and Harrill 

1982). Projectile points from Archaic sites in the 

higher elevations of Cebollita Mesa are usually 

made from Grants Ridge obsidian and are mostly 

middle-Archaic in style (Broster and Harrill 1982). 

Several middle-Archaic sites were recorded in 

Armijo Canyon. Most of the sites have ground 

stone and flaked lithics; and ash stains, fire-cracked rocks, and hearths are common. Most likely 

these are Archaic camp sites (Elyea et al. 1994). 

Archaic sites recorded during the NZ project 

are associated with bifacial-lithic-reduction debris, 

which generally is less common on later Puebloan 

sites. There also tend to be more flakes and 

bifaces (including projectile points), less angular 

and retouch debris, and fewer choppers, cores, 

hammerstones, and ground stones on Archaic sites 

(Eschmann and Elyea 1990:71) than later 

Puebloan sites. The majority of the NZ Archaic 

sites date to the middle Archaic, and most of the 

points are Oshara tradition. Late Archaic sites 

also were identified, and the point styles reflect 

both the Oshara and Cochise traditions (Elyea 

1990:159). Half of the Archaic and probable 

Archaic sites have ground stone, indicating 

possible residential camp sites (Elyea 1990:159). 

Late Archaic sites with San Pedro projectile points 

have been recorded in the Acoma area (Broster 

and Harrill 1982:83-84; Elyea 1990:41). 

The Basketmaker II period represents a 

transition from earlier Archaic hunting and 

gathering to greater reliance on agriculture and 

increased sedentism (Elyea 1990) in later 

Puebloan periods. The En Medio and San Pedro 

Archaic phases often are used synonymously with 

Basketmaker II (Elyea 1990:41). The NZ project 

found few Basketmaker II sites, and none are in 

the El Malpais area. 

Basketmaker and Puebloan Periods 

The chronology developed by Ruppe (1953) 

and Dittert (1959) for the Basketmaker and 

Puebloan periods at Cebollita Mesa is still used, 

although with modifications to the dates. 

Wozniak and Marshall (1991) revised Dittert and 

Ruppe's phases and matched their scheme to a 

slightly revised Pecos classification for the 

Cebollita Mesa area. Wilson (1994) made some 

changes to Wozniak and Marshall's (1991) 

chronology in his analysis of Armijo Canyon 

ceramics. The following review uses date ranges 

for periods based on Wozniak and Marshall (1991) 

and Wilson (1994). When these authors present 

slightly different dates for periods, the range in the 

beginning and ending dates is incorporated in the 

dates assigned below. This discussion is weighted 

heavily by investigations north (Marshall 1993) 

and east (Elyea et al. 1994: Wiseman 1974; 

Wozniak and Marshall 1991) of the monument. 

Research in areas west of the monument is sparse 

until one reaches the El Morro Valley. 

Basketmaker III (A.D. 400/500 to 700/720) 

Basketmaker III sites are not common and 

occur late in the period in west-central New 

Mexico. Most, but not all. sites consist of 

pithouses near potential agricultural areas (Elyea 

1990:43: Wozniak and "Marshall 1991:4-10). 

There is one late Basketmaker III camp lacking 

pithouses and representing a single period of use 
40 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

in Cebolla Canyon (Wozniak and Marshall 

1991:8-1). 

Pueblo I (A.D. 700/720 to 900/950) 

Typical Pueblo I. or White Mound, 

Kiatuthlanna, and Red Mesa phase architectural 

sites in west-central New Mexico consist of 

pithouses accompanied by jacal or masonry 

structures early in the period. Jacal and masonry 

structures increase in frequency in late Pueblo I 

(Elyea 1990:45; Wozniak and"Marshall 1991:4-

12). Sometimes a great kiva is present (Wozniak 

and Marshall 1991:4-11). 

Dittert (1959:46) subdivides the Cebollita 

Mesa area into two districts that differ 

physiographically. The Los Pilares district in the 

north, with more flat-topped mesas, includes Las 

Ventanas and Cebollita Canyons, and the Los 

Pilares area. Los Veteados in the south, where 

plains are more common, includes Cebolla and 

Armijo (Los Veteados) Canyons. 

Cultural developments in the two localities are 

slightly different beginning in this period. 

Generally, there are more sites and more people in 

the Los Pilares area. Los Pilares sites consist of 

pithouses, jacal structures, and an occasional 

masonry structure. One mid-Pueblo I site in the 

Los Veteados area has jacal and masonry 

structures and no pithouses (Wozniak and 

Marshall 1991:4-14). Wozniak and Marshall 

(1991:7-1) report two mid- to late-Pueblo I sites at 

the mouth of Cebolla Canyon; one has no visible 

pithouses or above-ground structures, and the 

other has a possible jacal structure. Limited use of 

adobe for wall construction, laid in successive 

courses, is reported in DitterLs Los Veteados 

district (Dittert 1959:234-235). The number of 

sites in the Los Veteados area increases in late 

Pueblo I, and differences in the two areas become 

more distinct. Diagnostic ceramics in both areas 

include White Mound Black-on-white, 

Kiatuthlanna Black-on-white, and Red Mesa 

Black-on-white. Brown ware is present in both 

areas, but is more common in the south at Los 

Veteados sites. 

Early Pueblo I site locations on Cebollita 

Mesa are primarily on low benches, along 

drainages, on southwest-facing slopes, and on 

higher sand hills. Locations shift in mid-Pueblo I 

to along canyon cliffs above where the canyons 

constrict. Late Pueblo I sites seem to be clustered 

above the canyon constrictions, and a greater 

number of sites are found below the constriction 

than earlier in Pueblo 1 (Dittert 1959:523-534). 

Broster and Harrill (1982) document only a few 

seasonal sites of probable Pueblo 1 affiliation in 

the higher elevations of Cebollita Mesa. 

A survey of 655 acres in the El Malpais 

National Conservation Area (NCA) east of the 

monument recorded several Pueblo I small 

structures (less than three rooms each), often 

associated with other features such as middens, 

fire-cracked rock scatters, and ceramic/1 ithic 

scatters (McVickar et al. 2002). 

Pueblo II (A.D. 900/950 to 1125/1175) 

The Pueblo II period in west-central New 

Mexico is marked by population increase and the 

appearance of distinctive Chacoan outliers (Dittert 

1959; Doleman 1990; Elyea 1990; Hogan 1985; 

Wozniak and Marshall 1991). Habitations are 

larger than during Pueblo I and consist of 

contiguous masonry rooms and kivas that had 

become '"exclusively ceremonial places, having 

evolved from late Archaic storage pits to pithouses 

and then to multi-purpose subterranean rooms" 

(Wozniak and Marshall 1991:4-18). The classic 

Chacoan outliers are characterized by a network of 

small habitation sites clustered around community 

centers. These centers contain planned public 

buildings of core-veneer masonry, great kivas, 

tower kivas, multiple stories, and roads (Wozniak 

and Marshall 1991:4-18). Possible outliers in the 

Cebollita Mesa area include Las Ventanas 

(Candelaria Ruin) (LA 1328/1329) and the Dittert 

Site (LA 11723). According to Wozniak and 

Marshall (1991:4-17) not enough survey had been 

conducted around either site to identify the characteristic site clusters of other Chacoan outliers. 

The Phase 1 survey around Las Ventanas has 

helped to clarify settlement characteristics around 
ENVIRONMENT AND CULTURAL BACKGROUND 41 

this outlier. According to Wozniak and Marshall 

(1991:4-18), Chacoan public buildings, or great 

houses, "do not necessarily mean affiliation with 

the Chacoan system: community buildings might 

simply be part of a broader pattern of Anasazi 

settlement systems in the Pueblo 11 period." 

On Cebollita Mesa, the number of sites and 

people in the Los Vcteados district increases 

during Pueblo II, or the Cebolleta phase, which led 

Ruppe and Dittert to propose an influx of people 

to the area from the south (Dittert 1959). Dittert 

based this assertion on a large increase in brown 

ware and adobe construction in Los Veteados. 

Adobe construction is absent from the Los Pi lares 

district, and the percentage of brown ware is much 

lower. Wozniak and Marshall (1991:4-19), 

however, feel the population increase can be 

explained by local population growth and suggest 

that the increase in brown ware represents a 

change in the boundaries of trade networks (see 

also Tainter and Gillio [1980:60]). Site locations 

are near valley floors, in "mountain meadows," 

and at canyon mouths (Dittert 1959:540). 

North of the monument, the Cerritos de Jaspe 

community, which is a Chacoan-like community 

with numerous masonry unit pueblos, field houses, 

artifact scatters, and two great kivas. took shape 

and grew in Pueblo II (Marshall 1993). The great 

kivas apparently served as integrative community 

centers similar to a classic Chacoan outlier 

(Marshall 1993:4). A number of other features are 

associated with the community including the 

Jaspe-Bandera Trail, rockshelters, shrines, and 

special use sites to extract water from ice caves 

(Marshall 1993:4. 89). 

Several late Pueblo l/early Pueblo II sites are 

recorded at the mouth of Cebolla Canyon. The 

early Pueblo II sites are small, with 2 to 4 rooms 

and a mix of jacal and masonry construction 

(Wozniak and Marshall 1991:7-8). Masonry 

becomes more common later in Pueblo II, and by 

late Pueblo II. sites have more rooms, more kivas, 

and deeper middens (Wozniak and Marshall 

1991:7-10). Based on ceramic evidence, Wozniak 

and Marshall (1991:7-10) postulate a hiatus from 

A.D. 1000 to 1050 at the mouth of Cebolla 

Canyon. Mid- to late-Pueblo II sites include the 

Chacoan-style Skull Site with its 10-room great 

house, massive walls, blocked-in kiva, great kiva, 

and aureola (i.e., earthworks and embankments or 

berms). The Skull Site may have been part of a 

"Socorroan network" (Wozniak and Marshall 

1991:8-4). based on higher percentages of Socorro 

Black-on-white compared to ceramic assemblages 

at nearby contemporaneous sites. The Skull Site 

does not seem to represent "nucleation of a local 

community" because there was no community 

before the Skull Site, and the contemporaneous 

population is small (Wozniak and Marshall 

1991:8-4). 

The Pueblo II occupation at the mouth of 

Armijo Canyon is relatively small. Early Pueblo 

II sites consist of a couple of pithouses or 1 to 2 

sandstone masonry rooms (Elyea et al. 1994:22-

23). The Dittert Site, a possible Chacoan outlier 

with a great house, blocked-in kiva, another large 

kiva, 50 rooms, and prehistoric roads, dates to 

Pueblo II and Pueblo III. 

McVickar's survey in the NCA east of the 

monument recorded several pueblos ranging from 

three to possibly as many as 20 rooms. Small 

structures, artifacts scatters, and rock shelters also 

were recorded that date within the Pueblo II period 

(McVickar et al. 2002). Two Pueblo II great 

kivas, one isolated and one part of a 15- to 20-

room pueblo, were recorded (McVickar et al. 

2002). 

Pueblo III (A.D. 1125/1175 to 1320/1325) 

Across the region, the number of Pueblo III 

sites declines, although the sites are larger than in 

Pueblo II (Elyea 1990:46; Tainter and Gillio 

1980:61; Wozniak and Marshall 1991:4-21). In 

late Pueblo II. the "Chacoan phenomenon" 

collapses: many of the major centers are 

abandoned and no new ones are built in Pueblo III 

(Wozniak and Marshall 1991:4-22). Some of the 

elements of Chacoan architecture such as great 

kivas, great houses, and plazas persist, but in 

slightly different forms than in Pueblo II. Great 
42 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

kivas, for example, are larger than their Pueblo 11 

counterparts and are unroofed (Wozniak and 

Marshall 1991:4-24). 

On Cebollita Mesa, early Pueblo III (Pilares 

phase) habitations are smaller and more numerous 

in the Los Pilares area than in the southern Los 

Veteados district. The two areas remain distinct 

from each other because of the absence of adobe 

construction and a lower percentage of brown 

ware in the north (Dittert 1959:548; Wozniak and 

Marshall 1991:4-23.4-24). Percentages of brown 

ware and other trade wares decline in early Pueblo 

III on Cebollita Mesa. Common site locations in 

the Cebollita Mesa area include benches and the 

eastern edge of the North Plains. Later in Pueblo 

III (Kowina phase), when people move to 

aggregated pueblos atop higher mesas, the Los 

Veteados area is abandoned, partly because of a 

lack of suitable mesa tops (Wozniak and Marshall 

1991:4-25). 

The Cerritos de Jaspe community is 

abandoned ca. A.D. 1125 (Marshall 1993:4), in 

late Pueblo II or early Pueblo III, coinciding with 

regional population decline and shifts in site 

location. The Jaspe area is a marginal 

environment, particularly because of the scarcity 

of water and limited arable land. The area could 

not support large aggregates (Marshall 1993:96), 

and people withdrew from the area, abandoning 

the Chacoan-style great kivas (Marshall 1993:95), 

at the same time population declined in the 

Cebollita region. 

The number of sites at the mouth of Cebolla 

Canyon increases in Pueblo III. Mid- to latePueblo III habitation sites are larger than Pueblo II 

and early Pueblo III sites. The Citadel, a pueblo 

on a mesa adjacent to Wozniak and Marshall's 

(1991) survey area, is part of the Cebolla Canyon 

community. The large masonry pueblo was 

preplanned, but only 70 rooms were completed, 

and many other rooms were only partially finished 

(Wozniak and Marshall 1991:7-21, 7-24). The 

Citadel has no kiva and very few artifacts 

(Wozniak and Marshall 1991:7-24). Lizzard 

House, Casa Mosca, and Oak Tree are large midto late-Pueblo III pueblos in Wozniak and 

Marshall's (1991) survey area at the mouth of 

Cebolla Canyon. These sites are significantly 

larger than other contemporaneous habitations in 

Cebolla Canyon. Lizzard House, which contains a 

massive masonry roomblock of 50 rooms, several 

jacal rooms, a small masonry roomblock, two 

kivas, a plaza, and four middens, was the likely 

"focal point of the local [middle Pueblo III] 

community" (Wozniak and Marshall 1991:8-11). 

Casa Mosca, with more than 75 rooms, may be a 

late Pueblo III public center based on its "massive 

masonry walls" (Wozniak and Marshall 1991:8-

12), kivas, and an earthen berm. Oak Tree Site 

has two roomblocks with approximately 40 singlestory rooms. The site has two plazas, one of 

which is enclosed by a massive masonry wall. It 

has no middens or kivas, and it may not be a 

habitation (Wozniak and Marshall 1991:7-44). A 

fourth site, Pueblo Cerrito, has a large masonry 

structure with a small kiva, a possible blocked-in 

kiva, several very large rooms, a possible road, 

and a high percentage of Socorro Black-on-white. 

Although Pueblo Cerrito lacks a great kiva and 

massive great house masonry, it is the only midPueblo III site with great house characteristics 

(Wozniak and Marshall 1991:8-11). The Cebolla 

Canyon community is abandoned ca. 1325 at the 

end of Pueblo III. 

Population density increases during early 

Pueblo III at the mouth of Armijo Canyon, and 

habitation sites are larger than in Pueblo II (Elyea 

et al. 1994:32). The isolated Los Veteados great 

kiva (LA 102839) and Pueblo II kivas at the 

Dittert Site may have been in use in early Pueblo 

111 (Elyea et al. 1994:32). For the first time, kivas 

are associated with small roomblocks in this area. 

By mid-Pueblo III, some habitations have multiple 

roomblocks (Elyea et al. 1994:35). The 

settlements in Armijo Canyon are abandoned ca. 

1325. 

McVickar's NCA survey recorded several 

Pueblo 111 small structures, which were often 

associated with other features. The number of 

sites declined in Pueblo III, however, and no 

larger pueblos were built (McVickar et al. 2002). 
ENVIRONMENT AND CULTURAL BACKGROUND 43 

Pueblo IV (A.D. 1320/1325 to 1540) 

Aggregation into fewer, larger sites continued 

in west-central New Mexico during Pueblo IV 

(Elyea et al. 1994:47; Wozniak and Marshall 

1991:4-26). Large areas were abandoned as 

people moved to pueblos with hundreds of rooms. 

By late Pueblo IV, most people resided in several 

large pueblos in the Zuni area or at Acoma Pueblo 

(Elyea et al. 1994:47-48). According to Wozniak 

and Marshall (1991:4-27), climate may have been 

one of the factors in the widespread abandonment 

of smaller sites and concentration of population in 

a few large sites that typify Pueblo IV. 

The few Pueblo IV sites in the Cebollita Mesa 

area, such as Kowina Ruin (Tainter and Gillio 

1980:61) and the Penol Site (Wozniak and 

Marshall 1991:4-26), are large (200+ rooms), 

walled, and defensively located on isolated or 

inaccessible mesa tops (Wozniak and Marshall 

1991:4-26). By A.D. 1350, or 1400 at the latest. 

Cebollita Mesa was abandoned for habitation. 

Post-1540 

In 1540 Francisco Vasquez de Coronado's 

expedition passed through the Zuni-Acoma area, 

taking a toll on Pueblo stores and lives. Once the 

expedition left, the Spaniards did not return for 

more than 50 years. In 1598, Don Juan de Onate 

stopped at Acoma and Zuni. These encounters 

were relatively peaceful. A couple of months 

later, however, some of Onate's followers, 

including his nephew, were killed at Acoma when 

they demanded provisions. Onate took revenge on 

the pueblo, killing hundreds of its residents and 

mutilating others. For 80 years after Onate's 

colonization, "government of New Mexico . . . 

was a series of confrontations of interest groups" 

(Tainter and Gillio 1980:123). 

Sometime in the fifteenth or sixteenth century, 

the Navajo, who are Athapaskan speakers, entered 

the Southwest (Tainter and Gillio 1980:121). 

They are one of the Native American groups the 

Spanish encountered after colonization. Spanish 

relations with the Navajo were contentious and 

hostile, characterized on both sides by raiding and 

hostage taking (Tainter and Gillio 1980:125). 

As part of the Spanish colonization process, a 

number of missions were established at New 

Mexico pueblos, including Acoma and the Zuni 

area pueblos of Flawikuh, Ketchipauan, and 

Halona wa Itiwanna (Zuni Pueblo)(James 

Kendrick personal communication, 2003). The 

Navajo generally escaped missionization because 

the dispersed nature of their settlements was not 

conducive to maintaining a religious structure as 

expensive as a mission. 

The economic relationship between the 

pueblos and colonists was strained by the 

encomienda system. Under this arrangement, 

tribute was gathered in the form of goods from the 

pueblos, and Onate rewarded loyal colonists with 

Indian tributaries. The encomendero was 

responsible for protecting his pueblo tributaries as 

well as answering the colonial governor's call for 

arms. In essence, the encomenderos were the 

military (Kessell 1987:99). 

There were several small revolts against 

seventeenth century Spanish rule, especially by the 

Pueblos, but it was not until 1680 that the Pueblos 

mounted an organized attack. Several hundred 

Spanish were killed, and the rest were driven from 

New Mexico. West of the Rio Grande, at Acoma. 

Zuni, and Hopi, priests were killed and churches 

were burned. The Spanish returned in 1692, and 

settlers established small farms along drainages in 

many parts of New Mexico. None of these early 

settlements was on or around the malpais. 

Representatives of Spanish or Mexican 

governments controlled the land until 1846, when 

New Mexico became a United States territory. 

Native American hostilities then were directed at 

the U.S. Army, whose primary function was "to 

find a final solution to the Indian problem, one 

which had multiple causes and expressions but 

which was seen as reducible to the one issue of 

imposing peace on the land" (Tainter and Gillio 

1980:133). Conflict between the Navajo and 

"everybody else" escalated with the coming of the 
44 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Americans and the granting of U.S. citizenship to 

"the defeated Hispanics" (fainter and Gillio 

1980:134). The first Fort Wingate—it was later 

moved—was built in 1862 slightly southwest of 

present-day Grants. Repeated clashes with the 

Navajo culminated in the "Long Walk'" to Bosque 

Redondo (Fort Sumner) in 1864 (Tainter and 

Gillio 1980:135). Fort Wingate was one of the 

way stations on the Long Walk. The inhospitable 

reservation in eastern New Mexico was "home" to 

thousands of Navajos until 1868 when those who 

had not died or already escaped were sent back "to 

a portion of their homeland" on a new reservation 

(Tainter and Gillio 1980:135). Part of the 

agreement in creating the new reservation was the 

removal of Fort Wingate to another location. 

When the Navajo were released from Bosque 

Redondo. a number of small family groups 

eventually made their way from Mount Taylor, 

their original homeland before the Long Walk, 

south to El Malpais. This relatively isolated area 

offered grazing for sheep, and the lava provided 

caves in which to hide in case soldiers or anyone 

else tried to take them away again (Willmer and 

Goodman 1995:89). Because the Navajo took the 

possible threat of recapture seriously, they 

maintained caves stocked with food and other 

provisions. During especially harsh winters, 

families often would move into hogans on the lava 

because it was warmer (Willmer and Goodman 

1995:90). 

By the late 1800s Anglo settlers were 

homesteading near El Malpais, cutting timber, and 

raising livestock. The coming of the railroad in 

the 1880s accelerated development, and the local 

economy expanded and diversified. Mineral 

exploration further increased the population of the 

area. The discovery of uranium in the 1950s 

around Grants and Laguna created a boom that 

lasted until the 1980s when the uranium market 

collapsed. The economy is currently supported by 

tourism, lumbering, and new "industries" such as 

federal and private prisons near Grants. 

Native Americans have used El Malpais since 

prehistoric times. Pueblo occupants withdrew 

from the eastern edge of the lava flow in the fourteenth century, probably settling at Acoma Pueblo. 

Acoma residents maintain shrines on the lava, and 

over the years have used areas off the lava to graze 

cattle (Willmer and Goodman 1995:48). Through 

an accident of survey for the Acoma Pueblo Grant. 

the federal government placed the western 

boundary of the grant several miles east of where 

it belonged. The error left the malpais out of the 

grant when it should have been inside (Holmes 

1989:16). As a result the malpais reverted to 

public domain and was administered by the 

Bureau of Land Management until El Malpais 

National Monument was established in 1987. 

Zuni use of the malpais is less certain. It is 

possible that the Zuni used the malpais because 

there are Zuni shrines west of the lava (Holmes 

1989:11). Their recent land claims to the federal 

government, though, "followed the southern and 

western edge of the Grants lava flow" and did not 

claim the lava itself as part of their traditional territory (Flolmes 1989:11). Despite varying Native 

American traditions and historic claims on the 

malpais. the area continues to have great spiritual 

significance for Puebloans and Navajos alike. 

' Unfortunately, the specific locations of Dittert and Ruppe's 

survey areas and sites are unknown. Dittert (1959:45-50) 

indicates that survey was conducted in three general areas: 

(1) a traverse extending between has Ventanas and Los 

Pilares. where 22 sites were identified: (2) the Los Pilares 

area, where 170 sites were surveyed within a 12 mi" area, and 

(3) the Los Veteados (Arrnijo Canyon) area, where 63 sites 

were recorded in an 8 mi" area. 
Archaic and Puebloan Chronology 

Gregson Schachner and J. David Kilby 

In this chapter the Paleoindian, Archaic, and 

Puebloan cultural materials identified by the 

survey are placed into a chronological framework 

based upon temporally diagnostic surface 

materials. To the extent possible, Puebloan site 

components are placed into dated phase groupings 

and, where this was impossible, Pecos chronology 

periods. These time groups are the basis for 

analysis and comparison in the following chapters. 

Paleoindian, Archaic, and Basketmaker 

Component Dating and Temporal 

Placement 

The temporal placement of aceramic sites and 

sites that include aceramic components is based 

primarily upon diagnostic projectile points. The 

validity of projectile point styles as temporal 

markers has been questioned on several fronts by 

several researchers (e.g. Flenniken and Raymond 

1986; Flenniken and Wilke 1989; Bettinger et al. 

1991). particularly with regard to how much a 

projectile point shape changes through cycles of 

resharpening and reuse. While these debates are 

acknowledged, it is assumed here that projectile 

point style, particularly basal morphology which is 

directly related to hafting technique, varied 

temporally and can be used as a rough indicator of 

age. 

Other methods of assigning ages to aceramic 

sites have been proposed, and a technique utilizing 

chipped stone debitage has often been applied to 

sites in west-central New Mexico (Eschman and 

Elyea 1990: Hogan and Winter 1983) and eastern 

Arizona (Rozen 1981). Briefly described, this 

technique uses the ratio of debitage resulting from 

bifacial reduction to debitage resulting from 

informal core reduction to distinguish between 

Archaic aged sites where more bifacial reduction 

is expected and later aceramic sites where more 

informal core reduction is expected. It is difficult 

to assess to what degree the application of this 

technique has been successful without independent 

means of assigning ages to the sites in question. A 

preliminary examination of the ratios of 

bifacial/informal core debitage was carried out in 

order to assess the technique's potential for use in 

the El Malpais survey (Kilby 2001). The 

examination used data from single-component 

sites with diagnostic artifacts (projectile points or 

ceramics) found during the 2000 El Malpais field 

season. The results of that examination suggest 

that the ratios are related to some degree to 

specific activities for both Archaic and ceramic 

period sites and that some assessment of site 

function must be made before debitage ratios can 

reliably be used as chronological indicators. 

Given these results, projectile point style is relied 

upon here for the chronological placement of 

components. 

Projectile point styles are named abstractions 

often based upon presumed modal tendencies in 

tool morphology. Taxonomic preferences often 

differ across geographic regions and among 

researchers. For the Archaic period, I have 

attempted to adhere closely to Oshara and Cochise 

naming conventions for both internal consistency 

and consistency with recent local literature. 

However, some point styles are known by 

different names across the Southwest region (e.g. 

45 

3 
46 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

"Chiricahua" as used here refers to points often 

labeled Northern side-notched, San Rafael sidenotched, etc.)- The reader is referred to Justice 

(2002) for regional correlates of the style names 

used here. 

Paleoindian Period 

No sites or site components dating to the 

Paleoindian period were discovered during Phase I 

of the El Malpais survey. However, two projectile 

point fragments of potential Paleoindian age were 

found. The basal fragment of a Clovis fluted point 

made from San Andres chert was recorded at 

ELMA 45. This site is a ceramic period pueblo 

and. because no other artifacts attributable to the 

Clovis period were observed on or near the site, 

the artifact is believed to be a keepsake collected 

by the Puebloan occupants of the site. The San 

Andres chert (available on the margins of the Zuni 

Mountains) indicates that it was probably 

originally found in the local area and serves as 

evidence of a Clovis presence near El Malpais. 

A second projectile point base (Tool 2 from 

ELMA 50. identified as primarily an Archaic 

lithic scatter) is difficult to identify but is most 

likely a product of the late Paleoindian period. 

The lateral and basal margins of the specimen are 

ground, and it is characterized by parallel-oblique 

pressure flaking and a diamond-shaped crosssection-attributes characteristic of some late 

Paleoindian Cody projectile points. However, 

unlike typical points from the Cody tradition, the 

basal corners flare out laterally, resulting in a 

slightly expanding base. X-ray fluorescence 

analysis of the point indicates it is made from 

opaque, green obsidian comparable to that found 

in the Presley Wash obsidian source in the Mount 

Floyd Volcanic Field, west of Flagstaff, Arizona 

(Shackley 2003). This source is located 

approximately 490 km (307 miles) west of ELMA 

50. Tool 2 is derived from the most distant raw 

material source identified in Phase 1 of the ELMA 

survey, and assuming that the raw material was 

obtained directly from the source, exemplifies the 

high degree of mobility among Paleoindian 

hunter-gatherers. 

Archaic and Basketmaker Periods 

Sites and site components attributable to the 

Archaic period are relatively more abundant (n = 

13). Archaic components are assigned to the early 

Archaic (ca. 8,000 to 5,500 B.P.), middle Archaic 

(ca. 5,500 to 3.500 B.P.), and late Archaic (ca. 

3,500 to 1,500 B.P.). based upon comparison of 

projectile point styles to those of the Oshara 

(Irwin-Williams 1973) and Cochise (Sayles and 

Antevs 1941; Sayles 1983; Waters 1986) 

traditions, as well as other styles proposed for the 

Southwest. Although some components of these 

proposed sequences of Archaic projectile point 

styles have associated chronometric dates (detailed 

summaries can be found in Huckell 1996 and 

Justice 2002), many of them remain to be firmly 

dated. It is for this reason that the more general 

early, middle, and late Archaic time periods are 

used here. 

Age assignments for Archaic sites and 

components are presented in Table 3.1 and 

represent the early Archaic (n = 4), middle 

Archaic (n = 7) and late Archaic (n = 4). One 

component (ELMA 53) is interpreted as Archaic 

in age based upon the presence of two unidentified 

dart-sized projectile points but cannot be assigned 

to a more specific period within the Archaic. 

Three sites (ELMA 42, ELMA 51, and ELMA 84) 

have Archaic components that may include 

Archaic occupations from two different time 

periods. These different periods are indicated only 

by projectile points, and distinguishing those 

portions of the remaining artifact assemblages 

belonging to each time period based only upon 

surface data may be difficult or impossible. 

The Basketmaker period (500 B.C. to A.D. 

500) is considered intermediate between the 

Archaic and Pueblo periods. One Basketmaker 

site component (ELMA 279, Component 1) was 

recognized (Table 3.1; see Figure 2.4). The site 
CHRONOLOGY 47 

Table 3.1. Archaic and Basketmaker sites and site components. 

Site (ELMA ) Component Component Type Age Projectile Points (n) Comments 

9 2 Lithic scatter Late Archaic En Medio (1). San Pedro (1) 

40 1 Lithic scatter Late Archaic San Pedro (1) 

Possibly two 

42 2 Artifact scatter with feature(s) Early/Middle Archaic Jay (1). Chiricahua(l) Archaic components 

43 2 Lithic scatter Middle Archaic Chricahua(l) 

44 1 Artifact scatter with feattire(s) Middle Archaic San Jose (1). Chiricahua(1) 

Possible Late 

Paleoindian point 

50 1 Lithic scatter Middle Archaic Chricahua (2) from this site 

Possibly two 

51 1 Lithic scatter Early/Late Archaic Jay (1). San Pedro (2) Archaic components 

52 1 Lithic scatter Early Archaic Jay(!) 

53 1 Lithic scatter Archaic unidentified dart-sized (2) cf. San Pedro points 

Possibly two 

84 1 Artifact scatter with fcature(s) Early/Middle Archaic Bajada (1), Armijo (1) Archaic components 

212 1 Lithic scatter Late Archaic San Pedro (2) 

279 2 Lithic scatter Middle Archaic Armijo (2) 

Also an 

indeterminate 

comer-notched point 

279 1 Lithic Scatter Basketmaker BM Comer-notched (1) (1) and ground stone 

328 1 Lithic scatter Middle Archaic Armijo (2) 

lacks ceramics and is identifiable only by a 

Basketmaker corner-notched projectile point that 

may date to either the Basketmaker II or III 

periods. A portion of an unidentified, cornernotched projectile point is also present. 

In many cases (n = 18). Archaic and 

Basketmaker projectile points were recorded from 

sites assigned to other time periods (Table 3.2). 

Occasionally, these anomalous points may 

represent "heirlooms" or scavenged artifacts; 

however, it seems probable that they often are the 

only indications of earlier occupations that are 

otherwise masked by more extensive Pueblo 

period archeology. These sites are thus potentially 

multi-component with the visibility of the sparser 

component obscured by a denser, more easily 

recognized component. 

Puebloan Component Dating 

During the course of Phase I a total of 18.981 

ceramic sherds from 204 archeological sites were 

analyzed in the field (Table 3.3). In the American 

Southwest, ceramic data derived from 

archeological survey are primarily used to assess 

the temporal occupation span of sites. However, 

ceramic information from broad-scale surveys 

such as the El Malpais survey also has the 

potential to yield insights into variation in regional 

exchange ties and functional differentiation of 

sites and areas (see Chapter 5). 
48 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Table 3.2. Anomalous Archaic and Basketniaker points from other sites. 

Site (ELMA #) Assigned Site Age Anomalous Points (n) 

45 A.D. 870 to 1050 

56 A.D. II00 to 1150 

83 A.D. 870 to 1050 

87 A.D. 1050 to 1125 

08 A.D. 950 to 1050 

118 Puebloan (mixed) 

133 A.D. 1050to 1125 

150 A.D. 870 to 1125 

216 A.D. 1050 to 1125 

226 A.D. 875 to 950 

227 A.D. 1200 to 1300 

276 A.D. 900 to 1150 

284 Mixed/Possible Protohistoric 

302 A.D. 1050 to 1200 

304 A.D. 1125 to 1200 

306 A.D. 1125 to 1300 

309 Puebloan (mixed) 

311 A.D. 950 to 1125 

Chiricahua (2) 

Armijo (2) 

Chiricahua (2) 

Armijo (1) 

Armijo (1). San Pedro (1). Basketniaker (2) 

Armijo (1) 

San Pedro (1) 

San Jose (1). Chiricahua (1). San Pedro (1) 

Chiricahua (2) 

Basketniaker (1) 

Basketniaker (1) 

San Jose (1) 

Armijo (1). Chiricahua (1). En Medio (3). Basketniaker (1) 

San Pedro(1) 

Gypsum Cave (2) 

Jay (1). San Pedro (1) 

Bajada (2) 

Armijo (1) 

Ceramic Sampling and Classification 

Sampling 

The recording of ceramic artifacts received a 

high priority throughout the El Malpais survey. At 

each site an attempt was made to locate all 

ceramics, regardless of size or condition. At most 

sites, all sherds were individually pin flagged and 

recorded. At 22 sites with large concentrations of 

sherds, where full recording would have been 

time-prohibitive, the surface ceramics were 

sampled. In the few cases where sampling 

occurred, sample areas were established, and all 

sherds within those areas were recorded. Sample 

areas were usually subjectively defined in areas of 

maximum sherd density to facilitate recording the 

target of over 200 sherds from each sample area. 

At sites with multiple artifact concentrations or 

distinct features, each distinct area was assigned a 

sample number, and ceramics were recorded 

independently regardless of the total number of 

sherds present on the site. Thus, many sites 

include multiple ceramic samples. 

A total of six analysts recorded ceramics over 

the course of the three field seasons of the El 

Malpais survey. The experience of these analysts 

varied considerably with only two of the analysts 

having prior experience with ceramics in westcentral New Mexico. In addition. El Malpais area 

ceramics are relatively difficult to classify due to 

the wide variety of ceramic types, technologies. 

and styles represented in most assemblages. As a 

result, there is a fair amount of interobserver 

variation, and clear differences in the data sets 

produced by individual analysts. These differences 

influence how the data can be used in statistical 

analyses and need to be accounted for when 

making comparisons of type and vessel form 

proportions. Important differences are noted where 

appropriate. However, despite this variation, the El 

Malpais survey has yielded an extremely robust, 

large data set suitable for assessing temporal, 

spatial, and functional variability in the use of 

ceramics by ancient residents of the malpais area. 

Ceramic Classification 

Typological assignments were made on the 

basis of co-occurring suites of technological, 

stylistic, and morphological characteristics. The 

ceramic type and vessel form of each sherd were 

recorded on a ceramic recording form. One form 

was used for each sample area. Each sherd was 

noted in a running tally, with a final total for each 
CHRONOLOGY 49 

Table 3.3. El Malpais National Monument survey ceramic types and vessel forms. 

Ceramic Type 

Alma Neck Banded 

Alma Plain 

Cebolleta Black-on-white. Escavada style 

Cebolleta Black-on-white, Gallup style 

Cebolleta Black-on-white, Puerco style 

Cebolleta Black-on-white. Reserve style 

Cebolleta Black-on-white. Snowflake style 

Cebolleta Black-on-white. Indeterminate style 

Clapboard Corrugated 

Escavada Black-on-white 

Exuberant Corrugated 

Gallup Black-on-white 

Gray Ware. Other 

Hawikuh Polychrome 

Incised Corrugated 

Indented Corrugated 

Indeterminate Cibola Black-on-white 

Indeterminate Puerco Series 

Indeterminate Reserve/Tularosa Black-on-white 

Indeterminate While Mountain Red Ware 

Indeterminate White Mountain Red Ware -

Black-on-red 

Indeterminate White Mountain Red Ware -

Polychrome 

Kana'a Neck Banded 

Kiatuthlanna Black-on-white 

Kwakina Polychrome-Acoma 

La Plata Black-on-white 

Lino Gray 

Mimbres Black-on-white 

Mogollon Obliterated Corrugated 

Narrow Neck Banded 

Neck Corrugated 

Obliterated Corrugated 

Other/miscellaneous 

I'll Corrugated Rim 

PI1/III Corrugated Rim 

PHI Corrugated Rim 

1'inedale Black-on-white 

Plain Brown 

Plain Cibola White 

Plain Gray 

Puerco Black-on-red 

Puerco Black-on-white 

Red Mesa Black-on-white 

Reserve Black-on-white 

Reserve Incised Corrugated 

Reserve Indented Corrugated 

Reserve Indented Corrugated. Smudged 

Reserve Plain Corrugated 

Reserve Plain Corrugated. Smudged 

Reserve Plain Smudged 

Jar 

Body 

1 

94 

16 

15 

27 

38 

-

284 

1.007 

74 

3 

118 

1 

7 

140 

2.495 

1.276 

6 

63 

24 

16 

2 

71 

25 

-

-

11 

2 

1 

24 

14 

2 

-

24 

10 

-

2 

420 

1.478 

3.839 

2 

130 

121 

96 

10 

27 

1 

261 

1 

10 

Jar 

Rim 

-

2 

1 

-

2 

-

-

8 

17 

5 

-

2 

-

1 

2 

20 

27 

-

-

-

-

-

11 

2 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

58 

12 

2 

-

9 

24 

100 

-

2 

8 

-

-

2 

-

8 

-

-

Bowl 

Body 

-

50 

9 

4 

13 

11 

10 

165 

-

20 

-

30 

2 

-

-

7 

518 

7 

13 

39 

3 3 

4 

-

17 

-

1 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

97 

546 

264 

29 

60 

80 

26 

1 

8 

2 

9 

4 

42 

Vessel Fori 

Bowl 

Rim 

-

3 

4 

-

3 

1 

2 

37 

4 

6 

- " 

7 

-

-

1 

2 

110 

5 

2 

2 

4 

3 

-

8 

2 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4 

49 

19 

1 

19 

3 3 

7 

-

1 

-

3 

-

3 

n 

Unknown 

-

12 

-

1 

-

-

-

25 

2 

1 

-

-

-

3 

1 

10 

84 

-

-

30 

7 

-

-

-

-

-

8 

-

-

-

-

-

1 

-

-

-

-

349 

531 

1.470 

4 

-

! 

-

5 

3 

-

21 

1 

2 

Other 

-

1 

1 

-

2 

-

-

5 

-

1 

-

-

-

-

2 

6 

23 

-

-

3 

-

1 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 

21 

29 

-

1 

3 

1 

-

-

-

-

-

-

Total 

1 

162 

31 

20 

47 

50 

12 

524 

1,030 

107 

3 

157 

3 

11 

146 

2.540 

2.038 

18 

78 

98 

60 

10 

82 

52 

2 

1 

19 

2 

1 

24 

14 

2 

1 

82 

22 

2 

2 

881 

2.649 

5.721 

36 

212 

246 

130 

16 

41 

3 

302 

6 

57 

Percent of 

dotal 

Assemblage 

0.01 

0.86 

0.17 

0.1 1 

0.25 

0.27 

0.06 

2.80 

5.50 

0.57 

0.02 

0.84 

0.02 

0.06 

0.78 

13.56 

10.88 

0.10 

0.42 

0.52 

0.32 

0.05 

0.44 

0.28 

0.01 

0.01 

0.10 

0.01 

0.01 

0.13 

0.07 

0.01 

0.01 

0.44 

0.12 

0.01 

0.01 

4.70 

14.14 

30.54 

0.19 

1.13 

1.31 

0.69 

0.09 

0.22 

0.02 

1.61 

0.03 

0.30 
50 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Ceramic Type 

Socorro Black-on-white, Indeterminate 

Socorro Black-on-white. Variant #1 

Socorro Black-on-white. Variant #2 

Springerville Polychrome 

St. Johns Black-on-red 

St. Johns Polychrome 

Three Circle Neck Corrugated 

Tularosa Black-on-white 

Tularosa Patterned Corrugated 

Tularosa Patterned Corrugated. Smudged 

Unknown corrugated brown 

Unknown corrugated gray 

Unknown gray 

Unknown Painted Red Ware 

Unknown plain brown 

Unknown plain gray 

Unknown red ware 

Unknown Type/Ware 

Unknown White Ware 

White Ware. Other 

Wingate Black-on-red 

Wingate Polychrome 

Total 

Vessel Form Percentages 

Jar 

Body 

9 

514 

71 

-

21 

-

9 

11 

2 

-

2 

95 

2 

-

1 

8 

47 

-

4 

-

17 

-

13.255 

70.77 

Jar 

Rim 

-

11 

1 

-

-

-

2 

-

-

-

-

2 

2 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

343 

1.83 

Vessel Form 

Bowl 

Body 

5 

99 

13 

3 

1 

6 

-

5 

1 

1 

-

-

-

1 

-

-

2 

2 

-

1 

13 

1 

2.275 

12.15 

Bowl 

Rim 

1 

8 

3 

-

3 

2 

-

1 

-

-

-

-

-

1 

-

1 

-

-

2 

-

4 

-

371 

1.98 

Unknown 

3 

10 

4 

-

-

-

3 

-

-

-

-

5 

12 

-

-

12 

-

3 

6 

-

-

-

2.630 

14.04 

Other 

-

3 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

107 

0.57 

Total 

18 

645 

92 

3 

25 

8 

14 

17 

3 

1 

2 

102 

16 

2 

6 

21 

49 

5 

12 

1 

34 

1 

18.981 

Percent of 

Total 

Assemblage 

0.10 

3.44 

0.49 

0.02 

0.13 

0.04 

0.07 

0.09 

0.02 

0.01 

0.01 

0.54 

0.09 

0.01 

0.03 

0.11 

0.26 

0.03 

0.06 

0.01 

0.18 

0.01 

type and vessel form produced. The analysis of 

temper type rarely plays a significant role in 

temporal or spatial classification of ceramic types 

in west-central New Mexico, especially when 

compared to other areas of the Southwest, such as 

the Rio Grande or Hohokam regions. This is 

largely a result of the fact that in many cases 

tempers used by ancient potters in west-central 

New Mexico are undiagnostic crushed sherd or 

uncharacterized alluvial sands. However, in some 

cases a small nip was taken off the corner of a 

sherd to examine the paste. Paste color and visible 

temper distinctions do play an important role in 

the assignment of some of the more common 

white ware types. Field analysts were able to 

consult a shared ceramics manual that included 

detailed type descriptions and drawings 

(Schachner 2001). 

The ceramic manual and recording form were 

created using a variety of sources. The aim was to 

maintain consistency with recording systems 

previously used in the area (Dittert 1959; Duff et 

al. 1995; Eckert and Huntley 1998; Fowler 1989; 

Harlow 1967; Hays-Gilpin and van Hartesveldt 

1998; Kintigh 1985; Marshall 1991, 1993; Smith 

et al. 1966; Sundt 1979; Wilson 1994). Due to the 

large size of the monument and its location along 

cultural boundaries between the Acoma and Zuni 

regions and between the Anasazi and Mogollon 

archeological culture areas, a hybrid system combining ceramic typologies from a number of areas 

was required. Thus the ceramic manual contains 

an extensive list of types and wares (see Schachner 2001), although even this list did not include 

all types identified during the El Malpais survey. 

Minor revisions were made to the form and 

manual following the completion of the 2000 

season in order to incorporate recommendations 

outlined in the pilot survey report (Schachner 

2001). These changes were made primarily to 

shorten the form since large sections for Pueblo IV 

and historic period ceramics were almost never 

used during the 2000 season. Ceramic types from 

these periods were not found during the 2001 

Table 3.3. (Continued). 
CHRONOLOGY 51 

season either, although a few occurrences of 

ceramics from late Prehispanic periods were 

recorded during 2002. Additional changes were 

made to reflect information about the 

characteristics of Socorro Black-on-white 

provided by Peter McKenna during the 2000 field 

season (see Chapter 5 for details). 

The typological framework developed for the 

survey attempted to maintain a balance between 

maximizing information and minimizing the 

necessity for the analyst to make specific 

typological assignments with small and often 

highly eroded surface sherds. Thus, sherds that 

could not be confidently placed in a single type or 

style category could be placed in categories such 

as Indeterminate Reserve/Tularosa Black-onwhite. These types of categories possess much 

better temporal information than more general 

groups such as Indeterminate Cibola Black-onwhite and thus provide some temporal information 

even when sherds could not be assigned to a 

specific type. A very small percentage of sherds of 

unknown origins or that exhibited characteristics 

representative of other regions were placed in 

Unknown (or Other) type/ware categories. 

The following sections highlight the general 

characteristics of ceramic assemblages in the El 

Mai pais area. El Malpais area ceramic 

assemblages often include examples of different 

wares from a variety of regions within the 

Southwest (Dittert 1959; Marshall 1991. 1993; 

Wilson 1994). However, local ceramics from the 

area also exhibit enough technological and 

Stylistic variation that some researchers have 

proposed unique typological systematics for the 

area (Dittert 1959). For these reasons, a relatively 

detailed discussion of the various wares recorded 

in the area is warranted. 

Gray Ware 

The gray ware ceramics of the El Malpais area 

are considered part of the Cibola Gray Ware 

tradition characteristic of the southern portions of 

the Puebloan culture area (Dittert 1959; Marshall 

1991; Wilson 1994). The vast majority of these 

vessels are jars used for cooking and/or as storage 

vessels. Gray ware bowls are extremely rare. The 

usage of gray ware in many day-to-day tasks 

results in their being the most common ceramic 

ware in most assemblages in the northern 

Southwest, including those at El Malpais. Local 

production of gray ware ceramics appears to have 

occurred over most of the northern Southwest, and 

there is no reason to believe this was not the case 

for the El Malpais region (Dittert 1959:404). The 

typological schema used during the El Malpais 

survey focused on the identification of temporally 

sensitive changes in surface manipulation and 

decoration and did not attempt to delineate 

differences based on temper materials (e.g., 

Tusayan vs. Cibola Gray Ware [see Hays-Gilpin 

and wan Hartesveldt 1998:120-121]). This system 

is very common in the region (Duff et al. 1995; 

Kayser and Carroll 1988;" Marshall 1991; Mills 

1987; Wilson 1994) and provides important 

temporal information for assigning site occupation 

spans. 

In El Malpais and the surrounding area, gray 

ware sherds have a gray to white paste and sand or 

sherd temper. Sherd temper increases over time 

and is the major temper found in Pueblo 111 period 

(A.D. 1150-1275) gray ware in the area (Dittert 

1959:396; Wilson" 1994:50). Perhaps the most 

distinctive characteristic of El Malpais area gray 

ware is that it is frequently white in color and in 

some cases can be confused with white ware 

ceramics. However, the two wares can usually be 

distinguished by the lack of polish on gray ware 

and the coarseness of gray ware temper. Temper 

material (even crushed sherd) often protrudes from 

the surface of gray ware, while this rarely occurs 

with white ware. EI Malpais area gray ware can 

also sometimes be mistaken for brown ware, 

especially sherds that have been stained brown 

through contact with soils. Gray ware can be 

distinguished from brown ware by its light paste 

color, greater hardness, and large, protruding 

temper. 
52 EL MALPAIS ARCHFOLOGICAL SURVEY 

begins with Kiatuthlanna Black-on-white and 

increases dramatically over time. 

In the early Pueblo II period (A.D. 900 to 

1130/1150), El Malpais and Cebollita Mesa 

ceramics began to exhibit distinctive physical and 

technological characteristics that allow them to be 

distinguished from what is assumed to be a nonlocal white ware. Dittert (1959:400-402) defined 

two new ceramic types for the Acoma region that 

diverge from '"normal*" Cibola White Ware 

characteristics, Cebolleta and Kowina Black-onwhite. The presence of Cebolleta Black-on-white 

has become very important for the identification of 

Cebolleta phase sites in the region (Marshall 1991. 

1993: Wilson 1994) and has continued to be 

utilized by most ceramic analysts working in the 

area. The identification of Kowina Black-on-white 

as a separate ceramic type has received less 

acceptance. For example. Kowina Black-on-white 

is not recognized by Marshall or Wilson (although 

see Hays-Gilpin and van Hartesveldt 1998:97). 

This may be because Ditterfs definition 

(1959:402) implies that it is stylistically similar to 

Tularosa Black-on-white and may only be 

distinguishable from the latter when whole vessels 

or large sherds are available. 

Because the presence of Cebolleta Black-onwhite is important for defining the Cebolleta phase 

(A.D. 950 to 1 125), and because most sites in the 

El Malpais area appear to date to this phase, a 

lengthy discussion is warranted. Ditterfs 

(1959:400-401) type definition for Cebolleta 

Black-on-white is as follows: 

Brown Ware 

Brown ware ceramics are relatively common 

in the El Malpais area, particularly in the southern 

portions of the region. Most brown wares recorded 

in the area are considered part of the Mogollon 

Brown Ware tradition and appear to have been 

produced in the Mogollon Highlands to the south 

(Wilson 1992). Suitable clays for producing brown 

ware ceramics are not present in the El Malpais 

area, suggesting that these ceramics were obtained 

through trade (Tainter 1980: Wilson 1994) or were 

brought by migrant groups (Dittert 1959: Ruppe 

1953). Some Socorroan brown ware (Los Lunas 

Smudged and Pitoche Ribbed) has also been 

identified in the area (Mera 1935; Marshall 

1991 flable 6.11. l993:Table 7: Wilson 

1994:1 able 8). but these types have not been 

found during this survey. 

Brown ware usually has a brown or dark paste 

that is easily broken. Its temper is either quite 

small or macroscopically invisible. Surface 

treatments generally parallel those used on gray 

ware both stylistically and temporally. However, 

brown ware is often highly polished, more care is 

taken in producing surface treatments, and black, 

lustrous interiors, or "smudging"', is often present 

(see Hays-Gilpin and van Hartesveldt 1998:136-

139). Additionally, brown ware bowls are quite 

common, suggesting a somewhat different range 

of uses than gray ware, including cooking, storage, 

and serving functions. 

White WartMost of the white ware sherds encountered on 

sites in the El Malpais area can be considered part 

of the Cibola White Ware tradition (Hays-Gilpin 

and van Hartesveldt 1998:58-99). These sherds 

have a gray to white paste and a black, mineral 

paint. Jars are the most common white ware vessel 

form found in the northern Southwest, with bowls 

comprising most of the remaining assemblage. 

These vessels were likely to have been used as 

storage containers and serving dishes. Both sand 

and sherd tempers were used. Sherd temper use 

Geographically and stylistically, it falls 

between Puerco Black-on-white and its 

varieties to the north and west. Reserve 

Black-on-white to the south, and Kwahe'e 

Black-on-white to the northeast. Sherds, 

still recognizably Cebolleta Black-onwhite and present in a Pilares phase 

association, exhibit influences from a style 

characteristic of Snowflake Black-onwhite. Resemblances to the above types 

are progressively more pronounced toward 
CHRONOLOGY 53 

the borders of the province adjacent to the 

distribution of those types . . . The central 

form of Cebolleta Black-on-white has a 

thin, hard white slip that is polished. Paste 

is white (N 8/0) with fine rolled quartz 

sand and angular sherd temper. Fine basalt 

grains are in many examples. Designs are 

opposed solid and hatched elements. It is 

more common for a band of hatching to 

parallel the straight side of a solid figure, 

such as a sawtooth element, than to 

oppose it on the toothed side. Large mass 

elements, solid or hatched, are customary. 

Wilson (1994:53) and Marshall (1991:6-29) 

provide definitions for Cebolleta Black-on-white 

that vary slightly from DitterLs original definition. 

Perhaps the best system for dealing with the 

variation in Cebolleta Black-on-white is that of 

Wilson (1994:53), who typed Cebolleta sherds 

based upon both physical and stylistic categories. 

This system preserves some of the temporal 

information inherent in the traditional Cibola style 

sequence (Reserve versus Puerco for example), 

while recognizing the distinctiveness of the 

Cebollita area ceramics. Field observations from 

the survey suggest Cebolleta Black-on-white can 

be distinguished from other Cibola White Ware 

ceramics by its consistently off-white to bright 

white paste (distinguished from gray to grayish 

white for other Cibola types); creamy, usually 

thick, hard slip that often has a waxy feel: and 

common tendency towards overfiring, producing a 

buff-colored ceramic with red to brownish red 

paint. These physical characteristics are relatively 

easy to distinguish, although they may be difficult 

for analysts unfamiliar with the normal variation in 

Cibola White Ware. 

In future years, archeologists working in the 

region may attempt to systematize the distinction 

between Cebolleta ceramics and the traditional 

Cibola series. Recent re-evaluations of the Cibola 

series have proposed reviving the use of variety 

designations in the type-variety system (Colton 

and Hargrave 1937) to recognize regional 

variation in ceramic ware (e.g.. Red Mesa Blackon-white, Puerco Valley variety) (Hays-Gilpin and 

van Hartesveldt 1998:53-55. 58-59). However, 

Cebolleta may exhibit enough distinctive stylistic 

treatments to deserve a separate type name. 

Ceramics from the monument should contribute 

valuable information to this debate. 

A few non-Cibola ceramics, including San 

Juan White Ware and Socorro Black-on-white 

(Sundt 1979) occur relatively frequently in the 

region. No San Juan White Ware ceramics were 

encountered during the El Malpais survey. This is 

not unexpected considering these types most 

frequently occur in post-A.D. 1200 contexts 

(Wilson 1994:Table 6), which are relatively rare in 

the monument. Socorro Black-on-white is 

commonly found throughout the Acoma region 

and began to appear as early as the Red Mesa 

phase (A.D. 870 to 950) (Dittert 1959:402; Wilson 

1994:Table 6). The proportion of Socorro Blackon-white in El Malpais area ceramic assemblages 

peaked during the late Cebolleta phase (A.D. 1050 

to 1 125) (Marshall 1991, 1993: Wilson 1994). 

Socorro Black-on-white is relatively poorly 

known and described in the archeological 

literature. During the 2000 season, analysts 

proceeded using a type description based upon 

Dittert (1959:402) 'and Sundt (1979). New 

information provided by Peter McKenna at the end 

of the 2000 season alerted analysts to an additional 

variant. Thus during the 2001 and 2002 seasons, 

analysts recorded two variants of Socorro Blackon-white. Variant #1, recorded in 2000. is 

unslipped, with black igneous rock inclusions 

(Dittert 1959:402: Sundt 1979). and Variant #2 

has a washy slip and chunky white, tuff temper. 

Variant #1 is the "traditional" variety of Socorro 

Black-on-white found in the Acoma and Socorro 

areas. The production area for Variant #2 is 

hypothesized to have been the Albuquerque area. 

Data concerning production of Socorro Black-onwhite are spotty at best, and most researchers 

assume it may be non-local in the Cebollita area 

(Marshall 1991:6-40-6-42; Wilson 1994:54). 

Future research in the monument and surrounding 

regions should attempt to address this question. 
54 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Red Ware 

Red ware was found relatively infrequently in 

the monument during the survey, in part due to the 

fact that most sites within El Malpais predate the 

height of its manufacture in the northern 

Southwest. All red ware vessels previously found 

in the region are part of the White Mountain Red 

Ware tradition (Carlson 1970). These vessels 

appear to have been used largely as serving 

containers, with bowls being the most common 

form. The first White Mountain Red Ware vessels 

are produced during the A.D. 1000s, with 

production continuing in some areas of eastern 

Arizona into the fourteenth century A.D. 

The primary production area for White 

Mountain Red Ware is assumed to be the area 

represented by the Cibola region as defined by 

Kintigh (1996): from Silver Creek through the 

Upper Little Colorado and Zuni regions, the Rio 

Puerco of the West, the Reserve-Tularosa area in 

western New Mexico, and the Cebollita Mesa area 

(Dittert 1959:408-411). Dittert hypothesized that 

some or all of the early White Mountain Red Ware 

(Puerco and Wingate styles) found in the Cebollita 

area was made outside the region, with local 

production increasing with the introduction of St. 

Johns types. 

Dittert (1959:408-411) defined two local 

variants of White Mountain Red Ware types, 

North Plains and Kowina, in the Cebollita Mesa 

area. Although these types do depart somewhat 

from rigid definitions of St. Johns and Wingate 

(Kowina may be more similar to the earlier Zuni 

Glaze Ware, Heshotauthla Polychrome), they do 

not appear to exhibit any greater variation than is 

normally found within late White Mountain Red 

Ware assemblages. Therefore they were not used 

as separate categories in the El Malpais survey. 

Generally, White Mountain Red Ware in the 

Acoma area is characterized by bolder use of 

white paint and/or slip, red slips that tend toward 

maroon even in later periods, and the frequent 

earlier (pre-1250) use of black paint on the 

exterior of bowls. Although the White Mountain 

Red Ware within this relatively restricted 

geographic area does vary somewhat from the 

norm, the traditional type names have been kept 

here to mark the similarity of Acoma assemblages 

with those to the west. 

Ceramic Seriation 

A series of statistical analyses were conducted 

in order to delineate groups of sites with similar 

ceramic assemblages. Date ranges were assigned 

to these groupings through assessment of tree-ring 

dated ceramics and comparison with temporal 

ceramic complexes assigned by previous 

researchers in the El Malpais region (Marshall 

1991, 1993; Wilson 1994) and beyond (Duff 1996; 

Eckert 1995; Kintigh 1985). Ceramic assemblages 

from individual sites were grouped using a 

coupled k-means cluster and correspondence 

analysis methodology proposed by Duff (1996) for 

the El Morro Valley area to the west of El 

Malpais. This method has proven useful for 

assigning chronological information to ceramic 

assemblages for similar time periods recorded 

during survey and excavation in the Zuni area 

(Eckert 1995; Kintigh et al. n.d.). Exploratory 

analyses were run with various combinations of 

types before choosing a set that provides the most 

satisfactory combination of interpretability and 

temporal resolution. The statistical tests yield a 

number of chronologically sensitive groupings and 

suggest some functional differentiation within the 

data set. They also highlight the importance of 

accurately identifying early gray and white ware 

types necessary to documenting late Pueblo I and 

early Pueblo II occupation. The identification of 

these early types is difficult and appears to have 

been somewhat problematic, most likely due to the 

relative inexperience of some of the analysts with 

ceramic typologies used in the area. 

Due to sample size constraints, only a subset 

of the recorded components, approximately onethird, could be analyzed using quantitative 

techniques. In order to provide chronological 

information for the remaining components, 

qualitative temporal assignments were made for 

all components with recorded ceramic artifacts. 

These assignments were made in consultation with 
CHRONOLOGY 55 

the results of the statistical analysis and with the 

ceramic complex approaches utilized by Marshall 

(1991, 1993) and Wilson (1994). Phase dates and 

descriptions are derived from Wilson (1994:57-63) 

(Figure 3.1). Details of assemblage composition 

are outlined by Wilson (1994), as well as Marshall 

(1991:6-19-6-23). In many cases, components 

were placed in a particular phase or sub-phase, but 

in some cases components could only be placed in 

multi-phase or more general categories. In a few 

cases ceramic assemblages provided so little 

chronological information they could only be 

placed in quite broad categories (e.g., Pueblo II). 

A small number of assemblages were also set 

aside as mixed if they yielded contradictory 

chronological information. In most cases, the 

assignment of components with small sample sizes 

should be viewed with caution. In all cases except 

for the site of Las Ventanas, multiple sample units 

at components were lumped together for both the 

statistical and qualitative chronological 

assignments. This decision was made in order to 

maximize the number of components with samples 

large enough for the statistical portion of the 

analysis. Also, it was felt that most components 

with multiple samples exhibited little evidence for 

temporally discrete surface units. Temporal 

assignments, sample sizes, and methodology used 

are presented for all components in Table 3.4. The 

temporal spans of the statistically derived clusters 

and the qualitatively dated components are shown 

in Figure 3.2. 

As stated above, statistical analyses were 

conducted using a coupled k-means and 

correspondence analysis technique proposed by 

Andrew Duff (1996). The coupled technique is 

aimed at providing multiple lines of evidence, 

increased interpretative potential, and a means for 

evaluating patterning in large data sets (Cowgill 

1968). Correspondence analysis (CA) is a 

multivariate scaling procedure similar to multidimensional scaling and principal components 

analysis (see Baxter 1994 for a detailed 

description) but has the added benefit of working 

directly with counts and displaying both cases and 

variables on the same graphical representation 

(Duff 1996:90). K-means is a non-hierarchical 

clustering procedure that provides summary data 

about initial data input. In most cases, percentages 

are better used as input data to minimize sample 

size effects. Although the use of percentage data is 

sometimes problematic in cluster analyses due to 

the closed sum problem, it should not be too 

influential in this case due to the relatively large 

number of variables involved. K-means provides a 

more intuitive summary of data than the factor 

scores of CA. Coupled together, correspondence 

analysis provides a graphical summary of 

variation, while k-means provides summary 

information for interpretation (Duff 1996). 

One of the most important facets of 

conducting seriation analyses is selecting 

appropriate variables. In this case, there was a 

need to minimize differences in recording during 

separate field seasons and to eliminate nonchronological factors in the data set. To minimize 

sample size effects, all components (or in the case 

of Las Ventanas [ELMA 189], individual sample 

units) with less than 50 sherds were excluded from 

the statistical analysis, yielding a total of 78 

components after eliminating outliers. 

Elimination and/or combination of various 

recorded ceramic types was the next stage of data 

preparation. All sherds recorded as unknown or 

other. Indeterminate Cibola Black-on-white or 

Plain White, corrugated rims, and brown ware 

were dropped. These categories possessed little or 

no chronological information or occurred in such 

low frequencies they were deemed extraneous. 

Cursory examination of the corrugated rim data 

suggests they do support the temporal assignments 

produced. The brown ware category with all types 

combined was included in the analysis at first, but 

this introduced a dimension of variation that was 

probably more influenced by geographic than 

temporal factors, so it was dropped. Previous 

researchers have suggested temporal variation in 

the appearance of brown ware ceramics in the 

region, and this prospect deserves further research 

(Marshall 1991; Wilson 1994). 

Various ceramic types were combined to 

produce a smaller number of variables making the 

statistical results more readily interpretable and to 

minimize the problems associated with different 
m 

r 

> 

r-

> 

> 

n 

E 

m 

O 

~ 

o 

o 

o 

> 

rC 

m 

Figure 3.1. El Malpais ceramic cluster groups, selected phase sequences, and Pecos Classification periods. 
CHRONOLOGY 57 

ELMA No. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IK 

16 

2(1 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

34 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

53 

54 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

Sample Size 

(No. of Sherds) 

12 

21 

97 

66 

25 

37 

271 

24 

20 

164 

36 

87 

31 

28 

94 

32 

12 

20 

16 

115 

19 

43 

4 

1 

36 

43 

1 

22 

228 

1 

193 

457d 

39 

52 

6 

1 

9 

99 

5 

298 

53 

189" 

9 

16 

4 

2 

188 

344d 

561" 

14 

384 

1.157" 

29 

72 

111 

22 

Phase/Period 

Pueblo 11 

Pueblo II 

Late Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta/Pilares 

Pueblo II 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 

Pilares 

Cebolleta 

Mixed Assemblage 

Pilares 

Cebolleta 

Pilares 

Late Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta 

Cebolleta 

Cebolleta 

Cebolleta 

Pueblo II 

Pilares 

Late Cebolleta/Pilares 

Mixed Assemblage 

Late Cebolleta/Pilares 

Pueblo II 

Unknown 

Pueblo II 

Cebolleta 

Unknown 

Late Cebolleta 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 

Pueblo II 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 

Pueblo II 

Pueblo II 

Unknown 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 

Mixed Assemblage 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 

Cebolleta 

Pueblo 11 

Pueblo 11 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta/Pilares 

Late Cebolleta 

Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta 

Cebolleta 

Cebolleta 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 

Red Mesa 

Method'1 Cluster" 

0 

Q 

Q 

S 

Q 

Q 

s 

Q 

Q 

s 

Q 

s 

Q 

Q 

s 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

s 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

s 

Q 

s 

s 

Q 

s 

Q 

Q 

Q 

s 

Q 

s 

s 

s 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

s 

s 

s 

Q 

s 

s 

Q 

s 

s 

Q 

Outlier" 

4 

5 

5 

5 

3 

4 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

4 

2 

2 

2 

3 

1 

Table 3.4. El Malpais National Monument survey site chronological assignments. 
58 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Table 3.4. (Continued). 

ELMA No. 

65 

66 

67 

68 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

79 

80 

81 

82 

83 

84 

86 

87 

88 

90 

91 

92 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 

100 

102 

103 

104 

105 

106 

107 

108 

109 

110 

111 

118 

119 

122 

123 

129 

131 

132 

133 

134 

135 

142 

145 

146 

147 

148 

Sample Size 

(No. of Sherds) 

28 

1 

12 

607d 

34 

364° 

156 

1,111*" 

492" 

43 

11 

8 

1 

102 

51 

85 

283d 

3 

314d 

48 

214d 

34 

22 

89* 

28 

125 

17 

59 

65 

14 

6 

26 

3 

3 

86 

174d 

67 

2 

225d 

62 

3 

9 

15 

1 

2 

1 

241 

15 

152 

100 

169 

22 

91 

1 

87 

10 

Phase/Period 

Red Mesa 

Unknown 

Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta/Pilares 

Mixed Assemblage 

Late Cebolleta/Pilares 

Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta 

Cebolleta 

Pueblo 11 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 

Pueblo II 

Late Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 

Unknown 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 

Early Cebolleta 

Early Cebolleta 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 

Cebolleta 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 

Red Mesa 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta 

Early Cebolleta 

Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta 

Unknown 

Cebolleta 

Cebolleta 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 

Cebolleta 

Unknown 

Late Cebolleta 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 

Unknown 

Mixed Assemblage 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta/Pilares 

Pueblo 11 

Late Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta 

Cebolleta 

Unknown 

Cebolleta 

Unknown 

Method3 

Q 

Q 

Q 

s 

Q 

s 

s 

s 

s 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

s 

S 

s 

s 

Q 

s 

Q 

s 

0 

Q 

s 

Q 

s 

Q 

s 

s 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

s 

s 

s 

Q 

S 

s 

Q 

0 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

s 

Q 

s 

s 

s 

Q 

s 

Q 

s 

Q 

Cluster" 

1 

4 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3* 

1 

3 

2 

1 

4 

2 

2 

1 

3 

3 
Table 3.4. (Continued). 

CHRONOLOGY 59 

ELMA No. 

150 

151 

153 

154 

155 

156 

159 

160 

162 

163 

165 

167 

169 

170 

171 

172 

173 

174 

176 

177 

INS 

184 

188 

189-1 

189-2 

189-3 

189-4 

189-5 

189-6 

189-7 

189-8 

189-9 

189-10 

189-11 

189-12 

189-13 

192 

193 

196 

197 

204 

209 

216 

217 

218 

219 

221 

222 

223 

225 

226 

227 

228 

231 

233 

236 

Sample Size 

(No. of Sherds) 71 16 

2 

1 

13 96 24 50 26 19 16 

5 

417" 57 (. 13 

204" 

4 

198" 

8 

5 26 66 

135" 

183" 

185" 

64" 

172" 

47" 

14" 

360" 

48" 

20" 20 93 

166 15 

150 13 

3 

135 12 

172 25 73 

8 11 15 

6 13 32 33 

2 

6 65 20 

Phase/Period 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 

Early Cebolleta 

Cebolleta 

Unknown 

Cebolleta 

Cebotteta 

Cebolleta 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 

Cebolleta 

Red Mesa 

Red Mesa 

Pueblo II 

Cebolleta 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 

Cebolleta 

Pueblo 11 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 

Unknown 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Cebolleta 

Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta/Pilares 

I,ate Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 

Early Cebolleta 

Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta'Pilares 

Late Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta 

Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta'Pilares 

Kowina 

Pueblo IV 

Cebolleta 

Unknown 

Late Cebolleta 

Early Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta 

Unknown 

Late Cebolleta 

Red Mesa 

Pilares/Kowina 

Cebolleta 

Red Mesa 

Kowina 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Cebolleta 

Cebolleta 

Method* 

s 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q Q

f 

Q 

s 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

s 

s 

Q 

Q 

s 

Q 

s 

Q 

Q 

Q 

s 

s 

s 

s 

s 

s 

Q 

Q 

s 

Q 

Q 

Q 

S 

s 

Q 

Q 

Q '» 

s 

Q 

s 

Q 

s 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

s 

Q 

Cluster" 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

3 

4 

2 

2 

2 

1 

4 

3 

4 

2 

2 

2 

3 
60 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Table 3.4. (Continued). 

ELMA No. 

237 

240 

248 

249 

255 

256 

261 

262 

263 

264 

266 

267 

271 

272 

273 

274 

276 

277 

278 

280 

282 

284 

285 

287 

288 

291 

292 

293 

294 

295 

296 

297 

298 

299 

300 

302 

303 

304 

306 

308 

309 

310 

311 

312 

313 

334 

335 

336 

Sample Size 

(No. of Sherds) 

29 

11 

31 

93 

157 

36 

7 

96 

44 

43 

22 

24 

64 

64 

176d 

1 

73 

105 

41 

69 

1 

32 

4 

159 

1 

43 

60 

150 

15 

19.3 

107 

3 

3 

56 

18 

31 

23 

171 

23 

21 

30 

7 

26d 

269 

11 

66 ld 

9 

91 

Phase/Period 

Late Cebolleta 

Cebolleta 

l.ate Cebolleta/Pilares 

Pi lares 

Late Cebolleta/Pilares 

Early Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta/Pilares 

Cebolleta 

l.ate Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta 

Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta/Pilares 

Late Cebolleta/Pilares 

Late Cebolleta/Pilares 

Late Cebolleta/Pilares 

Late Cebolleta/Pilares 

Pueblo 11 

Red Mesa/Earl> Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta/Pilares 

Pilares/Kowina 

Unknown 

Mixed/Possible Protohistoric 

Unknown 

Late Cebolleta/Pilares 

Red Mesa/early Cebolleta 

Cebolleta/Pilares 

Late Cebolleta 

Pi lares 

Late Cebolleta/Pilares 

Late Cebolleta 

Pilares 

Cebolleta 

Unknown 

Late Cebolleta 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta/Pilares 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 

Pilares 

Pilares/Kowina 

Late Cebolleta/Pilares 

Mixed Assemblage 

Cebolleta 

Cebolleta 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta 

Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta 

Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta 

Method'1 

Q 

Q 

c 

s 

s 

Q 

Q 

s 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

s 

Q 

s 

Q 

Q 

s 

Q 

0 

Q 

O 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

s 

Q 

Q 

s 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

s 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

s 

Q 

s 

Q 

s 

Cluster1' 

5 

4 

3 

4 

Outlier 

4 

Outlier 

1 

5 

5 

5 

1 

2 

2 

aQ = Qualitative Assessment, S = Statistical Assessment. 

b

 Number indicates cluster membership. Outlier means the site was removed from the statistical analysis, usually due to a skewed 

type distribution that was controlling the statistical techniques. 

'This component has lots of painted types and would probably be an outlier of Cluster 3 if it were included in the statistical analysis. 

d

 Indicates components whose surface ceramics were sampled. At ELMA 189 ceramics were recorded at 13 feature proveniences; all 

but those for proveniences 189-11. 189-12. and 189-13 are samples. 

"This component is most likely Red Mesa or Early Cebolleta in date but does not come up as such in the statistical analysis. 

f

 Inadvertentlv omitted from the statistical analvsis. 
CHRONOLOGY 61 

1- INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS NAY OE OCCUPIED ANYTIME WITHIN INDICATED TINE RANGES NOT SHOWN ARE 20 UNKNOWN 

COMPONENTS. 0 MIXED ASSEMBLAGE COMPONENTS, 1 MIXED ASSEMBLAGE/POSSIBLE PROTOHISTCRIC COMPONENT AND I 

PUEBLO IV (A.D. 1300-15*0) COMPONENT MIXED ASSEMBLAGES INCLUDE CERAMICS SUGGESTIVE DP WIDELY DIVERGENT 

PERIODS OF OCCUPATION. UNKNOWN COMPONENTS HAVE TOO LITTLE INFORMATION TO SUGGEST A DATE, BUT ARE 

FROBABLY PUEBLCAN AND DATE BETWEEN A.D EDO - l-'.DD 

2- FUEELO II INCLUDES RED MESA. EARLY CEBCLLETA. AND LATE CE3CLLETA PHASES. CA LCD - 1130/1150. 

• - INCLUDES ALL COMPONENTS WHOSE TIME RANGE FALLS WITHIN SOME OR ALL OF PHASE 

Figure 3.2. Statistically and qualitatively dated components. 
62 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

analysts. Thus, for gray ware, the Plain Gray 

category was retained, the neck banded and neck 

corrugated types combined as Early Gray, and all 

corrugated types grouped as Corrugated Gray. 

This should minimize the effect of different 

analysts using these categories inconsistently. 

However, Early Gray types appear to have been 

under-recorded, and unfortunately this cannot be 

remedied easily. Early Gray types are key 

indicators for differentiating Red Mesa and early 

Cebolleta phase occupations, making their proper 

identification crucial for delineating temporal 

changes during the initial occupation of the El 

Malpais area. For white ware, sherds were 

categorized by Cibola design style, dropping the 

Cebolleta distinction, which was used in quite 

different frequencies by different analysts. This 

also resulted in the dropping of the Cebolleta 

Black-on-white. Indeterminate and Snowflake 

style categories, the latter due to its rarity. Early 

white ware was grouped as either Pueblo l/early 

Pueblo II, including Kiatuthlanna and Red Mesa 

styles, or Pueblo II, which included all of the 

Puerco series styles (Puerco, Gallup, and 

Escavada). Although this is not ideal, iterations of 

the analyses were run with both the combined 

groups and individual types. The former 

performed better than the latter and thus was 

retained. Reserve and Tularosa styles were also 

combined as a single late type. This seemed 

warranted considering how few Tularosa sherds 

were identified and how many Indeterminate 

Reserve/Tularosa sherds were recorded. Socorro 

variants were collapsed to a single variable. All 

White Mountain Red Ware categories, including 

those assigned to types and indeterminate 

categories were grouped together. Again this is not 

ideal, but the number of White Mountain Red 

Ware sherds in the assemblage is quite low, and 

this minimizes differences in assignments between 

analysts. The collapsing of categories yielded a 

final data set with seventy-eight components, with 

sample sizes ranging from 21 to 706 sherds, and 

eight variables. 

The correspondence analysis was run using 

ceramic counts in SYSTAT 9. while the k-means 

clustering of type percentages (percent of 

component assemblage) was conducted using 

Keith Kintiglfs (1998) Tools for Quantitative 

Archaeology KMEANS and KMPLT programs. 

The results of the correspondence analysis are 

presented graphically in Figures 3.3 through 3.5. 

Three figures are presented to provide close ups of 

the data set itself. The results of the k-means 

analysis are provided in Fables 3.5 and 3.6. 

Kintiglfs KMEANS program provides a 

method of comparing the cluster solution to a 

series of random runs in order to select the best 

possible clustering solution (for a full discussion 

see Kintigh and Ammerman 1982). The random 

runs are generated by randomizing the order of 

data under each variable. This eliminates the 

'"real" association between different variables for 

each component (Kintigh 1998:24). If the k-means 

clustering program produces cluster solutions with 

sum of squared distances (SSE) from the centroid 

of each cluster less than the random runs, the 

"reality" of the clusters is attested to (k-means 

analyses will define clusters regardless of whether 

there is real patterning in the data set). The 

KMPLT program also allows the graphic plotting 

of SSE for various cluster solutions (the analyst 

assigns the maximum number of clusters initially) 

to select the "best" solution, which is usually 

located at or near an inflection point in the data. 

SSE steadily decreases to the "best" cluster 

solution, at which point, it begins to decrease at a 

slower pace. Examination of these plots and 

cluster characteristics indicated that a number of 

cluster solutions, ranging from three to six 

clusters, provided interpretable information and 

large differences between the SSE and random 

runs. A five-cluster solution was selected as 

exhibiting relatively clear temporal characteristics. 

This solution was also utilized in labeling 

groupings within the correspondence analysis. 

Correspondence analysis is a multivariate, 

dimensionality reducing technique similar to 

principal components analysis and multidimensional scaling that creates a new set of axes 

(variables) that accounts for variance (measured as 

X

2

-distances) from an average profde represented 

as the origin of the new axes. In this case, the two 
CHRONOLOGY 63 

Figure 3.3. Correspondence analysis plot. Cluster numbers correspond to k-means cluster assignments 

in Tables 3.5 and 3.6. "Cluster" 6 includes the eight ceramic variables. 

factor solution, which is most readily plotted 

graphically, accounts for 52.7 percent of the total 

inertia (variance) in the data set. Although this is 

not an exceptional value, it is quite acceptable 

considering the problems in the data set and the 

short temporal span from which the data set 

derives. The strength of the analysis could be 

improved by including the third factor, which 

accounts for almost 14 percent of the variance. CA 

produces a "quality" variable, which is a measure 

of how well the two factor solution accounts for 

the variation of particular cases and variables. The 

lowest quality scores for this data set are for Early 

Gray and Reserve/Tularosa. Thus the third factor 

might differentiate components in part based upon 

these two types, possibly revealing important 

variation on either end of the temporal scale. 

The CA plots reveal striking spatial 

segregation of the k-means clusters, suggesting 

both techniques are summarizing variation in a 

similar manner, corroborating the groupings of 

components produced by both. The k-means 

analysis provides the most clear-cut groupings and 

summarizes how ceramic types co-vary within 

each cluster. The five clusters appear to be largely 

temporal, although Cluster 3 exhibits a few odd 

characteristics that may be attributable to 

functional differences. 

Cluster 1 (A.D. 870 to 1050) 

Cluster 1 includes 27 components and has 

high percentages of Plain Gray, Early Gray, and 

Pueblo I/early Pueblo II types. Although it is 
64 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Figure 3.4. Close-up of correspondence analysis plot. Cluster numbers correspond to k-means 

cluster assignments in Tables 3.5 and 3.6. "Cluster" 6 includes the eight ceramic 

variables. 

perhaps tempting to assign this cluster to the Red 

Mesa phase, the consistent presence of Pueblo II 

styles suggests that we might be best served by 

tentatively assigning this cluster a Red Mesa-early 

Cebolleta date (A.D. 870 to 1050). Unfortunately 

the inconsistent recording of Early Gray types 

over the course of the survey may hinder further 

delineation of this cluster. A subset of this cluster 

"drops out" at the six cluster k-means solution and 

has a higher percentage of Pueblo I types and 

lower percentages of later decorated types. 

However, it also has a lower percentage of Early 

Gray types than the original cluster, which would 

not be expected for Red Mesa phase components. 

This cluster forms a relatively discrete grouping 

on the upper left of the cloud of points on the CA 

plots. 

Cluster 2 (A.D. 1050 to 1125) 

The next cluster, Cluster 2, includes 19 

components that are assigned to the late Cebolleta 

phase (A.D. 1050 to 1125), although it probably 

represents a gradation from Cluster 1 (note the 

gradation from Cluster 1 to 2 on the CA plots). 

These components have more equal proportions of 

plain and corrugated gray and relatively high 

proportions of Pueblo II styles, which largely date 

to this time period. Pueblo I/early Pueblo II types 

are still represented in fairly high proportions as 

well, although this is not unexpected as the major 

contributor to this group, Red Mesa Black-onwhite, was produced up to the beginning of the 

period. The proportion of plain to corrugated gray 

and the increasing appearance of trace quantities 
CHRONOLOGY 65 

Figure 3.5. Additional close-up of correspondence analysis plot. Cluster numbers correspond to ktneans cluster assignments in Tables 3.5 and 3.6. "Cluster" 6 includes the eight ceramic 

variables. 

of White Mountain Red Ware would tend to 

support this dating assignment (Wilson 1994:62). 

The high percentage of Socorro Black-on-white 

also supports a late Cebolleta date, as this type 

seems to be most common during the A.D. 1050 to 

1125 time period (Marshall 1991:Table 6-13; 

Wilson 1994:Table6). 

Cluster 3 (A.D. 950 to 1125) 

Cluster 3 (n = 13) is somewhat problematic. 

but relatively clearly differentiated from other 

components on the CA plot. These components 

have low overall percentages of gray ware (this is 

the only cluster with gray ware percentages less 

than 80 percent of the total assemblage), high 

percentages of early gray ware, and high 

percentages of Pueblo I/early Pueblo II and Pueblo 

II decorated ceramics. These components appear 

to exhibit assemblages intermediate between 

Clusters 1 and 2 but with elevated percentages of 

decorated ceramics. This is attested to by the 

position of most members of this cluster on the 

CA plots, in between Clusters 1 and 2 and pulled 

slightly toward some of the decorated variables 

(CibolaP2 and Socorro). This information is 

somewhat contradictory in terms of temporal 

assignment, and thus this cluster was given a 

generalized Cebolleta phase date (A.D. 950 to 

1125). The high percentages of decorated wares 

are quite interesting however, and it is possible 

that these components represent similar sorts of 

specialized activities occurring throughout the 

Cebolleta phase. 
66 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Table 3.5. K-means Cluster Memberships and Phase Designations. 

Cluster 

1 

: 

3 

4 

5 

No. of 

Components 

27 

19 

13 

12 

7 

Plain 

Grav 

68.8/6.9 

51.7/5.0 

50.5/5.0 

36.5/6.4 

11.8/6.1 

Early 

Grav 

2.0/2.6 

0.2/0.6 

2.5/4.0 

0.4/1.1 

0.3/0.6 

Ceramic Type (m 

Corrugated 

Gra\ 

18.8/6.5 

35.2/3.3 

21.5/6.4 

44.1/7.5 

74.1/8.2 

Pueblo I 

Early Pueblo 

11 Types 

3.2/3.4 

3.0/3.6 

4.5/4.8 

1.7/3.6 

0.1/0.3 

can pereent/s 

Pueblo 11 

Types 

4.1/3.7 

3.8/3.3 

11.1/7.2 

6.1/5.1 

2.9/4.1 

tandard deviation) 

Reserve/ 

Tularosa Stvles 

0.9/1.3 

1.0/1.0 

3.1/3.7 

1.4/1.4 

3.3/2.9 

Socori'o 

Black-onwhite 

2.1/3.1 

4.4/3.7 

3.6/3.4 

6.1/6.5 

2.9/4.3 

White 

Mountain Red 

Ware 

0.1/0.3 

0.7/1.4 

3.2/5.3 

3.9/4.2 

4.6/5.0 

Cluster 4 (A.D. 1100 to 1150) 

Cluster 4 (n = 12) includes the first group of 

components where corrugated ceramics make up 

the majority of the gray ware assemblage. This 

transition appears to have occurred sometime 

during the late Cebolleta phase in the El Malpais 

area (Marshall 1991. 1993; Wilson 1994). These 

components also have high amounts of Pueblo II 

and Socorro types, suggesting a date in the late 

Cebolleta phase. In addition, relatively high 

proportions of White Mountain Red Ware are 

present, which most researchers have suggested 

was not present in appreciable quantities until the 

Pilares phase (A.D. 1 125 to 1200). As a result, this 

cluster has been assigned a transitional date from 

A.D. 1100 to 1150. which corresponds with the 

late Pueblo II period in most classifications. It is 

likely that the occupation period of components in 

this cluster overlapped those of Cluster 2 to a 

significant extent, however they may represent the 

terminal Pueblo II period occupation in the area. 

These components plot on the right edge of the 

main cloud of points in the CA plots, intermediate 

between Clusters 2 and 5. as one would expect for 

terminal Cebolleta phase assemblages. 

Cluster 5 (A.D. 1125 to 1200) 

The seven components in Cluster 5 exhibit a 

significantly different assemblage from the other 

clusters. They form a relatively separate grouping 

of points to the right of the main cloud on the CA 

plot. Most noticeable is the dramatic difference 

in the amount of corrugated ceramics compared to 

plain gray. Additionally, many of the categories 

characteristic of Pueblo II period occupation 

decline in proportion. Cluster 5 components 

possess relatively high percentages of 

Reserve/Tularosa and White Mountain Red Ware 

ceramics, which come to dominate assemblages 

during the Pueblo III period. These components 

are assigned to the Pilares phase (A.D. 1125 to 

1200). or early Pueblo III period, due to the fact 

that the types present in these assemblages are 

quite different from post-1200 assemblages in the 

El Morro Valley to the west (Duff 1996; Watson 

et al. 1980). A.D. 1200s decorated assemblages to 

the west are comprised almost exclusively of 

Tularosa Black-on-white and St. Johns 

Polychrome. These types are relatively rare in the 

El Malpais assemblages, suggesting that the 

components of Cluster 5 were abandoned prior to 

Table 3.6. El Malpais ceramic cluster characteristics. 

Cluster 

1 (n = 27) 2(n = 19) 3 (n = 13) 4 (n = 12) 5 (n = 7) 

30. 36. 37. 39. 43. 45. 46. 57. 59. 60. 73. 74. 80. 81. 15. 47. 62. 72. 105, 107. 4. 20. 56. 68. 71. 131. 189- 7. 10. 12. 249. 293. 

54. 63. 82. 83. 86. 88. 92. 97. 109. 133. 134. 189-2. 145. 147. 169. 188. 1. 189-8. 189-13. 255. 271. 296. 304 

94. 96. 106. 1 10. 135. 150. 189-3. 189-4. 204. 216. 189-12. 233. 262 273 

160. 170. 173. 176. 189-5. 218. 334. 336 

277.312 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta Tate Cebolleta Cebolleta Late Cebollcta/Early Pilares Pilares 

(A.D. 870 to 1050) (A.D. 1050 to 1125) (A.D. 950 to 1125) (A.D. 1100 to 1150) (A.D. 1125 to 1200) 
CHRONOLOGY 67 

this time. Post-1200 sites are much more common 

to the east of the monument on the flanks of 

Ccbollita Mesa (Marshall 1991; Wilson 1994). 

Qualitative Assignments 

Many of the ceramic samples recorded by 

survey crews could not be included in the 

statistical analysis due to sample size issues. 

Many sites had rather small ceramic samples (less 

than 50 sherds), even though in most cases all 

ceramics found on the site surface were recorded. 

In order to derive some temporal information from 

these samples. these components were 

subjectively assigned chronological periods (Table 

3.4, Figure 3.2). These assignments were made by 

a single analyst (Schachner), utilizing the criteria 

derived from the statistical analysis (see Table 

3.6). and in consultation with temporal 

assignments made by other researchers in the area 

(Marshall 1991. 1993; Wilson 1994). An attempt 

was made to be consistent and conservative 

throughout the qualitative assignments, so in many 

cases these components were placed in broader 

categories (Pueblo II. for example). 

Summary 

The k-means and the correspondence analyses 

seem to corroborate one another quite well, 

yielding a quite satisfactory temporal ordering of 

components from the El Malpais survey. As 

information from more sites is collected, we may 

be able to further differentiate components within 

the currently broad time periods. Of particular 

importance will be the ability to distinguish 

components occupied during the Red Mesa and 

early Cebolleta phases. The ability to do so will 

enable more specific conclusions concerning the 

timing of initial Ancestral Puebloan usage of the 

monument area. Additionally, the inclusion of 

sites from outside the El Malpais area, especially 

those from later contexts, or with good, excavated 

dendrochronological information, may improve 

upon the analyses here and provide more narrowly 

defined temporal spans. Significant work remains 

to be done on chronological systematics in the 

region, much of which is dependent on the ability 

to link ceramic assemblages to independent 

chronometric information. 

Chronological Range and Trends 

Examination of the chronological assignments 

presented here provides a number of insights into 

the Puebloan occupation of the El Malpais area. 

First, the peak of Ancestral Puebloan occupation 

in the monument area is clearly during the 

Cebolleta phase (A.D. 950 to 1 125) (Figure 3.2). It 

is likely that this occupation began sometime 

during the Red Mesa phase, but at this time we are 

unable to clearly differentiate Red Mesa phase 

sites using ceramic assemblages alone. There maybe architectural indicators that might help address 

this question. Second, the occupation of El 

Malpais appears to have peaked during the late 

Cebolleta phase (A.D. 1050 to 1 125). followed by 

a significant decline. This period appears to have 

included the most significant occupation of the 

Las Ventanas great house (ELMA 189; LA 1328), 

as well as widespread occupation along the lava 

margins (also see Marshall 1993). After this time, 

use of the area declined significantly, and it is 

possible that most of the lava margins were 

abandoned as loci for year-round habitation. In 

addition to the fact that a much lower number of 

components would appear to date to the Pilares 

phase or later, none of the components included in 

Cluster 5 include pueblos, and most are artifact 

scatters. These types of sites are often indicative of 

temporary camps or specialized activity loci. A 

few scattered indications of later Kowina phase 

(A.D. 1200 to 1300) use of the area are present. 

primarily on the western side of the monument. 

This is somewhat surprising given the close 

proximity of Kowina phase occupation on the 

eastern edge of the monument (Dittert 1998; Elyea 

et al. 1994; Roney 1996; Wozniak and Marshall 

1991). A few candidates for even later use of the 

area are present in the data as well. The most 

likely is ELMA 284, an artifact scatter with a 

mixed ceramic assemblage including possible 

protohistoric ceramics, near Cerritos de Jaspe in 

the north-central part of the monument. This site 

includes a few examples of ceramics that appear to 

be similar to late prehistoric or early historic (A.D. 
68 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

1300 to 1700) ceramics from either Zuni or 

Acoma. Thus the overall chronological trends for 

Puebloan settlement suggest initial settlement 

beginning in the Red Mesa phase around A.D. 

900, followed by population growth and use of the 

area for habitation during the Cebolleta phase. 

Population likely peaked sometime around A.D. 

I 100. followed by a precipitous decline as people 

migrated from the area and began to settle nearby 

regions such as Cebollita Mesa. Usage of the area 

declined through the 1200s, with only sporadic use 

of the area following this time. However, it is 

likely that some usage of the area continued after 

habitation largely ceased at the end of the 

Cebolleta phase. This use probably rarely resulted 

in the deposition of artifacts or resulted in small, 

scattered sites that will be difficult to locate on the 

ground. 

Temporal Relationship to Occupations in 

Adjacent Areas 

The occupation of the El Malpais area 

parallels the settlement of most surrounding areas. 

First, most researchers suggest that the Pueblo II 

period (A.D. 900 to 1 150) represented a period of 

population growth and expansion of settlement in 

a wide variety of areas in west-central New 

Mexico (Danson 1957; Dittcrt 1959; Kintigh 

1996; Lekson 1996; Roney 1996). This period was 

characterized by the widest distribution of 

settlement in the region. Many areas were settled 

that had not previously been inhabited, and other 

areas experienced significant population growth. 

Settlement changes in the El Malpais area are part 

of these larger trends. This period coincides with 

the expansion of the Chacoan Phenomenon and 

communities constructing great houses in many 

parts of the northern Southwest (Kantner and 

Mahoney 2000). including the El Malpais area 

(Van Dyke 1999). This period was characterized 

by relatively small residential settlements which 

were most likely fairly short-lived as people 

moved frequently on the landscape. By the mid1100s. when the Chacoan system declined, 

settlement appears to have shifted radically 

throughout the region. This twelfth century 

occupation is relatively poorly known in the 

northern Southwest, especially compared to earlier 

or later periods. In part this may be due to the 

significant demographic and settlement shifts that 

were likely occurring during this key time period 

(Lekson and Cameron 1995). Future research 

aimed at delineating the key processes occurring 

during this time period is vital to understanding 

the decline of settlement during the 1 100s in many 

areas, including El Malpais. 

The result of these demographic shifts was the 

concentration of Pueblo III period (A.D. 1150 to 

1275) settlement in particular areas in the region. 

While Pueblo II period settlement was widespread. 

Pueblo III period occupations appear to have been 

clustered on the landscape. Areas of significant 

settlement include Zuni (Kintigh 1996). the El 

Morro Valley (Huntley and Schachner 1999: 

LeBlanc 1978; Watson et al. 1980), Mariana Mesa 

(Danson 1957: McGimsey 1980). and Cebollita 

Mesa (Elyea et al. 1994: Roney 1996: Wozniak 

and Marshall 1991). While most of these areas 

contained substantial earlier populations, others, 

such as the El Morro Valley, were occupied 

almost exclusively after A.D. 1200 (LeBlanc 

1978: Kintigh 1996: Watson et al. 1980). The El 

Morro Valley. Mariana Mesa, and Cebollita Mesa 

areas arc adjacent to the El Malpais region and 

represent likely destinations for El Malpais Pueblo 

II period populations, particularly Cebollita Mesa. 

Pueblo III period settlement in the region is much 

denser, with numerous roomblocks forming tightknit clusters, in some cases containing hundreds of 

contemporaneous rooms. In many cases these 

clusters contain architectural elements such as 

great houses and great kivas reminiscent of earlier 

Chacoan public buildings (Fowler and Stein 1992; 

Fowler et al. 1987; Kintigh et al. 1996). By A.D. 

1300 however, most of these sites were abandoned 

as residents of the region began to aggregate in 

massive, plaza-oriented pueblos hundreds of 

rooms in size (Dittert 1998; Fowler et al. 1987; 

Kintigh 1985; McGimsey 1980). These sites are 

found in all of the regions mentioned above. As 

stated above, very little evidence for use of the El 

Malpais area during this time has been recorded so 

far. Thus despite containing significant residential 

populations for a portion of the Ancestral 
CHRONOLOGY 69 

Puebloan sequence (A.D. 900 to 1150), the El 

Malpais area appears to have been largely 

peripheral to many of the significant centers of 

population in ancient west-central New Mexico. 
Site Typology, Architecture, Population and 

Settlement Patterns 

Robert P. Powers and Janet D. Orcutt 

This chapter describes the architectural and 

non-architectural features composing Native 

American sites at El Malpais. Based upon the 

features present at sites, a descriptive typology for 

Archaic and Basketmaker II, Puebloan, Native 

American, Unknown, and Other components is 

presented. Using the structure provided by this 

classification, the architectural, non-architectural, 

and scatter features composing Puebloan 

components are described in greater detail. For 

Puebloan sites, this typology also provides a basis 

for dividing components into habitation and nonhabitation classes. The habitations are then used 

to estimate population during two Puebloan time 

groups. The chapter concludes with a descriptive 

examination of prehistoric settlement patterns. 

Cultural Affiliation 

During Phase I of the El Malpais 

Archeological Inventory, a total of 306 sites and 

371 isolated occurrences (I.O.s) were recorded 

within the monument boundaries. Because sites 

were defined on the basis of the spatial extent of 

features and artifacts and not on cultural 

affiliation, cultural remains within a site often 

represent more than one culture and several 

temporally distinguishable occupations or 

components (see Chapter 1 for a detailed 

discussion of site classification and site 

provenience levels). Components identified by the 

survey have been classed into eight cultural or 

ethnic affiliations, as defined below. Affiliation 

was generally determined by the presence of 

diagnostic ceramics, historic artifacts, or projectile 

point styles, although in some cases identifications 

were based on architectural attributes or on 

ethnicity inferred from a name inscription. In the 

summary below, the number in parentheses is the 

total number of components of a cultural 

affiliation recorded by the survey. 

Archaic (n = 13): Defined by diagnostic 

projectile points (i.e., Jay, Armijo, Chiricahua) in 

association with lithic tools and debris, ground 

stone (basin metates. one-hand manos), and firecracked rock. 

Basketmaker II (n = 1): The single example 

recorded by the survey was defined by a 

diagnostic Basketmaker II comer-notched point in 

association with lithic tools and debris, ground 

stone, and fire-cracked rock. 

Puebloan (n = 205): Evidenced by the 

presence of Puebloan (Anasazi) ceramics in association with habitation, ceremonial, agricultural, 

food storage, trail, or refuse features. Other 

0 " " 

material culture items, such as projectile points 

and manos and metates, occurred in diagnostic 

forms but were not generally used as a basis for 

classification. 

Native American (n = 32): Architectural features and/or material culture remains of apparent 

Native American origin but of undetermined 

affiliation or date. 

71 

4 
72 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Euroamerican (n = 2): Indicated by historic 

artifacts of mid- to late-nineteenth and twentieth 

century American manufacture. often in 

association with homestead, ranching, logging, or 

animal husbandly features of probable AngloAmerican affiliation. 

Historic Unknown (n = 72): Historic material 

culture remains but with a low frequency of 

diagnostic items in uncertain relationship to 

ranching, logging, animal husbandry, camp, or 

trail features, thereby making identification of 

ethnic affiliation impossible. 

Hispanic (n = 2): The two components include a Hispanic surname inscription and a camp. 

Unknown (n = 37): Architectural or material 

culture remains of entirely unknown age or 

affiliation. 

Components 

The component is defined as the group of 

architectural, non-architectural, or artifact scatter 

features of a single cultural affiliation that can be 

linked together and dated to a specific time 

interval by diagnostic or dated artifacts. The 306 

sites recorded by the survey have a total of 364 

components. Obviously, all 306 sites have one 

component, while 54 (15 percent) also have a 

second component, and 4 (1 percent) also have a 

third component. 

Component Types 

For each component identified, a type 

designation was assigned. In all. 32 component 

types-ranging from presumed habitation types 

such as great house, pueblo, pitstructure. and 

homestead to special-use types such as prehistoric 

camp, ceramic scatter, stone circle or road, 

ranching and animal husbandry-were assigned in 

the field. Because most components recorded by 

the survey include a variety of features, the 

dominant structural feature at a component was 

used to establish the component designation (see 

Table 4.1. Archaic, Basketmaker II, Native 

American, and Unknown component types. 

Component Type 

Archaic 

Camp 

I.ithic/Ceramic Scatter 

Lithic Scalter 

Total Archaic Components 

Basketmaker 11 

Lithic Scatter 

Total Basketmaker 11 Components 

Native American 

Small Structure (1 to 2 rooms) 

Rockshelter (with or without architecture) 

Camp 

Stone Circle 

Thermal Feature 

Trail 

Lithic Scatter 

Total Native American Components 

Unknown 

Small Structure (1 to 2 rooms) 

Possible Structure 

Rock Cluster (indeterminate) 

Camp 

Stone Circle 

Thermal Feature 

Shrine 

Trail 

Road 

Other 

Lithic/ceramic scatter 

Lithic Scatter 

Total Unknown Components 

Total Components 

Frequency 

3 

8 

2 

13 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

11 

3 

1 

12 

32 

4 

4 

2 

1 

14 

2 

1 

4 

1 

1 

2 

1 

37 

83 

Chapter 1 for a detailed discussion of component 

designations). 

Non-Puebloan Component Types 

A total of 83 Archaic, Basketmaker II. Native 

American, and Unknown components were 

recorded by the survey (Table 4.1). Archaic and 

Basketmaker II components (n = 14; 4 percent) are 

dominated by short-term or seasonal occupation 

features such as firepits, thermal features, and 

lithic scatters. The occurrence of ceramics in 

lithic scatters at a number of these components 

suggests subsequent re-occupation of these 

locations by Puebloans. Native American components (n = 32; 9 percent) are also composed of 
SITE TYPOLOGY 73 

Table 4.2. Puebloan component types and 

frequencies. 

Table 4.3. Puebloan architectural feature types 

and frequencies. 

short-term occupation features, such as small 

structures, rockshelters, camps, and stone circles, 

as well as a variety of non-architectural features. 

While the great majority of the Native American 

components with architectural features are 

probably Puebloan in affiliation, the absence of 

diagnostic artifacts or the presence of very small 

numbers of artifacts, often in questionable 

contexts, made assignment to the Puebloan group 

impossible. Other components lacking architectural features, such as camps, thermal features, or 

lithic scatter components, may be Archaic, 

Basketmaker II, or Puebloan. 

A total of 37 Unknown components could not 

be assigned to a cultural affiliation due to the lack 

of diagnostic features or artifacts. Comparison of 

Tables 4.1 and 4.2 shows that many of the 

dominant feature types seen at Unknown components are also present at Puebloan components. 

Many of the small structure, possible structure, 

stone circle, and shrine components may be 

Puebloan, while others, such as thermal features, 

camps, and lithic scatters may reflect pre-ceramic 

Archaic and Basketmaker II occupations. A few 

components, including possible structure, rock 

cluster, trail, and road features, may be historic. 

Component Type 

Great I louse 

Pueblo/structure (3 or more rooms) 

Small structure (1 to 2 rooms) 

Possible Structure 

Rockshelter (with or without architecture) 

Stone Circle 

Camp 

Shrine 

Agricultural 

Thermal Features 

Storage 

Bedrock Features 

Frail 

Rock Art/Inscriptions 

Cairn 

Rock Alignment 

l.ithic/Ceramic Scatter 

Ceramic Scatter 

Lithic Scatter 

Total Components 

Frequency 

1 

36 

27 

22 

9 

23 

3 

4 

3 

5 

2 

2 

2 

3 

5 

1 

51 

4 

2 

205 

Puebloan Components and Features 

The 205 Puebloan components are divided 

into 19 component types, as shown in Table 4.2. 

Five component types, pueblos, small structures, 

possible structures, stone circles, and lithic and 

ceramic scatters, are most common and account 

for over 75 percent of the Puebloan components 

defined by the survey. The remaining 14 component types occur in much smaller numbers. 

The range of architectural, non-architectural, 

and scatter feature types composing the Puebloan 

components are shown in Tables 4.3. 4.4, and 4.5 

(see Appendix 1. Site Recording Form Manual for 

a complete listing of types composing each feature 

class including historic feature types). 

Architectural features are major structures 

used for permanent or seasonal habitation, 

religious or ceremonial purposes, and storage, and 

include great houses, pueblos, small structures, 

possible structures, pithouses, stone circles, and 

shrines. Four types of architectural features, 

pueblos, small structures, possible structures, and 

stone circles, are most frequent and account for 80 

percent of all Puebloan architectural features 

recorded. 

Architectural Feature Types 

Great House 

Pueblo/Structure (3 or more rooms) 

Small Structure (2 or less rooms) 

Possible Structure 

Stone Circle 

Great Kiva 

Kiva 

Shrine 

Structure, other 

Storage Cist 

Storage, other 

Cache with wall 

Wall 

Windbreak 

Work Area 

Rubble, architecture 

Depression 

Feature, unknown (architectural) 

Feature, other (architectural) 

Total Architectural Features 

Frequency 

1 

45 

57 

25 

114 

1 

10 

7 

4 

4 

1 

2 

3 

2 

2 

10 

2 

2 

2 

294 
74 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Table 4.4. Puebloan non-architectural feature 

types and frequencies. 

Table 4.5. Puebloan scatter feature types and 

frequencies. 

Non-architectural Feature Type 

Storage Cist 

Firepit/I learth 

Wall 

Ash Stain 

Fire-Cracked Rock Concentration 

Thermal Feature 

Rock Alignment 

Rock Concentration 

Cairn 

Checkdam 

Dam 

Road 

Rock Art 

Bedrock Features 

Trail 

Earthen Bonn 

Blazed Tree 

Vessel or other cache 

Unknown non-architectural 

Other, indeterminate, non-architectural 

Total Non-architectural Features 

Frequency 

2 

13 

8 

11 

12 

5 

17 

61 

255 

3 

2 

4 

6 

1 

14 

2 

X 

1 

9 

15 

449 

Non-architectural features include a wide 

variety of constructed features such as walls, 

rubble scatters, firepits, fire-cracked rock 

concentrations, rock alignments, cairns, check 

dams, and grid gardens among other features. 

Similarly, non-architectural features are dominated 

by two types-rock concentrations and cairnswhich together comprise 70 percent of the nonarchitectural features recorded. 

Scatter features include mixed sherd and 

lithic scatters, ceramic and lithic dominant 

scatters, ceramic scatters, lithic scatters, and 

middens. Unsurprisingly, the most frequent 

scatter features are refuse areas with both ceramics 

and lithics. Including the mixed lithic/ceramic, 

ceramic dominant, lithic dominant, and midden 

types, features with both ceramics and lithics 

account for 77 percent of the refuse features 

present. As shown in Table 4.5, the type of 

scatter present was not recorded in 26 instances: 

and it seems likely that had these scatter types 

been recorded, the percentage of scatters with 

ceramics and lithics would be even higher. 

Scatter Feature Type Frequency 

No scatter type recorded 

Mixed lithic and ceramic scatter 

Ceramic Dominant scatter 

Lithic Dominant scatter 

Ceramic scatter 

Lithic scatter 

Midden 

Pot Drop 

dotal Scatter Features 

26* 

70 

62 

26 

14 

12 

19 

1 

230 

aAt sites recorded in 2000 and 2001 where no visible artifact 

concentrations were present, no scatter feature type was 

recorded. At most of these sites a general, site-wide scatter 

of ceramics or lithics was nevertheless present, and 

artifacts composing it were analyzed. 

Description of Puebloan Component Types 

In addition to the dominant feature used to 

assign a component to a specific type, most 

components contain a varying array of other 

architectural (Table 4.6), non-architectural (Table 

4.7), and refuse features (Table 4.8) important to 

understanding the probable function and range of 

activities characteristic of the component. Below, 

each component type is defined, and the array of 

features composing each type is described and 

discussed. 

Great House 

A single Chaco-style great house, known as 

Las Ventanas or Candelaria Ruin (ELMA 189: LA 

1328) was recorded by the survey. The site has 

been previously described, most notably by 

Bandelier (1892) and Marshall et al. (1979). 

Although the site includes a variety of associated 

features (Figure 4.1), the dominant feature is the 

great house-a massive rubble mound, rectangular 

in shape, with an estimated 60 to 80 rooms, 

including some probable second story chambers. 

As shown in Figures 1.6 and 4.2, the structure 

consists of a high, southern block of rooms 

containing a probable tower kiva and a lower, 

doglegged, northern block of rooms with five 

possible kivas. Both roomblocks are built on a 

natural east-facing slope that exaggerates the 
SITE TYPOLOGY 75 

Table 4.6. Architectural features at component types. 

Table 4.6. (Continued). 

apparent height of the mound substantially. 

Nonetheless, the great house mound is substantial. 

Bandelier recorded a 2.4 m high standing wall at 

the site in 1882 and estimated an overall mound 

height of 5.0 m, while the present survey 

estimated an overall height of 6.0 m. Due to 

backfilling in 1981, individual rooms are no 

longer visible, although Marshall et al. (1979: 189) 

were able to measure two small (2.0 by 2.5m) 

rooms in the late 1970s. Masonry in these rooms is 

core and veneer, with blocky, shaped sandstone 

veneers. In the tower kiva, shaped sandstone 

alternates with bands of shaped vesicular basalt 

(Powers et al. 1981). Three refuse scatters, 

Architectural Features 

Great Great Structure Rubble Small Possible Stone Work 

Component Type House Pueblo Kiva (Other) (architectural) Kiva Structure Structure Circle Area Windbreak 

Great I louse 

n =l 1 2 1 1 2 - - - - -

Pueblo 

n = 36 - 42 - 2 3 10 18 7 2 1 2 

Small Structures 

n = 27 .. . . 3-3 4 54 1 

Possible Structure 

n = 22 .. . ] . . - 11 - -

Rockshelter 

n=9 .. . . . . 4 . i . 

Stone Circles 

n = 23 .. . . i . . 3 107 -

Shrine 

n=4 .. . . . . . .. . 

Agricultural 

n =3 .. . . . 1 .. . 

Bedrock Features 

Architectural Features 

Storage Storage Feature (other/ Natural Cache 

Component Type Shrine Wall Cist (other) unknown) Depression Shelter w/Wall Total Features 

Great House 

n=l .... . .. . 7 

Pueblo 

n=36 3 11 - 4 1 - - 97 

Small Structures 

n=27 .. . 1 . i . . 49 

Possible Structure 

n=22 ... . . .. . 12 

Rockshelter 

n=9 1 - 12 18 

Stone Circles 

n=23 .. . . . . . . i n 

Shrine 

n=4 4 - .. . 4 

Agricultural 

n=3 .... . .. . 1 

Bedrock Features 

n=2 - - - - - - 2 2 
- J 

Table 4.7. Non-architectural features at component types. 

Component Type 

Great House 

n= 1 

Pueblo 

n = 36 

Small structures 

n = 27 

Possible Structure 

n = 22 

Rockshelter 

n = 9 

Stone Circle 

n = 23 

Camp 

n = 3 

Shrine 

n = 4 

Agricultural 

n = 3 

Thermal Features 

n = 5 

Storage 

n = 2^ 

Bedrock Features 

n = 2 

Trail 

n = 2 

Rock Art 

n = 3 

Cairn 

n = 5 

Rock Alignment 

n= 1 

Lithic/Ceramic Scatter 

n = 51 

Wall 

1 

-

-

-

6 

1 

1 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Rock 

Concentration 

6 

14 

1 

17 

1 

16 

1 

-

-

-

-

-

5 

-

-

-

-

Rock 

Alignment 

1 

1 

-

1 

5 

3 

-

-

1 

-

-

-

3 

-

1 

1 

-

Earthen 

Be nil 

2 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Non-architectural 

Other/Indeterminate 

(non-architectural) 

-

1 

1 

1 

3" 

5 

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 

-

-

•-

-

Features 

Thermal 

Feature (other) 

1 

1 

-

-

-

-

-

2 

1 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

FCR 

Concentration 

-

1 

-

2 

-

-

1 

-

-

8 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Ash 

Stain 

-

3 

-

1 

-

4 

3 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Tirepit/ 

1 [earth 

-

3 

1 

-

2 

2 

3 

-

1 

1 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Road 

3 

1 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

rr. 

r 

> 

> 

x 

C 

r 

C 

o 

I—I 

n 

> r 

CO 

C 

? 

rr 
X 

—' 

H 

.-1 

H 

o 

-

o o 

< 

-J 

- J 

Table 4.7. (Continued). 

Storage Unknown (non- Vessel or Bedrock Blazed 

Component Type Cheekdam Cist Rock Art architectural) Cairn Trail Other Cache Feature Tree Dam Total 1-natures 

Great Mouse 

n = l .. . .. . ... . 13 

Pueblo 

n = 36 .. . .. . ... . 25 

Small structures 

n = 27 11 1 .. . ... . 7 

Possible Structure 

n = 22 .. . 4 ... . 26 

Rocksbelter 

n = 9 .. . -6 3 1 1 - - 28 

Stone Circle 

n = 23 .. . 5 95 g 7 146 

Camp 

n = 3 - 1 - . l . ... . ii 

Shrine 

n = 4 .. . . . 2 ... . 2 

Agricultural 

n = 3 2 .. . ... 2 8 

Thermal Features 

n = 5 .. . .. . ... . i() 

Storage 

n = 2 - 3 - .. . ... . 3 

Bedrock Features 

Trail 

n = 2 .. . - 146 2 - .. . 157 

Rock Art 

n = 3 5 .. . ... . 5 

Cairn 

n = 5 .. . . 7 . ... . g 

Rock Aliennient 

n = l .. . .. . ... . i 

Lithic/Ceramic Scatter 

n = 51 - - - : : 1 1 

* Three natural shelters were originally recorded as "other indeterminate" features, but Tor this analysis they have been added to the natural shelter 

category under architectural features. 
78 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Table 4.8. Scatter features at component types. 

reflecting occupation of the great house, are 

immediately to the south and east. The association 

of two other refuse scatters, located farther to the 

south, is unclear. 

Other notable features composing the great 

house complex (Tables 4.6 and 4.7) are three 

prehistoric road segments, two earthen berms. and 

an isolated great kiva with four exterior rooms. 

The approximate diameter of the great kiva is 16.0 

to 17.5m (Figure 4.3). Immediately northeast of 

the great house, and recorded as features of the 

site, are two small pueblos with three and eight 

rooms respectively. ELMA 278, an oval enclosure 

of large upright sandstone slabs situated on the 

mesa ridge immediately to the southwest, is 

probably a shrine associated with the great house. 

Pueblos 

Thirty-six pueblo components were recorded 

by the survey. Each of these components contains 

one or more pueblo structures with three or more 

estimated rooms (Figure 4.4), for a total of 42 

individual pueblo structures (Table 4.6). As 

shown in Table 4.6, pueblo components contain 

Scatter Features 

Mixed Lithic Ceramic Ceramic Lithic Lithic No scatter total 

Component Type Midden and Ceramic Dominant Scatter Dominant Scatter Coded Potdrop features 

Great House 

n = 1 - 15---- - 6 

Pueblo 

n = 36 17 24 14 1 2 2 I - 61 

Small structures 

n = 27 2 10 7 - 2 3 24 

Possible structure 

n = 22 - 4 6 1 1-10-2 2 

Rockshelter 

n = 9 - 2 2-1-4- 9 

Stone Circle 

n = 23 - 9 3 4 5 2 2 25 

Camp 

n = 3 - 1 - 5 2 S 

Shrine 

n = 4 - 1 2 - - - 1 - 4 

Agricultural 

n = 3 - 2 1 - - 1 - 4 

Thermal features 

n = 5 - .... . i . J 

Storage 

n = 2 - 1 1 

Bedrock Features 

n = 2 - .... . 2 - 2 

Trail 

n = 2 - 1 - - - 1 2 

Rock Art 

n = 3 - 2 1 - 1 - 1 - 5 

Cairn 

n = 5 - 1 2 - 1 - 1 - 5 

Rock Alignment 

n = 1 - - - - 1 - - - 1 

Lithic/Ceramic Scatter 

n = 51 - 16 18 - 9 2 11 - 56 

Ceramic Scatter 

n = 4 - - - 5 - - 1 - 6 

Lithic Scatter 

n = 2 - - - - - 2 : - 2_ 
SITE TYPOLOGY 79 

Figure 4.1. Plan view of Las Ventanas (Candelaria Ruin) great house and associated features. 
80 EL MALPAIS ARCH ECOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Figure 4.2. Plan view of Las Ventanas great house. Refuse on or associated with the structure dates to 

the Late Ceholleta and Pi/ares (A.D. 1050 to J J50) phases. 
SITE TYPOLOGY 81 

Figure 4.3. Plan view of Las Ventanas great kiva. 
82 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Figure 4.4. Plan view of large, Late Cebolleta phase (A.D.I 050 to 1125) pueblo at ELMA 73. The site 

is part of the Las Ventanas community. 
SITE TYPOLOGY 83 

Figure 4.5. View of possible kiva in pueblo at ELM A 73. 

the broadest array of feature types of any 

component type. A total of 13 architectural 

feature types were found in association with 

pueblos, with small structures (n = 18) being the 

most commonly co-occurring type. Kivas (n = 10) 

were rarely identifiable, probably due to extensive 

sedimentation and the complete collapse of most 

structures, factors that made identification of any 

type of depression difficult (Figure 4.5). It seems 

likely that some of the features identified as kivas 

or depressions may instead be pithouses. Nonarchitectural features (Table 4.7) associated with 

pueblos are somewhat less common, and the most 

common feature type, rock concentration, may reflect a variety of features, from masonry stockpiles 

to small collapsed rooms. A total of 122 

architectural and non-architectural features occur 

at pueblo components, resulting in a mean of 3.4 

features per component. A total of 61 scatter 

features (Table 4.8), averaging 1.7 refuse features 

per component, are dominated by those with 

ceramic artifacts (n = 58; 95 percent). Midden 

refuse accumulations, distinguished by their 

visible depth, were identified at 17 components. 

Small Structures 

Twenty-seven small structure components 

containing a total of 34 small structures, each of 

two or fewer rooms, were identified (Table 4.6, 

Figure 4.6). Five possible structures were also 

present at these components, and these features, 

usually consisting of small, poorly defined scatters 

of stone, may be additional small structures. 

Including all architectural and non-architectural 

features, each small structure component has a 

mean of 2.1 features, a substantial reduction from 

the mean number of features present at pueblos. 

Although a fairly wide range of feature types are 

present at small structures, architectural and nonarchitectural features are uncommon in 

comparison to pueblos. Refuse features (n = 24) 
84 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOI.OGICAL SURVEY 

Figure 4.6. Two room Ceholleta phase (A.D. 950 to 1125) small structure of unshaped vesicular basalt at 

ELMA 145. 

are also less frequent (fable 4.8). with a mean of 

0.88 features per component. The majority of 

refuse scatters are dominated by ceramic artifacts 

just as in pueblo components. Middens are 

present at only two components. 

Possible Structures 

This class of 22 components contains a range 

of architectural and non-architectural features that 

due to a variety of poor visibility and preservation 

factors, could not be clearly defined as particular 

types of structures or features (Tables 4.6 and 

4.7). In addition to the undefined structures and 

features included in this component type, similar 

types of undefined features are present at main 

other component types. The frequency at which 

features were identified as unknown may reflect 

conservatism on the part of field crews in identifying structure and feature types, particularly during 

the 2000 field season, and the use of several, 

instead of one or two, indeterminate categories. 

However, much of the inability to identify feature 

types is clearly due to alluviation and poor 

preservation. Partial covering of structures and 

features by alluvial and aeolian sediments is 

particularly widespread along the east edge of the 

monument where Puebloan structures and features 

are present in large numbers due to the apparent 

agricultural suitability of sedimentary deposits. A 

second factor is the use of perishable or difficultto-identify building materials in many short-term 

or seasonal-use structures. Many structures or 

features may have had stone foundations with 

brush or jacal superstructures, which are difficult 

if not impossible to identify solely from surface 

evidence. A mean of 1.0 refuse scatters per 

component was recorded (Table 4.8). and as with 

pueblos and small structures, the majority of these 

scatters are dominated by ceramics. 
SITE TYPOLOGY 85 

Figure4.7. Late Ceholleta phase (A. D. 1050 to 1125) stone circle (5.0 x 4.9 x 0.7 m) at ELMA 271. The 

component consists of 12 stone circles built of stacked vesicular basalt associated with a trail 

and 20 cairns traversing a natural bridge above Navajo Cave (ELMA 156). The trail extends 

an unknown distance northeast into an aa lava field. 

Kockshclters Stone Circles 

Nine rockshelter components were recorded, 

and apart from pueblos, small structures, and stone 

circles, rockshelters have a wider range of 

architectural and non-architectural feature types 

than any other component type (Tables 4.6 and 

4.7). Indeed, several of the rockshelters contain 

small structures or stone circles that, were it not 

for their location within the rockshelter, would 

have been classed in these component types. The 

co-occurrence of shelters with small structures and 

stone circles, and with firepits. walls, cairns, and 

trails suggests that rockshelters were used for 

seasonal or short-term habitation functions. 

Twenty-three stone circle components were 

recorded, and at these a total of 107 individual 

stone circles are present (Table 4.6). F.I Malpais 

stone circles are circular enclosures, with or 

without entryways. formed by coursed or heaped 

stone rubble, usually vesicular basalt (Figure 4.7). 

The walls of most of these structures probably 

never reached ceiling height, nor is it likely that 

they were roofed. Despite the lack of sediments 

within them, few have visible floor features. 

Associated architectural features are relatively 

rare, but a variety of non-architectural features, 

including cairns and trails, as well as a variety of 
86 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

rock features of uncertain purpose, are common 

(Table 4.7). The circles frequently occur in 

clusters but usually do not share walls. Most are 

on, or immediately adjacent to the lava, and nearly 

one-third are associated with cairn marked trails. 

Stone circle components have few surface 

artifacts, but the components identified as 

Puebloan tend to have both ceramics and lithics. 

Only two stone circles have lithic scatters. The 

association of these structures with lava trail 

systems and. in some instances, ice cave 

entrances, in combination with their relative lack 

of artifacts, suggests their use as temporary 

shelters by travelers, hunters, and perhaps by 

participants in ceremonial pilgrimages. Zuni, 

Acoma, Laguna and Navajo informants taken to 

ELMA 227, a stone circle site" in the Big Tubes 

area, in the summer of 2000 voiced a variety of 

opinions as to who may have built and used the 

site, but most agreed that it was a temporary 

encampment used in conjunction with either 

hunting, herding, plant gathering, water collection, 

or ceremonial activities. The location of'the stone 

circle site near the edge of the lava, and in 

association with a trail leading to nearby ice caves, 

elicited comments about the interconnectivity of 

trails on the malpais and the use of this area by a 

variety of Native American people (Zedeno 2001: 

125-149). 

with this structure are the only non-scatter features 

found with any of the shrine components. Light 

scatters of cultural material are associated with 

each shrine. 

Agricultural 

Features of clear agricultural purpose are 

surprisingly infrequent. Only three components 

are classified as agricultural (n = 3) (Table 4.6). 

The most impressive agricultural component. 

ELMA 133 (Figure 4.8), has two large masonry 

dams and a small structure. The largest of the 

dams is 10 m long, 4 m wide, and an estimated 4 

m high. Both dams appear to have been designed 

to impound runoff from a small slickrock canyon 

below the Sandstone Bluffs area. Whether either 

dam had an outlet, allowing use of the retained 

water for irrigation is impossible to tell from their 

current breached and partially buried condition. A 

predominance of white ware jar sherds in 

association with each structure, suggests that at 

least part of each dam's function, was to provide 

water for domestic use. A rock alignment of 

probable agricultural use and two check dams 

associated with two thermal features round out the 

remaining components (Table 4.7). 

Thermal Features 

Camps 

Camps are similar to stone circles and some 

rockshelters but lack architectural features. The 

three camps identified (Table 4.7) have features 

suggesting use for shelter, cooking, and heating, as 

well as storage. Lithics dominate or compose all 

but one of the eight scatters associated with camps 

(Table 4.8). 

Shrines 

Four shrine components were identified 

(Table 4.6). These are small, circular or semicircular enclosures defined by upright slabs or 

coursed masonry of sandstone or basalt. The 

largest of the group, ELMA 278, is near the Las 

Ventanas great house and was probably used by 

the occupants of that site. Two trails associated 

Five components with a variety of thermal 

features, including hearths, concentrations of fire 

reddened or fire-cracked rock, and other features 

suggestive of cooking or heating, were assigned to 

this category (Table 4.7). Only one refuse scatter 

was associated with a thermal feature component. 

Storage 

Two storage components containing a total of 

three storage cists were defined (Table 4.7). A 

single refuse scatter was associated. 

Bedrock Features 

Two bedrock feature components (fable 4.6). 

both consisting of walls of unshaped vesicular 

basalt stacked in lava flow crevices, constitute this 

component type. Both have small, associated 
SITI: TYPOLOGY S7 

Figure 4.8. Plan view of Late Cebolleta phase dams and small structure at ELM A 133. 
88 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLIGICAL SURVEY 

ceramic scatters and were thought by field crews 

to have been cache locations for pottery vessels. 

Trails 

Trails are the principle feature at only two 

components (Table 4.7). although 14 trails were 

documented overall (Table 4.4). A variety of rock 

features of uncertain purpose (rock concentrations, 

other indeterminate, and rock alignments) are 

associated with the trails, but the most common 

and consistent features found with trails are cairns 

(n = 146). Small scatters of ceramic material were 

also associated with the two trail components. 

Rock Art 

Three rock art components (Table 4.7) 

containing a total of five rock art panels were 

recorded. No other architectural or nonarchitectural features were found at these 

components. Ceramic or lithic scatters are 

associated with all three rock art components. 

Cairns 

Five cairn components with a total of 7 cairns 

were documented (Table 4.7). All five have 

associated ceramic or lithic scatters (Table 4.8). 

Rock Alignment 

A single rock alignment component was 

recorded (Table 4.7). It is associated with a lithic 

scatter. 

Lithic/Ceramic Scatters, Ceramic Scatters and 

Lithic Scatters 

Fifty-one lithic and ceramic scatter components 

were recorded (Table 4.8). By definition, this 

component type lacks architectural and nonarchitectural features, so with the exception of a 

single blazed tree (see Table 4.7). no architectural 

or non-architectural features are present at these 

components. Lithic scatters are also present at two 

of the components (Table 4.8). In addition to 

these mixed ceramic and lithic scatters, four 

ceramic scatter components containing six ceramic 

scattei's were defined. Finally, two lithic scatter 

components each containing one lithic scatter 

were identified (Table 4.8). 

Habitations versus Non-habitations 

From a general perspective many of the 

architectural features identified at El Malpais site 

components are habitations. Great houses, 

pueblos, small structures, possible structures, 

stone circles, and even rockshelters and camps are 

habitations in the sense that they contain features 

that were used for a variety of residential 

activities-for shelter, cooking food, storing food 

and supplies, and making or repairing tools and 

implements. The great variety of habitations, as 

reflected in differences in size, architecture, 

variety of features, quantities of discarded 

artifacts, and artifact disposal practices, suggests 

that habitations were built and used with differing 

expectations. Pueblos, for example, may have 

been constructed with the expectation that they 

would be permanently occupied over a period of 

years, whereas stone circles and camps may have 

been established for one-time or periodic use for a 

few days or weeks. Other features, such as small 

structures, may have been used as agricultural 

field houses that were occupied intermittently 

during one or more growing seasons. Sorting out 

these differing levels of occupational activity and 

duration is important not only for understanding 

how individual features and components were 

used, but also for tackling broader problems, such 

as estimating population size. 

In order to facilitate an initial examination of 

Puebloan population growth and decline at El 

Malpais. the survey components were divided into 

habitation and non-habitation classes. Additional 

subdivisions, particularly in the non-habitation 

class, should be the subject of future investigation. 

For purposes of population estimation, habitations 

are defined as components presumed to have been 

occupied either year round or during most of the 

year (i.e., throughout fall, winter, and spring) 
SITE TYPOLOGY 89 

Figure 4.9. Number of estimated rooms for all Puebloan structures. 

(Powers et al. 1999: 118). Non-habitations are 

defined as special use components, such as 

seasonally occupied small structures used as field 

houses or stone circles occupied on trading or 

hunting expeditions or as part of ceremonial 

pilgrimages. For purposes of population 

estimation, this distinction is critical because 

members of the population must be counted only 

once, at their primary place of residence. 

Although a wide variety of criteria may be 

used in the discrimination of habitations and nonhabitations, one criterion, number of rooms, was 

used as an initial means of separating the two 

types of structures. All components with 

architectural features with two rooms or less 

(small structures, possible structures, etc.) have 

been classed as non-habitations. Conversely all 

components with architectural features with six or 

more rooms (great houses, pueblos) are assumed 

to be habitations. These distinctions are based on 

previous conclusions about how comparably sized 

structures in the El Malpais area were used (Elyea 

et al. 1994: 16-18; Marshall 1993:89; Wozniak 

and Marshall 1991: 7-1-7-49). 

As shown in Figure 4.9, rooms were estimated 

at 145 structures, with the number of rooms 

present ranging from 1 to 80 rooms. Most 

structures with estimated room counts are one (n = 

75; 52 percent) and two (n = 24; 17 percent) room 

non-habitation structures. Structures with three or 

more rooms are much less frequent, although the 

distribution of estimated room counts is 

continuous up to 12 rooms. Only a handful of 

structures have more than 12 rooms, and of these, 

the largest, with an estimated 60 to 80 rooms is 

Las Ventanas (ELMA 189). Twenty-seven (19 

percent) structures, all classed as habitations, have 

six or more rooms. A smaller, intermediate group 

(n = 19; 13 percent) of structures with between 

two and six rooms do not clearlv fall into either 
90 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

the habitation or non-habitation category. In order 

to classify these ambiguous structures, several 

additional variables were considered. These 

variables include: number of surface artifacts, type 

of refuse deposit, and location of the refuse 

deposit in relation to the structure. Structures with 

either more than 200 surface artifacts (where all 

visible artifacts were examined), middens, or 

physically separate refuse areas were categorized 

as habitations. Structures with less than 200 

surface artifacts, without middens, and without 

distinct refuse areas were generally categorized as 

non-habitations. Based on these criteria, Table 4.9 

shows that of the 19 structures examined, 12 are 

classed as non-habitations, and the remaining 7 are 

habitations. 

Population Dynamics 

The research design (see Chapter 1) points out 

that El Maipais is a marginal area because it lacks 

permanent water and has limited agricultural land. 

We expect full-time habitation sites to appear in El 

Maipais during periods when population density 

around the monument is high and climatic 

conditions are good. Dean's (1996) reconstruction 

of environmental stress in the Southwest identifies 

A.D. 900 to 1100 as a period of floodplain 

aggradation and high water tables. This also 

coincides with a peak in southwest population ca. 

A.D. 1000 (Dean et al. 1994:Figure 4.12). The 

A.D. 1 100 to 1200 period is one of environmental 

degradation in the southwest (Dean 1996). but 

population size remains high (Dean et al. 1994:73-

74). Grissino-Meyer's reconstruction of precipitation based on tree-ring samples from trees in El 

Maipais indicates a period of above average 

moisture from A.D. 1024 to 1398 (Grissino-Mayer 

et al. 1997:Table 3). Based on the climatic 

information and population size trajectories in 

other areas, we expect to see the highest 

population inhabiting El Maipais ca. A.D. 1000 to 

1250. 

here numbered 1 to 6: 1) A.D. 870 to 1050, 2) 

A.D. 950 to 1050, 3) A.D. 950 to 1 125, 4) A.D. 

1050 to 1 125, 5) A.D. 1050 to 1 150', and 6) A.D. 

1100 to 1150. No habitations post-date A.D. 

1150. Because several of the periods overlap, the 

six periods have been lumped into two periods so 

that population could be examined through time. 

Periods 1 to 3 have been grouped into Population 

Period 1, dating ca. A.D. 870 to 1050, and Periods 

4 to 6 have been grouped into Population Period 2, 

dating ca. A.D. 1050 to 1125/1 150. The sites in 

Schachner's Cluster 3 (A.D. 950 to 1125) (Figure 

3.1) are those to which he could only assign a 

"Cebolleta" phase date. They could be late 

Ccbolleta (Schachner personal communication, 

2003). but it was not possible to assign them a 

more specific date. If the sites are late Cebolleta, 

they would fall into Population Period 2 instead of 

Population Period 1. The more conservative 

approach was to place these sites in Population 

Period 1 so that the population increase in Period 2 

was not so dramatic and potentially exaggerated. 

Either way, the shape of the population curve is 

the same; however, numbers of people in each 

period differ. 

Population size was calculated for dated 

habitation sites based on the number of rooms 

recorded at a site. Because Population Periods 1 

and 2 are of differing lengths, room counts were 

standardized to 100 years, the maximum length of 

the shorter period (A.D. 1050 to 1 125/1 150). In 

many areas of the Southwest, habitations are used 

long enough that not all rooms are occupied 

during the entire span. This is especially true for 

large sites. In this analysis, the total number of 

rooms in each time period was adjusted by a 65 

percent occupancy rate (Kintigh 1985:Table 5.5) 

and multiplied by 2 people per room. The lack of 

excavation at sites in the monument prevents us 

from deriving locality-specific occupancy data so 

Kintiglvs (1985) procedure for El Morro Valley 

sites was adopted here. 

Based on Schachnefs dating of Puebloan sites 

using either his statistical clusters or subjective 

criteria (see Chapter 3). habitations fall into the 

following six date ranges or periods, which are 

The presence of Las Ventanas (Candelaria 

Ruin), a Chacoan outlier, presents some problems 

for population estimation in Population Period 2. 

There are an estimated 60 to 80 rooms in the «reat 
Site 

No. 

27 

30 

43 

56 

60 

7

2 

73 

86 

98 

109 

148 

150 

151 

176 

186 

186 

204 

218 

261 

Component 

No. 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

Feature 

Type 

Pueblo 

Pueblo 

Pueblo 

Pueblo 

Pueblo 

Pueblo 

Pueblo 

Pueblo 

Pueblo 

Pueblo 

Pueblo 

Pueblo 

Pueblo 

Pueblo 

Pueblo 

Great 

Kiva 

Pueblo 

Pueblo 

Small 

Structure 

Feature 

No. 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

18 

2 

1 

1 

1 

No. of 

Rooms 

3 

4 

5 

3 

3 

5 

5 

4 

4-5 

5 

3 

4-5 

4 

5 

3 

5 

4-5 

3 

2-3 

Artifact 

Sample 

All 

All 

All 

All 

Sample 

All 

All 

Sample 

All 

Sample 

All 

Sample 

All 

Sample 

-

All? 

All 

All 

All 

No. of 

Ceramics 

43 

238 

100 

67 

239 

145 

308 

316 

14 

222 

10 

43 

15 

136 

-

13 

135 

73 

7 

No. of 

l.ithies 

5 

39 

17 

64 

25 

68 

386 

191 

152 

126 

5 

71 

5 

9 

-

-

8 

16 

-

No. of 

Lithic 

1 ools 

1 

16 

14 

1 

6 

4 

54 

18 

25 

16 

1 

2 

1 

4 

-

-

8 

6 

-

Total 

Artifacts 

49 

293 

131 

132 

270 

217 

748 

525 

191 

367 

16 

116b 

21 

149c 

-

c 

13 

151 

98 

7 

Deposit 

Type 

Scatter 

Probable 

Midden 

Scatter 

Scatter 

Midden 

Scatter 

Midden 

Midden 

Scatter 

Midden 

Scatter 

Scatter 

Scatter 

Midden11 

Scatter 

Scatter 

Scatter 

Scatter 

Scatter 

Deposit 

Location 

Surrounding 

Separate 

Separate 

Separate 

Surrounding 

Surrounding 

Separate 

Separate 

Surrounding 

Separate 

Surrounding 

Surrounding 

Surrounding 

Separate 

Separate 

Surrounding 

Surrounding 

Surrounding 

Surrounding 

1 labilation vs. 

Non-babitation 

Non-habitation 

Habitation 

Non-habitation 

Non-habitation 

1 labitation 

1 labitation'1 

1 labitation 

Habitation 

Non-habitation 

Habitation 

Non-habitation 

Non-habitation 

Non-habitation 

Habitation 

Non-habitation 

Non-habitation 

Non-habitation 

Non-habitation 

Non-habitation 

" Structure includes a possible plaza/courtyard. 

''Number of artifacts is a sample of those present. 

I

 Number of artifacts is a sample of those present. 

II

 Described as a midden, but coded as a scatter. 

' Artifacts associated with this feature were not sampled. 

•—• 

-

- i 

o 

o 

o 

< 

gO 

Table 4.9. Classification of intermediate sized Pnebloan structures. 
92 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Figure 4.10. Estimated number of people in Population Period 1 (A.D. 870 to 1050) and Period 2 (1050 

to 1125/1150). LV = Las Ventanas. 

house, and it is possible that most of those rooms 

were not inhabited (Bernardini 1999; Toll 1985, 

2001; Windes 1987). Because the great house has 

been excavated, potted, and backfilled, it is nearly 

impossible to determine which rooms may have 

been habitation suites. Therefore, two population 

estimates for Period 2 were prepared. One 

includes the great house at Las Ventanas as a 

regular habitation and applies the 65 percent 

occupancy rate to it. The other does not include 

the great house at all in the Period 2 estimate. 

This way, we have a range of two extremes, and 

reality probably falls somewhere between the two. 

From an estimated 116 people between A.D. 

870 and 1050, population grew to more than 300 

people, and possibly as high as 500 people, in the 

A.D. 1050 to 1125/1150 period (Figure 4.10). At 

a minimum, this represents a population growth 

rate of 0.8 percent, which is higher than Hassan's 

"probable maximum growth rate for prehistoric 

groups" (1981:140). Obviously, if human 

population in Period 2 was greater than 300, the 

growth rate would be higher. It appears that 

immigration contributed to population growth in 

Period 2. The 1050 to 1125/1150 period is one in 

which surrounding population is high and climate 

is good. With the prospect of doing successful 

agriculture on the margins of the lava and in the 

kipukas. people moved into this previously marginal area to relieve population pressure in other 

areas. This was only possible with a satisfactory 

climate and was only necessary when population 

density was at a peak in neighboring areas. 
SITE TYPOLOGY 93 

Along with growth in the number of people 

inhabiting the monument, people were living in 

larger structures in the A.D. 1050 to 1125/1150 

period. Even excluding the great house at Las 

Ventanas. the average number of rooms (9.74) per 

structure in A.D. 1050 to 1125/1150 is 

approximately twice that in A.D. 870 to 1050 (3.9 

rooms). When the great house is included, there is 

an average of almost 13 rooms per structure in the 

A.D. 1050 to 1125/1 150 period. 

Settlement Patterns and Land Use 

Puebloan occupation of El Malpais between 

A.D. 870 and 1 150 was primarily on the east side 

of the monument. During the earlier period, A.D. 

870 to 1050. habitations were located in each of 

three survey areas along the east side, and no 

habitations were recorded on the west side of the 

monument (Figure 4.1 1). Habitation site locations 

in the A.D. 870 to 1050 period range in elevation 

from 6.706 to 7.120 feet: the four southern-most 

sites are all over 7,000 feet. The majority of the 

A.D. 870 to 1050 habitations, however, are below 

7,000 feet. In the A.D. 1050 to 1 125/1 150 period, 

all but three of the habitations are in the northeast 

portion of the monument in the area around Las 

Ventanas (Figure 4.12). Two of the three 

remaining habitations are on the west side of the 

monument. The later sites are found over a wider 

elevation range, from 6.600 to 7,599 feet; 

however, the majority of sites are below 6,900 

feet, which is slightly lower than habitation sites in 

the earlier period. 

Eandforms occupied in the two periods are 

similar, although habitations in the earlier period 

appear to be in a slightly greater variety of 

locations. The most common land forms for 

habitations in the A.D. 870 to 1050 period are 

hill/mesa slope and hill/mesa top. In the A.D. 

1050 to 1125/1150 period, habitations are most 

common on hill/mesa slopes and ridges. 

The majority of the earlier habitations are on 

sandy loam (43 percent) or silty sand (36 percent) 

soils. The later habitations are associated with a 

greater variety of soil types, although 58 percent 

of the sites are on silty sand. One later habitation 

(ELMA 261) is on lava on the west side of the 

monument and is the only dated habitation 

recorded on the lava. 

Nonhabitations are those sites not identified as 

habitations, and the category includes a number of 

subtypes. Unfortunately, it was not possible to 

examine the settlement characteristics of the nonhabitation subtypes separately, so they have been 

considered as a group. There are 13 nonhabitations dating after A.D. 1 125/1 150. whereas 

we did not record any habitations dating later than 

A.D. 1150. This demonstrates continued use of 

the area after it was no longer a location for 

permanent habitation. 

In the A.D. 870 to 1050 period, non-habitation 

locations range from 6.580 to 7.680 feet in 

elevation. More than half of the sites fall into the 

6.600 to 6.899 feet range, and over 20 percent of 

the sites are above 7,300 feet. Sites dating to A.D. 

1050 to 1 125/1 150 are in similar elevation zones; 

however, the highest percentage (52 percent) of 

sites is above 7.300 feet, while less than 50 

percent of the sites are between 6.600 and 6.899 

feet. Non-habitation sites dating to post-A.D. 

1125/1150 are primarily found over 7,200 feet, 

and approximately 30 percent of the sites are 

between 6.600 and 6.699 feet. 

Nonhabitations are associated with several 

different soil types. In the A.D. 870 to 1050 

period, more than one-third of the sites are on silty 

sand, and approximately 16 percent each are 

associated with lava, sandy loam, and silty clay 

loam. This period has the most non-habitations, 

and the sites are found on a greater variety of soils 

than later sites. The A.D. 1050 to 1 125/1 150 nonhabitations are split almost evenly between silty 

sand (31 percent) and lava (29 percent), and silty 

clay loam accounts for 19 percent of the locations. 

Several other soil types are represented at less than 

10 percent each. The non-habitations in use after 

A.D. 1125/1150 are found primarily on silty clay 

loam (54 percent of sites). Another 23 percent are 
94 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Figure 4.11. Habitation sites occupied during Population Period 1 (A.D. 870 to 1050). 
SITE TYPOLOGY 95 

Figure 4.12. Habitation sites occupied during Population Period 2 (A.D. 1050 to 1125/1150). 
96 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

on lava and 15 percent on sandy loam. Lava 

comprises a large percentage of the monument, 

and although the percentage of non-habitation site 

locations on the lava does not approach the overall 

percentage of lava, it is obvious that lava locations 

become more important, especially after A.D. 

1050. It is also clear that these lava, nonhabitation locations were used to support a variety 

of specialized activities including hunting, plant 

gathering, water collection, travel, and religious 

observances. 

The numerous A.D. 870 to 1050 nonhabitations are found in a variety of landforms. 

The most common are hill/mesa slope (17 

percent), plain/flat (16 percent), dune (12 percent), 

and lava edge (10 percent). There is less variety in 

the A.D. 1050 to 1 125/1 150 non-habitations, and a 

different set of landforms is preferred; plain/flat is 

most common (29 percent) followed closely by 

hill/mesa slope (24 percent). Approximately 14 

percent of the sites are on the lava flow. Nonhabitations post-dating A.D. 1125/1150 are most 

common on hill/mesa slope (23 percent), plain/flat 

(23 percent), and lava tube (15 percent) landforms. 

Comparison of Habitation and Nonhabitation Locations 

As the number of people increase in El 

Malpais, the number of non-habitations decrease. 

There are twice as many non-habitations in the 

A.D. 870 to 1050 period than the A.D. 1050 to 

1125/1150 period. Either people in permanent 

habitations were engaged in many activities 

outside the main house or people from outside El 

Malpais were coming into the area for short-term, 

probably very specific, activities in the earlier 

period. In reality, it was probably some of both. 

After A.D. 1125/1150, when we find no evidence 

of permanent habitation, the area still is used, as 

evidenced by 13 dated non-habitations. 

A.D. 870 to 1050 habitations are on the east 

side of the monument and are spread out from 

north to south. Non-habitations are more 

numerous on the east side but are also found 

farther west. There are relatively few habitation 

sites (15), and they cover a smaller elevation range 

than the 89 non-habitations. Because habitation 

locations must serve a different set of 

requirements than non-habitations, which are often 

aimed at a specific activity, it is unsurprising to 

see less variety in their locations. Habitations are 

found in elevations ranging from 6,706 to 7,120 

feet. More than half are below 7,000 feet. Nonhabitations are spread between 6,580 and 7,680 

feet. The majority are found between 6,600 and 

6.899 feet, and 20 percent are above 7,300 feet. 

The most common habitation landforms are 

hill/mesa slope and hill/mesa top. Non-habitations 

occur in a variety of landforms; the most common 

are hill/mesa slope, plain/flat, dune, and lava edge. 

Variety also is evident in the soils found at nonhabitation locations, while habitations are 

associated primarily with sandy loam or silty sand. 

A.D. 1050 to 1 125/1 150 habitations are found 

concentrated on the east side near the Chacoan 

outlier. Las Ventanas (Candelaria Ruin), and there 

are three habitations on the west and north sides. 

Non-habitations are found on the east and west 

sides and in the area north of Cerritos de Jaspe. 

The majority of habitation sites are located below 

6.900 feet, although the elevation range is 6,600 to 

7,599 feet. Non-habitations are found between 

6,625 and 7,720 feet elevation; however, the 

majority are above 7,300 feet and more than onethird are between 6,600 and 6,899 feet. 

Habitations are most common on hill/mesa slopes 

and ridges. Non-habitations are located on a 

greater variety of landforms than habitations, and 

the most common are plain/flat, hill/mesa slope. 

and lava flow. Most habitations are associated 

with silty sand soil; non-habitations are common 

on silty sand, lava, and silly clay loam. 

There are no dated habitations in the survey 

sample post-dating A.D. 1125/1150, and only a 

few non-habitations are dated to that period. Nonhabitations are located on the east and west sides 

of the monument as well as in the area north of 

Cerritos de Jaspe. Elevation ranges are similar to 

non-habitations in the previous period. The postA.D. 1125/1150 sites range from 6.620 to 7,700 

feet, although the majority are found above 7,200 
SITE TYPOLOGY 97 

feet. Approximately 30 percent are in the 6.600 to 

6.699 feet range. Several landforms are 

represented in the site locations; the most common 

are hill/mesa slope, plain/flat, and lava tube. More 

than half the non-habitation sites are associated 

with silty clay loam; the other two common soils 

are lava and sandy loam. 

Clearly, the differences in locations reflect the 

functional differences between habitations and 

non-habitations in the different periods. Because 

we have not subdivided non-habitations any 

further, a lot of the variation in their locations 

reflects the fact that several different types are 

lumped into one broad category. 

1

 Pleven of" the 22 possible structure components were 

identified in the field. The remaining 11 components contain 

a variety of features originally identified as other structure. 

rock concentration, rock alignment, other indeterminate, and 

unknown non-architectural. Each of these features appeared 

to be possible structures and were grouped into this 

component type during the analysis. 

2

 I'he site has prehistoric (A.D. 1200 to 1300) and 

historic (1920 to 1950) components. I'he historic component 

is described in Chapter 6 and the entire site is shown in Figure 

6.1. 

3

 I'he Fas Ventanas great house is the only component in 

Period 5 (A.I). 1050 to 1 150 ). Orcutt created the period by 

examining the dates of the ceramic samples associated with 

the meat house. 
Interaction and Exchange 

Gregson Schachner and J. David Kilby 

In this chapter the surface ceramic and lithic 

assemblages sampled and analyzed by the survey 

are described and interpreted. For ceramics, local 

and non-local pottery types are identified, the 

spatial distribution of types within El Malpais is 

examined, and changes in the production and 

exchange of pottery types over time are 

investigated using the project exchange model. 

For lithics, field artifact sampling methods and 

classification are discussed, basic attributes of the 

lithic assemblage are described, and local and nonlocal materials and their source areas are 

characterized. In addition, differences in material 

usage and technology over time are examined, and 

finally, patterns of lithic procurement and 

exchange are evaluated with the project exchange 

model. 

Ceramics 

The large ceramic data set generated by the El 

Malpais survey is particularly amenable to the 

examination of trends in the distribution of 

ceramic types across the landscape because of the 

broad area included in the park sample. These 

patterns suggest possible intraregional differences 

in participation in exchange. The lava fields in the 

El Malpais area appear to have served as an 

important cultural boundary in the past (Dittert 

1959, 1998; Wilson 1994). Thus the ancient 

residents of the area were in a geographic location 

that allowed for participation in many different 

networks of exchange. The distribution of 

ceramics in both time and space attests to a few of 

these patterns. 

Local and Non-local Ceramic Types 

The examination of patterns of ceramic 

exchange in the ancient Southwest has become 

one of the most useful methods for examining 

social relationships at multiple scales (Abbott 

2000; Crown 1994; Duff 2002; Habicht-Mauche 

1993; Triadan 1997; Zedeiio 1994). At a very 

basic level, these studies require some means of 

differentiating the geographic locations of ceramic 

production. While most recent studies have relied 

upon either chemical or mineralogical techniques, 

broad, interregional patterns of exchange are often 

discernable based upon the presence of non-local 

ceramic types. Researchers in the El Malpais area 

have long noted the common presence of a 

number of ceramic types that are assumed to have 

been produced outside the region (Dittert 1959; 

Marshall 1991; Wilson 1994). These include 

Mogollon Brown Ware, Socorro Black-on-white, 

and possibly the earlier White Mountain Red Ware 

styles. Tracking the distribution of these ceramics 

provides some sense of the variation in exchange 

ties within the EI Malpais area during the 

Puebloan occupation of the region. 

White and gray wares dominate ceramic 

assemblages throughout most of the Puebloan 

occupation of the El Malpais area. The majority of 

these ceramics were probably produced within 

local El Malpais and Cebollita Mesa area 

99 

5 
100 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

communities (Dittert 1959:400-404; Marshall 

1991. 1993: Wilson 1994:63). Fretwell (Appendix 

3) has recently sampled and fired a variety of local 

clays in an effort to determine if they share firing 

characteristics with those used in Cibola white and 

gray wares of presumed local origin. 

Unfortunately, because the clays sampled by 

Fretwell do not appear to be those used by 

prehistoric potters, the sources of the clays used in 

Cibola white and gray wares of presumed local 

origin remain unknown. 

There is also some question as to whether nonCebolleta variety Pueblo II period Cibola White 

Ware was locally made (Dittert 1959:403), but 

without examination of sherds using 

compositional techniques, this question remains 

open to debate. Additionally, we have virtually no 

indication of the level of intraregional exchange in 

HI Malpais/Cebollita Mesa area ceramics, 

drastically reducing the ability to discuss local 

exchange systems. The ability to address this 

question depends upon increased pursuance of 

compositional studies in the area as well as the 

correspondence between local geological 

variability and differences in ceramic manufacture 

within the region. Some non-local white ware 

types appear to have become slightly more 

common during the Kowina phase (i.e.. post-A.D. 

1200), after substantial occupation of the 

monument area ended. At this time. San Juan 

White Ware began to appear at sites on Cebollita 

Mesa (Dittert 1959:404; Roney 1996; Wilson 

1994:65), which most researchers have attributed 

to migrations from the north (Roney 1995). 

The situation is somewhat clearer for 

Mogollon Brown Ware, Socorro Black-on-white, 

and White Mountain Red Ware. These are the 

most commonly found ceramic types that most 

researchers agree are likely to have been acquired 

through exchange by residents of the El Malpais 

area. The situation for Mogollon Brown Ware is 

clearest of the three. Wilson (1992, 1994) has 

argued that the necessary raw materials for brown 

ware production are not available in the El 

Malpais area, and thus their introduction to the 

region must have been through processes of 

exchange (Tainter 1980: Wilson 1994) or 

population movement (Dittert 1959; Ruppe 1953). 

The most likely production area was the northern 

margin of the Mogollon Highlands to the south. 

The production area of Socorro Black-on-white is 

less clear, although most researchers assume that it 

was produced in areas to the east or southeast of 

the El Malpais region (Marshall 1991, 1993: Sundt 

1979; Wilson 1994). However, the studies that 

would definitively show that Socorro Black-onwhite was exclusively produced outside the El 

Malpais/Cebollita Mesa area have not been carried 

out. In fact, archeological knowledge of Socorro 

production and distribution is little changed from 

when Dittert conducted his pioneering studies in 

the 1940s and 1950s (see Dittert 1959:402-403). 

Information provided by Peter McKenna (personal 

communication) indicates that a second variety of 

Socorro Black-on-white (see Chapter 3 for a 

description) may have been traded into the El 

Malpais region from areas to the east or northeast 

as well. 

White Mountain Red Ware appears to have 

been produced in the El Malpais/Cebollita Mesa 

region during at least a portion of its span of 

manufacture. While some researchers assume the 

majority of these types were produced in areas to 

the west (Wilson 1994:64), others suggest White 

Mountain Red Ware was largely produced locally 

(Marshall 1991:6-36). In contrast, Dittert 

(1959:407-408) considered all pre-Kowina phase 

(pre-A.D. 1200) examples-including Puerco and 

Wingate styles-to have been trade wares. This 

observation coincides with Carlson's (1970) 

estimates of the production region of White 

Mountain Red Ware; the manufacture of which 

appears to have expanded over time from a core in 

the Rio Puerco and Zuni drainages, reaching a 

maximum geographic extent during the production 

of St. Johns types in the A.D. 1200s. The author's 

experience with White Mountain Red Ware 

produced in the Zuni and Upper Little Colorado 

regions suggests that there are enough distinct 
INTERACTION AND EXCHANGE 101 

Survey 

Area 

Northeast1 

Las 

Ven tanas 

Pilares1 

Two 

Kjpuka 

Cerritos 

de Jaspe' 

West 

Edge1 

Armijo 

Canyon2 

Ceb'olla 

Canyon2 

Cerritos 

de Jaspe2 

No. of 

Sites 

101 

1 

6 

17 

40 

33 

61 

<54 

23 

Location 

northeast 

northeast 

east-central 

southeast 

northwest 

west 

southeast of 

F.l Malpais 

east of El 

Malpais 

northwestcentral 

Mogollon 

n 

540 

226 

53 

228 

275 

174 

772 

60 

22 

Brown Ware 

% 

4.58 

15.00 

16.01 

14.07 

13.34 

10.42 

13.05 

1.15 

2.78 

Soeorro HI 

n 

282 

79 

7 

42 

307 

38 

148 

156 

105 

ack-on-white 

% 

2.39 

5.24 

2.11 

2.59 

14.90 

2.28 

2.50 

2.99 

13.27 

White Mom 

n 

126 

36 

2 

9 

53 

100 

388 

472 

23 

itain Bed WarTo 

1.07 

2.39 

0.60 

0.56 

2.57 

5.99 

6.56 

9.05 

2.91 

e dotal 

n 

11.788 

1.507 

331 

1.620 

2.061 

1.670 

5.917 

5.214 

791 

For the El Malpais survey areas, Mogollon Brown Ware includes unknown brown ware, which is likely to be poorly preserved 

Mogollon Brown Ware. White Mountain Red Ware also includes unknown red ware for the same reason. Socorro Black-on-white 

includes both varieties and Socorro Black-on-white. Indeterminate variety. 

"The Armijo Canyon data are from Wilson (1994). Cebolla Canyon data are from Marshall (1991). and the Cerritos de Jaspe data 

are from Marshall (1993). Ceramic types were recorded using comparable categories in these surveys. The Cerritos de Jaspe samples 

were "grab" samples, and utility or non-diagnostic types were not recorded systematically (Marshall 1993:75). and thus the numbers 

are not comparable to other data in the table. 

stylistic and technological patterns in many El 

Malpais/Cebollita Mesa area White Mountain Red 

Ware sherds to suggest local production, at least 

during the A.D. 1100s and later. Dittert 

(1959:408-411) suggested new type designations 

for these Cebollita Mesa area variants. Local 

distinctions in El Malpais/Cebollita Mesa area 

White Mountain Red Ware include a tendency 

toward bolder use of white paint and/or slip, red 

slips that tend toward maroon even in later periods 

(this is usually characteristic of Wingate styles to 

the west), and the more frequent use of black paint 

on the exterior of bowls during earlier time 

periods than in other areas (pre-A.D. 1250). 

However, the likelihood that early examples, 

particularly Puerco Black-on-red, were trade 

wares is quite high, as they are found in such low 

frequencies and are very similar to examples 

found to the west. Due to interobserver variability 

in the recording of White Mountain Red Ware 

during the El Malpais survey, all White Mountain 

Red Ware is considered as a single category in the 

following discussion. 

Spatial Distribution of Ceramic Types 

The large size of the monument and wide 

distribution of survey blocks provides an ideal 

opportunity to examine the spatial distribution of 

ceramic types. This analysis stands as a rough 

proxy of spatial differences in exchange ties 

within the region. In Table 5.1 and 5.2, the 

proportion of the three ceramic groups of interest, 

Mogollon Brown Ware. Socorro Black-on-white, 

and White Mountain Red Ware are presented. In 

Table 5.2, all components where the ceramic types 

of interest comprise 50 percent or more of the 

assemblage have been eliminated. This selection 

criteria is aimed at removing components where 

possible pot drops created large numbers of 

sherds, skewing the results. As can be seen from 

the differences between the two tables, significant 

changes do occur in a few cases, illustrating the 

influence of possible pot drops on sherd totals. 

The impact of possible pot drops is particularly 

apparent for components on the north and west 

edges of the monument, where the use of this 

Table 5.1. Ceramic wares by survey areas (all sites). 
102 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Table 5.2. Ceramic wares by survey area (all sites with Mogollon Brown Ware, Socorro Black-on-white, 

and White Mountain Red Ware percentages below 50 percent). 

Survey 

Area 

Northeast1 

Las 

Ventanas' 

Pi lares1 

Two 

Kipuka' 

Cerritos 

de Jaspe' 

West 

F.dge1 

No. of 

Sites 

101 

1 

6 

15 

36 

27 

Location 

northeast 

northeast 

eastcentral 

southeast 

northwest 

west 

Mo so lion 

n 

540 

226 

53 

199 

OK 

123 

Brown Ware 

% 

4.58 

15.00 

16.01 

12.59 

6.49 

8.04 

Socorro 

n 

282 

79 

7 

42 

77 

29 

Black-on-white 

% 

2.39 

5.24 

2.11 

2.66 

5.10 

1.90 

White Mountain 

n 

126 

36 

2 

9 

25 

67 

Red Ware 

% 

1.07 

2.39 

0.60 

0.57 

1.65 

4.38 

Total 

n 

11,788 

1.507 

331 

1.580 

1.511 

1.529 

For the El Malpais survey areas, Mogollon Brown Ware includes unknown brown ware, which is likely to be poorly preserved 

Mogollon Brown Ware. White Mountain Red Ware also includes unknown red ware for the same reason. Socorro Black-on-white 

includes both varieties and Socorro Black-on-white. Indeterminate variety. 

percentage criterion eliminates sixteen components in the Cerritos de Jaspe and West Edge areas 

and significantly changes the proportion of the 

wares of interest. Table 5.1 also includes sherd 

counts from three surveys in areas near the El 

Malpais National Monument. These data provide 

an additional line of comparison. 

The proportion of Mogollon Brown Ware 

varies considerably in different survey areas, from 

roughly 4.6 to 16 percent in both the corrected and 

uncorrected assemblages. The lowest value comes 

from the survey block furthest to the north, as 

would be expected if brown ware exchange 

declined with distance from the source. The most 

southern survey blocks have some of the highest 

brown ware proportions, while the two western 

blocks have intermediate values (see the adjusted 

data in Table 5.2). Most interesting however, is the 

high percentage of brown ware ceramics from the 

great house component of Las Ventanas (15 

percent). Las Ventanas is located within the 

northeast survey block, but contains a much higher 

proportion of Mogollon Brown Ware than 

surrounding components. This appears to suggest 

that residents of the great house may have had 

substantially different networks of exchange than 

occupants of nearby components (see below). 

Comparison of the brown ware proportions to 

survey data from outside the monument raises an 

interesting possibility. The brown ware proportions at the Pi lares and Two Kipuka survey blocks 

in the monument are comparable to those from 

Armijo Canyon, approximately twenty to thirty 

kilometers away to the southeast. These 

proportions are substantially higher than those at 

Cebolla Canyon, which is located midway 

between the two El Malpais survey blocks and 

Armijo Canyon. This raises the possibility that 

exchange with particular areas on the landscape 

was "spotty," with individual communities, or 

even lower order social units, exhibiting rather 

different exchange ties (Marshall 1991). 

Alternatively, this difference may in part be 

temporal, as a large portion of the Cebolla Canyon 

survey sites date to the A.D. 1200s. However, 

many of the Armijo Canyon sites are contemporary' with those from Cebolla Canyon, 

suggesting that these differences are not just 

temporal trends masked by aggregation of the 

data. In sum, it appears that the participation of El 

Malpais/Cebollita Mesa area populations in 

exchange with producers of Mogollon Brown 

Ware is heavily influenced by geographic location 

and proximity to the pottery production source. 

However, some variation is evident, with the 
INTERACTION AND EXCHANGE 103 

dramatic difference between Las Ventanas and 

surrounding components being the most striking. 

Socorro Black-on-white exhibits a somewhat 

different pattern. For most of the survey blocks 

both within and outside of the monument, Socorro 

comprises roughly 2 to 3 percent of the ceramic 

assemblage, suggesting consistent, low-level 

exchange with Socorro producing groups. Two 

assemblages stand out however. First, the El 

Malpais Cerritos de Jaspe block has much higher 

proportions of Socorro. The proportion from the 

unadjusted data is questionable (Table 5.1), as it 

includes two components that appear to be the 

locations of Socorro Black-on-white pot drops that 

account for a large number of sherds in the raw 

counts. The percentage in the adjusted data is 

probably more reasonable. This suggests that 

residents of the Cerritos de Jaspe area may have 

been more actively interacting with producers of 

Socorro Black-on-white. There is some suggestion 

of this in Marshall's data (1993), but comparison 

is difficult due to differences in sampling methods. 

Second, the proportion of Socorro Black-on-white 

at Las Ventanas is approximately double that of 

nearby components in the northeast block and 

other survey areas. Here again is evidence that 

residents of the great house were participating in 

long-distance exchange at rates higher than that of 

other occupants of the El Malpais area. Marshall 

(1991:6-41) indicates that an association between 

increased Socorro Black-on-white and Pueblo II 

and early Pueblo III public buildings (such as the 

Skull Site and Pueblo Cerrito) also exists in the 

Cebolla Canyon community. Thus, low-level 

exchange with Socorro Black-on-white producers 

appears pervasive throughout the El 

Malpais/Cebollita Mesa area, with a few local hot 

spots of evidence for Socorro exchange, and a 

possible association with great houses. 

White Mountain Red Ware patterns are 

somewhat more difficult to interpret due to known 

temporal variation. White Mountain Red Ware 

begins to appear in El Malpais/Cebollita Mesa 

area assemblages in the late Cebolleta phase (postA.D. 1050) and increases consistently through 

time (Dittert 1959; Marshall 1991, 1993; Wilson 

1994). Thus some of the differences that are 

apparent are likely to be at least partly temporal. 

White Mountain Red Ware percentages are rather 

low in most survey areas within the monument, 

ranging from approximately 0.6 to 2.6 percent in 

five of the six survey blocks. The one major 

difference is along the west edge of the 

monument, where White Mountain Red Ware is 

more common. However, occupation in this area 

generally appears to be later than in most other 

areas of the monument. Intermediate values are 

found within the El Malpais Cerritos de Jaspe 

survey block and at Las Ventanas. The former can 

probably be accounted for by the presence of a 

number of Pilares phase components (A.D. 1125 

to 1200), while the latter is difficult to explain. 

The majority of occupation at the Las Ventanas 

great house appears to have occurred in the latter 

portion of the late Cebolleta phase (see Chapter 3 

and Van Dyke 2000:94), when White Mountain 

Red Ware became more common in the region. 

However, the White Mountain Red Ware 

proportion at Las Ventanas is almost double that 

of the Northeast survey block as a whole, where 

many of the components are contemporary with 

the great house. More detailed studies are needed 

to assess whether Las Ventanas was participating 

in White Mountain Red Ware exchange to a 

greater degree than surrounding components. 

Other survey areas outside of the monument have 

much higher proportions of White Mountain Red 

Ware than the El Malpais blocks (except the West 

Edge), most likely due to temporal differences. 

The Cebolla and Armijo Canyon surveys were 

centered on substantial thirteenth-century 

communities. White Mountain Red Ware 

comprises a major portion of decorated ceramic 

assemblages throughout west-central New Mexico 

during this period (Kintigh 1996; Lekson 1996; 

Roneyl996). 

The most intriguing trend in the study of 

ceramic type distributions in the El Malpais survey 

is the uniqueness of the Las Ventanas assemblage. 

This assemblage clearly suggests that either 

residents of the great house were participating in 

long-distance exchange at a rate surpassing their 

peers, or that the great house was a locus of use 

and deposition of non-local ceramics by residents 

of the surrounding community. Additionally, the 
104 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

increased levels of Mogollon Brown Ware and 

Socorro Black-on-white suggest that residents of 

Las Ventanas were pursuing exchange with 

populations outside the traditional archeological 

boundaries of the Chacoan system. Studies of 

differences in ceramic exchange within local 

Chaco period great house communities are in their 

infancy (see Kantner et al. 2000:130-132 for a 

good discussion), and there are few analogues for 

discussion. There are some suggestions of similar 

patterns at nearby Pueblo II period public 

buildings (Marshall 1991:6-41). but few 

comprehensive studies of ceramic distributions 

within great house communities have been 

conducted (see Toll et al. 1992 for a discussion of 

regional patterns). The El Malpais survey of the 

Northeast survey block represents one of the most 

comprehensive ceramic recording efforts for a 

Chacoan great house and its surrounding 

community. Thus, this data and conclusions 

deriving from it have the potential to play a 

significant role in understanding social 

relationships within Pueblo II period settlement 

clusters. Preliminary data from the ceramic survey 

suggest that important differences in ceramic 

distributions in the Las Ventanas community may 

be indicative of substantial social divisions or 

differences in component function. More detailed 

studies along these lines examining the ceramics 

and other artifacts are warranted. 

Temporal Changes in Ceramic Exchange 

Patterns 

Temporal trends in ceramic exchange are also 

apparent in the ceramic assemblage from the El 

Malpais survey. Table 5.3 and Table 5.4 contain 

ceramic information from the entire El Malpais 

survey broken down by time period. Although the 

trends discussed here should be viewed as 

tentative due to differences in the way 

chronological periods were assigned to 

components and the low sample sizes representing 

a number of time periods, a few patterns are 

apparent. First, brown ware proportions appear to 

peak during the Cebolleta phase, ranging from 6 to 

10 percent (Table 5.4) over the course of the 

phase. There are some indications that brown ware 

percentages might be slightly higher during the 

earliest portion of this period (Table 5.4). The 

slight rise in brown ware proportion at the end of 

the Cebolleta phase (late Cebolleta/Pilares) might 

be attributed to the fact that a number of these 

assemblages are from Las Ventanas. The peak in 

brown ware proportions during the Cebolleta 

phase parallels data from the Armijo and Cebolla 

Canyon surveys (Marshall 1991:Table 6.12: 

Wilson 1994:Table 10). The acquisition of 

Mogollon Brown Ware by residents of the El 

Malpais area appears to decline following the 

Pueblo II period. 

Temporal information for Socorro Black-onwhite exchange consistently suggests that trade 

peaked during the late Cebolleta phase (A.D. 1050 

to 1 125) (Table 5.4). The highest proportions of 

Socorro Black-on-white occur at El Malpais 

survey components occupied during this period. 

Trade in Socorro may persist into the subsequent 

Pilares phase (A.D. 1 125 to 1200) as well. Again, 

these trends are consistent with data from both the 

Armijo and Cebolla Canyon surveys (Marshall 

199 f: Table 6.9: Wilson 1994:Table 10). 

Relatively high proportions of Socorro Black-onwhite appear to be a good indicator of late 

Cebolleta phase occupation. This may account for 

the high proportions of Socorro Black-on-white in 

the Cerritos de Jaspe area assemblages. Marshall 

(1993:93-94) places most of the occupation of this 

area in the A.D. 1000 to 1125 period, including 

the latter portion of the early Cebolleta phase and 

all of the late Cebolleta phase. Thus the Socorro 

Black-on-white temporal patterns roughly parallel 

those of Mogollon Brown Ware, suggesting that 

exchange with outside regions was peaking during 

the Cebolleta phase. 

Temporal trends in White Mountain Red Ware 

follow expected patterns arising from increasing 

production during the late eleventh through thirteenth centuries. As stated above, it is difficult to 

assess how much of the change in the proportion 
INTERACTION AND EXCHANGE 105 

Table 5.3. Ceramic wares by time period (all sites). 

Time Period 

Red Mesa 

Pueblo II 

Red Mesa/ 

Early Cebolleta 

Early Cebolleta 

Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta/ 

Pilares 

Cebolleta/Pilares 

Pilares 

Pilares/Kowina 

Kowina 

Pueblo IV 

Mixed 

Unknown 

Dates (A.D.) 

870 to 950 

900 to 1150 

870 to 1050 

950 to 1050 

950 to 1125 

1050 to 1125 

1050 to 1200 

950 to 1200 

1125to 1200 

1125to 1300 

1200 to 1300 

1300 to 1540 

n/a 

unknown 

No. of 

Sites 

7 

17 

33 

8 

43 

37 

23 

1 

8 

3 

2 

1 

7 

26 

Mogollon 

n 

2 

33 

348 

43 

169 

457 

382 

0 

18 

12 

4 

0 

1 

27 

Brown Ware 

% 

1.34 

10.75 

8.15 

11.35 

7.67 

6.73 

11.82 

0.00 

1.70 

12.24 

8.33 

0.00 

0.67 

26.21 

Socorro 

n 

1 

6 

49 

2 

83 

418 

119 

37 

27 

0 

0 

0 

13 

0 

Black-on-white 

% 

0.67 

1.95 

1.15 

0.53 

3.77 

6.16 

3.68 

86 

2.55 

0 

0 

0 

8.72 

0 

White Mountain 

n 

0 

0 

3 

1 

30 

123 

89 

0 

37 

2 

33 

0 

6 

2 

Red Ware 

% 

0.00 

0.00 

0.07 

0.26 

1.36 

1.81 

2.75 

0.00 

3.49 

2.04 

68.75 

0.00 

4.03 

1.94 

Total 

n 

149 

307 

4.270 

379 

2.203 

6.787 

3.232 

43 

1.059 

98 

48 

150 

149 

103 

Mogollon Brown Ware includes unknown brown ware, which is likely to be poorly preserved Mogollon Brown Ware. White 

Mountain Red Ware also includes unknown red ware for the same reason. Socorro Black-on-white includes both varieties and Socorro 

Black-on-white. Indeterminate variety. 

of White Mountain Red Ware in El Malpais area 

assemblages is strictly temporal, and how much is 

due to changes in ceramic exchange. Very little is 

known of pre-1300 White Mountain Red Ware 

exchange systems, particularly in west-central 

New Mexico. However, it is likely that some of 

the earliest White Mountain Red Ware in the El 

Malpais area was transferred through exchange 

(Dittert 1959:407-408). The appearance of White 

Mountain Red Ware in the area coincides with the 

late Cebolleta phase and post-A.D. 1050 contexts 

(Table 5.4). Again, a similar pattern was recorded 

in both the Armijo and Cebolla Canyon surveys 

(Marshall 1991:Table 6.12; Wilson 1994;Table 

10). The White Mountain Red Ware types 

produced during this time period are the styles that 

Dittert (1959:407-408) suggests were exchanged 

from areas to the west. Although there is little data 

from the El Malpais survey for subsequent 

periods, information from the Cebolla and Armijo 

Canyon surveys suggest a steady increase in the 

occurrence of White Mountain Red Ware (Marshall 1991:Table 6.12; Wilson 1994:Table 10). 

Following Dittert (1959) and Marshall (1991), it is 

likely that the majority of White Mountain Red 

Ware was locally produced during the Pueblo III 

period, resulting in the origination of unique, 

Cebollita Mesa decorative and technological 

styles. However, in general, ceramic assemblages 

from the El Malpais area during this time period 

are quite similar to those from the Cibola area to 

the west (Kintigh 1996; Roney 1996). 
106 EL MALPAIS ARCIIEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Table 5.4. Ceramic wares by time period (all sites with Mogollon Brown Ware, Socorro Black-on-white, 

and White Mountain Red Ware percentages below 51) percent). 

Time Period 

Red Mesa 

Pueblo il 

Red Mesa/ 

Early Cebolleta 

Early Cebolleta 

Cebolleta 

Tate Cebolleta 

Late Cebolleta/ 

Pi lares 

Pi lares 

Pilares/Kowina 

Pueblo IV 

Mixed 

Unknown 

Dates (A. D.) 

870 to 950 

900 to 1 150 

870 to 1050 

950 to 1050 

950 to 1125 

1050 to 1 125 

1050 to 1200 

1125to 1200 

1125 to 1300 

1300 to 1540 

n a 

unknown 

No. of 

Sites 

7 

15 

33 

7 

40 

35 

20 

8 

2 

1 

7" 

23 

Mogollon 

n 

2 

4 

348 

36 

121 

455 

254 

18 

0 

0 

I 

0 

Brown Ware 

% 

1.34 

1.50 

8.15 

9.81 

5.72 

6.96 

8.36 

1.70 

0.00 

0.00 

0.67 

0.00 

Soeorro 

n 

1 

6 

19 

2 

74 

227 

117 

27 

0 

0 

13 

0 

Blaek-on-white 

% 

0.67 

2.25 

1.15 

0.54 

3.5 

3.47 

3.85 

2.55 

0 

0 

8.72 

0 

White Mountain 

n 

0 

0 

3 

1 

30 

123 

61 

37 

0 

0 

6 

2 

Red Ware 

% 

0.00 

0.00 

0.07 

0.27 

1.42 

1.88 

2.01 

3.49 

0.00 

0.00 

4.03 

2.67 

Total 

n 

149 

267 

4.270 

367 

2.114 

6.534 

3.037 

1.059 

75 

150 

149 

75 

Mogollon Brown Ware includes unknown brown ware, which is likely to be poorly preserved Mogollon Brown Ware. White 

Mountain Red Ware also includes unknown red ware for the same reason. Soeorro Black-on-white includes both varieties and Socorro 

Black-on-white. Indeterminate variety. 

Evaluation of the Research Design 

Exchange Model 

The general model for ceramic exchange in 

the El Malpais area proposed in the original El 

Malpais survey research design (Orcutt et al. 

2001:36-41) can be partially evaluated with the 

present data. Following Habicht-Mauche (1993), 

this model suggests that ceramic exchange 

patterns should be relatively open and 

homogenous during periods of low population 

density and high mobility and then switch to more 

differentiated networks as populations become 

more sedentary and site clusters form (Orcutt ct al. 

2001:36-37). Ceramic assemblages should be 

more similar to one another during the former 

period and should exhibit more variation during 

the latter period. Orcutt et al. (2001:36-37) 

expected the El Malpais area to be characterized 

by the open, homogeneous pattern during the early 

Puebloan occupation, with greater distinctions 

occurring over time. A third pattern was 

postulated for the late Puebloan occupation of the 

area, when groups were expected to participate in 

long-distance, interregional systems of trade. 

The data gathered here suggest that the 

ceramic exchange system seen in the El Malpais 

area is most similar to an open, homogenous 

network during most of the Puebloan occupation 

of the area. Ceramic styles and assemblages are 

similar throughout most of the El 

Malpais/Cebollita Mesa region. Most differences 

appear to be attributable to geographic location, 

rather than the pursuance of different economic 

strategies. There are some hints that different 

communities may have begun to pursue more 

variable exchange ties during the Kowina phase 

(Marshall 1991), after the residential occupation of 

the monument lands appears to have ceased. 

However, even then, most sites had roughly 

similar ceramic assemblages that are comparable 

to other ceramic assemblages throughout westcentral New Mexico (Kintigh 1996: Lekson 1996; 
INTERACTION AND EXCHANGE 107 

Roney 1996). Large-scale exchange of ceramic 

materials, as modeled in Habicht-Mauche's (1993) 

study of the late prehistoric Rio Grande, currently 

does not appear to have occurred in the El 

Malpais/Cebollita Mesa region, even during the 

Pueblo IV period (Dittert 1998). Nor does this 

pattern appear to have occurred in the Zuni region 

to the west (Duff 2002). Both of these areas were 

focused inward during most of the Pueblo IV 

period, only peripherally participating in the largescale exchange networks of eastern Arizona 

(Adams 1991; Duff 2002) or the Rio Grande 

(Habicht-Mauche 1993). 

In part, this perspective on ceramic exchange 

may derive from our inability to track exchange of 

a large portion of El Malpais area ceramic types 

without resorting to chemical or mineralogical 

techniques. Typological techniques are not finegrained enough to assess the level of intraregional 

exchange that was occurring or to track 

interregional exchange of wares produced locally 

(i.e., which White Mountain Red Ware vessels are 

local? which are exchanged?). However, a few 

patterns emerge in the El Malpais data that 

contradict or are not accounted for in the original 

exchange model. First, the presence of Chacostyle public buildings was expected to coincide 

with exchange ties to the north (Orcutt et al. 

2001:39). Exchange in this direction is difficult to 

track with survey collections due to the similarity 

of Chacoan and El Malpais area ceramic 

assemblages, as both are primarily comprised of 

Cibola White and Gray Wares. However, the 

strongest patterns of exchange in the El Malpais 

data are with areas to the south (Mogollon Brown 

Ware) and east (Socorro Black-on-white); areas 

considered outside of the Chacoan system. This 

raises the possibility that participation in the 

Chacoan system had very little impact on local 

exchange systems, or that El Malpais/Cebollita 

Mesa area residents may have facilitated contacts 

with people outside of the Chacoan system. 

Second, the El Malpais data and that from the 

Cebolla Canyon survey (Marshall 1991) suggest 

that residents of Chaco-style public buildings may 

have participated in exchange to a greater degree 

than members of the surrounding community. This 

dimension of variation is particularly intriguing, 

and somewhat contradicts the notion that early 

Puebloan exchange networks were homogenous. 

How this variation corresponds with other 

dimensions of exchange, ritual, and social power 

deserves further study. 

The study of El Malpais area ceramics has 

significant potential for expanding our knowledge 

of exchange and social systems in ancient westcentral New Mexico and in small-scale 

agricultural societies in general. A few potential 

avenues for future research are suggested by the El 

Malpais project. First, the extent and 

distinctiveness of local ceramic production 

systems need to be resolved. Detailed analyses of 

ceramic production in the area would help resolve 

questions concerning the local production of 

White Mountain Red Ware, whether Cebolleta 

"types" deserve separate status (Dittert 1959; 

Wilson 1994), and possibly whether Socorro 

Black-on-white was in part locally produced. 

These studies have rarely been pursued during 

research in west-central New Mexico compared to 

other areas of the Southwest. Additionally, these 

types of studies have been relatively rarely 

employed in the study of Pueblo II and III period 

ceramic exchange, the periods during which the El 

Malpais area was most heavily occupied. Second, 

pursuit of compositional studies at an interregional 

level should yield insights into the extent of 

interaction between El Malpais area residents and 

other social groups. This would be particularly 

helpful for understanding large-scale population 

movements in the thirteenth and fourteenth 

centuries that seem to have involved groups from 

throughout the area. Finally, detailed studies of 

variation in exchange within the Las Ventanas 

community would be quite useful for elucidating 

the structure of Chaco period great house 

communities. Although questions of regional 

interaction during this time period have received 

rather significant attention, our knowledge of 

intracommunity social and economic variation 

needs considerable work. These studies have great 

potential for improving our understanding of the 

effect of Chacoan ideas and society on the daily 

life of residents in the ancient Chacoan system. 

The El Malpais survey has provided a fascinating 

glimpse into the ancient ceramic production and 
108 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

distribution systems of the area, and has raised a 

number of questions for future researchers in the 

region. 

Lithic Artifacts 

This section presents a summary of lithic 

artifacts, including chipped stone debitage. 

chipped stone tools, ground-stone tools, and other 

tools made of stone. It begins with a brief 

summary of the conclusions reached in earlier 

lithic investigations undertaken within the PI 

Malpais project so that the present investigation 

may proceed from, and in some cases build upon, 

those conclusions. The methods of data collection 

and classification for chipped stone and groundstone artifacts and summaries of the resulting data 

are presented next. Lastly, certain of these data 

are analyzed to address one of the primary 

research objectives of the El Malpais project: 

prehistoric interaction and exchange in the El 

Malpais area. 

Previous El Malpais Lithic Investigations 

In addition to previous work around the 

monument (e.g.. Dittert 1959; Doleman 1990; 

Eschman and Elyea 1990; Hogan 1985), this 

section draws upon results from three previous 

investigations associated with the El Malpais 

project. The treatment of some subjects 

concerning the chipped stone artifacts of El 

Malpais National Monument is treated in more 

detail in these reports. First, a preliminary 

investigation of data from the first field season 

(Kilby 2001) addressed raw materials, projectile 

points, reduction modes, and ground stone. 

Results indicated that Archaic groups exploited a 

narrower range of raw materials relative to 

Puebloan groups but used a variety of materials 

within this range more evenly. While Puebloan 

groups had access to non-local materials, they 

focused upon a few readily available local 

resources. An investigation of Archaic projectile 

points suggested that the use of Cochise versus 

Oshara styles might be temporally patterned. It 

was also noted that few distal or medial fragments 

of projectile points were observed, and it was 

suggested that the actual hunting of game might 

have taken place in areas adjacent to the 

monument. An assessment of the potential of 

debitage assemblages (reviewed in Chapter 3) as 

temporally diagnostic found its usefulness to be 

limited for El Malpais National Monument. 

Finally, examination of projectile points and 

ground stone identified the Two Kipuka area of 

the southeastern portion of the monument as an 

important subsistence resource area. 

Second, a survey of selected Bureau of Land 

Management areas adjacent to the monument was 

carried out and reported in 2002 (McVickar et al. 

2002). The research issues and field methods 

developed for the El Malpais project guided the 

survey and report. In the Bureau of Land 

Management report, raw material source distance 

was evaluated using Bake size and cortical cover, 

and support was found for the undetected 

existence of some raw materials (particularly 

quartzite and some cherts that fit into the "other 

chert" raw material category) in the immediate 

area of the monument. The relationship between 

lithic reduction mode and raw material source 

distance was examined and found to be complex, 

perhaps related as much to component function as 

to raw material preferences. Further, stone tool 

functional types were used to interpret the range of 

activities carried out on specific component 

classes, with the most diverse activities evident at 

long-term residential components. 

Third, a raw material survey was carried out 

both within and adjacent to the monument in 2001. 

The goals of this investigation were to identify and 

assess local sources of lithic raw materials to 

enable distinction of local and non-local raw 

materials. The results of this survey are 

summarized below and presented in detail in 

Appendix 4. 

Lithic Data Collection Methods 

The Phase I lithic data collection strategy was 

conceived with two major goals in mind. An 

important function of any large survey of public 

land is to generate and provide information that 

will be useful in the future to archeologists and 
INTERACTION AND EXCHANGE 109 

land managers. Thus, one goal has been to record 

a consistent set of basic lithic attributes that are 

applicable to a wide range of archeological 

questions and problems. The second goal has 

been to collect data that can be used to address 

specific research domains that are critical for 

understanding the archeology and prehistory of El 

Malpais National Monument. 

All Phase I lithics were analyzed and recorded 

in the field. Because the monument endorses 

minimum artifact collection, artifacts were left in 

the field. Lithic artifacts were recorded either as 

tools or debitage. Tools are defined as artifacts 

that have been shaped into specific forms for 

carrying out tasks or that show evidence of 

modification through use in some task. This 

definition includes both chipped and ground-stone 

tools. To record adequate information on cores, 

they too were recorded as tools. Debitage is 

defined as the product (aside from formal tools) of 

chipped stone reduction. Pieces of debitage that 

exhibit signs of use may be recorded as both tools 

and debitage. but are counted only once in 

quantitative summaries. The following sections 

present the information collected for these two 

classes of lithic artifacts along with summaries of 

the resulting data. The first section is devoted to 

discussion of raw material use for debitage and 

tools. Subsequent sections refer primarily to 

either tools or debitage. 

Raw Materials 

The frequencies of raw material types for all 

chipped stone artifacts (tools and debitage) are 

presented in Table 5.6. Comparison of Tables 5.5 

and 5.6 indicates that, not surprisingly, locally 

available raw materials account for the majority of 

artifacts. San Andres chert is by far the best 

represented, accounting for almost 40 percent of 

all artifacts. San Andres is locally abundant and 

generally of high quality for chipped stone 

reduction. Likewise, Grants Ridge obsidian (7 

percent), Zuni Spotted chert (5 percent), and nonvesicular basalt (4 percent) are locally available, 

of good quality, and well represented. Some local 

raw materials of lower quality that are well 

represented include quartz (6 percent) and 

medium/coarse grained quartzite (4 percent). All 

non-local raw materials that represent more than 1 

percent of the data are of high quality, and include 

chalcedony with red inclusions (4 percent). Red 

Hill/Mule Creek obsidian (4 percent), and Jemez 

obsidian (1 percent). 

Raw material use for non-chipped stone tools, 

including ground stone and other tools, is 

presented in Table 5.7. To an even greater degree 

than for chipped stone tools, the non-chipped 

stone tools reflect use of locally available lithic 

raw materials. Every material representing greater 

than 1 percent of the data, including sandstone 

(nearly 72 percent of the data), vesicular and nonvesicular basalt (totaling 9 percent), quartz (6 

percent), and quartzite (5 percent), is available in 

the local area. 

Lithic raw materials received considerable 

emphasis in Phase 1 of the El Malpais survey. It 

was realized in the early stages of the project that, 

because raw materials can often be assigned to 

geological sources that occur at particular points 

on the landscape, these data might provide the 

most direct evidence for regional interaction and 

trade (Figure 5.1). A survey of potential raw 

material sources (Appendix 4) improved our 

ability to distinguish between local (available 

within 100 km) and non-local (available only 

beyond 100 km) lithic raw materials (Table 5.5). 

To aid analysis and interpretation, in most 

cases the multiple raw material types reported in 

fables 5.6 and 5.7 have been combined into 

fourteen raw material groups: Zuni spotted chert, 

San Andres chert, Chuska chert, Pedernal chert, 

other chert, chalcedony, cherty petrified wood, 

chalcedonic petrified wood. Grants Ridge 

obsidian, other obsidian, quartzite, quartz, basalt, 

and other. Where particular raw material sources 

are known, even when sample size is small (e.g., 

Pedernal chert and Chuska chert), specific raw 

material types are maintained. 
110 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Figure 5.1. Major raw material source locations in the El Malpais region and western New Mexico. 
INTERACTION AND EXCHANGE 111 

Table 5.5. Raw material sources and availability relative to El Malpais National Monument. 

Raw Material Availabilitv Primary Source 

San Andres chert 

Grants Ridge obsidian 

Petrified wood (cherty) 

Fine-grained basalt 

Green siltstone 

Quartz 

Zuni spotted chert 

Other siltstone 

Quartzite 

Petrified wood (chalcedonic) 

Chalcedony w/red 

Chalcedony w/black 

Other chert 

Jemez obsidians 

Mule Creek/Red Hill obsidian 

Chuska chert 

Pedemal chert 

Socorro jasper 

local 

local 

local 

local 

local 

local 

local 

local'.' 

local 

non-local 

non-local 

non-local 

mixed 

non-local 

non-local 

non-local 

non-local 

non-local 

San Andres limestone 

Mt. Taylor volcanics 

Chinle formation 

Miocene basalt 

Cretaceous sedimentary rocks 

Protcrozoic plutonic rocks 

Zuni Mountains 

Cretaceous sedimentary rocks? 

Dakota sandstone. Cretaceous Sedimentary rocks 

unknown (Chinle?) 

unknown (San Augustin Plains/Mangus Mtns. Pedernal?) 

unknown (San Augustin Plains/Mangus Mtns?) 

various (some in Cretaceous Sedimentary rocks) 

Jemez volcanics 

Catron and Reserve Counties volcanics 

Chuska Sandstone 

Pedernal 

l.adron Mountains 

Debitage 

Infield debitage analysis was conducted using 

a debitage record form on which items were tallied 

according to reduction mode, size, and amount of 

cortex present, if any (see Appendix 1). Brief 

descriptions of data collection procedures and 

summaries of the resulting data are presented 

below for each debitage data class. 

Reduction Mode and Size 

When possible, debitage was identified in the 

field as being the result of either bifacial reduction 

or generalized core reduction (referred to as core 

reduction). Other modes of reduction, such as 

blade core reduction, were not encountered. 

Identification was based upon the presence or 

absence of nine flake attributes associated with 

each reduction mode. Because no single attribute 

was found to readily distinguish reduction modes, 

and because every attribute may not be observable 

on a given specimen, an artifact was required to 

meet five of the nine criteria in order to be 

identified as a product of bifacial reduction or 

generalized core reduction. When reduction mode 

could not be identified, the Hake was classified as 

either an indeterminate flake (an orientable flake 

that could be attributed to one or the other 

reduction mode) or angular debris (unorientable 

debitage). Flake size data were collected in the 

field using a template divided into four arbitrary 

size classes (less than 1 cm. 1 to 3 cm. 3 to 6 cm. 

and greater than 6 cm). 

Table 5.8 combines data representing debitage 

reduction modes and size classes relative to raw 

material groups. These data indicate some 

apparent preferences for raw materials with regard 

to reduction mode. Chuska chert, chalcedonic 

petrified wood, and Grants Ridge and other 

obsidians are reduced bifacially more often than 

the overall average. These raw materials are all 

typically very fine-grained and isotropic (exhibit 

the same qualities in three dimensions). In 
112 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Code 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

20 

21 

22 

23 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

40 

41 

42 

50 

51 

52 

53 

55 

56 

57 

Description 

Chert. Zuni spotted 

Chert. San Andres 

Chert. Chuska" 

Chert. Pcdernal* 

Chert. Socorro Jasper'1 

Chert. Brushy Basin1 

Chert, tan 

Chert, gray 

Chert, black 

Chert, red 

Chert, fossiliferous 

Chert, nfs" 

Chert, purple 

Chert, white opaque 

Chert, black/red/white splotched 

Chert, golden brown fine opaque 

Chert, blackish brown translucent 

Chalcedony, with red inclusions1 

Chalcedony, with black inclusions1 

Chalcedony, nfsb 

Chalcedony, clear-translucent white 

Petrified wood, orange and gray 

Petrified wood, dark cherty 

Petrified wood, light cherty 

Petrified wood, dark chalcedonic1 

Petrified wood, light chalcedonic1 

Petrified wood. nfsb 

Obsidian. Grants Ridge 

Obsidian. Red Hill/Mule Creek1 

Obsidian. Jemez1 

Quartzite. fine-grained 

Quartzite. medium- to coarse-grained 

Quartz 

Silicified sandstone, white 

Basalt, nonvesicular 

Basalt, vesicular 

Rhvolite 

Tools 

47 

245 

5 

1 

8 

2 

11 

6 

8 

13 

4 

26 

14 

11 

8 

7 

3 

43 

18 

6 

14 

0 

26 

11 

6 

8 

0 

48 

17 

15 

31 

46 

40 

3 

23 

1 

0 

Debitage 

675 

5.280 

40 

25 

91 

25 

86 

76 

44 

125 

76 

207 

282 

64 

45 

35 

14 

577 

224 

48 

394 

9 

243 

100 

49 

78 

5 

848 

483 

128 

283 

459 

851 

7 

553 

12 

41 

Total 

722 

5.525 

95 

26 

99 

27 

97 

82 

52 

138 

80 

233 

296 

75 

103 

42 

17 

620 

242 

54 

413 

9 

269 

111 

55 

86 

5 

946 

500 

143 

314 

505 

891 

10 

576 

13 

41 

Percent 

5.16 

39.49 

0.68 

0.19 

0.71 

0.19 

0.69 

0.59 

0.37 

0.99 

0.57 

1.67 

2.12 

0.54 

0.74 

0.30 

0.12 

4.43 

1.73 

0.39 

2.95 

0.06 

1.92 

0.79 

0.39 

0.61 

0.04 

6.76 

3.57 

1.02 

2.24 

3.61 

6.37 

0.07 

4.12 

0.09 

0.29 

Table 5.6. Raw material frequencies for chipped-stone artifacts. 
INTERACTION AND EXCHANGE 113 

Table 5.6. (Continued). 

" non-local materials 

nfs = not further specified 

Code Description 

60 Granite 

61 Andesitc 

62 Igneous. nfsb 

65 Schist 

66 Limestone 

67 Siltstone 

68 Sandstone, fine-grained 

69 Sandstone, medium- or coarse-grained 

72 Shale, dark 

79 Turquoise 

80 Silicified sandstone 

99 Other 

Total 

Tools 

1 

1 

0 

2 

8 

10 

71 

46 

3 

1 

6 

1 

980 

Debitage 

11 

1 

4 

0 

21 

105 

19 

21 

92 

1 

38 

17 

13.012 

Total 

12 

2 

4 

2 

29 

115 

90 

67 

95 

2 

44 

18 

13.992 

Percent 

0.09 

0.01 

0.03 

0.01 

0.21 

0.82 

0.64 

0.48 

0.68 

0.01 

0.31 

0.13 

100.00 

contrast, cherry petrified wood, quartzite. and 

basalt are more often reduced as generalized cores 

than the overall average. These materials may be 

variable in quality, but are in general coarsergrained and relatively less isotropic. Quartz also 

was reduced almost exclusively as generalized 

cores, but its crystalline structure results in such a 

high degree of angular debris that it is impossible 

to determine which reduction mode was preferred. 

San Andres chert and Zuni spotted chert are both 

relatively high quality raw materials that are 

locally available. Preferred reduction modes 

closely mirror (and to some degree drive) the 

average proportions. As in earlier studies, there is 

some indication that Zuni spotted chert, despite its 

apparent quality, was reduced slightly more often 

in the form of generalized cores than bifaces. 

Preferred mode of reduction appears to be as 

much or more related to the physical properties of 

individual raw materials as it is to distance to the 

raw material source. This conclusion is consistent 

with that drawn from lithic data from the adjacent 

Bureau of Land Management survey (McVickar et 

al. 2002:81). 

Flake size distributions presented in Table 5.8 

are relatively consistent across raw material 

groups. Maximum flake size is limited by core 

size, and thus flake size distributions are 

potentially informative of core size. Although it 

might be expected that flakes of more distant raw 

materials were derived from smaller cores and 

would therefore tend to be smaller, this does not 

seem to be the case. Flake size data are patterned 

most clearly with respect to reduction mode, with 

bifacial reduction flakes consistently weighted 

toward the two smallest size classes. 

Cortex 

Cortex is the natural outer surface of a piece 

of lithic raw material and reflects either the 

bedrock matrix in which the material formed or 

weathering from exposure or natural transport. 

The largest amounts of cortex are expected to be 

present on the earliest flakes removed in a 

reduction sequence, though cortex might be 

present on flakes from any part of the reduction 

process. Cortex is thus a potentially useful but 

imperfect correlate of level of reduction. For this 
114 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Code 

2 

9 

12 

16 

22 

50 

51 

52 

55 

56 

57 

60 

61 

62 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

72 

77 

79 

80 

81 

99 

Total 

Description 

Chert. San Andres 

Chert, black 

Chert, nfs" 

Chert, golden brown fine opaque 

Chalcedony, nfs" 

Quartzite, medium- to coarse-grained 

Quartz 

Silicified sandstone, white 

Basalt, nonvesicular 

Basalt, vesicular 

Rhyolite 

Granite 

Andesite 

Igneous. nfsa 

Schist 

Limestone 

Siltstone 

Sandstone, fine-grained 

Sandstone, medium- or coarse-grained 

Sedimentary, nfs'1 

Shale, dark 

1 lematite 

Turquoise 

Silicified sandstone 

Selenite 

Other 

f 

3 

2 

1 

1 

1 

38 

52 

19 

11 

59 

5 

3 

1 

1 

2 

11 

3 

338 

245 

1 

5 

1 

2 

1 

1 

6 

813 

Percent 

0.37 

0.25 

0.12 

0.12 

0.12 

4.67 

6.40 

2.34 

1.35 

7.26 

0.62 

0.37 

0.12 

0.12 

0.25 

1.35 

0.37 

41.57 

30.14 

0.12 

0.62 

0.12 

0.25 

0.12 

0.12 

0.74 

100.00 

'nfs = not further specified 

reason, cortex data were recorded in the field as 

either less than 75 percent of the exterior flake 

surface, greater than 75 percent, or absent. 

Seventy-five percent was chosen because it 

provides a threshold beyond which relatively early 

stage reduction is likely represented. 

Cortical cover is presented by raw material 

group in Table 5.9. Seventy-six percent or more 

of each material type group lacks cortical cover. 

Flakes exhibiting more than 75 percent cortex 

range from 0 percent (Chuska chert, obsidian other 

than Grants Ridge, and basalt) to almost 14 

percent (quartzite) of individual raw material 

groups. Unlike the results of previous studies, the 

data do not pattern as expected with distance to 

raw material source (although both Chuska chert 

and "other" obsidian, both of which are non-local 

materials, have no flakes with greater than 75 

percent cortex). Some patterning does appear to 

be driven by available clast size. Specifically, 

quartzite, cherty petrified wood, and "other" chert 

Table 5.7. Raw material frequencies for ground stone and other lithic artifacts. 
Table 5. X. Cross-tabulation of flake type and raw material group. 

Unidenti- Unidentified flake/ fied flake/ 

Bilace Biiacc Bilace Bilace Core Core Core Core Angular Angular 

Reduction Reduction Reduction Reduction Biiacc Bilace Reduction Reduction Reduction Reduction Core Core Unidenti- Angular Debris Debris (irand 

<l cm 1 to 3 cm 3 to 6 cm >6 cm Total Percent -1 cm 1 to 3 cm 3 to 6 cm >6 cm Total Percent lied flake Debris dotal Percent Total 

Chert, Zuni Spotted 26 91 <-, n. 123 IS 22 7 214 66 0 287 42.52 172 93 265 39.26 675 

Chert. San Andres 240 484 7 0 731 13.84 104 1.257 253 7 1,621 30.68 2.101 830 2.931 55.48 5.283 

Chert. Chuska 17 32 () 0 49 55.68 2 11 3 0 16 18.18 12 11 23 26.14 88 

Chert. Pedernal 1 .\ Q Q ; 20.00 0 9 1 0 10 40.00 7 3 10 40.00 25 

Chert, other 54 140 3 0 197 16.09 40 426 61 I 528 43.14 322 177 499 40.77 1.224 

Chalcedony 114 174 1 0 289 23.25 30 291 40 3 364 29.28 483 107 590 47.47 1.243 

Petrified wood, cherty 8 21 o 0 29 8 12 15 119 19 1 154 43.14 75 99 174 48.74 357 

Petrified wood. 7 21 2 0 30 23.62 3 34 3 0 40 31.50 34 23 57 44.88 127 

ehalcedonic 

Obsidian, Grants 137 94 2 0 233 27 48 68 22S 13 0 309 36.44 230 76 306 36.08 848 

Ridge 

Obsidian, other 1.37 164 0 0 301 49 10 8 35 2 0 45 7.34 242 25 267 43.56 613 

Ouart/.ilc 0 12 () 0 12 1.62 3 210 127 1.3 353 47.57 197 180 377 50.81 742 

Quartz 3 6 0 0 9 1.06 18 168 42 7 235 27.61 148 459 607 71.33 851 

Basalt 7 12 I 0 20 .3.54 15 169 86 10 280 49.56 235 30 265 46.90 565 

(),hc r

 4 24 I 0 29 7.86 7 111 61 15 194 52.57 122 24 146 .39.57 369 

Total 755 1.279 2.3 0 2.057 15.81 320 3.282 777 57 4.436 34.10 4.380 2.1.37 6.517 50.09 13.010 

Percent 5.80 9_83 0.18 0.00 15.81 2.46 25.23 5.97 0.44 34.10 3.7.67 16.43 50.09 100 

Z 

H 

m 

n 

H 

O 

z 

m 

x 

n 

x i 

o 

m 

6 i 
116 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Table 5.9. Cross-tabulation of exterior cortical cover and raw material group. 

Basalt 

Chalcedony 

Chert. Chuska 

Chert, other 

Chert. Pedernal 

Chert. San Andres 

Chert. Zuni Spotted 

Obsidian. Grants Ridge 

Obsidian, other 

Other 

Quartz 

Quartzite 

Silicified wood, chaleedonic 

Silicified wood, cherty 

Total 

0 Percent 

f 

501 

1,098 

82 

990 

19 

4.692 

573 

741 

608 

332 

800 

574 

109 

281 

11.400 

Cortex 

Percent 

91.26 

88.33 

91.11 

81.41 

76.00 

89.02 

85.14 

87.38 

99.18 

88.06 

94.01 

77.46 

85.83 

79.38 

87.84 

Less Than 75 

f 

48 

125 

8 

145 

4 

397 

70 

63 

5 

25 

24 

65 

13 

49 

1.041 

Percent Cortex 

Percent 

8.74 

10.06 

8.89 

11.92 

16.00 

7.53 

10.40 

7.43 

0.82 

6.63 

2.82 

8.77 

10.24 

13.84 

8.02 

Greater Than 

f 

0 

20 

0 

81 

2 

182 

30 

44 

0 

20 

27 

102 

5 

24 

537 

75 Percent Cortex 

Percent 

0.00 

1.61 

0.00 

6.66 

8.00 

3.45 

4.46 

5.19 

0.00 

5.31 

3.17 

13.77 

3.94 

6.78 

4.14 

Total 

549 

1.243 

90 

1.216 

25 

5.271 

673 

848 

613 

377 

851 

741 

127 

354 

12,978 

(all of which have relatively high proportions of 

flakes with greater than 75 percent cortex) may all 

naturally occur in limited size ranges if they are 

primarily derived from secondary alluvium 

(Appendix 4). Unless Pedernal chert was also 

collected from secondary sources, the high 

proportion of flakes of this raw material with 

greater than 75 percent cortex is an anomaly. 

Thermal Alteration 

Although thermal alteration data were 

recorded for lithic tools only, the data are 

presented here because, like the debitage data, 

they relate most directly to raw material use. 

Thermal alteration, including both intentional and 

unintentional modification of stone by heat, was 

recorded when crazing, potlidding, and changes in 

luster or color were evident. The first two 

attributes represent unintended or unsuccessful 

thermal alteration, and the latter two more likely 

represent intentional heat treatment carried out in 

order to improve the flaking properties of a piece 

of lithic raw material. In some cases all four 

classes of thermal alteration were recorded for 

individual artifacts. 

The frequency of heat alteration attributes on 

tools is organized by raw material groups in Table 

5.10. Three raw material types appear to have 

been intentionally heat-treated with some regularity. Zuni spotted chert (of which nearly 30 percent 

shows indications of thermal alteration) is the 

most commonly thermally altered. Some varieties 

of chert within the "other" chert group are also 

regularly heat altered (nearly 12 percent). San 

Andres chert appears to have been occasionally 

(nearly 8 percent) intentionally heat-treated. 

Thermal alteration of each of these three raw 

materials is most commonly exhibited as change 

in color or luster. In contrast, Chuska chert which 

has a high frequency of heat alteration (40 percent, 

but this is clearly influenced to some extent by 

small sample size), exhibits only potlidding and is 

likely the result of unintended thermal alteration. 
INTERACTION AND EXCHANGE 117 

Chert, Zuni Spotted 

Chert. San Andres 

Chert. Chuska 

Chert. Pedernal 

Chert, other 

Chalcedony 

Petrified wood, cherty 

Petrified wood, chalcedonic 

Obsidian. Grants Ridge 

Obsidian, other 

Quartzite 

Quartz 

Basalt 

Other 

crazing 

2 

-

-

-

3 

i 

-

-

1 

-

-

-

-

. 

Heat Alterat 

potlidding 

6 

5 

2 

-

7 

-

2 

-

1 

1 

-

-

-

. 

ion Class 

luster 

3 

11 

-

-

10 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

. 

(/)' 

discoloration 

12 

7 

-

-

7 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

. 

Total No. 

of Tools 

47 

245 

5 

1 

127 

90 

39 

14 

98 

33 

71 

40 

20 

49 

Heat Alteration 

(/) 

13 

19 

2 

0 

15 

1 

2 

0 

2 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Percent Heat 

Altered 

27.66 

7.76 

40.00 

0.00 

11.81 

1.11 

5.13 

0.00 

2.04 

3.03 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

a

 Because some tools show several types of heat alteration effects, the frequency of effects is greater than the number of tools 

displaying them. 

Lithic Tools 

Flaked and non-flaked lithic tools were 

recorded in the field on a single record form for 

each site (Appendix 1). Data representing raw 

material, tool type (chosen from a series of technofunctional classes), condition (the portion of an 

orientable tool present), artifact size (length, 

width, thickness), retouch method, edge damage 

(including use-wear), and thermal alteration 

(presented above) were recorded as was appropriate for each tool. Of these, tool type, retouch, 

and edge damage are specifically discussed here. 

Tool Types 

Tool types recognized by the El Malpais 

survey combine technological information and 

traditional interpretations of artifact function into 

47 tool types. One type, projectile point, is further 

subdivided into stylistic types because of the 

temporal diagnostic potential. Table 5.11 presents 

the 1,676 tools documented in Phase I of the El 

Malpais survey. These tools consist of cores (10 

percent), flake tools (25 percent), bifacial tools (18 

percent), ground-stone tools (36 percent), and 

other tools (11 percent). 

Cores 

Chipped stone cores from the project area are 

primarily multi-directional (exhibiting flake scars 

oriented in more than two directions; 3 1 percent). 

More formalized core forms are relatively less 

common. The relative abundance of choppers 

(nearly 19 percent) and core tools (18 percent) 

indicate that cores often served functions other 

than simply providing a source of flakes. The 

presence of tested cobbles (12 percent) suggests 

that prehistoric flint knappers viewed small 

secondary clasts as a potentially useful source of 

lithic raw material. 

Flake Tools 

Flake tools are flakes that have been modified 

for use in some task or that show indications of 

having been used. They account for the majority 

Table 5.10. Heat alteration of raw materials 
118 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Table 5.11. Frequencies of tool classes and types. 

Tool Class Tool Type / Within-class Percent 

Cores (9.91 %) 

Flake 'Fools (25.00 %) 

Bifacial Tools (17.90%) 

Ground Stone Tools (36.16 %) 

Other fools (1 1.04 %) 

Core, undifferentiated 12 

Core, unidirectional 15 

Core, bidirectional 2 

Core, multidirectional 52 

Core, bifacial 4 

Cobble, tested 20 

Core tool 30 

Chopper 31 

Flake tool, nfs" 227 

Flake tool, drill 2 

Flake tool, knife 3 

Flake tool, denticulate 9 

Flake tool, multi-use 6 

Flake tool, reamer 5 

Flake tool, grater 4 

Uniface 15 

Scraper, nfs'1 92 

Scraper, end 29 

Scraper, side 23 

Scraper, thumbnail 4 

Biface, nfs' 104 

Bifaee. preform 20 

Projectile point 165 

Reamer 1 

Drill 7 

Awl/borer/perforator 2 

Knife 1 

Mano. nfs11 46 

Mano. one-hand 27 

Mano. two-hand 28 

Mano. preform 4 

Metate. nfs11 6 

Metate. trough 20 

Metate. slab 151 

Metate. basin 30 

Metate. undifferentiated 20 

Metate. other 2 

Groundstone. indeterminate 272 

Abrader 4 

Axe 1 

Manuport 138 

Palette 2 

Pendant 3 

Pestle 2 

7.23 

9.04 

1.20 

31.33 

2.41 

12.05 

18.07 

18.67 

54.18 

0.48 

0.72 

2.15 

1.43 

1.19 

0.95 

3.58 

21.96 

6.92 

5.49 

0.95 

34.67 

6.67 

55.00 

0.33 

2.33 

0.67 

0.33 

7.59 

4.46 

4.62 

0.66 

0.99 

3.30 

24.92 

4.95 

3.30 

0.33 

44.88 

2.16 

0.54 

74.59 

1.08 

1.62 

1.08 

0.72 

0.89 

0.12 

3.10 

0.24 

1.19 

1.79 

1.85 

13.54 

0.12 

0.18 

0.54 

0.36 

0.30 

0.24 

0.89 

5.49 

1.73 

1.37 

0.24 

6.21 

1.19 

9.84 

0.06 

0.42 

0.12 

0.06 

2.74 

1.61 

1.67 

0.24 

0.36 

1.19 

9.01 

1.79 

1.19 

0.12 

16.23 

0.24 

0.06 

8.23 

0.12 

0.18 

0.12 

Percent of total 
INTERACTION AND EXCHANGE 

Table 5.11. (Continued). 

Tool Class 

Total 

Tool Type 

Polishing stone 

Slab, shaped 

Other 

f 

17 

8 

10 

1676 

Within-class Percent 

9.19 

4.32 

5.41 

Percent of total 

1.01 

0.48 

0.60 

100.00 

nf's = not further specified 

Table 5.12. Frequencies of retouch methods, number of use edges, and edge damage classes for flake 

tools. 

Tool Class 

Flake tool. nfs a 

Flake tool, multi-use 

Flake tool, drill 

Flake tool, knife 

Flake tool, denticulate 

Flake tool, reamer 

Flake tool, graver 

Uniface 

Scraper. nfs a 

Scraper, end 

Scraper, side 

Scraper, thumbnail 

none 

1 16 

2 

-

-

-

-

-

-

5 

7 

4 

1 

Retouch 

unifacial 

75 

1 

-

2 

5 

-

2 

14 

74 

18 

15 

3 

bifacial 

10 

2 

2 

1 

3 

2 

2 

-

11 

2 

3 

-

1 

173 

3 

-

2 

4 

3 

2 

0 

71 

23 

15 

-

No. 

2 

43 

2 

2 

1 

4 

2 

2 

3 

20 

5 

7 

3 

ofEdg 

3 

2 

1 

-

-

-

-

-

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

es 

4 

1 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

a\era»e 

1.23 

1.67 

2.00 

1.33 

1.50 

1.40 

1.50 

1.60 

1.24 

1.24 

1.39 

2.25 

micro -

tlakina 

189 

6 

2 

•5 

7 

1 

4 

10 

75 

21 

19 

4 

Fids 

rounding; 

polish 

43 

4 

-

2 

2 

-

2 

2 

16 

14 

8 

1 

X Damage 

striations 

8 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 

2 

1 

breakace 

7 

-

1 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

other 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 

-

1 

2 

-

rift = not further specified 

of chipped stone tools in the data set. More than 

half of flake tools (flake tool, not further specified) 

are informal, most likely expedient, tools. Table 

5.12 presents flake tool data in more detail, 

including information on retouch and edge 

damage. The data indicate that informal flake 

tools are most often not retouched but may in 

some cases have been unifacially or bifacially 

retouched. Flake tools most often exhibit 

microflaking or rounding/polish as edge damage, 

although striations and breakage are not 

uncommon. Finally, general flake tools have the 

lowest average number of use edges (1.23) of all 

flake tools, supporting the interpretation that they 

are primarily expedient tools discarded after use in 

a simile task. 

Scrapers are the most abundant formed flake 

tools, and of these generalized scrapers (scraper, 

not further specified) are the most common (22 

percent: Table 5.11). End scrapers (7 percent). 

side scrapers (5 percent), and thumbnail scrapers 

(about 1 percent) arc substantially less common. 

As expected, scrapers are generally unifacially 

retouched (Table 5.12) and have low average 

numbers of use edges. Thumbnail scrapers, which 

appear to have been shaped along several margins, 

are an exception. Seventeen tools lacking 

patterned retouch were identified as scrapers. In 

these cases, field identification was based upon 

edge damage consistent with use as a scraper. 

Edge damage to both retouched and non-retouched 

scrapers typically consists of microflaking and 

119 
120 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Period 

Paleoindian 

Early ArchaicMiddle Archaic 

Late Archaic 

Puebloan 

Unknown 

Total 

Style 

Clovis 

Late Paleoindian 

Jay 

Bajada 

San Jose 

Armijo 

Chiri cahua 

Gypsum 

San Pedro 

Kn Medio 

BM 

Pueblo 

sites (/) 

1 

1 

-1 

4 

3 

14 

13 

3 

11 

4 

10 

41 

56 

165 

I.O.sLO 

-

-

1 

2 

1 

-

-

-

1 

-

1 

1 

9 

16 

Total 

1 

1 

5 

6 

4 

14 

13 

3 

12 

4 

11 

42 

65 

181 

Percent 

0.55 

0.55 

2.76 

3.31 

2.21 

7.73 

7.18 

1.66 

6.63 

2.21 

6.08 

23.20 

35.91 

100.00 

edge rounding/polish but may also include 

striations. 

Other flake tools were identified by functional 

types, but in many cases these specimens represent 

multi-use tools with average number of use edges 

ranging from 1.3 to 2. Edge damage for these 

tools typically consists of micro flaking and edge 

rounding/polish. 

Bifacial Tools 

As a general class of tools, bifacial tools are 

second to flake tools in abundance (Table 5.11). 

The bifacial tool class is overwhelmingly 

dominated by projectile points (55 percent) and 

general bifaces (biface, not further specified; 35 

percent). The latter class includes many 

incomplete artifacts that could be identified in the 

field only as biface fragments, as well as small, 

irregularly shaped bifaces. 

Where possible, projectile points were 

assigned to stylistic types (Table 5.13). Based 

upon stylistic attributes, it appears that most 

projectile points found during Phase I were 

manufactured during the Pueblo (23 percent) and 

the middle Archaic (nearly 19 percent) periods. A 

more extensive discussion of projectile points as 

temporal markers is presented in Chapter 3. The 

vast majority of projectile points found in Phase 1 

of the El Malpais survey were encountered on 

sites as opposed to being found as isolated 

occurrences, suggesting that the areas where 

projectile points were being used and lost (i.e., 

hunting areas) were outside of the monument. 

This pattern is consistent with patterns noted in the 

preliminary analysis of the 2000 field season data 

(Kilby 2001). The early Archaic, for which over 

one-quarter of the projectile points were reported 

as isolates, is the sole exception. This early 

Archaic pattern, if not merely a result of small 

sample size, may indicate that more hunting was 

done within what is now the monument 

boundaries before the McCartys lava flow covered 

much of the surface in the middle Holocene. 

Earlier investigations (e.g., Eschman and 

Elyea 1990; Kilby 2001. McVickar et al. 2002; 

O'Hara and Elyea 1985) found that projectile 

point styles associated with the Oshara and 

Cochise Archaic traditions were used concurrently 

in the area around El Malpais, particularly during 

the middle Archaic. The complete data set from 

Phase I of the El Malpais survey supports these 

results, but temporal shifts in the predominance of 

points from one tradition over the other during the 

Table 5.13. Frequencies of projectile point styles from sites and isolated occurrences. 
INTERACTION AND EXCHANGE 121 

Archaic (as found in the above reports) is not 

evident. 

Ground-Stone Tools 

Ground-stone tools, consisting of manos and 

metates, are the most abundant class of tools, 

accounting for just over 36 percent of the total tool 

assemblage (Table 5.11). Almost one half of the 

ground-stone tools could not be identified as to 

form (ground stone, indeterminate; 45 percent). 

These fragments of stone exhibiting grinding on 

one or more surfaces are in many cases firecracked, suggesting that they may have often been 

recycled as components of fire or roasting pits. 

Slab metates account for nearly 25 percent of 

the ground-stone assemblage, while basin metates 

(just under 5 percent) and trough metates (3 

percent) are substantially less common. Slab 

metates were likely used within mealing bins to 

immobilize the metate and to minimize the loss of 

meal (Head 1999). The use of a mealing bin 

restricts the user to a particular location but has 

been found to be more efficient than basin or 

trough metates, particularly for grinding large 

amounts of meal on a daily basis (Adams 1993). 

The slab metates may thus represent relatively 

formalized grinding technology associated with 

maize agriculture. Sandstone, which was used for 

the majority of El Malpais grinding activities 

(Table 5.7), may have been preferred because its 

tabular form frequently required little shaping. 

Manos account for the remainder of groundstone tools. The majority of manos could not be 

identified as to specific form (mano, not further 

specified; 8 percent). One-hand manos (4 percent) 

and two-hand manos (5 percent) are equally 

common. One-hand manos are probably 

associated with basin metates. while the two-hand 

manos are most likelv associated with trough and 

slab metates. While mano types are roughly 

equally abundant, metate types are not. Trough 

and slab metates are considerably more abundant 

than basin metates. As trough and slab metates 

are believed to have been engineered for long-term 

grinding efficiency (Adams 1999), it might be 

expected that multiple two-hand manos would 

have been worn out and discarded during the life 

of a trough or slab metate. Instead there are nearly 

six trough or slab metates for every two-hand 

mano identified. The reasons for this may lie 

more in artifact identification than in prehistoric 

economic processes. One possibility is that a large 

number of two-hand manos may be concealed 

within the not further specified (indeterminate) 

categories of manos, metates, and ground stone; 

another is that multiple fragments of individual 

slab metates may have led to an overestimate of 

their frequency. 

Other Tools 

Other tools is a catch-all class that consists of 

a variety of tools that are in most cases unrelated 

to one another in technology or function. This 

class accounts for the remaining 11 percent of the 

lithic tools documented in Phase I of the El 

Malpais project. 

Manuports. stones that are not necessarily 

modified but have been clearly transported to their 

current locations by humans, are the largest group 

(nearly 75 percent) of tools in this class (Table 

5.11). In most cases manuports consist of 

sandstone slabs or blocks that have been carried 

across and deposited onto the lava flows, or less 

commonly, pieces of lava transported off of the 

flows. 

Polishing stones are the next most common 

tool type in this class, comprising just over 9 

percent. These small fiat stones are smoothed on 

one or both flat surfaces and were probably used 

for polishing the surfaces of pottery before firing. 

The remaining tools in the "other tool" class are 

shaped slabs (just over 4 percent), and abraders, 

axes, palettes, pendants, and pestles (given that no 

mortars were identified, these may have been used 

on bedrock), each accounting for around 2 percent 

or less of the class. Ten items (just over 5 
122 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Table 5.14. Raw material use across time periods. 

Raw Material 

Chert. Zuni Spotted 

Chert. San Andres 

Chert. Chuska 

Chert. Pedernal 

Chert. Brush) Basin 

Chert, other 

Chalcedony 

Petrified wood, ehertv 

Petrified wood, ehaleedonie 

Obsidian. Grants Ridge 

Obsidian. Red Hill Mule Creek 

Obsidian. Jemez 

Quartzite 

Quartz 

Basalt 

Other 

Total 

Availabilitv 

Loeal 

Local 

Non-local 

Non-local 

Non-local 

Mixed 

Non-local 

Loeal 

Non-local 

Loeal 

Non-local 

Non-local 

Local 

Loeal 

Loeal 

Archak/B 

(6000 B.C. 

n 

/ 

12 

245 

2 

0 

0 

146 

306 

39 

24 

S3 

71 

5 

10 

3 

S 

1 

955 

asketmaker 

toA.D. 500) 

- 5 

Percent 

1.26 

25.65 

0.21 

0.00 

0.00 

15.29 

32.04 

4.08 

2.51 

8.69 

7.43 

0.52 

1.05 

0.31 

0.84 

0.10 

Red Mesa' 

(A.D. 5 

n 

/' 

136 

859 

5 

3 

0 

145 

196 

19 

13 

92 

32 

1 

107 

130 

16 

S3 

1.8.37 

Parly Cebolleta 

170 to 1050) 

= 27 

Percent 

7.40 

46.76 

0.27 

0.16 

0.00 

7.89 

10.67 

1.03 

0.71 

5.01 

1.74 

0.05 

5.S2 

7.08 

0.87 

4.52 

LateC 

(A.D. 10! 

n • 

/' 

126 

1616 

4 

2 

0 

139 

202 

35 

3 

S

7 

3 

5 

193 

32 

261 

92 

2.800 

ebolleta 

i0 to 1125) 

= 19 

Percent 

4.50 

57.71 

0.14 

0.07 

0.00 

4.96 

7.21 

1.25 

0.11 

3.11 

0.11 

0.18 

6.89 

1.14 

9.32 

3.29 

I.ateCeboll eta/Pilares 

(A.D. 1100 to 1200) 

n = 

./' 

80 

572 

0 

1 

13 

38 

52 

24 

11 

167 

3 

4 

35 

160 

109 

92 

1.361 

19 

Percent 

5.88 

42.0.3 

0.00 

0.07 

0.96 

2.79 

3.82 

1.76 

0.81 

12.27 

0.22 

0.29 

2.57 

11.76 

8.01 

6.76 

percent) are classified as "other" and include 

beads, fire-cracked rock, unmodified turquoise, 

and a small shaped stone disk. 

Prehistoric Interaction and Exchange 

The El Malpais survey has proceeded from the 

perspective that the land that is now El Malpais 

National Monument, unlike many other national 

parks and monuments in the region, cannot be 

considered a core area for any one archeological 

culture (Orcutt et al. 2001). Instead, due to 

physical obstacles presented by the lava flows, the 

monument area is expected to have been 

peripheral to surrounding cultures, perhaps serving 

as a territorial boundary in some periods. Patterns 

in lithic raw material use provide a way to 

examine this hypothesis, and to address interaction 

and exchange in the area. Considerable effort has 

been invested in identifying sources of locally 

available raw materials and distinguishing them 

from non-local materials (Appendix 4), and to a 

large degree these efforts have been successful. 

Knowledge of the geographic locations of raw 

material sources provides a basis for interpreting 

patterns in lithic material usage and for evaluating 

the degree to which particular prehistoric groups 

accessed individual sources. 

Raw Material Use Through Time: 

Regional-Scale Patterns 

Changes in lithic raw material use through 

time may be due to variation in economic 

strategies, degree of mobility, or degree of 

interaction among communities and regions. Table 

5.14 presents lithic raw material use as represented 

by chipped stone debitage from single-component 

sites, organized by time period. Time period 

assignments are derived directly from the results 

of Chapter 3, with some modification. 

Modification is necessary to form discrete groups 
INTERACTION AND EXCHANGE 123 

with acceptable sample sizes and minimal 

temporal overlap. Specifically, Archaic and 

Basketmaker components are combined into a 

single group (6000 BC to A.D. 500), the Red 

Mesa/early Cebolleta (Cluster 1, A.D. 870 to 

1050) and late Cebolleta (Cluster 2, A.D. 1050 to 

1125) groups are retained, but the general 

Cebolleta group (Cluster 3, A.D. 950 to 1125) is 

not considered because of the temporal overlap 

between the preceding and succeeding time 

periods, and the late CeboIIeta/early Pilares 

(Cluster 4) and the Pilares (Cluster 5) groups are 

combined to form a single late Cebolleta/Pilares 

group (A.D. 1100 to 1200). This arrangement 

results in a single temporal overlap of 25 years 

between the late Cebolleta and late 

Cebolleta/Pilares groups. In addition, some of the 

raw material groups (specifically Brushy Basin 

chert, Pedernal chert, Red Hill/Mule Creek 

obsidian, and Jemez Obsidian) are reported 

individually. Despite small sample sizes, these 

materials can be associated with some confidence 

with particular non-local sources. 

Archaic/Basketmaker 

quality raw materials displace the local, high 

quality cherts such as San Andres and Zuni 

spotted chert. The proportions of these two 

materials are lower during this interval than in any 

subsequent period. 

The magnitude of the difference between the 

Archaic/Basketmaker period and later periods in 

use of local versus non-local materials is evident 

in Figure 5.2. This figure presents the proportions 

of local versus non-local raw materials by time 

period and is calculated using only those raw 

materials that are identifiable to source. Among 

these materials, more than one-half are from nonlocal sources, which make up less than 20 percent 

of every other temporal assemblage. The apparent 

preference for relatively high-quality raw 

materials and utilization of non-local raw 

materials likely relates to higher degrees of 

mobility during the Archaic and Basketmaker 

periods relative to later periods. The high 

proportions of chalcedony and Red Hill/Mule 

Creek obsidian suggest that much of their 

movement may have been oriented toward areas 

south of El Malpais National Monument. 

The most striking temporal trend in raw 

material use evident in Table 5.14 is the difference 

between the Archaic/Basketmaker group and the 

succeeding Pueblo periods. Archaic and 

Basketmaker groups appear to have preferred 

higher quality raw materials and very often 

brought these in from other areas. Medium and 

poor quality raw materials, including basalt (less 

than 1 percent of the assemblage), quartzite 

(slightly over 1 percent), and quartz (0.3 percent) 

are poorly represented in this time period relative 

to later time periods, despite the fact that they are 

readily available in the local area. An exception to 

this generalization is cherty petrified wood, a 

material of typically moderate quality that makes 

up around four percent of the assemblage 

(compared to 1 to 2 percent in later assemblages). 

In contrast, proportions of non-local raw materials 

of generally high quality including chalcedony (32 

percent). Red Hill/Mule Creek obsidian (7 

percent), and other chert (over 15 percent) are high 

relative to later periods. These non-local, high 

Red Mesa/Early Cebolleta (A.D. 870 to 1050) 

During this period, reliance upon local raw 

materials increases substantially from the 

preceding period, but non-local raw materials are 

utilized to a greater degree than in later Pueblo 

time periods (Figure 5.2). Local high quality raw 

materials, including San Andres chert (47 

percent), Zuni spotted chert (7 percent), and 

Grants Ridge obsidian (5 percent) dominate the 

assemblage, while those of relatively lower quality 

such as quartz (7 percent) and quartzite (6 percent) 

are used regularly as well (Table 5.14). 

Several non-local materials also occur in 

relatively high frequencies. Chalcedony is 

relatively abundant (more than 10 percent) and. 

while only present in trace amounts, Chuska chert 

(about 0.3 percent) and Pedernal chert (about 0.2 

percent) are better represented in this temporal 

assemblage than in any other Pueblo period. The 

relatively high amounts of "other" chert (nearly 8 
124 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Figure 5.2. Use of local and non-local lithic raw materials through time. 

percent), while likely composed of both local and 

non-local cherts, may be due to the presence of a 

larger proportion of unidentified non-local cherts. 

Chuska and Pedernal chert, along with Zuni 

spotted chert (which is present in the highest 

frequencies of any time period) are believed to 

have been important raw materials in the Chacoan 

interaction system (Cameron 2001); their 

abundance during this interval may indicate 

increased interaction with communities in the San 

Juan Basin during the Red Mesa/early Cebolleta 

period. 

Late Cebolleta (A.D. 1050 to 1125) 

A trajectory of increasing reliance upon local 

raw materials continues into the late Cebolleta 

period (Figure 5.2). Use of San Andres chert is at 

its highest proportion (58 percent) of all time 

periods (Table 5.14). For the first time, basalt 

forms a major proportion of the assemblage (9 

percent). Quartzite (7 percent), Zuni spotted chert 

(5 percent), and other chert (5 percent) are also 

common. 

While less common, non-local materials are 

used to some degree in the late Cebolleta period. 

Chalcedony in particular continues to be prevalent 

(over 7 percent). Decreased amounts of Chuska, 

Pedernal (about 0.1 percent each), and Zuni 

spotted cherts may indicate decreased interaction 

with the San Juan Basin as the focus of the 

Chacoan interaction sphere shifted to the northern 

and western portions of the basin (Toll 1991). 

Late Cebolleta/Pilares (A.D. 1100 to 1200) 

This period is characterized by the greatest 

reliance upon locally available raw materials, with 

non-local raw materials making up less than 7 
INTERACTION AND EXCHANGE 125 

percent of raw materials identifiable to source 

(Figure 5.2). Use of San Andres (42 percent) and 

Zuni spotted chert (6 percent) remain high (Table 

5.14), but their proportions are suppressed by 

widespread use of another locally available raw 

material, Grants Ridge obsidian, which comprises 

over 12 percent of the assemblage from this time 

period. An increase in the use of quartz (12 

percent) and decrease in the use of quartzite (less 

than 3 percent) is also evident. 

Chalcedony (4 percent) is the only potentially 

non-local raw material that is present in any 

appreciable quantity during this period. The 

appearance of Brushy Basin chert (1 percent, 

derived from southeast Utah) only in this period is 

an enigma, but along with chalcedony indicates 

minor exchange with other areas. From the 

perspective of the movement of lithic raw 

materials, components from the late 

Cebolleta/Pilares period appear to be the most 

economically isolated, perhaps reflecting an 

almost total isolation from late Chacoan and postChacoan systems operating within the San Juan 

Basin to the north. 

Raw Material Use Across Space: LocalScale Patterns 

The degree to which sedentary Puebloan 

inhabitants of El Malpais interacted with one 

another and the degree to which they controlled 

access to certain areas is also potentially evident in 

the distribution of lithic raw materials. To 

evaluate these questions, the distribution of five 

raw materials identifiable to a specific source was 

investigated for single-component Pueblo period 

sites in three areas of the monument (Figure 5.3). 

These areas are associated with particular 

suites of raw materials to which inhabitants are 

expected to have had direct access. An estimated 

straight-line distance from the raw material 

sources (with preference given to the primary 

sources, where they are known) to the center of 

each of the three areas is presented in Table 5.15. 

Because of obstacles such as lava flows and other 

landscape features, distance alone may not provide 

an adequate measure of the relative accessibility of 

these sources from each area. Nevertheless, these 

measurements provide a simple value that is useful 

as a referent. The Los Pilares area is located in the 

northeastern area of the monument and is 

separated from the other two areas by the 

McCartys Lava Flow to the west and the 

"Narrows" to the south. Communities in this area 

are expected to have had direct access to basalt as 

well as quartzite and various cherts present in 

Cretaceous sedimentary rocks that occur on the 

mesas immediately east of the monument. The Ice 

Caves area is located in the northwestern portion 

of the monument and is separated from other areas 

by the Bandera, Lava Crater, Twin Crater, and El 

Calderon flows. Groups in this area are expected 

to have had direct access to San Andres and Zuni 

spotted cherts in the nearby Zuni Mountains. 

Grants Ridge obsidian is located just north of both 

the Los Pilares and Ice Caves areas and is 

expected to have been equally accessible to 

occupants of both. The North Pasture area is 

located in the southeastern portion of the 

monument and is separated from the Los Pilares 

area by the "Narrows." Only the Red Mesa/early 

Cebolleta period is represented in this area. 

Occupants of the North Pasture area should have 

had direct access to the same raw materials as the 

inhabitants of the Las Pilares area, and are 

expected to have had greater access to 

chalcedonies derived from south of the monument. 

The distribution of the five raw materials 

associated with these areas is presented by area 

and time period in Table 5.15. During the Red 

Mesa/early Cebolleta period, access to San Andres 

chert appears to have been relatively unrestricted, 

with high proportions (around 70 percent) in both 

the Los Pilares and Ice Caves areas. Lower 

proportions (around 45 percent) occur in the North 

Pasture area, most likely due to increased distance 

from the Zuni Mountains. Despite its distance 

from the Zuni Mountains, the proportion of Zuni 

spotted chert is substantially higher (over 30 

percent) in the North Pasture than in the other two 

areas. Given the small sample size from the North 

Pasture area and the lack of comparative material 

from the immediately surrounding area, it is not 

clear why Zuni spotted chert makes up a greater 
126 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Figure 5.3. Three study units containing survey areas used in comparative analysis of 

raw material distributions. 
INTERACTION AND EXCHANGE 127 

Table 5.15. Use of selected raw materials across geographic areas by time period. 

Material 

Basalt 

Chalcedony 

Chert, San Andres 

Chert, Zuni Spotted 

Obsidian. Grants 

Ridge 

Total 

Los 

n 

/ 

12 

119 

616 

19 

57 

823 

Red N 

( 

Pi lares 

= 17 

Percent 

1.46 

14.46 

74.85 

2.31 

6.93 

lesa/E: 

AD 87 

Ice ( 

/ 

0 

9 

83 

6 

19 

117 

irly Cebo 

0-1050) 

Laves 

n = 3 

Percent 

0.00 

7.69 

70.94 

5.13 

16.24 

lleta 

North 

/ 

4 

68 

160 

III 

16 

359 

Pasture 

n = 7 

Percent 

1.11 

18.94 

44.57 

30.92 

4.46 

Los 

,/' 

257 

199 

1.601 

120 

39 

2.216 

Late Cel 

(AD 105( 

Pilares 

n = 13 

Percent 

1 1.60 

8.98 

72.25 

5.42 

1.76 

i 

lolleta 

1-112; 

Ice 

/ 

4 

3 

15 

6 

48 

76 

i 

i) 

Caves 

n = 3 

Percent 

5.26 

3.95 

19.74 

7.89 

63.16 

L 

Los 

/ 

108 

43 

469 

69 

41 

730 

ateCeboll 

(AD 1101 

Pilares 

n = 9 

Percent 

14.79 

5.89 

64.25 

9.45 

5.62 

eta/Pil 

J-120( 

Ice 

/' 

1 

9 

103 

1 1 

126 

250 

ares 

)) 

Caves 

n = 5 

Percent 

0.40 

3.60 

41.20 

4.40 

50.40 

The number of components shown here is less than the number of components in Table 5.14 because some components lack 

these five raw material types. 

proportion of the North Pasture assemblage than 

those from other areas. Data gathered in future 

phases of this project can potentially shed light on 

this pattern. As expected, chalcedony is more 

common in the North Pasture area and basalt is 

more common in this and the Los Pilares area. 

Grants Ridge obsidian is noticeably more common 

(around 16 percent) in the Ice Caves area. 

The decrease in regional-scale trade during the 

late Cebolleta period is suggested by decreased 

use of chalcedony (less than 9 percent) in both 

areas and a return to expected patterns in the use 

of Zuni spotted chert (slightly more abundant in 

the Ice Caves than the Los Pilares area). The use 

of both San Andres chert and Grants Ridge 

obsidian is high, although in inverse proportions to 

what might be expected from the geographic 

relationship of the survey areas to these sources. 

This pattern, along with the movement of relatively high proportions of basalt (over 5 percent) into 

the Ice Caves area, suggests that while regionalscale trade may have broken down, late Cebolleta 

period communities within the monument were 

interacting with one another on a local scale perhaps through trade or shared access to resources. 

Economic isolation appears to have been at its 

greatest during the late Cebolleta/Pilares period. 

Chalcedony reaches its lowest levels (less than 6 

percent in both areas). Further, very little basalt 

appears to have been utilized on components in 

the Ice Caves area (0.4 percent), although it was 

used to its greatest extent in the Los Pilares area 

(nearly 15 percent). Groups from both areas 

continued to use the San Andres chert, Zuni 

spotted chert, and Grants Ridge obsidian sources 

and a continued preference for Grants Ridge 

obsidian in the Ice Caves area and for San Andres 

chert in the Los Pilares area is evident. The 

exploitation of secondary sources of San Andres 

chert, perhaps available in the Rio San Jose, by the 

occupants of Los Pilares components was 

considered as one potential explanation for this 

curious pattern. An implication of this scenario is 

that San Andres debitage from the Los Pilares area 

should exhibit greater frequencies of cortex due to 

the reduction of smaller clast sizes. However, an 

examination of cortex frequency from components 

in the two areas found no difference (cortex was 

found to be present on 12 percent of San Andres 

debitage in both areas). It is not known whether 

these patterns in the proportions of Grants Ridge 

obsidian and San Andres chert represent some 

aspect of territoriality, use of some areas 

(particularly the Ice Caves area) for specialized 

activities by groups based outside of that area, or 

simply technological or stylistic preferences. 
128 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Summary and Conclusions 

Phase I of the El Malpais project resulted in 

the documentation of 13,992 chipped stone and 

813 ground and other non-chipped stone tools and 

artifacts. The majority of these are unaltered 

pieces of chipped stone debitage. Among tools, 

ground-stone implements are the most abundant, 

with the vast majority showing little technological 

investment. Similarly, simple tools made on 

flakes are the most common chipped stone tools, 

with bifacial tools, other tools, and cores present 

in decreasing abundance. 

Raw materials have received considerable 

attention throughout Phase 1 of the El Malpais 

project, with the particular aim of providing data 

relevant to examination of prehistoric interaction 

and exchange both within the monument and 

between the monument and surrounding areas. 

The results indicate that economic relationships 

varied through time. During the Archaic and 

Basketmaker periods, groups appear to have been 

relatively mobile, using relatively high quality raw 

materials as often as not derived from non-local 

sources. Particular raw materials and projectile 

points styles indicate a possible territorial 

orientation toward the south during some part of 

this time interval. Relative to this earlier time 

period, the Pueblo period inhabitants of El 

Malpais National Monument were considerably 

more reliant upon local raw materials and 

apparently more willing to utilize lower quality 

raw materials when they would suffice. 

Examination of interaction and exchange patterns 

using relative raw material frequencies indicates a 

pattern of increasing localization of economies 

from A.D. 870 to 1200. Regional interaction 

appears to have been at its height during the 

earliest part of this period (A.D. 870 to 1050). 

perhaps a result of participation in the larger 

Chacoan interaction sphere centered in the San 

Juan Basin. From A.D. 1050 to 1125 economic 

interaction became more localized, with most of 

the exchange involving local communities. 

Economic independence appears to have been 

greatest during the period from A.D. 1100 to 1200, 

when apparently even exchange among local 

communities declined. 
Historic Period Sites 

Deborah L. Huntley 

Chapter 6 provides an analysis of over 122 

historic site components and isolated occurrences 

recorded within the El Malpais Phase I survey 

area. The chapter begins with a review of 

literature on historic period land use patterns in the 

El Malpais region, with particular attention to the 

various ethnic groups that traditionally utilized the 

area. This is followed by a discussion of twelve 

functional categories used to classify historic site 

components recorded in the survey area, including 

specific examples from each category. Next is an 

examination of the historic period artifact 

assemblages, focusing on the distribution of 

various material culture classes among site 

functional categories, as well as the utility of each 

material class in establishing site chronology. 

While many historic components in the survey 

area are of indeterminate age, temporally 

diagnostic artifacts present at a number of sites 

suggest that historic period activity was most 

intense between around 1920 and 1950. Analysis 

of historic component distributions reveals 

differences in the frequencies of site functional 

categories and probable cultural affiliation among 

the eastern, central, and western portions of the 

park, suggesting variability in historic period land 

use within El Malpais. The chapter concludes 

with a summary of the historic component data. 

Historic Period Background 

The malpais and surrounding region was used 

historically for many different purposes by a 

number of different groups of people. Puebloan 

groups (Acoma, Zuni. and Laguna) utilized the 

area in both prehistoric and historic times. The El 

Malpais area was also important to the Navajo 

and, particularly in the early 1900s, to Hispanic 

and Anglo homesteaders. This section is a brief 

overview of historical and selected archeological 

evidence for historic period activities in and 

around the study area. The reader is referred to 

Holmes (1989), Mangum (1990), and Tainter and 

Gillio (1980) for more detailed historical 

information. 

Historic Native American Land Use 

Four Native American groups, the Acoma, 

Zuni. Laguna. and Raman Navajo, live in the 

vicinity of El Malpais today. These groups 

traditionally used (and continue to use) the 

malpais and surrounding area for a number of 

activities, including hunting, resource collection, 

habitation, sheep herding, ranching, and 

maintaining religious shrines. Historically, the 

Acoma utilized Cebolla and Cebollita canyons on 

the eastern edge of the lava and Ojo del Gallo and 

the San Jose River Valley to the west and north of 

the lava for seasonal farming (Holmes 1989:16). 

During the nineteenth century, the Acoma also 

herded sheep and cattle in kipukas in the lava 

flows during the winter, hunted on the lava, and 

maintained shrines there (Holmes 1989; Willmer 

and Goodman 1995:48). The Laguna traditional 

use area largely overlaps that of Acoma. The 

Laguna also maintained farming villages on the 

Rio San Jose in the seventeenth century, and they 

traditionally maintained at least one shrine in the 

vicinity of the malpais (Holmes 1989:19-20). 

129 

6 
130 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Like the Acoma, Laguna shepherds tended sheep 

throughout the Zuni Mountains and on lava 

kipukas during the 1800s (Holmes 1989). 

The Zuni claim only the western and southern 

edges of the malpais as traditional tribal territory 

(Ferguson and Hart 1985:56-57). They reportedly 

gathered piiton nuts and maintained shrines around 

the Bandera Crater Ice Caves, grazed cattle in the 

Zuni Mountains, and hunted from the Zuni 

Mountains south to the North Plains (Holmes 

1989:21). 

The Navajo traditionally used the malpais for 

hunting and gathering (Zedeho et al. 2001:123). 

The Navajo also maintain religions shrines and 

sacred sites in the area (Holmes 1989:21; Zedeho 

et al. 2001). After their return from Bosque 

Redondo in the late 1800s, the Navajo used the 

area for grazing sheep and seasonal habitation 

(Willmer and Goodman 1995). The rough lava 

provided good hiding places for Navajo concerned 

about recapture. The Navajo also kept caves in 

the malpais stocked with provisions in case they 

needed to hide. In winter, some Navajo occupied 

hogans on the lava since it was relatively warm 

(Willmer and Goodman 1995:90). A band of 

Navajo has lived at Ramah. located to the west of 

El Malpais. since the 1860s (Holmes 1989:8). In 

the late 1800s, a small group of Navajo built 

hogans along the present-day NM 1 17 corridor on 

the eastern edge of the malpais (Willmer and 

Goodman 1995:49). 

Homesteading and Ranching 

Mexican and American Periods (Mangum 

1990:56: Tainter and Gillio 1980). The early 

1900s witnessed an increase in homesteading in 

the El Malpais area (Beal 1976). Homesteads 

devoted to dry farming and ranching were 

scattered along the edges of the lava flow, mostly 

on its east side (Mangum 1990:70). Homesteading laws passed between 1862 and 1916 allowed 

homesteaders to claim parcels of 160 to 640 acres 

per person (Tainter and Gillio 1980:144). This 

was often not enough to support a family, and 

many homesteads eventually failed. The situation 

was exacerbated by serious drought in the 1930s. 

Agriculture and grazing were important 

throughout the history of the El Malpais area, 

albeit on a relatively small scale due to the 

difficulty of securing a reliable water supply. 

Sheep herding by Spaniards and Pueblo people 

began in the seventeenth century. The Acoma 

used the pastures along what is today Highway 

1 17 for their sheep, and they still use portions of 

this area for cattle grazing (Willmer and Goodman 

1995:48). The Navajo herded horses and sheep in 

parts of the study area in the eighteenth and early 

nineteenth centuries. Between 1880 and 1925, 

sheep ranching was a major economic pursuit in 

the malpais area, with San Rafael as a major 

center (Mangum 1990:61-62). Shepherds were 

often Basques, and there is evidence of at least one 

Basque shepherd homestead just east of the lava 

(Willmer and Goodman 1995). The cattle industry 

also grew during the early 1900s but never was as 

important as the sheep industry. Both declined 

rapidly in the 1930s (Mangum 1990). 

During the Spanish Colonial Period (A.D. 

1692 to 1821) in the region surrounding the 

malpais, Hispanic immigrants settled small 

farming plots (Tainter and Gillio 1980:129-130). 

According to Mangum (1990) and Tainter and 

Gillio (1980), the typical eighteenth century 

settlement pattern was the rancho, or small farm. 

These ranchos were scattered along drainages or 

near springs close to farmlands and were typically 

occupied by a single family. 

The first homesteads near the malpais were 

established in the mid- to late-1800s during the 

Logging and Mining 

The completion of a transcontinental railroad 

line in 1883 brought commerce and an influx of 

population to New Mexico. Minor lines were 

constructed through the Zuni Mountains for 

harvesting of lumber on lands granted to the 

railroad. The George E. Breece Lumber Company 

expanded logging operations in the southern Zuni 

Mountains in the late 1920s, utilizing both 

railroads and logging trucks (Mangum 1990:69). 

Limited logging was also conducted on Cebollita 

Mesa during early 1930s (Beal 1976; Broster 
HISTORIC PERIOD SITES 

1982:60). Logging activity in the region largely 

tapered off by the 1950s (Mangum 1990), 

however, some lumber operations apparent!}, 

continued within the present-day boundaries of the 

monument during the 1960s (Roney 1993). 

Copper was discovered near Grants and in the 

Zuni Mountains during the late 1800s, but the 

deposits were low-grade and not fully exploited 

(Anderson 1957:99,150). The small mining 

camps of Copperton and Diener in the Zuni 

Mountains were abandoned in the early 1900s 

(Tainter and Gillio 1980:142). In the 1940s and 

early 1950s, three fluorspar mines were operated 

on the west side of the malpais near the Bandera 

Crater Ice Caves (Mangum 1990:74). Uranium 

mining became important in the region after the 

1950s, when deposits in sandstone and limestone 

were discovered near Grants and Laguna (Hilpert 

1969:5). 

Other Activities 

Several military posts were established in the 

vicinity of the malpais. the most historically 

significant of which is probably the first Ft. 

Wingate (Mangum 1990: Tainter and Gillio 1980). 

Ft. Wingate was initially founded in 1862 at Ojo 

del Gallo. This fort played a role in the US war 

against the Navajo as a staging area and way 

station for the Long Walk of 1863. The original 

fort was decommissioned in 1868, abandoned and 

dismantled (Mangum 1990:52). The community 

of San Rafael quickly grew up where the fort had 

been. More recently, an Air Force bomb test site 

centered on McCarty"s Crater was in use for a few 

years during World War II (Beal 1976:10: 

Mangum 1990:77). 

Other historic period activities that likely 

occurred in the El Malpais area include the 

extraction of ice and possible food storage in ice 

caves, as well as the collection and processing of 

bat guano for use as fertilizer. Unfortunately. 

these activities are not discussed in detail in any of 

the sources previously referenced in this section: 

however, we speculate that they did occur based 

on anecdotal evidence. 

Recorded Historic Resources in and 

Around the Monument 

Previous researchers have noted little evidence 

of pre-twentieth century historic period habitation 

or land use in the LI Malpais area. Most 

previously recorded historic sites in and around 

the study area are related to sheep herding, cattle 

grazing, homesteading. and logging within the last 

80 to 100 years. Existing evidence for historic 

land use is more common on the east side of the 

malpais. perhaps due in part to the fact that a 

majority of surveys have focused on this area. For 

example, a School of American Research 

investigation (Beal 1976:18) recorded three sites 

containing the remains of Navajo hogans and/or 

lambing pens and small corrals. This survey also 

documented two sites attributed to historic Acoma 

or Hispanic use (although the reasons for this 

cultural attribution are not given) and six probable 

ranching or homesteading sites dating to the 

1920s. Features recorded at the homestead sites 

include one- to two-room, masonry and log 

houses, low retaining walls, root cellars, homos, 

fire pits, ephemeral corrals, and trash dumps. A 

number of these sites were revisited as part of the 

present study. 

A 1991 BLM survey of the Cerritos de Jaspe 

subunit reported evidence of periodic historic 

activity in the area, including logging, mineral 

prospecting, sheep and cattle herding, pifion nut 

gathering, and hunting (Marshall 1993:4). All of 

the temporary camps and isolated artifacts and 

features associated with these activities post-date 

1900. Evidence of Navajo use of the area consists 

of a late nineteenth to early twentieth century 

cribbed log hogan and an isolated sweat lodge. 

A survey conducted by the Museum of New 

Mexico Office of Archaeological Studies along 

New Mexico Highway 117 (Willmer and 

Goodman 1995) recorded several historic sites and 

a few isolated scatters of historic artifacts. Two of 

the sites were identified as the remains of Navajo 

hogans dating to the late 1800s to early 1900s. 

Two Anglo-American homesteads dating to the 

earlv 1900s were also recorded. 

131 
132 EL MAEPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Survey of BLM land within the El Malpais 

National Conservation Area (McVickar et al. 

2002:53) on the east side of El Malpais reported a 

1920s to 1940s homestead consisting of a log 

cabin, artifact scatter, and several associated 

features including an outbuilding and animal pen. 

McVickar et al. (2002:53) also recorded a 

relatively recent ranching-related site indicated by 

a barbed wire fence and a single-structure camp 

and artifact scatter dating to the late 1930s to early 

1950s. 

A survey of a portion of Cebollita Mesa 

conducted by the BIA Forestry Archeology 

Program (Broster and Harrill 1982) identified the 

remains of over 100 sites, isolated features, and 

isolated artifacts associated with sheep and cattle 

herding, pifion harvesting, logging, hunting, and 

mineral exploration. The majority of sites 

recorded by the survey team were classified as 

camps used between 1900 and 1970, which 

typically contained wooden shelters, fire hearths, 

and artifact scatters (Keesling and Broster 1982). 

They also recorded three Navajo sweat lodges 

dating from the 1950s to 1960s and a 

homestead/ranch consisting of a stone cabin, log 

structure, and wire and pole corrals. 

In their survey of Armijo Canyon. Elyea et al. 

(1994:43) recorded a Hispanic homestead from the 

1930s to 1940s consisting of a house, barn, privy, 

forge, garage, corral, and small trash dump. They 

also recorded an Anglo homestead from the 1960s 

with a cabin and corral, as well as a 1930s to 

1940s line camp consisting of a brick-lined fire 

hearth and trash scatter. 

Historic Site Function 

A total of 76 historic components in 76 sites 

and 46 isolated occurrences were recorded during 

the 2000. 2001. and 2002 survey seasons for a 

total of 122 historic cultural resources. For the 

purposes of this report. 35 historic site or I.O. 

types used in the field were reorganized and 

consolidated into twelve functional categories: 

camps without structures, camps with structures, 

roads, trash dumps, sites associated with ranching 

or herding, agricultural features, sites associated 

with logging activity, homesteads/habitations, 

mining-related sites, ice/water collection sites, 

other/unknown sites, and isolated historic 

features/artifacts. The latter category includes not 

only isolated occurrences but also several 

individual historic features or artifacts recorded as 

separate components of prehistoric sites. While 

there are certainly other ways to organize the 

historic site components discussed in this chapter, 

the classification scheme was intended to 

aggregate the components into as few categories 

as possible without making unsubstantiated 

assumptions about site function because a range of 

activities may be represented at many historic site 

components. In the following sections, each of 

these site functional categories is reviewed. Since 

space restrictions prohibit a detailed analysis of 

every site, specific information is provided for a 

few examples from each functional category. 

Table 6.1 presents ELMA/I.O. and EA ("if 

applicable) site numbers, historic component 

numbers, site category, cultural affiliation, type of 

historic trash present (e.g. Euroamerican). 

probable time period, and number and area(s) of 

artifact samples for each historic component. 

Camps Without Structure(s) 

As Fable 6.1 indicates, camps without 

structures are the most abundant historic site 

component category (other than isolated 

artifact/feature) recorded in Phase 1 of the El 

Malpais survey (n = 26: 21 percent of total 

recorded historic components). This functional 

category includes site components lacking obvious 

architectural features (Table 6.2), although nonarchitectural features and historic trash scatters are 

often present. Fire pits or hearths are the most 

common type of non-architectural feature recorded 

for camps without structures, followed by roads, 

other/indeterminate non-architectural features, 

rock alignments, rock piles or concentrations, 

historic inscriptions, other thermal features, and 

fences (Table 6.3). Historic components in this 

category may be related to any number of historic 

activities known to have occurred in the El 

Malpais area, including logging, hunting, livestock 
Table 6.1. Site category, cultural affiliation, dates, and artifact sample information for historic sites. 

Site/I.O. No. 

ELMA 97 

ELMA 129 

ELMA 301 

ELMA 6 

ELMA 120 

ELMA 244 

ELMA 32 

ELMA 114 

ELMA 128 

ELMA 202 

ELMA 224 

ELMA 245 

ELMA 248 

ELMA 277 

ELMA 284 

ELMA 285 

ELMA 304 

ELMA 112 

ELMA 123 

ELMA 270 

ELMA 271 

ELMA 306 

ELMA 163 

ELMA 303 

ELMA 246 

ELMA 157 

ELMA 198 

ELMA 242 

ELMA 175 

ELMA 227 

ELMA 286 

ELMA 305 

ELMA 243 

ELMA 139 

ELMA 1 15 

ELMA 1 16 

ELMA 1 17 

ELMA 121 

ELMA 125 

ELMA 130 

ELMA 141 

ELMA 199 

ELMA 200 

LA No. 

135920 

32003 

135916 

135913 

135919 

38594 

137262 

137267 

102227 

102228 

135922 

137263 

137264 

137265 

137266 

137269 

137271 

137273 

Component 

No. 

2 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Site Category 

Camp without structure 

Camp without structure 

Camp without structure 

Camp without structure 

Camp without structure 

Camp without structure 

Camp without structure 

Camp without structure 

Camp without structure 

Camp without structure 

Camp without structure 

Camp without structure 

Camp without structure 

Camp without structure 

Camp without structure 

Camp without structure 

Camp without structure 

Camp without structure 

Camp without structure 

Camp without structure 

Camp without structure 

Camp without structure 

Camp without structure 

Camp without structure 

Camp without structure 

Camp without structure 

Camp with structure 

Camp with structure 

Camp with structure 

Camp with structure 

Camp with structure 

Camp with structure 

Camp with structure 

Road 

Road 

Road 

Road 

Road 

Road 

Road 

Road 

Trash dump 

Trash dump 

Cultural Affiliation 

Hispanic 

I listoric unknown 

Historic unknown 

1 listoric unknown 

1 listoric unknown 

1 listoric unknown 

1 listoric unknown 

1 listoric unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

1 listoric unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

I listoric unknown 

1 listoric unknown 

Trash Type 

None 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

None 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Historic unknown 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Time Period 

1930s 

1880s to 1950s 

1880s to 1950s 

1880s to 1960s 

1880s to 1960s 

1900s to 1950s 

1920s to 1950s 

1920s to 1950s 

1920s to 1950s 

1920s to 1950s 

1920s to 1950s 

1920s to 1950s 

1920s to 1950s 

1920s to 1950s 

1920s to 1950s 

1920s to 1950s 

1920s to 1950s 

1920s to 1960s 

1920s to 1960s 

1920s to 1960s 

1920s to 1960s 

1920s to 1960s 

1970s 

1970s 

Twentieth century 

Late twentieth century 

1880s to 1950s 

1880s to 1950s 

1920s to 1950s 

1920s to 1950s 

1920s to 1950s 

1920s to 1950s 

1920s to 1960s 

1920s to 1950s 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

I listoric unknown 

1900s to 1950s 

1900s to 1950s 

No. of 

Samples 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

None 

1 

4 

3 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

1 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

1 

1 

Sample Area(s) 

(sq m) 

4,350 

3,283 

205 

4.745'1 

1,056 

2,040 

540a 

1.014; 2.040 

120:4.352 

760 

180 

364 

1.984 

1: 109 

22.454 

3.000 

2.436 

883.5 

5.950 

1 

18.135 

3,250 

6,350 

1.386 

N/A 

28a 

6(2); 20; 45.000 

20: 22; 5.808 

1.200 

56.440 

150:7.225 

377 

24; 3.936 

108 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

200 

113 

s 

So 

H 

o 

g 

n 

m 2 

o 

o 

m 

m 

m 

OJ 
Site/I.O. No. 

ELMA 191 

ELMA 101 

ELMA 138 

ELMA 283 

ELMA 203 

ELMA 217 

ELMA 87 

ELMA 7 

ELMA 56 

ELMA 2 

ELMA 133 

ELMA 89 

ELMA 136 

ELMA 213 

ELMA 201 

ELMA 234 

ELMA 113 

ELMA 190 

ELMA 127 

ELMA 156 

ELMA 55 

ELMA 238 

ELMA 132 

ELMA 28 

ELMA 93 

ELMA 256 

ELMA 103 

ELMA 158 

ELMA 218 

ELMA 9 

ELMA 104 

ELMA 302 

ELMA 288 

1.0.28 

1.0.45 

I.O. 125 

1.0. 235 

I.O. 162 

I.O. 198 

I.O. 236 

I.O. 274 

I.O. 116 

I.O. 160 

LA No. 

135909 

137272 

32062 

101702 

32061 

32057 

137270 

135911 

135912 

Component 

No. 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

3 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Site Category 

Trash dump 

Trash dump 

Trash dump 

Trash dump 

Ranching/herding 

Ranching/herding 

Ranching/herding 

Ranching/herding 

Ranching/herding 

Ranching/herding 

Agricultural 

Agricultural 

Agricultural 

Logging 

Logging 

Logging 

Homestead/habitation 

Homestead/habitation 

Mining activity 

Ice/water collection 

Other/unknown 

Other/unknown 

Isolated artifact/feature 

Isolated artifact/feature 

Isolated artifact/feature 

Isolated artifact/feature 

Isolated artifact/feature 

Isolated artifact/feature 

Isolated artifact/feature 

Isolated artifact/feature 

Isolated artifact/feature 

Isolated artifact/feature 

Isolated artifact/feature 

Isolated artifact/feature 

Isolated artifact/feature 

Isolated artifact/feature 

Isolated artifact/feature 

1 solated artifact/feature 

Isolated artifact/feature 

Isolated artifact/feature 

Isolated artifact/feature 

Isolated artifact/feature 

Isolated artifact/feature 

Cultural Affiliation 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

I listoric unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Euro-American 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Euro-American 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Hispanic 

1 listoric unknown 

1 listoric unknown 

Historic unknown 

1 listoric unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Acoma 

Euro-American 

Puebloan 

1 listoric unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

I rash Type 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown' 

Euro-American 

None 

None 

None 

Historic unknown 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

None 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Liu ro-American 

Euro-American 

None 

Historic unknown 

None 

Euro- American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

None 

None 

Puebloan 

None 

Unknown 

Euro-American 

None 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

Euro-American 

None 

None 

Time Period 

1920s to 1940s 

1920s to 1950s 

1920s to 1960s 

1920s to 1960s 

1900s to 1950s 

1920s to 1970s 

1950s 

Twentieth century 

Twentieth century 

Twentieth century 

1890s to 1930s 

Twentieth century 

Twentieth century 

1950s to 1960s' 

1900s to 1950s 

Twentieth century 

1900s to 1950s 

1920s to 1950s 

1960s 

1920s to 1950s 

Historic unknown 

Historic unknown 

1940s 

1880s to 1920s 

1920s to 1950s 

1920s to 1950s 

1920s to 1960s 

1950s to 1960s 

Twentieth century 

Late twentieth century 

Eate twentieth century 

Late twentieth century 

Historic unknown 

Eate twentieth century 

Historic unknown1 

1 listoric unknown 

19.30s 

Twentieth century 

Twentieth century 

Twentieth century 

Twentieth century 

Historic unknown 

I listoric unknown 

No. of 

Samples 

1 

1 

2 

1 

4 

2 

1 

None 

1 

None 

1 

None 

None 

7 

1 

None 

1 

1 

1 

2 

None 

1 

None 

1 

1 

1 

1 

None 

None 

1 

1 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

Sample Area(s) 

(sq m) 

113 

1 

6: 3.99(1 

855 

2.5:4(2): 16 470 

1.5.2 

1.786 

N/A 

10,800* 

N/A 

187 

N/A 

N/A 

1(3): 2(2): 3: 10 

34.000 

N/A 

189 

9,900* 

1,848* 

1.25:8 

N/A 

27* 

N/A 

147'"' 

750 

209.000 

24 

N/A 

N/A 

4.900' 

48 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Table 6.1. (Continued). 

4-

m 

r-

> 

r73 

> 

> 

70 

n 

m 

c 

— 

c 

o 

n 

> — 

C 

70 

< 
Table 6.1. (Continued). 

Component No. of Sample Area(s) 

Sitc/I.O. No. LA No. No. Site Category Cultural Affiliation Trash Type Time Period Samples (sq m) 

TO. 164 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown None Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 165 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown None Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 169 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown None Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 171 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown None Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 175 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown None Historic unknown None N/A 

1.0.176 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown None Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 177 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown None Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 182 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown Unknown Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 185 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown None Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 186 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown Unknown Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 192 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown None Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 211 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown Euro-American Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 213 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown None Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 220 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown Euro-American Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 226 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown None Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 237 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown None Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 239 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown None Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 240 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown None Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 241 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown None Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 242 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown None Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 247 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown None Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 257 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown None Historic unknown None N/A 

1.0.258 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown None Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 259 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown None Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 262 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown None Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 268 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown None Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 278 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown None Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 279 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown None Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 280 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown Euro-American Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 296 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown None Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 310 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown None Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 311 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown None Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 323 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown None Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 329 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown Euro-American Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 344 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown None Historic unknown None N/A 

TO. 328 N/A Isolated artifact/feature Historic unknown Euro-American Tate twentieth century None N/A 

'No specific sample size information was recorded: it is assumed that entire historic artifact scatter was sampled. 

b

 The recorders noted historic artifacts in the area but did not record them. 

'Inscription reads "R.D. Allen 4./09." 

5! 

H 

O 

2 

n 

m 

2 

O 

a 

'—' 

•—• 

On 
0\ 

m r 

<: 

f 

> 

> 

70 n 

_ w 

c 

r c 2 

n 

> 

rc 

< 

rr. 

< 

"Possible lean-to shelters at LLMA 201. 

'Both of these stone circles may have been prehistoric features that were reused historically. 

Table 6.2. Architectural feature types by site category. 

Architectural Possible Total Architectural 

Structure Rubble Stone Circle Wall Structure Shrine Unknown features 

Site Category /' Percent / Percent / Percent / Percent / Percent / Percent / Percent / Percent 

Camp without structure - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Camp with structure 2 8.7 5 62.5 1 33.3 - - - - - - I 100.0 9 22.0 

Road - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Trash dump - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ranching/herding - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Agricultural - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Logging 17 73.9 2 25.0 - - - -2 ' 100.0 - - - - 21 512 

Homestead/habitation 4 17.4 - - - - 2 66.7 - - - - - - 6 14.6 

Mining activity - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

IceAvater collection - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Other/unknown - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Isolated artifact/feature - - 1 12.5 2" 66.7 1 3.3.3 - - 1 100.0 - - 5 12.2 

Total 23 100.0 8 100.0 3 100.0 3 100.0 2 100.0 1 100.0 1 100.0 41 100.0 
'All arc at ill.MA 201. They appear to be the result of intentional clearing of basalt. 

' — i 

H 

C 

n 

-a 

m 

o 

a 

en 

i—• 

~; m 

cy: 

TY/Wt' 6.3. Non-architectural feature types by site category. 

Rock Pile/ lirepit/ " Rock Blazed/ 

Concentration Hearth Road Cairn Alignment Corral Cut free Inscription Ash Stain Cheek Dam Pen Marker Reservoir 

Site Category f Percent / Percent / Percent / Percent /' Percent / Percent / Percent /' Percent / Percent / Percent / Percent / Percent / Percent 

Camp without structure 2 4.8 II 37.9 7 33.3 - - 3 37.5 1 25.0 

Camp with structure 7 16.7 9 31.0 I 4.8 - - 2 25.0 

Road 7 33.3 - - 1 12.5 -

Trash dump 6 14.3 ----------------------- -

Ranching/herding 5 11.9 4 80.0 2 50.0 1 25.0 3 100.0 - - .5 100 0 - - - -

Agricultural 3 100.0 

Logging 11" 26.2 2 6.9 1 12.5 

Homestead/ habitation 2 4.8 ............ . 

Mining activity - - 16.7 -

Ice/water collection - - I 3.5 2 100.0 

Other/unknown 3 7.1 ....................... . 

Isolated artifact/feature 6 14.3 6 20.7 6 28.6 14 93.3 1 12.5 1 20.0 2 50.0 2 50.0 2 100.0 -

Total 42 100.1 29 100.0 21 100.0 15 100.0 S 100.0 5 100.0 4 100.0 4 100.0 3 100.0 3 100.0 3 100 0 2 100.0 2 100.0 

Table 6.3 (Continued). 

Other Total NonThermal Earth Berm/ Game Trap/ Other/ Arch. 

Site Category leaf T rash Dump Windbreak Bridge Depression Mound Pence Blind Pot Drop Trail Indeterminate features 

/ Percent / Percent / Percent / Percent / Percent /' Percent / Percent / Percent / Percent / Percent / Percent / Percent 

Camp without Structure 1 50.0 1 100.0 5 31.3 31 18.2 

Camp with Structure I 100.0 1 100.0 - 3 18.8 24 14.1 

Road _ _ _ _ _ 8 4.7 

Trash Dump ............ . . .--.-- . . 6 3.5 

Ranching/Herding 1 50.0 1 100.0 - - 20 11.8 

Agricultural - 1 6.3 4 2.4 

Logging ....- _ 14 8.2 

Homestead/Habitation - I 6.3 3 1.8 

Mining Activity ------------ - . ------ - . 10. 6 

Ice/Water Collection - 6 37.5 9 5.3 

Other/Unknown - 1 100.0 - 4 2.4 

Isolated 

Artifact/feature - - 2 100.0 2 100.0 1 100.0 I 100.0 - - - - 46 27.1 

Total 2 100.0 2 1000 2 100.0 1 100.0 I 100.0 1 100.0 I 100.0 1 100.0 I 100.0 1 100.0 16 100.2 170 100.1 
138 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

management, or resource procurement, such as 

piiion collection. Several of the camps recorded 

during the Phase I survey are similar to possible 

sheep herding or logging camps recorded on 

Cebollita Mesa (Broster and Harrill 1982) and in 

the area northwest of Grants (Wait 1989). 

However, due to a lack of functionally specific 

features or artifacts, assigning camps recorded as 

part of the present study to a more specific 

functional category is probably unwarranted. 

Camps without structures range from 

relatively ephemeral site components with sparse 

material remains, such as a hearth with a light 

artifact scatter, to more extensive refuse scatters 

that appear to have been used repeatedly over 

some period of time. ELM A 120 and ELM A 1 14 

are examples of the latter type of camp. ELMA 

120 consists of a scatter of approximately 100 

historic artifacts, including coffee, milk, meat, lard 

and fruit/vegetable cans, tobacco tins, and a few 

glass items. Artifacts are concentrated along an 

old road segment delineated by basalt alignments, 

and a fairly recent-looking fire hearth is located 

within the site boundaries. ELMA 1 14 is a large, 

moderate-density artifact scatter with no 

identifiable features. A wide variety of historic 

artifacts are present within the site boundaries, 

including glass bottles, ceramics, metal food cans. 

a car trunk, a wheel (possibly from a cart or 

wagon), and a 55-gallon steel drum. ELMA 120 

and ELMA 114 can be contrasted with ELMA 

245. which contains a historic fire hearth 

surrounded by a few scattered food cans and glass 

fragments that could very well be the result of a 

single depositional event. 

Camps With Structure(s) 

Six percent (n = 7) of historic components 

identified in the Phase I survey area are classified 

as camps with structures (Table 6.1). Historic 

components in this site category contain some type 

of architectural feature and may also contain nonarchitectural features and historic trash. For this 

reason they are interpreted to have been more 

permanent than camps lacking architectural 

features. The most common type of architectural 

feature recorded for this site category is 

architectural rubble (Table 6.2). Two historic 

structures (a two-room basalt and wood building 

and a single-room basalt structure, possibly a 

temporary shelter), a stone circle, and one 

unknown architectural feature were also recorded 

as part of camps with structures. Common nonarchitectural features include fire pits or hearths 

and rock piles/concentrations (Table 6.3). Three 

other/indeterminate non-architectural features, a 

few rock alignments, one depression, one earthen 

berm/mound, and a single road segment are also 

associated with sites in this category. Historic 

components classified as camps with structures are 

probably related to logging, hunting, herding, or 

resource collection and may have supported 

multiple activities. 

Like camps without structures, camps with 

structures are variable in overall morphology and 

assemblage composition. ELMA 227. for 

example, is a large, complex site that was used 

both historically and prehistorically (Figure 6.1). 

This site is located in the Big Tubes area and is 

associated with a system of caves and lava tube 

collapses. Its historic component consists of ten 

features (eight hearths and two indeterminate 

architectural rubble concentrations), as well as an 

extensive, dispersed scatter of historic artifacts 

that are related primarily to food and beverage 

consumption. While no features or artifacts 

known to be specific to sheep herding were 

recorded at ELMA 227. Ramah Navajo and Zuni 

consultants recently identified the historic 

component of this site as a possible sheep camp 

(Zedeho et al. 2001:136). Another site in the 

camp with structure category, ELMA 286, is 

located immediately adjacent to Bat Cave in the El 

Calderon area and may be associated with bat 

guano processing. In addition to a large scatter of 

historic artifacts, this site contains rubble from a 

possible structure, several rock piles that may be 

the remains of fire pits, and an earthen berm 

containing ashy deposits next to a depression or 

borrow pit (Figure 6.2). An old dirt two-track 

road (recorded as l.O. 344) apparently leads to this 

site. 
HISTORIC PERIOD SITES 139 

Figure 6.1. Plan view of Kowina phase (A.D. 1200 to 1300) stone circle 

complex and Historic Unknown camp with structure (1920s to 

1950s) at ELM A 227. 
140 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Figure 6.2. Plan view of Historic Unknown camp with structure (1920s to 1950s) at ELM A 286. 
HISTORIC PERIOD SITES 141 

Roads 

Eight historic roads (just under 7 percent of all 

historic components) were recorded within the 

Phase 1 survey area (Table 6.1). No architectural 

features are associated with historic roads (Table 

6.2). and non-architectural features are limited to 

rock alignments or cleared areas that demarcate 

the road itself (Table 6.3). Roads typically have 

very few associated historic artifacts (see also 

Artifact Assemblages section), although sawn 

stumps of indeterminate age were noted in the 

vicinity of many of them. The majority of 

recorded roads appear to be relatively short (less 

than 150 m long), isolated segments that may be 

related to logging or Tire management activities 

such as mechanical brush clearing. A few roads, 

especially ELMA 115, ELMA 116. and ELMA 

1 17, appear as though they were created by a 

bulldozer. One road, ELMA 139. is apparently an 

old alignment for C.R. 100, which was rerouted 

slightly to avoid a presumably prehistoric stone 

circle. 

Trash Dumps 

Trash dumps are defined as dense and/or 

discrete refuse concentrations without evidence of 

camp-related features or habitation. Trash dumps 

are interpreted to be the result of intentional, 

localized refuse disposal rather than periodic 

camping activity. A total of six such historic 

components (5 percent of all recorded historic 

components) were identified during the Phase I El 

Malpais survey (Table 6.1). As Table 6.2 

indicates, trash dumps contain no architectural 

features. A single site, ELMA 138, contains six 

rock piles or concentrations that probably 

represent secondary deposits of architectural 

rubble. Five of the six trash dumps are within 

relatively close proximity to present-day roads. 

Ranching/Herding Activity 

Six historic components appear to be 

associated with ranching or herding based upon 

diagnostic features such as corrals or pens (Table 

6.3). Historic ranching or herding-related 

components recorded within the Phase I survey 

area do not contain any architectural features 

(Table 6.2). They do, however, contain a variety 

of non-architectural features such as rock 

piles/concentrations, blazed or axe-cut trees, ash 

stains, other thermal features, and trails (Table 

6.3) and often contain historic artifact assemblages 

that are similar to sites in other functional 

categories (see Artifact Assemblages section). As 

Tainter and Gillio (1980) point out, sites 

associated with ranching and herding can be 

difficult to identify since they were often used for 

short periods of time, are not characterized by a 

particular material culture inventory, and were 

often occupied for multiple purposes (Tainter and 

Gillio 1980). It is therefore possible that some of 

the historic components classified as camps are 

also associated with ranching and herding. 

Agricultural Features 

Three agriculture-related historic components 

were recorded during the Phase I El Malpais 

survey (Table 6.1). All three of the sites in this 

functional category lack architectural features but 

contain non-architectural features identified as 

check dams (Table 6.3). One site. ELMA 133. is 

located in a narrow sandstone canyon and was 

apparently used both prehistorically and 

historically for water collection. It contains a 

stone and wood check dam and a sump hole with 

wooden cribbing (see Figure 4.8). The recorders 

of this site also report seeing an inscription dating 

to 1924 near the site, as well as a possible gate. 

They speculate that the site is associated with 

ELMA 113. a nearby historic homestead. No 

historic artifacts were recorded at any of the three 

agriculture-related sites. 

Logging Activity 

Three historic components recorded during the 

Phase I El Malpais survey appear to be associated 

with logging activity (Table 6.1). ELMA 201 is a 

logging camp and possible sawmill dating 

sometime between 1900 and 1950 (Figure 6.3). 

This site contains five architectural features, 

including a structure possibly used for processing 
Figure 6.3. Remains of early twentieth century (1900s to 1950s) sawmill at Euroamerican logging camp 

(ELMA 201). 

lumber, two possible lean-to shelters, and two 

areas of indeterminate architectural rubble (Table 

6.2). This site also contains eleven basalt rock 

piles/concentrations that appear to be the result of 

intentional clearing of the area, as well as a rock 

alignment and a fire hearth (Table 6.3). A 

moderate-density scatter of historic trash, 

including two piles of milled lumber, is present on 

the site. Several additional sites classified as 

camps or trash dumps that are located in the 

vicinity of ELM A 201 (ELMA 198. 199.200,242, 

243, and 244) may be temporary habitation areas 

or refuse disposal locations associated with the 

lumber mill. 

ELMA 213 is a sawmill and lumber camp 

probably dating to the 1950s to 1960s. This site 

contains the remains of 14 domestic structures 

(cabins or tent platforms), a dismantled sawmill 

structure, and several concentrations of historic 

refuse (Figure 6.4). A previous investigation of 

this site included an interview with Jack Dossett, a 

BLM forestry specialist, who identified the owner 

of the sawmill and lumber camp as Ted Groff 

(Roney 1993). The third logging-related site, 

ELMA 234. consists of two wooden structures and 

a hearth. The existence of numerous sawed 

stumps in the area around the site, as well as the 

presence of a nearby historic road, led the survey 

crew to classify this site as a possible logging 

camp. 

Homestead/Habitation Sites 

Two historic components recorded within the 

Phase I survey area are classified as homesteads 

(Table 6.1). As Tables 6.2 and 6.3 indicate, these 

sites contain both architectural and nonarchitectural features. ELMA 113 contains a 

rectangular, single-room domestic structure 

constructed of sandstone blocks that is missing its 

roof and has partially collapsed. No other features 

were observed. A light scatter of historic refuse 

dating between 1900 and 1950 is spread out in the 

142 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 
Figure 6.4. Plan view of Euro-American logging camp (1950s to 1960s) at ELMA 213. 

X 

•— 

H 

O 2 

o 

m 2 

c 

o 

H 

m 

4^ 
144 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Figure 6.5. Main habitation at Garrett Homestead (ELMA 190). 

vicinity of the site. ELMA 190 (also known as the 

Robert F. Garrett homestead) consists of a single 

room, sandstone masonry house and a number of 

associated outbuildings (Figure 6.5). Associated 

features include a possible dugout or root cellar, 

two rock walls, a possible horno. and two 

concentrations of architectural rubble. Several 

concentrations of historic trash dating to the 1920s 

through 1950s are also present. The National Park 

Service's Archeological Sites Management 

Information System (ASMIS) record for this site 

indicates that the site was stabilized prior to 1987 

and again in 1999. As part of the Vanishing 

Treasures program at El Malpais National 

Monument, all the walls at Garrett homestead 

were repointed in 2002 (James Kendrick personal 

communication. 2003) 

Mining Activity 

A single component recorded during the Phase 

I El Malpais survey is clearly associated with 

historic mining activity in the El Malpais area 

(Table 6.1). ELMA 127 includes a large cairn 

(Table 6.3) that incorporates a tobacco tin 

containing a 1965 Lode Mining Claim. This 

document specifies that the cairn is one of four 

marking the claim. No other historic artifacts 

were present at this component. 

Ice/Water Collection 

ELMA 156 appears to be related to water or 

ice collection (Table 6.1). This component 

encompasses four separate chambers within 
HISTORIC PERIOD SITES 145 

Navajo Cave and has evidence of both prehistoric 

and historic use. Features include two bedrock 

pits or reservoirs excavated into the lava to capture 

water, a hearth, and several concentrations of 

charcoal, ash, and burned wood chips (Table 6.3). 

Room 3 contains an extremely large mound of ash 

up to 1 m in depth, suggesting that fire was used 

repeatedly to melt ice in the cave. A number of 

historic artifacts, including food cans, pieces of 

sheet metal, and a metal pipe fragment, were also 

noted (see Artifact Assemblages section). 

Other/Unknown 

Two historic components identified during the 

Phase I survey do not fit within any of the above 

categories (Table 6.1). The first component, 

ELMA 55. is described as a possible hunting 

blind. It consists of an arcuate pile/alignment of 

basalt stones that are stacked highest near the 

center of the feature (Table 6.3). No artifacts are 

present within the component boundaries. A 

second other/unknown component. ELMA 238, 

consists of three clusters of basalt roughly 1 sq m 

in area and 10 cm tall (Table 6.3). A single 

sanitary seal food can was observed on the 

component. 

Isolated Artifacts/Features 

Included in this category are 1 1 historic 

components and 46 features or groups of historic 

artifacts that were recorded as isolated occurrences 

(Table 6.1). The components classified as isolated 

artifacts/features includes single features and/or 

apparently isolated historic artifacts present in 

otherwise prehistoric sites. In many cases the age 

of these features or artifacts is indeterminate, 

although the field crews who recorded them often 

interpreted them to be the result of relatively 

recent activity in the survey area. Isolated artifacts 

or features comprise nearly 47 percent (n = 57) of 

all historic resources recorded during the El 

Malpais Phase I survey. 

As Table 6.2 indicates, five architectural 

features, including two stone circles, one 

concentration of architectural rubble, a wall, and a 

probable Puebloan shrine, are classified as isolated 

features. The two stone circles recorded as I.O.s 

186 and 280 might more properly be identified as 

semicircles or rock alignments based upon the 

descriptions given on the recording forms. These 

features may be entirely historic, or they may have 

been prehistoric features that were reused 

historically, as indicated by the small amount of 

historic trash and charcoal associated with them. 

A wide variety of non-architectural features are 

classified as isolated historic features (Table 6.3). 

These include six rock piles/concentrations, six 

fire pits or hearths, six road segments, fourteen 

cairns, one rock alignment, one corral, two blazed 

or cut trees, two inscriptions, two markers, two 

trash dumps, two windbreaks, one bridge, and one 

historic pot drop. 

Artifact Assemblages 

A wide variety of historic artifacts were 

recorded in the field during the course of the El 

Malpais Phase I survey. Whenever possible, all 

historic artifacts present within a component's 

boundaries were tabulated. For large components 

containing a substantial amount of historic trash, 

one or more artifact sample areas were selected. 

Sample areas were of variable size but were 

typically placed within areas of high artifact 

density. In some cases, artifact sample areas were 

supplemented by the recording of additional 

temporally or functionally diagnostic artifacts 

from the rest of the component. Artifact sample 

area information for each historic component is 

presented in Table 6.1. In a few cases, most of 

which are from the first year of survey, the 

presence of historic artifacts was noted on the site 

record, but artifacts were not formally recorded. 

These artifacts were not entered into the artifact 

data base and are not included in the tables 

presented below. These tables also exclude a few 

historic artifacts that were associated with isolated 

occurrences but not formally recorded. The 

discussion of historic artifact assemblages is 

presented in four sections: metal containers, glass. 

ceramics, and miscellaneous artifacts. 
146 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGIC AL SURVEY 

Metal Containers 

A total of 1,559 metal containers were 

recorded during the El Malpais Phase I survey 

(Table 6.4). Metal containers represent the most 

abundant historic artifact class present on historic 

components in the survey area. Nearly every 

recorded component contained metal containers, 

however, no metal containers were recorded for 

the following component categories: agricultural, 

mining, and other/unknown.' 

Since metal container technology is 

particularly useful in establishing component 

chronology, a brief review of a few key 

technological attributes is presented here. Side 

seams and end closure types are particularly 

important technological characteristics of metal 

cans. Side seams on the first metal cans were 

soldered by hand. This technique was gradually 

replaced by machine-soldering in the 1880s (Rock 

1987:8) and by the solderless double, or sanitary 

seam, around 1900 (Rock 1980:5.8.4-8). From the 

early 1800s to early 1900s. the soldered hole-incap variety of can end closure was used for solid 

foods (Rock 1980:5.8.4-3). Vent hole or 

matchstick-filler cans were developed around 

1900 and are still used today for evaporated milk 

(Rock 1987:18. 21). The sanitary or open top can 

largely replaced the hole-in-top food can during 

the early 1920s (Fontana and Greenieaf 1962:73) 

and continues to be used today for most canned 

goods. The majority of cans recorded in the El 

Malpais survey area are of the sanitary seam and 

closure variety, indicating manufacture beginning 

around 1920. A few earlier hole-in-top, machinesoldered cans were observed on some components. 

A single nineteenth century hand-soldered can was 

recorded at ELM A 129. 

Metal can material is also temporally 

diagnostic. Tin-plated steel cans were the norm 

prior to the mid-twentieth century. Cans with 

aluminum tops and steel bodies were first made in 

the late 1950s, and fully aluminum cans became 

common in the late 1960s (Rock 1987:29; Walt 

1982:145). Pull-tabs were introduced in the early 

1960s (Rock 1987:15). A few specific products. 

such as Folgers coffee (post-World War II), 

carbonated beverages (post-1953), and K.C Baking 

powder cans are particularly useful for 

establishing component occupation dates (Rock 

1980:5.8.4-12. 1987:26. 36). The latter was 

introduced in 1890. and cans manufactured after 

1925 have embossed labels referring to this date 

("Same Price Today as # Years Ago" or "Same 

Price for Over # Years") that were changed every 

one to three years (Rock 1987:26; Ward et al. 

1977:240). Thus adding the number of years 

listed on the label to 1890 indicates the date of the 

can's manufacture within a few years. 

Table 6.4 presents metal container class, type, 

and contents for each historic component 

functional category discussed above. As the table 

indicates, food cans and food can lids are the most 

common metal container types recorded in the 

study area, comprising nearly 82 percent of all 

containers. Food cans are most common at 

historic camps, trash dumps, logging components. 

and ranching or herding related components. The 

contents of a third of the food cans are 

indeterminate: milk cans and fruit or vegetable 

cans are also abundant. Motor oil and antifreeze 

containers are fairly common (3.7 percent and 3.4 

percent of all cans, respectively), particularly at 

logging components and trash dumps. Tobacco or 

snuff tins (n = 80; 5.1 percent) are most common 

at camps. A relatively small number of other 

kinds of metal containers, including beverage 

cans, paint or varnish cans, containers for medical 

products or personal items, and cans or can lids of 

indeterminate type, were recorded at a variety of 

component categories within the study area. 

Glass 

Glass items are much less common than metal 

containers within the Phase I survey area. A total 

of 363 glass artifacts were recorded for seven 

historic component categories (Table 6.5). Roads, 

agricultural components, mining related 

components, ice or water collection components, 

and other/unknown components contained no 

glass artifacts. 
Table 6.4. Metal Container Class, Type and Contents by Site Category." 

Container Class 

Food 

Beverage 

Medical/ 

Health 

Transportation 

Construction; 

Maintenance 

Type/Part 

Food can/lid 

Key/key strip 

Food C 

Soda can 

Beer can 

Pull tab 

Beverage C< 

Pill box 

Other 

Medica 

Oilcan 

Fuel container 

Other 

Tramp 

Paint can 

Other 

Contents 

Baking powder 

Cocoa 

Coffee 

Cooking oil 

Crackers 

Dry goods 

Fish 

Fruit/vegetable 

Indeterminate 

Juice 

lard 

Liquid 

Meat 

Milk 

Spice 

Tea 

Coffee 

Indeterminate 

'mtamer Subtotal 

Soda 

Beer 

Indeterminate 

ontattter Subtotal 

Medicine 

Inseet repellent 

I Health Subtotal 

Motor oil 

Fuel 

Antifreeze 

•orlatton Subtotal 

Paint 

Varnish/laquer 

Camp wit 

structu 

/ 

15 

1 

18 

1 

-

1 

7 

131 

159 

9 

20 

1 

15 

119 

3 

-

-

1 

501 

5 

12 

-

17 

1 

-

1 

3 

-

-

3 

6 

1 

bout 

re 

% 

2.5 

0.2 

3.0 

0.2 

-

0.2 

1.2 

21.8 

26.5 

1.5 

3.3 

0.2 

2.5 

19.8 

0.5 

-

-

0.2 

83.4 

0.8 

2.0 

-

2.8 

0.2 

-

0.2 

0.5 

-

-

0.5 

1.0 

0.2 

Camp v 

structu 

/ 

9 

2 

5 

-

-

-

4 

56 

25 

8 

5 

-

17 

93 

1 

1 

-

5 

229 

-

-

-

-

. 

1 

1 

3 

-

-

3 

4 

-

nth 

re 

% 

3.5 

0.8 

2.0 

-

-

-

1.6 

22 1 

9.8 

3.2 

2.0 

-

6.7 

36.6 

0.4 

0.4 

-

1.2 

90.2 

-

-

-

-

. 

0.4 

0.4 

1.2 

-

-

1.2 

1.6 

-

1 leanest 

habitat 

/ 

4 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6 

-

-

1 

1 

-

-

-

-

-

-

_ 

-

ead/ 

ion 

% 

50.0 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

25.0 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

75.0 

-

-

12.5 

12.5 

-

-

-

-

-

-

_ 

-

lce/\ 

colle 

/ 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

_ 

-

cater 

ction 

% 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

100.0 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

100.0 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

_ 

-

Si 

[soli 

ami 

feat 

./ 

-

-

1 

-

-

-

-

2 

0 

1 

I 

-

1 

-

-

-

-

-

12 

-

2 

-

2 

-

-

-

• 

-

-

_ 

-

te Categ 

tted 

'act; 

lire1' 

% 

-

-

6.3 

-

-

-

-

12.5 

37.5 

6.3 

6.3 

-

6.3 

-

-

-

-

-

75.0 

-

12.5 

-

12.5 

-

-

-

-

-

-

_ 

-

ore 

I.or 

/ 

2 

-

1 1 

-

-

-

3 

2 

125 

-

3 

-

1 

2 

-

-

-

-

149 

-

-

-

-

-

-

23 

-

1 

24 

2 

-

tging 

% 

1.1 

-

6.1 

-

-

-

1.7 

1.1 

69.1 

-

1.7 

-

0.6 

1 1 

-

-

-

-

82.3 

-

-

-

-

-

-

12.7 

-

0.6 

13.3 

II 

-

Panel 

herd 

/ 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

10 

73 

-

-

-

15 

14 

-

-

-

-

1 12 

2 

4 

1 

7 

-

-

4 

1 

-

5 

. 

-

tiing/ 

ling" 

% 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7.9 

57.9 

-

-

-

11.9 

11.1 

-

-

-

-

88.9 

1.6 

3.2 

0.8 

5.6 

-

-

3.2 

0.8 

-

4.0 

. 

-

R 

/ 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 

-

1 

-

1 

-

-

-

-

-

-

. 

-

oad 

% 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

50.0 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

50.0 

-

50.0 

-

50.0 

-

-

-

-

-

-

. 

-

Trash ( 

/ 

8 

1 

8 

-

2 

-

4 

47 

80 

7 

1 

-

7 

96 

1 

-

1 

-

263 

1 

10 

-

11 

-

-

25 

-

52 

77 

1 

4 

lump 

% 

2 2 

0.3 

2.2 

-

0.5 

-

1.1 

12.7 

21.7 

1.9 

0.3 

-

1 9 

26.0 

0.3 

-

0.3 

-

71.3 

0.3 

2.7 

-

3.0 

-

-

6.8 

-

14.1 

20.9 

0.3 

1.1 

Iota 

/ 

38 

4 

43 

1 

2 

1 

18 

248 

473 

25 

30 

1 

56 

124 

5 

1 

1 

4 

1.275 

8 

29 

2 

39 

1 

1 

n 

58 

1 

53 

112 

13 

5 

.1 

% 

2.4 

0.3 

2.8 

0.1 

0.1 

0.1 

1.2 

15.9 

30.3 

1.6 

1.9 

0.1 

3.6 

20.8 

0.3 

0.1 

0.1 

0.3 

81.8 

0.5 

1.9 

0.1 

2.5 

0.1 

0.1 

0.1 

3.7 

0.1 

3.4 

7.2 

0.8 

0.3 

X 

— 

o 

2 

n 

-v 

~r. 2 

o 

4 -
Tabic 6.4. (Continued). 

'Excludes site categories that contain no metal containers (Agricultural. Mining and Other/Unknown), as well as sites for which formal artifact coding was not performed in 

the Held. 

Excludes historic components recorded as isolated occurrences. 

Container CI 

Other 

(hand Total 

ass Type/Part 

('(instruction Maim 

Personal effects 

Tobacco' 

snuff tin 

Tool 

Indeterminate 

can/lid 

Domicile 

( 

Contents 

Indeterminate 

Brush holder 

'enance Subtotal 

Shoe polish 

Tobacco 

Bucket 

Indeterminate 

Indeterminate 

Other Subtotal 

.'amp « 

struct 

f 

2 

-

9 

I 

50 

1 

16 

2 

70 

601 

ithout 

are 

/o 

0.3 

-

1.5 

0.2 

8.3 

0.2 

2.7 

0.3 

11.7 

100.0 

Camp 

struct 

/ 

2 

-

6 

-

15 

-

_ 

-

15 

254 

with 

ure 

% 

0.8 

-

2.4 

-

5.9 

-

. 

-

5.9 

100.0 

1 lomes 

liabita 

,/' 

1 

-

1 

-

_ 

-

_ 

-

-

8 

lead/ 

tion 

% 

12.5 

-

12.5 

-

_ 

-

_ 

-

-

100.0 

Ice/' 

colli 

/ 

-

-

-

-

_ 

-

_ 

-

-

2 

.eater 

iction 

% 

-

-

-

-

_ 

-

_ 

-

-

100.0 

s 

Isol 

am 

Teal 

/ 

-

-

-

-

2 

-

_ 

-

2 

16 

ite Catei 

ated 

Tact/ 

aire1' 

% 

-

-

-

-

12.5 

-

_ 

-

12.5 

100.0 

iorv 

Log 

./' 

-

-

2 

-

3 

-

3 

-

6 

181 

siins 

% 

-

-

1.1 

-

1.7 

-

1.7 

-

3.3 

100.0 

Rant 

hcr< 

/ 

-

-

-

-

2 

-

_ 

-

2 

126 

thing/ 

ding 

/o 

-

-

-

-

1.6 

-

_ 

-

16 

100.0 

Ri 

/ 

-

-

-

-

_ 

-

_ 

-

-

2 

>ad 

% 

-

-

-

-

_ 

-

_ 

-

-

100,0 

Trash 

/ 

-

1 

6 

-

8 

-

4 

-

12 

369 

dump 

% 

-

0.3 

1.6 

-

2 2 

-

I.I 

-

3.3 

100.0 

Tot. 

/ 

5 

1 

24 

1 

80 

1 

23 

2 

107 

1.559 

al 

% 

0.3 

0 1 

1.5 

0.1 

5.1 

0.1 

1.5 

0.1 

6 0 

100.0 

4-

cc 

w 

r 

> — 

— 

> 

> 

n 

x 

m 

o 

o 

o 

n 

> r 

05 

c 
Table 6.5. Glass Artifact Classes and Types by Site Category." 

Class 

Food Storage 

Beverage 

Food 

Consumption 

Cosmetic 

Medical/Health 

Domicile 

Other 

Type 

Canning jar/lid/ring 

Food bottle 

Food bottle lid or cap 

Indeterminate food storage 

Food Storage Subtotal 

Beer bottle 

Bottle cap 

Indeterminate alcoholic beverage 

Liquor bottle 

Soda bottle 

Wine bottle 

Beverage Subtotal 

Bowl 

Cup 

Drinking glass 

Plate/saucer 

Other 

Food ('onsumption Subtotal 

Facial cream jar 

Perfume bottle 

Other 

I 'osmetic Subtotal 

Medicine bottle 

Indeterminate 

Medical Health Subtotal 

Decorative 

I lurrieane lamp 

Window glass 

Other 

Domicile Subtotal 

Bead 

Other const./maintenance 

Camp 

without 

structure 

/ 

12 

34 

2 

8 

56 

-I 

2 

4 

6 

1 

-

17 

1 

2 

3 

1 

1 

8 

-

-

-

-

3 

1 

1 

2 

-

2 

I 

-

-

% 

11.2 

31.8 

1.9 

7.5 

52.3 

3.7 

1.9 

3.7 

5.6 

0.9 

-

15.9 

0.9 

1.9 

2.8 

0.9 

0.9 

7.5 

-

-

-

-

2.8 

0.9 

3.7 

1.9 

-

1.9 

3.7 

-

-

Camp 

struct 

/ 

6 

8 

1 

-

15 

1 

-

-

6 

-

1 

8 

-

1 

3 

-

-

4 

-

1 

1 

5 

1 

6 

1 

2 

2 

5 

1 

-

with 

tire 

% 

12.8 

17.0 

2.1 

-

31.9 

2.1 

-

-

12.8 

-

2.1 

17.0 

-

2.1 

6.4 

-

-

8.5 

-

2.1 

-

2.1 

10.6 

2.1 

12.8 

2.1 

4.3 

4.3 

10.6 

2.1 

-

I lomest 

habitat 

f 

1 

4 

-

-

5 

4 

-

1 

3 

1 

-

9 

-

-

2 

-

-

2 

-

-

-

-

1 

1 

4 

-

-

4 

-

-

cad/ 

ion 

% 

3.3 

13.3 

-

-

16.7 

13.3 

-

3.3 

10.0 

3.3 

-

30.0 

-

-

6.7 

-

-

6.7 

-

-

-

-

3.3 

3.3 

13.3 

-

-

13.3 

-

-

< 

Isolat 

artifa 

leant 

/ 

-

-

-

1 

1 

1 

-

-

-

-

-

1 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

site Cate 

ed 

ct' 

re" 

% 

-

-

-

50.0 

50.0 

50.0 

-

-

-

-

-

50.0 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

gory 

1 .one. 

/ 

-

16 

1 

-

17 

1 

1 

-

-

-

-

2 

4 

2 

3 

3 

-

12 

1 

-

-

1 

1 

1 

-

-

-

-

-

-

ing 

% 

-

42 1 

2.6 

-

44.7 

2.6 

2.6 

-

-

-

-

5.3 

10.5 

5.3 

7.9 

7.9 

-

31.6 

2.6 

-

-

2.6 

2.6 

2.6 

-

-

-

-

-

-

Ranch 

herdi 

f 

3 

21 

3 

1 

28 

1 

-

-

1 

-

-

2 

-

1 

3 

-

1 

5 

-

-

-

-

1 

1 

1 

1 

-

2 

-

-

ing/ 

ng 

% 

7.5 

52.5 

7.5 

2.5 

70.0 

2.5 

-

-

2.5 

-

-

5.0 

-

2.5 

7.5 

-

2.5 

12.5 

-

-

-

-

2.5 

2.5 

2.5 

2.5 

-

5.0 

-

-

Irtish d 

f 

30 

14 

3 

-

47 

-

1 1 

-

1 

2 

1 

15 

-

-

1 

2 

2 

5 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

2 

3 

6 

-

2 

ump 

% 

30.3 

14.1 

3.0 

-

47.5 

-

II.1 

-

1.0 

2.0 

1.0 

15.2 

-

-

1.0 

2.0 

2.0 

5.1 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

3.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

2.0 

3.0 

6.1 

-

2.0 

lota 

/ 

52 

97 

10 

10 

169 

12 

14 

a 

17 

4 

2 

54 

5 

6 

15 

6 

4 

36 

2 

2 

1 

5 

12 

2 

14 

5 

4 

5 

7 

21 

1 

s 

1 

% 

14.3 

26.7 

2.8 

2.8 

46.6 

3.3 

3.9 

1.4 

4.7 

1.1 

0.6 

14.9 

1.4 

1.7 

4.1 

1.7 

1.1 

9.9 

0.6 

0.6 

0.3 

1.4 

3.3 

0.6 

3.9 

1.4 

1.1 

1.4 

1.9 

5.8 

0.3 

0.6 

X 

irt 

H 

O 2 

n 

TJ M 

2 

o 

o 

m 

H 

m 

4 -

O 
Class 

Grand Total 

Type 

Car window glass 

Indeterminate 

Other Subtotal 

Camp 

without 

structure 

f 

-

IS 

IS 

107 

% 

-

16.S 

I6.S 

100.0 

Camp 

struct 

f 

1 

6 

8 

47 

with 

lure 

% 

2.1 

12.8 

17.0 

100.0 

Homes! 

habitat 

f 

5 

I 

0 

40 

ead/ 

ion 

% 

16.7 

13.3 

30.0 

100.0 

I sola 

art i fa 

leatu 

f 

-

-

-

Site Cat 

led 

.et/ 

re" 

% 

-

-

-

2 100.0 

-•gory 

l.ogg 

/ 

-

4 

5 

38 

.ing 

% 

-

13.2 

13.2 

100.0 

Ranch 

herd 

f 

-

2 

2 

40 

ling/ 

ing 

% 

-

5.0 

5 0 

100.0 

Trash 

1 

10 

22 

00 

dump 

% 

1.0 

10.2 

22.2 

100.0 

lot; 

/ 

7 

54 

64 

363 

il 

% 

1.9 

14.9 

17.6 

100.0 

Table 6.5. (Continued). 

"Excludes the following site categories with no glass artifacts: Road. Agricultural. Mining. Ice/Water Collection and Other/Unknown, as well as sites for which formal 

artifact coding was not performed in the Held. 

'Includes only components recorded as sites. 

•"Note that multiple fragments probably representing a single artifact and similar fragments representing an indeterminate number of artifacts were not added to the overall 

count (e.g. 16 fragments of green soda bottle glass were counted as one item). 

O 

m 

— 

> 

— 

> 

on 

> 

n 

X 

o 

— 

c 

o 

—— 

n 

> 

— 

s. 

r. 

< 
HISTORIC PERIOD SITES 151 

Glass artifacts proved to be less useful than 

metal containers in establishing probable 

occupation dates for historic components 

identified within the survey area. The majority of 

recorded glass specimens are non-diagnostic 

fragments of bottle glass. While some aspects of 

bottle glass technology are temporally significant, 

such as whether a container was made in an 

automatic bottle maker or whether the finish was 

applied by hand, these attributes were not coded as 

part of the present study. However bottle finish 

types, which can also be temporally diagnostic, 

were recorded. Glass color is also useful in 

establishing relative age. Solarized amethyst 

glass, for example, generally dates between 1880 

and 1916, and clear bottle glass became 

widespread after about 1930 (Dart 1982; Rock 

1990:25). Several glass bottles bearing 

manufacturer's marks or other embossed lettering 

were present on components in the survey area, 

and a few of these were datable. Various 

temporally diagnostic styles of the "Duraglas" 

maker"s mark, for example, were fairly common. 

Based on the available information, the majority 

of glass bottles and bottle fragments recorded on 

components in the Phase I survey area date 

between around 1920 and the present day. A few 

specimens may date to the late 1800s or early 

1900s. 

Frequencies of glass artifact class and type for 

each historic component functional category are 

presented in Table 6.5. As the table indicates, 

food storage containers, including canning jars, 

lids and rings, food bottles and food bottle lids or 

caps, and indeterminate food storage containers 

comprise nearly 47 percent of the total glass 

assemblage. Food containers are most common at 

camps without structures and trash dumps. Glass 

beverage containers (beer, liquor, soda. wine, and 

indeterminate alcoholic beverage bottles and bottle 

caps) are also fairly common (n = 54: 14.9 

percent) at these types of components. Bowls, 

cups, drinking glasses, plates or saucers, and other 

items related to food consumption are slightly 

more common at logging components than they 

are at components in other categories. Other types 

of glass artifacts represented at many components 

in the survey area include cosmetic containers, 

medicine bottles, decorative items, hurricane 

lamps, window glass, glass beads, car window 

glass, and a number of indeterminate (often 

melted) glass fragments. 

Historic Ceramics 

Historic period ceramics are relatively rare oh 

components recorded in the El Malpais Phase I 

survey area. As shown in fable 6.6. a total of 34 

ceramic artifacts were recovered from camps, 

components related to logging activity, ranching 

or herding components, and trash dumps. Historic 

ceramics were present at only 15 of 122 historic 

components in the study area, and 7 of these 

components contained a single ceramic artifact. 

The relative scarcity of historic ceramics in the El 

Malpais project area might be attributed to the 

apparently temporary nature of many historic 

components. Ceramics may have been too heavy 

or too fragile to have been regularly used at shortterm camps associated with sheep herding, 

logging, or other activities. 

Ceramic artifacts recorded on historic 

components in the survey area were not 

particularly useful in terms of chronology. The 

majority of recorded ceramic artifacts are simple 

vitreous or non-vitreous white ware, which was 

manufactured in the U.S. beginning in the early 

1800s and is still made today. While a few 

ceramics exhibited partial makers marks, none of 

these could be attributed to a particular 

manufacturer or time period. 

As Table 6.6 indicates, ceramics related to 

food consumption (plates, saucers, tea cups, and 

indeterminate forms) constitute 73.5 percent of all 

recorded ceramic items. The majority of ceramics 

used for food consumption are either vitreous or 

non-vitreous white ware (n = 18; 72 percent). 

Non-vitreous white ware was present in low 

frequencies at camps, logging components, 

ranching or herding components, and trash dumps: 

vitreous white ware was limited to camps. A few 

pieces of porcelain, much of which is probably of 

Asian origin, were recorded at ELM A 1 14 and 
Table 6.6. Historic ceramic artifact class, body type and vessel type by site category." 

Site Category 

Camp without Camp with Ranching/ 

structure structure Logging herding Trash dump Total 

Class Body Type Vessel Type / % T % / % / % / / % 

Food 

Consumption Asian porcelain Indeterminate 1 7.1 ---- - - I 2.9 

Plate - - 2 20.0 ----- - 2 5.9 

Saucer 1 7.1 - - - - - - - - 1 2.9 

Asian Porcelain Subtotal 2 14.3 2 20.0 - - - - - - 4 11.8 

Indeterminate porcelain Indeterminate 17. 1 - - - - - - - - I 2.9 

Saucer 2 14.3 - - - - - - - - 2 5.9 

Indeterminate Porcelain Subtotal 3 21.4 - - - - - - - - 3 8.8 

Nonvitreous whiteware Indeterminate 1 7.1 - - - - 1 100.0 1 33.3 3 8.8 

Plate - - 1 10.0 5 83.3 - - - - 6 17.7 

Nonvitreous Whiteware Subtotal 1 7.1 I 10.0 5 83.3 1 100.0 1 3.3.3 9 26.5 

Vitreous whiteware Indeterminate 2 14.3 - - - - - - - - 2 5.9 

Plate 1 7.1 2 20.0 ----- - 3 8.8 

lea cup I 7.1 3 30.0 - - - - - - 4 11.8 

Vitreous Whiteware Subtotal 4 28.6 5 50.0 ----- - 9 26.5 

Food Consumption Subtotal 10 71.4 8 80.0 5 83.3 1 100.0 1 33.3 25 73.5 

Food Storage Nonvitreous whiteware Crockery - - I 10.0 ----- - 1 2.9 

Stoneware Crockery' 3 21.4 - - - - - - 2 66.7 5 14.7 

Food Storage Subtotal 3 21.4 1 10.0 - .. . 2 66.7 6 17.7 

Indeterminate Indeterminate - - 1 10.0 ----- - 1 2.9 

Indeterminate Nonvitreous whiteware Indeterminate 1 7.1 - - 1 16.7 - - - - 2 5.9 

Indeterminate Subtotal 1 7.1 1 10.0 1 16.7 - - - - 3 8.8 

Grand Total 14 100.0 10 100.0 6 100.0 1 100.0 3 100.0 34 100.0 

"Excludes the following site categories with no ceramic artifacts: Road. Agricultural. Homestead/habitation, Mining. Ice/Water Collection. Isolated artifact/feature and 

Other/Unknown, as well as sites for which formal artifact coding was not performed in the field. 

'Note that multiple fragments probably representing a single artifact and similar fragments representing an indeterminate number of artifacts were not added to the overall 

count (e.g. 5 fragments of a non-vitreous whiteware saucer were counted as one item). 

1 J 

rr. 

> 

> 

C/3 

> 

n 

C — 

o o 

O 

> 

Ji 

c 

•70 

< 

m 
HISTORIC PERIOD SITES 153 

ELM A 198. Several pieces of crockery probably 

used for food storage were present at ELM A 1 12, 

ELMA 138. ELMA 242, and ELM A 284. One of 

these items is a possible cream or butter jug with a 

screw top and aluminum spout. Two non-vitreous 

white ware sherds from ELMA 128 and ELMA 

213 are of indeterminate functional class. A single 

fragment of low-fired earthenware with gray paste 

and a thick red polished slip, possibly from a 

Hispanic or historic Native American vessel, was 

recorded at ELMA 242. 

Miscellaneous Artifacts 

The miscellaneous artifact category contains a 

wide variety of material types representing a range 

of activities. Miscellaneous artifacts are the 

second-most common artifact class recorded on 

historic components in the El Malpais survey area. 

A total of 595 miscellaneous artifacts were 

recorded for eight historic component categories 

(Table 6.7). Roads, agricultural, mining, and 

other/unknown components contained no 

miscellaneous artifacts. For the majority of 

historic components recorded in the study area. 

miscellaneous artifacts were of limited utility in 

establishing occupation or use dates. Specific 

dates could be assigned to a few items, such as 

two coins from ELMA 217 and a 1956 New 

Mexico license plate from ELMA 138. 

Technological attributes of other miscellaneous 

items, such as car parts, ammunition, and wire 

nails, were somewhat helpful in establishing 

possible date ranges. 

Frequencies of miscellaneous artifact classes 

and types for each historic component functional 

category are presented in Table 6.7. Ten 

miscellaneous artifact classes are represented at 

Phase I survey components: ammunition, clothing, 

construction/maintenance, domicile, flora/fauna/ 

mineral, food preparation and consumption, 

ranching related items, tools, transportation related 

items, and other. The construction/maintenance 

class is by far the largest, comprising 53.5 percent 

(n = 318) of all miscellaneous artifacts. The vast 

majority of these items are wire nails. Other 

construction/maintenance items include cut nails 

and tacks, a chimney collar, a hose, lumber, 

miscellaneous hardware such as staples and 

hinges, an oil drum or barrel, sheet metal, welding 

rods, metal pipes, and probable construction/ 

maintenance items for which exact functions could 

not be determined. Nearly all component functional categories contain construction/maintenance 

related items. 

A small amount of ammunition, including 

brass, copper, steel, and plastic shell casings, is 

present at camps without structures and 

ranching/herding components. Clothing items are 

also present at a number of historic components. 

Shoe parts are the most frequently recorded 

clothing item, followed by buttons, indeterminate 

items of clothing, a pants rivet, and a belt buckle. 

Items in the domicile category include batteries, a 

door keyhole, electrical hardware, flashlight 

casings, furniture parts, clothes hangers, a hearth 

plate, insulation, and several washbasins. These 

items (especially furniture parts) are most 

common on camps with structures, reinforcing the 

interpretation that this component category was 

characterized by more intensive or permanent use 

than camps without structures. 

Flora/fauna/mineral items include a single 

piece of burned bone, charcoal, a peach pit, a 

sawed log, an indeterminate item, and a possible 

piece of low-grade turquoise from ELMA 217. 

Food preparation or consumption items, including 

a Dutch oven, frying pan, stove parts, and utensils, 

are relatively rare in the survey area despite the 

presence of numerous food cans and bottles. 

Ranching related items, which are actually more 

common on historic camps than at ranching 

related components, include baling or round wire, 

barbed wire, twine, horseshoes, and a can 

modified to hold water. Items in the tool class 

include a galvanized bucket, a prying tool or 

chisel, a lantern light bulb, a metal file, a shovel, a 

monkey wrench, and two indeterminate tool parts. 

Transportation related items consist of a piece of 

asphalt, a number of car parts, and two railroad 

spikes. The latter were recorded at ELMA 201. a 

logging camp, and their exact use in this context is 

indeterminate. Finally, other items recorded on a 
Table 6.7. Miscellaneous artifact class and type by site category." 

4 -

m 

> 

r-

> 

— 

X 

> 

n 

-

O — o 

o 

> r 

tyj 

C 

PC 

< 

m 

Class 

Ammunition 

Clothing 

Construction/ 

Maintenance 

Domicile 

1 ype 

Brass shell casing 

Copper shell casing 

Plastic shell casing 

Steel shell casing 

Ammunition Subtotal 

Belt buckle 

Button 

Indeterminate 

Overall-type button 

Pants rivet 

Shoe part 

Clothing Subtotal 

Chimney collar 

1 lose 

Indeterminate 

Lumber 

Misc. hardware 

Oil drum or barrel 

Pipe 

Sheet metal 

Welding rods 

Cut nail 

Wire Nail 

Lack 

Construction/Maintenance Subtotal 

Battery 

Door keyhole 

Electrical hardware 

Flashlight casing 

Furniture part 

1 lunger 

Hearth plate 

Cat 

with 

st rue 

1 

-

1 

I 

3 

-

-

2 

-

-

8 

10 

-

-

2 

6 

4 

1 

-

-

-

-

10 

-

23 

1 

1 

-

-

7 

-

-

ip 

out 

lure 

% 

1.0 

-

1.0 

1.0 

3.1 

-

-

2.1 

-

-

8.3 

10.3 

-

-

2.1 

6.2 

4.1 

1.0 

-

-

-

-

10.3 

-

23.7 

1.0 

1.0 

-

-

7.2 

-

-

Cam] 

strut 

./' 

-

-

-

-

-

3 

-

-

1 

7 

11 

-

1 

-

-

3 

-

3 

-

-

-

180 

12 

208 

-

-

-

-

78 

-

1 

) with 

•ture 

% 

-

-

-

-

-

0.9 

-

-

0.3 

2.1 

3.4 

-

0.3 

-

-

0.9 

-

0.9 

-

-

-

57.6 

3.7 

63.4 

-

-

-

-

23.8 

-

0.3 

1 Ionic 

habit 

./' 

-

-

-

-

-

1 

1 

-

2 

4 

1 

-

-

-

1 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

stead/ 

at ion 

"<> 

-

-

-

-

-

5.6 

5.6 

-

11.1 

22.2 

5.6 

-

-

-

5.6 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

11.1 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

IceA 

colic 

./' 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 

2 

-

-

-

-

3 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Site 

vater 

ction 

% 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

25.0 

50.0 

-

-

-

-

75.0 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Cate 

Isoh 

artif 

leatt 

f 

• 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

gory 

ted 

tet 

.re" 

% 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lou 

./• 

-

-

-

-

-

1 

-

-

-

1 

-

-

1 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3 

-

4 

-

-

-

-

1 

2 

-

ging 

"«, 

-

-

-

-

-

5.0 

-

-

-

5.0 

-

-

5.0 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

15.0 

-

20.0 

-

-

-

-

5.0 

10.0 

-

Ranc 

here 

./' 

2 

-

-

2 

1 

-

-

-

-

-

1 

-

-

-

-

6 

-

-

-

19 

9 

42 

-

76 

1 

-

3 

1 

-

-

-

ling/ 

in» 

" o 

2.0 

-

-

2.0 

1.0 

-

-

-

-

-

1.0 

-

-

-

-

5.9 

-

-

-

18.8 

8.9 

41.6 

-

75.3 

1.0 

-

3.0 

1.0 

-

-

-

Tr 

du 

./' 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4 

4 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 

-

2 

2 

-

-

1 

-

-

-

tsh 

nip 

% 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

15.4 

15.4 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7.7 

-

7.7 

7.7 

-

-

3.9 

-

-

-

Gr. 

To 

./' 

2 1 

31 

14 

19 

246 

12 

318 

86 

ilt d 

tal 

% 

~~02 

0.3 

0.2 

0.2 

0.8 

0.2 

0.7 

0.5 

0.2 

0.2 

3.5 

5.2 

0.2 

0.2 

0.5 

1.0 

2.4 

0.2 

0.7 

0.3 

3.2 

1.5 

41.4 

2.0 

53.5 

0.7 

0.2 

0.5 

0.3 

14.5 

0.3 

0.2 
Tabic 6.7. (Continued). 

Class 

Flora/Fauna/ Mineral 

Food Preparation/ 

Consumption 

Food Pre; 

Ranching 

Tools 

Transportation 

Type 

Insulation 

Wash basin 

Domicile Subtotal 

Burned bone 

Charcoal 

Indeterminate 

Mineral 

Peach pit 

Sawed log 

Florae Fauna/Mineral Subtotal 

Dutch oven 

Frying pan 

Stove part 

Utensil 

laration Consumption Subtotal 

Baling/round wire 

Barbed wire 

1 lorseshoe 

Indeterminate 

Modifed can 

Twine 

Ranching Subtotal 

Galvanized bucket 

Prying tool 

Indeterminate 

Fight bulb 

Metal file 

Shovel 

Wrench 

Tools Subtotal 

Asphalt 

Car part 

Can 

with' 

struct 

/ 

-

1 

10 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 

3 

-

4 

4 

1 

1 

-

-

-

6 

-

1 

-

-

-

1 

-

2 

1 

12 

rip 

out I 

.tire 

% 

-

1.0 

10.3 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1.0 

3.1 

-

4.1 

4.1 

1.0 

1.0 

-

-

-

6.2 

-

1.0 

-

-

-

1.0 

-

2.1 

1.0 

12.4 

Camp 

strut 

./' 

-

-

79 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 

1 

2 

7 

-

-

-

-

1 

8 

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 

1 

-

4 

i with 

lure 

% 

-

-

24.1 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0.3 

0.3 

0.6 

2.1 

-

-

-

-

0.3 

2.4 

-

-

-

-

-

-

0.3 

0.3 

-

1.2 

1 Ionic 

habit 

/ 

-

1 

1 

1 

1 

-

-

-

-

2 

1 

-

-

-

1 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 

-

1 

stead/ 

at ion 

% 

-

5.6 

5.6 

5.6 

5.6 

-

-

-

-

11.1 

5.6 

-

-

-

5.6 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5.6 

-

-

-

-

-

-

5.6 

-

5.6 

lce/\< 

col lei 

./' 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 

-

-

-

1 

-

-

Sin 

rater 

jtion 

% 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

25.0 

-

-

-

25.0 

-

-

: Cat 

Isol 

arti 

Teal 

./' 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 

-

-

1 

-

-

egory 

ated 

Tact/ 

tire" 

% 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

100.0 

-

-

100.0 

-

-

Logg 

./' 

-

-

i 

-

-

-

-

-

1 

1 

-

-

-

-

-

2 

1 

1 

-

-

-

4 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3 

ing 

% 

-

-

15.0 

-

-

-

-

-

5.0 

5.0 

-

-

-

-

-

10.0 

5.0 

5.0 

-

-

-

20.0 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

15.0 

Rancl 

herd 

./' 

1 

-

6 

-

-

5 

P 

1 

-

7 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 

1 

-

3 

-

-

2 

-

-

-

-

2 

-

-

ting/ 

ing 

% 

1.0 

-

5.9 

-

-

5.0 

1.0 

1.0 

-

6.9 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2.0 

1.0 

-

3.0 

-

-

2.0 

-

-

-

-

2.0 

-

-

In 

dui 

/ 

-

2 

5 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 

1 

4 

-

-

-

-

-

4 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4 

ish 

np 

% 

-

7.7 

19.2 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3.9 

3.9 

15.4 

-

-

-

-

-

15.4 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

15.4 

(in 

To 

/ 

1 

4 

104 

1 

1 

5 

1 

1 

1 

10 

1 

1 

4 

2 

8 

17 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

25 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

8 

1 

24 

nut 

tal 

% 

0.2 

0.7 

17.5 

0.2 

0.2 

0.8 

0.2 

0.2 

0.2 

1.7 

0.2 

0.2 

0.7 

0.3 

1.4 

2.9 

0.3 

0.3 

0.3 

0.2 

0.2 

4.2 

0.2 

0.2 

0.3 

0.2 

0.2 

0.2 

0.2 

1.4 

0.2 

4.0 

X 

JS 

H 

O g 

n 

-a 

m 2 

c 

x 

X 

m 

•J\ 
Table 6.7. (Continued). •J: 

0> 

m 

r 

'< 

> 

— 

> 

> 

70 

n 

-

m 

O 

o 

Q 

n 

> — 

c 

-

-1 

Site Category 

Camp Isolated 

without Camp with Homestead/ Ice/water artifact/ Ranching/ I rash Grand 

structure structure habitation collection feature' hogging herding dump Total 

Class Typo ~ % / % / % / % / % /~"~% 7 % ./' "" 7 TT^ 

Railroad spike ~ - - - ~ ~ ~- ~- ~- - 2 hOT) - - ~2 03 

Transportation Subtotal 13 13.4 4 1.2 1 5.6 - - - - 5 25.0 - - 4 15.4 27 4.5 

Other Coin - - - - - - - 2d 2.0 - - 2 0.3 

Lipstick tube - - - - 1 5.6 - - - - - - - - - I 0.2 

Skeet target - - I 0.3 - - - - - - 1 0.2 

Tractor part 4 4.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 0.7 

Indeterminate 22 22.7 14 4.3 5 27.8 - - - - 2 10.0 2 2.0 6 23.1 51 8.6 

Other Subtotal 26 26.8 15 4.6 6 33.3 - - - - 2 10.0 4 4.9 6 23.1 59 9.9 

Grand Total 97 100.0 328 100.0 18 100.0 4 100.0 1 100.0 20 100.0 101 100.0 26 100.0 595 100.0 

'Excludes the following site categories with no miscellaneous artifacts: Road. Agricultural. Mining and Other/Unknown, as well as sites for which formal artifact coding was 

not performed in the Held. 

Includes only components recorded as sites. 

C

I .ow -grade turquoise/quartz. 

d

 1967 quarter; 1978 penny. 
HISTORIC PERIOD SITES 157 

few components include two coins (ELMA 217), a 

possible lipstick tube (ELMA 190/LA 32057), 

fragments of a skeet target (ELMA 175), several 

tractor parts (ELMA 306), and a number of 

indeterminate metal, rubber and plastic fragments. 

Summary' 

Metal containers are the most common 

historic artifact type recorded on historic 

components in the Phase I survey area. Metal 

food cans are especially abundant. Metal 

containers are found at every historic component 

category except agricultural, mining, and 

other/unknown. Glass artifacts are also fairly 

common on historic components but are not 

represented at road, agricultural, mining, ice/water 

collection, or other/unknown components. 

Historic ceramics were recorded only on historic 

camp, logging, ranching/herding, and trash dump 

components. A variety of miscellaneous metal, 

rubber, plastic fabric, and other artifacts were also 

recorded on most historic components. Based on 

the recorded historic artifact assemblages, food 

storage and consumption and 

construction/maintenance are the most common 

activities represented at historic components in the 

survey area. Historic camps, trash dumps, and 

logging related components typically exhibit a 

wider variety of historic artifacts than other 

historic component functional categories, and 

these components also tend to have higher overall 

artifact densities. 

Chronology, Cultural Affiliation and 

Patterns of Land Use 

In this section 1 discuss the chronological 

placement of historic components identified 

during the Phase I El Malpais survey. In general, 

historic components that could be assigned dates 

appear to have been used or occupied between 

around 1920 and 1950. There are also a fair 

number of components with dates that extend into 

the later half of the twentieth century. The limited 

available information concerning the cultural 

affiliation of historic components in the study area 

follows the discussion of component chronology. 

This section concludes with an overview of 

historic land use patterns, with an emphasis on 

differences among various surveyed areas within 

the monument. 

Component Chronology 

Table 6.1 presents likely date ranges for 

historic components that could be assigned to a 

particular time period. In most cases, date ranges 

for historic components were determined based 

upon the presence of diagnostic artifacts and/or 

features. Changes through time in metal can 

technology are very well documented (see the 

Artifact Assemblages section) and thus are 

particularly useful in establishing probable 

component use dates. Historic inscriptions with 

calendar dates were also present at a few 

components. Historical documentation or 

information obtained via oral history provided 

chronological information for only two 

components in the project area, ELMA 190 and 

ELMA 213. 

In order to facilitate comparison among 

historic components, dates are typically presented 

in decade intervals (e.g. 1920s to 1930s) in Table 

6.1. In some cases, only a general temporal 

assignment could be made. Components listed as 

"20lh Century" were likely used sometime after 

1900, while components listed as "Late 20" 

Century" probably post-date 1950. Dates could 

not be determined for 49 historic components that 

lack temporally diagnostic materials. These 

components are listed in Table 6.1 as "Historic 

Unknown." It should also be noted that the dates 

presented in Table 6.1 occasionally differ 

somewhat from dates assigned in the field. They 

tend to be a bit broader, especially on the early 

end. For each historic component, the early date 

presented in Table 6.1 should be regarded as the 

earliest possible occupation date for that 

component. 

In Figure 6.6, each patterned bar section 

represents the number of components from a 

particular component category that were used or 
CO 

F 

> 

I — I 

C/J 

> 

71 

n 

X 

m 

o 

t -

o 

o 

, — I 

o 

> 

C 

3 

W 

Figure 6.6. Frequencies of historic component cutegories by time period. 
HISTORIC PERIOD SITES 159 

occupied during a certain time interval. Note that, 

in order to simplify the figure, several component 

categories with low frequencies (mining, ice/water 

collection, and other/unknown) have been lumped 

into a single category (Other) and that camps with 

and without structures have been combined into a 

single category (Camp). As the figure indicates, 

the majority of datable historic components 

recorded during the Phase I survey appear to date 

between the 1920s and 1950s. Both historic 

homesteads located in the survey area have dates 

that fall at least partially within this interval, 

although ELM A 1 13 may pre-date 1914. For the 

majority of functional categories, fewer 

components appear to have been occupied 

between 1900 and 1920 and after 1950. Only 

three component categories-camps, agriculture 

related components, and isolated artifacts/features 

-have components that likely pre-date 1900. A 

relatively large number of isolated 

artifacts/features and roads are of indeterminate 

age. 

patterned bar sections represent the number of 

components of Acoma, indeterminate Puebloan. 

Euroamerican, Hispanic, or unknown cultural 

affiliation that were in use during each time 

interval. Acoma and indeterminate Puebloan 

historic components are each represented by a 

single isolated feature. The Acoma component 

consists of a relatively modern Acoma 

Polychrome pot drop, while the indeterminate 

Puebloan component consists of a probable shrine 

of indeterminate (but likely historic) age. Two 

historic components attributed to Euroamerican 

use (ELM A 190 and ELM A 213) have occupation 

dates ranging from around 1920 to after 1950. 

Both were identified as Euroamerican based on 

historic records or oral history. One Euroamerican component (a historic inscription) is of 

indeterminate age." Two components of Hispanic 

cultural affiliation, a camp and an isolated 

inscription, date to the 1930s and 1940s, 

respectively. 

Cultural Affiliation 

Cultural affiliation was difficult to determine 

for many of the historic components recorded 

within the Phase I survey area. While Euroamerican manufactured goods, such as metal food 

containers, glass, and ceramics, were present on a 

number of components, such goods may have 

been used by any of the ethnic groups known to 

have been present historically in the vicinity of El 

Malpais. For this reason it was considered 

important to make a distinction between the types 

of historic artifacts present on a component 

(identified as Trash Type in Table 6.1) and the 

cultural affiliation of the people who deposited 

those artifacts. In the absence of clear indicators 

of ethnic identity at the majority of recorded 

historic components, cultural affiliation was 

designated as "Historic Unknown.'" 

Cultural affiliation could be assigned to only 7 

of 122 recorded historic components (Table 6.1). 

As Figure 6.7 indicates, the majority of historic 

components from all time periods are of 

indeterminate cultural affiliation. In this figure, 

Historic Land Use Patterns 

The Phase I survey results indicate that 

component functional categories are somewhat 

differentially distributed among various surveyed 

portions of the monument (Figure 6.8). Historic 

components were recorded in three major 

geographical zones: the east side of the park in 

areas east of the malpais, the El Calderon area in 

the northern portion of the park, and the west side 

of the park in the vicinity of the Big Tubes area 

(Figure 6.8). While each of these geographical 

zones contains a wide variety of terrain, the 

western and El Calderon survey areas are 

characterized by older lava flows compared to the 

eastern survey area. 

As Table 6.8 and Figure 6.8 indicate, nearly 

all categories of historic components were 

recorded more frequently on the west side of the 

malpais than in the other two areas. For example, 

camps without structures are more than four times 

more common in the western survey area than the 

eastern or El Calderon survey areas. Loggingrelated components, a single ice/water collection 

component, and two other/unknown components 
CT-. 

c 

-

-

> 

> 

I — I 

m 

> 

n 

m 

o 

r 

8 

n 

> 

r 

X 

< 

m 

Figure 6.7. Frequency of components and isolated occurrences of Aconta, Indeterminate Puebloan, Euroamerican, Hispanic and 

Unknown cultural affiliation by time period. 
Figure 6.8. Historic component locations. 

X 

m 

H 

O 

2 

n 

m 

2 

o 

a 

H 

m 

2 

i —-
162 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Table 6.8. Site category by location. 

Silo Category 

Camp without structure 

Camp with structure 

Road 

Trash dump 

Ranching/herding 

Agricultural 

Cogging 

I lomestead/habitation 

Mining activity 

Ice/water collection 

Isolated artifact/feature 

Other/unknown 

Total 

Cast 

./" 

4 

1 

-

1 

4 

3 

-

2 

-

-

7 

-

22 

% 

18.2 

4.6 

-

4.6 

18.2 

13.6 

-

9.1 

-

-

31.8 

-

100.1 

CI Calderon 

/ % 

4 25.0 

-

5 31.3 

2 12.5 

-

-

-

-

1 6.3 

-

4 25.0 

-

16 100.1 

W 

./ 

18 

6 

3 

3 

2 

-

3 

-

-

1 

46 

2 

84 

est 

% 

21.4 

7.1 

3.6 

3.6 

2.4 

-

3.6 

-

-

1.2 

54.8 

2.4 

100.1 

lota 

./' 

26 

7 

8 

6 

6 

3 

3 

2 

1 

1 

57 

2 

122 

1 

"o 

21.3 

5.7 

6.6 

4.0 

4.0 

2.5 

2.5 

1.6 

0.8 

0.8 

46.7 

1.6 

100.0 

were recorded only on the west side of the park. 

Evidence of mining activity, represented by a 

single mining claim, is limited to the El Calderon 

area. On the east side of the monument, ranching 

or herding components, agricultural features, and 

homesteads are more common than in the other 

two areas. It appears that, at least historically. 

there was a tendency to use different areas of the 

monument for different purposes. Furthermore, 

the western portion of El Malpais may have been 

used more intensively for particular activities, 

such as logging, that might have left behind a 

larger number of associated camps and trash 

dumps. 

The geographic distributions of Acoma, 

Puebloan, Euroamerican, Hispanic, and Historic 

Unknown components by time period are 

presented in Table 6.9. As the table indicates, all 

three of the survey areas contain historic 

components dating as early as the 1880s and as 

late as the latter half of the twentieth century. 

Thus there does not appear to be strong temporal 

patterning in historic period utilization of the 

Phase 1 survey area. Table 6.9 also shows that the 

eastern survey area is more diverse in terms of 

cultural affiliation compared with the other two 

survey areas. Both of the Hispanic components, 

each of the single Acoma and indeterminate 

Puebloan components, and two of the three Euroamerican components are located on the eastern 

side of the malpais. Unfortunately, the lack of 

historic components for which cultural affiliation 

could be assigned makes it difficult to thoroughly 

assess spatial and temporal variability in historic 

land use among the various ethnic groups known 

to have exploited the El Malpais area. 

Summary and Conclusions 

A total of 122 historic components and 

isolated occurrences were recorded during the El 

Malpais Phase I survey. A large number of these 

components are classified as camps (26 without 

structures, 7 with structures). More specific 

functions could not be assigned to camps, and a 

wide range of activities may have taken place at 

them. Eight historic components are road 

segments, six are trash dumps, six are apparently 

associated with ranching or herding, three are 

related to agriculture, three are attributed to 

logging activity, two are homesteads, one is 

related to mining, one was used for ice or water 

collection, and two are of indeterminate function. 

The remaining historic components (n = 57) are 

classified as isolated features or artifacts 

representing a wide range of historic activities. 

Historic artifact assemblages from 

components in the Phase I survey area include 
HISTORIC PERIOD SITES 163 

Table 6.9. Cultural affiliation and date range by location. 

Cultural Affiliation 

Euroamerican 

Hispanic 

Acoma 

Puebloan 

Historic Unknown 

Total 

Date Range 

1920s to 1950s 

1950s to 1960s 

Unknown 

Subtotal Euroamerican 

1930s 

1940s 

Subtotal Hispanic 

Late twentieth century 

Subtotal Acoma 

Unknown 

Subtotal Puebloan 

1880s to 1920s 

1880s to 1950s 

1880s to 1960s 

1890s to 1930s 

1900s to 1950s 

1920s to 1940s 

1920s to 1950s 

1920s to 1960s 

1920s to 1970s 

1930s 

1950s 

1950s to 1960s 

1960s 

1970s 

Late twentieth century 

Unknown twentieth century 

Unknown 

Subtotal Historic Unknown 

Last 

/' 

-

2 

2 

-

1 

1 

3 

-

-

-

I 

-

-

1 

1 

5 

-

16 

22 

% 

4.6 

-

4.6 

9.0 

4.6 

4.6 

9.0 

4.6 

5.0 

4.6 

5.0 

4.6 

-

4.6 

4.6 

4.6 

4.6 

13.6 

-

-

-

4.6 

-

-

4.6 

4.6 

22.7 

-

73.0 

100.0 

l.ocati 

LI Calderon 

f 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 

-

-

-

-

3 

3 

-

-

-

-

1 

-

1 

-

7 

16 

16 

% 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6.3 

-

-

-

-

18.8 

18.8 

-

-

-

-

6.3 

-

6.3 

-

43.8 

100.0 

100.0 

on 

/' 

West 

-

1 

-

1 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3 

1 

-

5 

-

14 

6 

1 

l 

-

I 

-

1 

3 

7 

40 

80 

84 

% 

-

1.2 

-

1.2 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3.6 

1.2 

-

6.0 

-

16.7 

7.1 

1.2 

1.2 

-

1.2 

-

1.2 

2.4 

7.1 

47.6 

95.0 

100.0 

Total 

/' 

20 

2 

5 

12 

47 

1 15 

122 

% 

0.8 

0.8 

0.8 

2.6 

0.8 

0.8 

1.6 

0.8 

0.8 

0.8 

0.8 

0.8 

3.3 

1.6 

0.8 

4.9 

0.8 

16.4 

7.4 

0.8 

0.8 

0.8 

0.8 

0.8 

1.6 

4.1 

9.8 

38.5 

94.3 

100.1 

over 1.500 metal containers, several hundred glass 

and miscellaneous artifacts, and a small number of 

ceramic artifacts. These artifact classes represent 

a wide range of functional categories, the most 

common of which appear to be food storage and 

consumption and construction or maintenance. 

Historic camps, trash dumps, and logging related 

components exhibit the greatest artifact diversity 

and highest artifact density of the twelve historic 

component functional categories. 

affiliation. Three Euroamerican components, two 

Hispanic components, one Acoma component, and 

one indeterminate Puebloan component were 

identified on the basis of ethnically significant 

material culture present on these components. The 

most intensive period of occupation or use of 

historic components in the study area appears to 

have been between 1920 and 1950, although many 

historic components and isolated occurrences are 

of indeterminate asje. 

The majority of recorded historic components 

in the studv are of indeterminate cultural 

The Phase I survey reported some evidence 

for each of the historic period activities known 
164 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

from previous investigations to have occurred in 

the El Maipais region. The remains of these 

activities are somewhat differentially distributed 

within the monument. In particular, it appears that 

ranching and herding, agricultural activity, and 

homesteading were more common on the east side 

of the monument, whereas logging and other 

activities that may have left behind camps or trash 

dumps were more common on the west side of the 

maipais. 

1

 ELMA 127/LA 137270. the only example of a miningrelated site, includes a single tobacco tin containing a mining 

claim, however, this tobacco tin was not formally recorded 

and does not appear in the master artifact data base. 

2

 This inscription reads ""R.D. Allen 4./09." The century 

is unknown. 
Summary and Conclusions 

Janet D. Orcutt and Robert P. Powers 

This report has described the preliminary 

results of the first three years (Phase I) of a multistage inventory survey of El Malpais National 

Monument. The sample inventory is designed to 

systematically survey 7,082 ha (17,500 acres) or 

15.9 percent of the surface area of the monument. 

The overall purpose of the project is to collect a 

wide variety of data needed to preserve, protect, 

manage, and interpret the monument's heretofore 

largely unknown archeological resources. As part 

of Phase I. a pilot survey was conducted (2000), a 

preliminary report describing the results of the 

pilot survey was completed (2001), a research and 

sampling design was prepared (2001), two seasons 

of full-scale survey were conducted (2001 and 

2002), and this interim report was prepared 

(2003). 

The preceding chapters have described the 

archeological materials found during all three 

years of survey and have addressed, in preliminary 

fashion, key research problems proposed in the 

research design (Orcutt et al. 2001). The purpose 

of this chapter is to summarize these data, and 

where appropriate, to present general 

recommendations for consideration during the 

remaining two phases of the project. 

Survey Coverage and Sites Identified 

A total of 2.737 ha (6,763 acres) were 

surveyed during Phase I, a total that falls short of 

the phase goal by 96 ha (237 acres). During Phase 

I. approximately 25 percent of the area surveyed 

was drawn from random sample areas, while the 

remaining 75 percent was drawn from judgmental 

areas. Since random sample units compose 42 

percent of the overall sample, and judgmental 

units 58 percent, it is clear that Phase I survey 

heavily favored judgmental areas at the expense of 

random sample units. Much of this imbalance is 

due to the survey of 760 judgmental ha (1.877 

acres) that were not included in the original 

project sample, but were added later at the request 

of the park to address a variety of urgent 

management issues. Since only 610 judgmental 

ha (1.508 acres) were reserved for management 

contingencies, some future downward adjustment 

of the judgmental sample will be necessary. One 

possible solution would be to delete portions of 

the unsurveyed priority areas in order to 

compensate for judgmental areas already surveyed 

outside the priority areas. 

A total of 306 archeological sites were 

identified within the 2,737 ha surveyed, for a 

density of 1 site per 8.94 ha (1 site per 22.1 acres). 

Three hundred and sixty-nine isolated occurrences 

were also identified within the same area. At the 

306 sites a total of 364 distinct temporal or 

cultural components were identified. 

No Paleoindian components were identified, 

although two projectile fragments, one a Clovis 

point base and the second a possible Cody point 

base, were found on later period components and 

may have been collected as keepsakes by the 

occupants of these components. The Cody point 

base, made from an opaque green obsidian, has 

been sourced by X-ray fluorescence analysis to the 

165 

7 
166 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Presley Wasli obsidian source in the Mount Floyd 

Volcanic Field, west of Flagstaff. Arizona. It is 

the most distant raw material source identified in 

the Phase 1 Iithic assemblage. It is likely that 

additional evidence of the Paleoindiaii presence at 

El Malpais is buried beneath the lava flows. A 

total of 13 (4 percent of all components) Archaic 

(8.000 to 1,500 B.P.) components were documented. As with Paleoindiaii materials, it is likely that 

some areas in use during the Archaic were covered 

by the McCartys lava flow ca. 3.200 to 3.600 

years ago. One Basketmaker (500 B.C. to A.D. 

500) component also was documented. There are 

hints of several more Archaic and Basketmaker 

components represented by almost 20 projectile 

points recorded on components dating to later 

periods. These could indicate the existence of 

early components that were overwhelmed by 

cultural material from Pueblo period occupations, 

or some may simply be keepsakes or interesting 

items found and kept by later Puebloan residents. 

Ancestral Puebloan components (n = 205; 56 

percent of all components) were the most common 

and in many cases the most substantial 

archeological remains found by the survey. 

Native American components (n = 32: 9 percent), 

consisting of materials of clear prehistoric age but 

of indeterminate cultural affiliation, are much less 

frequent. Historic Unknown (n = 72; 20 percent), 

Hispanic (n = 2), and Euroamerican (n = 2) 

components encompass the historic period remains 

found by the survey. Except where name 

inscriptions or historic documents allowed 

identification of the ethnic affiliation of a historic 

component's inhabitants, historic components 

were assigned to the Historic Unknown category. 

The final category. Unknown (n = 37; 10 percent), 

was assigned to components without temporally or 

culturally diagnostic materials. 

Archaic and Basketmaker II 

Archaic components documented by the 

survey represent early (n = 4) (8,000 - 5.500 

B.P.), middle (n = 7) (5,500 to 3,500 B.P.), and 

late (n = 4) (3,500 to 1,500 B.P.) time periods, as 

defined by the presence of temporally diagnostic 

projectile point styles. One component could not 

be assigned to a period, and three others may have 

been occupied during more than one interval. The 

Basketmaker II component was identified by a 

single Basketmaker corner-notched projectile 

point. All of the Archaic and Basketmaker 

components were either identified as camps or 

consist of features such as firepits. thermal 

features, or Iithic scatters that probably reflect 

short-term or seasonal occupation. The 

occurrence of ceramics in the Iithic scatters of a 

number of these Archaic components suggest 

subsequent reuse of these features by Puebloans, 

and the presence of Archaic projectiles on 

Puebloan period components may indicate 

collection of early points, or. as suggested by 

Kilby (see Chapter 3). reoccupation which has all 

but completely obscured Archaic materials. 

Puebloan 

Puebloan components were most frequently 

identified by diagnostic ceramics and architecture. 

In order to make temporal distinctions among the 

large number of Puebloan components and 

identify changes in population, settlement, and 

exchange, the types and frequencies of ceramics 

present were used by Schachner (see Chapter 3) to 

statistically derive ceramic assemblages 

characterizing different time periods. 

Ceramic Dating 

Because of suspected inconsistencies between 

ceramicists in the classification of some ceramic 

types, low sample numbers for other types, and 

relatively limited chronometric dating of the 

production spans of many ceramic types, the 

temporal clusters identified in the Phase I analysis 

should be refined in future survey phases. 

Because of current limitations, individual ceramic 

types and sample areas were lumped into larger 

groups for the statistical analysis. This also 

reduced the number of variables in the analysis, 

which made interpretation of the clusters easier. 

Schachner used a combination of correspondence analysis and k-means clustering to identify 
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 167 

groups of assemblages and the components 

belonging to those clusters. The k-means nonhierarchical clustering technique identified several 

different cluster solutions; however, a five-cluster 

solution was chosen because it appeared to convey 

fairly clear temporal distinctions. The five 

clusters were used to form the groups processed in 

the correspondence analysis, which graphically 

revealed the segregation among the five clusters. 

Cluster 1, with 27 components, appears to 

represent the Red Mesa-early Cebolleta period 

(A.D. 870 to 1050). Cluster 2 has 19 components 

and dates to the late Cebolleta (AD 1050 to 1 125) 

period. Cluster 3"s 13 components fall into a 

generalized Cebolleta phase (A.D. 950 to 1125). 

There is a high percentage of decorated ceramics 

at Cluster 3 components, and it is possible this 

represents a functional group within the Cebolleta 

phase. Cluster 4 has 12 components and falls into 

the late Cebolleta/early Pilares phase (A.D. 1100 

to 1150). Cluster 5, with 7 components, dates to 

the Pilares phase (A.D. 1125 to 1200), or earlyPueblo III. The A.D. 1200 end date for these 

assemblages was assigned to distinguish them 

from the very different assemblages found in post1200 contexts in the El Monro Valley and at 

Cebollita Mesa. 

Components that did not meet the sample size 

requirements for the statistical analysis were dated 

subjectively using the characteristics of the 

clusters and descriptions by Marshall (1991) and 

Wilson (1994). When possible, these components 

were dated to phases or subphases, although some 

components could only be assigned to very broad 

periods (e.g., Pueblo II), and components that 

could not be dated at all were designated as 

"unknown." In addition to the five clusters, there 

are seven other dated periods assigned to the 

subjectively dated components-Red Mesa, early 

Cebolleta, early Cebolleta/Pilares, Pilares/Kowina. 

Kowina, Pueblo II, and Pueblo IV (Figure 3.2). 

Puebloan Components 

Ancestral Puebloan components range in date 

from the Red Mesa phase (A.D. 870 to 950) to the 

Kowina phase (A.D. 1200 to 1300) (Figure 3.2), 

but the great majority of dated components (n = 

160; 89 percent) were occupied during some or all 

of the Cebolleta phase (A.D. 950 to 1 125). Nearly 

half of the Cebolleta phase components also 

contain ceramics characteristic of the earlier Red 

Mesa or later Pilares phases, suggesting that 

occupation of the El Malpais area began in the 

Red Mesa phase around A.D. 900 and continued 

into the early Pilares phase at about A.D. 1150. 

None of the components dated using the coupled 

k-means clustering and correspondence analysis 

method span this entire 250 year temporal 

continuum, and only a few of the qualitatively 

dated components do so, largely because the latter 

components had small or mixed assemblages that 

only allowed them to be dated to the Pueblo II 

(A.D. 900 to 1130/1150) period as a whole. 

Indeed, based upon the modest ceramic sample 

sizes at most components, it seems unlikely that 

even components with ceramics suggesting 

relatively long occupation spans were occupied for 

the entire interval bracketed by the production 

dates of their ceramic assemblages. A few survey 

components (n = 13) dated exclusively to the 

Pilares and/or Kowina phases indicate some 

continued use of the area into the late 1100s and 

1200s, but all of these components appear to have 

been non-habitations. Twenty-six Pueblo 

components could not be dated to any time period. 

A total of 19 component types are represented 

at Puebloan sites. Five types, including pueblos, 

small structures, possible structures, stone circles, 

and lithic and ceramic scatters, are most common 

and account for over 75 percent of the Pueblo 

components. Within Puebloan components, four 

types of architectural features-pueblos, small 

structures, possible structures, and stone circlesare most frequent and account for over 80 percent 

of all Puebloan architectural features. Nonarchitectural features are dominated by two feature 

types, rock concentrations and cairns, which 

comprise 70 percent of the non-architectural 

features recorded. Unsurprisingly, the most 

common scatter features are those with both 

ceramics and lithics. 

Of the broad variety of Puebloan component 

types present in the Phase I survey areas, only two 
168 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

types, great house and pueblo, may represent 

permanent residences or habitations occupied 

during much or all of a year. The Las Ventanas 

great house (ELMA 189), with an estimated 60 to 

80 rooms, was certainly capable of housing a 

substantial number of residents, but if, like some 

other Chacoan great houses, this structure was 

used only intermittently for ceremonies and 

feasting (Bernardini 1999; Toll 1985, 2001; 

Windes 1987). it may have had few or no 

permanent residents. Like other great houses. Las 

Ventanas displays an array of architectural 

features (large architectural scale and mass, core 

and veneer masonry, multiple stories, road 

segments, berms, a possible tower kiva) that 

suggest affiliation with the Chacoan system 

(Kantner and Mahoney 2000; Marshall et al. 1979; 

Powers et al. 1983; Van Dyke 1999). Ceramics 

associated with the great house suggest occupation 

during the late Cebolleta and Pilares (A.D. 1050 to 

1150) phases, although features surrounding the 

structure span a broader interval from Red 

Mesa/early Cebolleta to late Cebolleta/Pilares 

(A.D. 870 to 1150). Tree-ring samples produced 

cutting dates in the A.D. 1260s. but there is no 

information on provenience for the samples 

(Robinson and Cameron 1991). 

A total of 36 pueblo components containing 

42 separate pueblo structures were recorded. 

Pueblos have the broadest array and highest mean 

number (n = 3.4) of associated features of any 

component type, suggesting that a variety of 

activities were performed at these components and 

supporting their designation as habitations. Kivas 

were rarely identifiable due to extensive 

sedimentation, and some depressions may be 

pithouses. Most pueblo components probably 

have pithouses or kivas or both. In the Armijo 

Canyon area, Elyea et al. (1994) found pithouses 

associated with early Cebolleta (A.D. 950 to 1050) 

components, and there was some evidence to 

indicate even later pitstructures. Kivas were not 

incorporated into roomblocks until the Pilares 

phase (A.D. 1125 to 1200), making kivas 

predating this interval difficult to identify. 

Small structures, which have 2 rooms or less, 

are represented at 27 components for a total of 34 

small structures. Small structures have a lower 

mean of 2.1 architectural or non-architectural 

features per component. Refuse features average 

less than one per component, and most are 

dominated by ceramics. 

A total of 22 components were defined as 

possible structures because, for a variety' of 

visibility or preservation factors, they could not be 

identified definitively. Half of these components 

were called possible structures in the field. The 

other half represent features coded in the field as 

other structure. rock concentration. rock 

alignment, other indeterminate, or unknown nonarchitectural-each of which were lumped into the 

possible structure category for analysis. 

A total of 107 stone circles are present at 23 

stone circle components. Stone circles are circular 

constructions, some with entryways. that probably 

did not have full-height walls or roofs. Stone 

circles often occur in clusters, but each circle is 

separate, usually on or adjacent to the lava. The 

most common associated features are cairns and 

trails, and very few artifacts are present. Those 

components that are Puebloan have both ceramics 

and lithics. Based on the paucity of artifacts and 

their association with trail systems and sometimes 

ice caves, stone circles probably served as 

temporary shelters for travelers, hunters, and 

participants in ceremonial pilgrimages. 

Rockshelters, camps, shrines, agricultural 

features, thermal features, storage features, 

bedrock features, trails, rock art, cairns, and rock 

alignments compose the remaining 39 components 

with architectural or non-architectural features. 

Fifty-one lithic and ceramic, four ceramic, and 

two lithic scatter components were recorded. By 

definition, scatter components do not have any 

architectural or non-architectural features. 

Habitation versus Non-habitation 

To estimate Pueblo population growth and 

decline, it was important to distinguish between 

habitation and non-habitation components. While 

several component types represent some habitation 
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 169 

or residential activities—shelter, cooking, storage, 

making or repairing tools-we wanted to count 

population only in those structures used yearround or for the majority of the year. Number of 

rooms was used to make the first cut between 

habitations and non-habitations. Any architectural 

feature with two or fewer rooms was assumed to 

be a non-habitation (e.g., agricultural field house 

or other special activity location). All 

architectural features with six or more rooms were 

assumed to be habitations (e.g., pueblo). 

Structures with three to five rooms were assigned 

a habitation or non-habitation function based on 

the number of surface artifacts, the type of refuse 

deposit, and the location of the refuse. If a 

structure had either 200 or more artifacts and a 

midden or a physically separate refuse area it was 

classified as a habitation. If a structure had less 

than 200 artifacts and lacked a midden or a distinct 

refuse area it was classified as a non-habitation. 

Research Objectives 

As explained in Chapter 1. El Malpais 

appears to have been a cultural boundary zone for 

much of the last 10,000 years. During the Archaic 

period a mix of Oshara tradition materials 

characteristic of the southeastern Colorado Plateau 

are intermixed with Cochise materials of the 

Sonoran Desert and Mogollon Plateau. Much 

later, during the Ancestral Pueblo occupation. 

Mogollon, Chacoan. and ancestral Acoma and 

Zuni traditions are reflected by distinctive ceramic 

and architectural remains. During the historic 

period, Pueblo people from Acoma. Laguna. and 

Zuni. as well as Navajo, Hispanic, and Euroamerican people utilized the area. In order to 

examine when, where, how. and why the 

monument was used by these groups, the Phase I 

research has focussed on: 1) developing a 

chronological framework and functional 

component typology; 2) identifying climatic and 

environmental variability that may have affected 

occupation: 3) describing population size, growth, 

aggregation and decline over time: 4) identifying 

patterns of settlement behavior and land use; and 

5) identifying the dynamics of interaction and 

exchange between the aforementioned cultural 

groups, based on observed architectural, ceramic, 

and lithic cultural materials. 

The chronological and functional analyses 

have already been summarized above. These 

analyses provide the temporal and functional 

frameworks necessary to the other studies. 

Population and settlement analyses, for example, 

rely on both frameworks to identify and describe 

changes during the occupation of El Malpais. 

Population and Settlement 

Much of El Malpais is a marginal area for 

habitation because it lacks permanent water and 

has limited agricultural land. We did not expect 

full-time habitations to appear until population 

density around the monument was high and 

climatic conditions were good. Based on climatic 

information and population growth in other areas, 

we expected the A.D. 1000 to 1250 range to be the 

most attractive for permanent habitation in El 

Malpais. To facilitate the analysis of population 

size through time, SchachneLs time periods were 

lumped into two time intervals to eliminate the 

temporal overlaps present in his scheme. The two 

population periods are A.D. 870 to 1050 and A.D. 

1050 to 1125/1150. 

Population was estimated from room counts at 

dated habitation components. To equalize the 

differing lengths of the two time periods, room 

counts were standardized to 100 years, the 

maximum length of the shorter period (A.D. 1050 

to 1125/1150). To arrive at an estimate of the 

number of people in each period, the total number 

of rooms in a period was adjusted by a 65 percent 

occupancy rate, reflecting the assumption that not 

all rooms in a structure were occupied 

contemporaneously. This product was multiplied 

by two people per room. The great house at Las 

Ventanas with its 60 to 80 rooms in population 

Period 2 was treated as a regular habitation in one 

calculation and was not included in another. So, 

for A.D. 1050 to 1125/1150 there are two 

population figures representing low and high 

population estimates for that period. 
170 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

An estimated 116 people inhabited several 

residential components in the survey area along 

the east side of El IVlalpais during the A.D. 870 to 

1050 period. Population density was low in the 

overall survey area-just 0.04 people per hectare 

(0.017 people per acre). Population came close to 

tripling in the A.D. 1050 to 1125/1150 period 

(Figure 4.10), and with the exception of two 

habitations on the west side of the park, residence 

was concentrated in the northeast near Las 

Ventanas. Population density increased to a 

minimum of 0.13 people per hectare (0.05 people 

per acre). Density was approximately 0.19 people 

per hectare (0.07 people per acre) if the great 

house was fully inhabited. The minimum 

population growth rate from the first to the second 

periods is 0.8 percent, which is higher than 

Hassan's (1981) maximum growth rate for 

prehistoric populations. If the great house were 

included in the calculation, the growth rate would 

be higher. Thus, it appears that immigration 

contributed to population growth, probably 

spurred by population growth and crowding in 

surrounding areas and good climate. The latter 

improved the prospect of doing successful 

agriculture on the margins of the lava and in the 

kipukas. 

Not only did more people inhabit the El 

Malpais area, they lived in larger habitations in the 

A.D. 1050 to 1125/1150 period. From an average 

of 3.9 rooms in the A.D. 870 to 1050 period, the 

average more than doubles to 9.7 rooms in the 

A.D. 1050 to 1125/1150 period, excluding the 

great house at Las Ventanas. If the great house is 

included, the average jumps to nearly 13 rooms 

per structure. 

Along with population growth and greater 

aggregation, there are suggestions of other 

socioeconomic changes from the early period to 

the late period. Despite the increase in population, 

the number of non-habitations decreases slightly 

when these counts are corrected for time period 

length. Non-habitations represent activities that 

take place away from the main residence and leave 

material remains. During the first population 

period, there are fewer people, but they appear to 

be doing more activities away from the habitation 

than later in the occupation. There may be several 

reasons for this. People from outside still may be 

coming to El Malpais for special use activities so 

that the actual number of people using the area is 

higher than the population count suggests. 

Another more likely possibility is that resources 

needed outside the habitation area were available 

closer to the residence in the early period. Fewer 

people needed fewer resources, and because the 

area had been sparsely used before A.D. 870 or 

900, there were plenty of resources available 

(arable land, flora, fauna). With the increase in 

population and 150 or more years of habitation, 

resources probably became more scarce, and 

people had to travel farther to obtain them. Recent 

surveys of areas outside the east boundaiy of the 

park (Elyea et al. 1994; McVickar et al. 2002; 

Wozniak and Marshall 1991) show that additional 

non-habitations are present. Even though there are 

no dated habitations within the park after ca. A.D. 

1150, non-habitations are present and indicate 

continued use of El Malpais area. 

Interaction and Exchange 

The research design also called for examining 

exchange systems through ceramic and lithic raw 

material types. Residents of the El Malpais area 

had access to several different exchange networks. 

The size of the monument and the spatial 

distribution of survey areas are conducive to 

spatial analyses of ceramic types and lithic 

materials aimed at clarifying the nature of 

prehistoric exchange systems in the monument. 

Ceramic s 

While some Cibola White Ware may be nonlocal, chemical analysis will be required to 

distinguish non-local white wares from those 

manufactured locally. Mogollon Brown Ware, 

Socorro Black-on-white, and early White 

Mountain Red Ware are most likely non-local. Of 

the three, Mogollon Brown Ware most clearly 

falls into this category. The raw material 

necessary to make brown ware is not available in 

the El Malpais area, suggesting that these ceramics 

are traded in or brought by people moving into the 
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 171 

area. The source area for Mogollon Brown Ware 

is to the south of El Malpais/Cebollita Mesa in the 

Mogollon Highlands. 

There are two variants of Socorro Black-onwhite; one is probably manufactured east or 

southeast of El Malpais, and the other is probably 

from east or northeast of the monument. The 

possibility that some Socorro Black-on-white may 

have been made in the El Malpais/Cebollita Mesa 

area has never been examined and cannot be ruled 

out. 

The situation with White Mountain Red Ware 

is slightly more complicated. There is not much 

doubt that early examples are non-local; however, 

at some point, possibly in the 1100s, White 

Mountain Red Ware was produced locally. 

Another complication is that the frequency of 

White Mountain Red Ware increases through time 

while the other types do not; thus, some of the 

variation in red ware is tied to time period. 

The spatial distribution of non-local ceramics 

was examined to see if percentages of types were 

higher closer to their sources. The southern 

portions of the malpais are closer to the 

production area of Mogollon Brown Ware, and in 

general, the southern survey areas do have higher 

percentages than the northern blocks, which have 

the lowest percentages, and the western blocks, 

which have intermediate percentages. The amount 

of brown ware in the southern areas is similar to 

that at Armijo Canyon 20 km south of the 

monument and higher than Cebolla Canyon, which 

is much closer to El Malpais than Armijo Canyon 

(Figure 1.1). Because of this, the distribution 

appears to be somewhat spotty, perhaps reflecting 

variability in exchange partners even for 

communities in the same broad geographic area. 

Variation between areas does not appear to be a 

factor of time. It also is interesting that the 

percentage of brown ware at Las Ventanas, the 

Chacoan outlier in the northeast survey block, is 

comparable to that in the southern blocks. Fifteen 

percent of the ceramics at Las Ventanas are brown 

ware, but only 5 percent of the ceramics at 

surrounding contemporary components are brown 

ware. Despite its location, Las Ventanas appears 

to have greater access to brown ware than other 

components in the community, suggesting either a 

different exchange network or that the great house 

served as a central location for exchanged goods 

that subsequently found their way to other 

communities. 

Socorro Black-on-white represents 2 to 3 

percent of the ceramic assemblage in the El 

Malpais/Cebollita Mesa area. The only locations 

that depart from this low level are great houses 

and the Cerritos de Jaspe. Socorro Black-on-white 

accounts for 5 percent of the ceramic assemblages 

at Las Ventanas and in the El Malpais portion of 

the Cerritos de Jaspe area, but in other areas, 

including the community around Las Ventanas, 

Socorro comprises only about 2 percent. Once 

again, Las Ventanas stands out from neighboring 

components with double the percentage of Socorro 

Black-on-white, but its greater access to Socorro 

Black-on-white is shared by at least two other sites 

with public buildings (i.e., great house features) in 

the Cebolla Canyon area. Here, both the Chacoan 

era Skull Site and the later Pueblo Cerrito (A.D. 

1225 to 1275) also have higher percentages of 

Socorro Black-on-white (Wozniak and Marshall 

1991:6:41). 

Interpreting the distribution of White 

Mountain Red Ware is somewhat more difficult 

because of the temporal component to its 

manufacture and spatial distribution. It is more 

prevalent on the west edge of the monument; 

however, components here are also slightly later 

than components in other areas of El Malpais. 

Percentages of red wares are low in southern 

survey areas and intermediate in northern areas. 

Las Ventanas has about twice as much White 

Mountain Red Ware as other components in the 

northeast, showing again that its position in the 

exchange system differed from other components 

in the community. 

While El Malpais' relatively short occupation 

span and our current inability to define short 

temporal phases inhibit our ability to identify 

temporal differences in the importation of nonlocal ceramics, some temporal differences are 

identifiable. Mogollon Brown Ware peaks in the 
172 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

late Cebolleta/Pilares phase (A.D. 1050 to 1200) 

in both El Malpais and Armijo and Cebolla 

canyons. The Las Ventanas assemblage is 

probably the main reason for the peak. Socorro 

Black-on-white exchange follows a similar 

trajectory to the brown ware and bolsters the 

argument that trade peaked in the Cebolleta phase 

(A.D. 950 to 1 125), especially the late Cebolleta 

phase (A.D. 1050 to 1125). The frequencies of 

Socorro Black-on-white through time also agree 

with those found in Armijo and Cebolla canyons. 

The situation for White Mountain Red Ware is 

slightly more difficult to interpret because of the 

temporal component to its distribution and 

probable local manufacture later in its sequence. 

White Mountain Red Ware at late Cebolleta (A.D. 

1050 to 1 125) components is most likely the result 

of exchange. Similar patterns are found at late 

Cebolleta sites in Armijo and Cebolla canyons. 

Lithics 

Access to lithic raw materials appears to vary 

spatially and temporally. During the Archaic and 

Basketmaker periods (6000 B.C. to A.D. 500). 

very little poor quality local material was used. 

Instead, high quality non-local chalcedony, 

obsidian, and chert are most common. One 

explanation for the use of more non-local raw 

materials probably is the greater mobility of prePuebloan populations. If the kinds of raw 

materials present reflect direction of mobility, 

movement appears to be more common from the 

south where chalcedony and Red Hill/Mule Creek 

obsidian originate. 

Kilby (Chapter 5) divided the monument into 

three areas, each with its own set of local or easily 

accessible raw materials during the Puebloan 

period. The Los Pilares area, which is the 

northeast portion of the park, had access to basalt, 

quartzite, chert, and Grants Ridge obsidian. The 

Ice Caves area, encompassing the western and 

Cerritos de Jaspe areas, had access to San Andres 

and Zuni spotted chert as well as Grants Ridge 

obsidian. The North Pasture area, in the southeast, 

had access to basalt, quartzite, chert, and 

chalcedony. The spatial distribution of raw 

materials from lithic assemblages was examined 

temporally between these areas. 

During the Red Mesa/early Cebolleta phase 

(A.D. 870 to 1050). San Andres chert occurs in 

high percentages in the Los Pilares and Ice Caves 

areas and, as expected, a lower percentage is 

found in the North Pasture area. North Pasture is 

farther from the San Andres source than Los 

Pilares and Ice Caves, which suggests that 

distance was a factor in acquiring this material. 

Zuni spotted chert, which one would expect to be 

difficult to obtain because of distance from the 

source, is found in the highest percentage in the 

North Pasture area. Kilby suggests this may have 

something to do with the great house at Las 

Ventanas and the distribution of Zuni spotted chert 

within the Chacoan system; however, this phase 

pre-dates the great house, and the North Pasture 

area is a substantial distance to the south from the 

Los Pilares area where Las Ventanas is located. 

Grants Ridge obsidian is more common in the Ice 

Caves area assemblages, and basalt is more 

common in the Los Pilares and North Pasture 

areas. 

In the late Cebolleta phase (A.D. 1050 to 

1125), chalcedony decreases in both the Ice Caves 

and Los Pilares areas, and higher percentages of 

Zuni spotted chert occur in Ice Caves area than the 

Los Pilares area. The use of San Andres chert and 

Grants Ridge obsidian continues, although in 

proportions inverse to that expected. Basalt is 

found in assemblages in the Ice Caves area, 

indicating that local trade was occurring, although 

regional trade had declined. Regional trade 

continues to decline in the late Cebolleta/Pilares 

phase (A.D. 1 100 to 1200), as evidenced by lower 

amounts of chalcedony. Very little basalt is found 

in the Ice Caves area, indicating a decline in local 

trade. Basalt is most common in the Los Pilares 

area, and the San Andres, Zuni spotted, and Grants 

Ridge materials are used in both areas. Grants 

Ridge obsidian is more abundant in Ice Caves 

assemblages, and San Andres chert, in Los Pilares 

assemblages, a pattern that is the reverse of what 

was expected. It is not known whether these 

patterns are the result of material preferences, 
territorial issues, or exploitation of secondary 

sources of San Andres near Los Pilares. 

The model of exchange proposed for the 

prehistoric Puebloan occupation of the El Malpais 

area called for an open, homogeneous system 

earlier in the Puebloan occupation, that is, 

assemblages should be similar across a broad area. 

Later in the Puebloan occupation, as population 

density increased and community networks 

formed, greater distinctions were expected due to 

reduced contact between groups, and assemblages 

should become more variable. Long-distance, 

interregional trade systems were expected in the 

late Puebloan occupation of El Malpais. 

In contrast to these expectations, the ceramic 

data indicate an open and homogeneous exchange 

system throughout the residential occupation of E! 

Malpais with differences apparently based on 

geographic location rather than social or political 

relations. Interestingly, lithic raw material 

distributions suggest a different system than the 

ceramics do. The lithics indicate an open system 

from A.D. 870 to 1050; however after this date, 

exchange becomes more localized, and in the later 

stages of occupation (A.D. 1100 to 1200), even 

local trade decreased. The presence of the Las 

Ventanas Chacoan great house in El Malpais and 

the operation of the Chacoan system were 

expected to result in ceramic trade from the north. 

Trade ceramics from the Chacoan system would 

be Cibola White and Gray wares, and 

unfortunately, these are difficult to differentiate 

from El Malpais Cibola wares without chemical 

analysis. In general, the ceramics do not indicate 

the degree of economic isolation seen through 

time in the lithics. Although ceramic trade with 

communities to the north is difficult to identify, 

there was regular exchange to the south (Mogollon 

Brown Ware), west (White Mountain Red Ware), 

and east (Socorro Black-on-white). Ceramic data 

from Las Ventanas and the Cebolla Canyon 

community (Marshall 1991:6-41) indicate that 

great house residents had greater access to nonlocal ceramic goods than members of 

contemporaneous communities. 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 173 

Historic Cultural Resources 

A total of 122 historic components and 

isolated occurrences were recorded during Phase I. 

Over a third of these are isolated artifacts or 

features encompassing a diversity of historic 

activities. Components at which the main activity 

could be identified were grouped into several 

functional categories. Camps, with and without 

structures, are the most common functional type. 

Also present in smaller numbers are roads, trash 

dumps, homesteads, locations associated with 

ranching or herding, agricultural features, 

components associated with logging, a mining 

claim, and ice/water collection locations. 

Camps without structures do not have 

architectural features but may have nonarchitectural features of which fire pits or hearths 

are the most common. These components may be 

related to any number of historic activities at El 

Malpais. Camps without structures range from 

very ephemeral use to those that show evidence of 

repeated use. Camps with structures have 

architectural features, most commonly 

architectural rubble, in addition to a number of 

non-architectural features. In general, camps with 

structures appear to be more permanent than those 

without structures. 

Roads are relatively short (less than 150 m 

long), have few associated features or artifacts, 

and probably are related to logging or clearing 

brush. Trash dumps are relatively dense concentrations of trash representing intentional, localized 

refuse disposal. Ranching/herding components 

are associated with corrals or pens and often have 

a variety of non-architectural features as well. The 

agricultural components have check dams, and one 

has a sump hole with wooden cribbing. 

Logging activity is evident at several 

components. Two in particular stand out. One is 

a logging camp and possible sawmill associated 

with a number of architectural and nonarchitectural features, historic trash, and milled 

lumber. The other is a sawmill and lumber camp 
174 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

operated by Ted Groff. which contains the remains 

of the sawmill, more than a dozen domestic 

structures, and several dense concentrations of 

trash. 

Two homestead components, known as the 

Garrett homestead and the Alben homestead, were 

recorded. Homesteads contain architectural and 

non-architectural features including domestic 

structures and historic refuse scatters. The Garrett 

homestead has a small masonry house, numerous 

outbuildings. several walls and rubble 

concentrations, and several trash concentrations. 

There is also one example of mining activity-a 

mining claim in a tobacco tin associated with a 

large cairn. One historic component appears to 

represent historic collection of water or ice from 

Navajo Cave. 

Many historic components and isolated 

occurrences could not be dated. Of those that 

were dateable mostly through the large number of 

metal cans recorded, the period between 1920 and 

1950 appears to be the most active. Fewer 

components date from 1900 to 1920 or after 1950. 

Several components appear to pre-date 1900. It 

was difficult to determine the cultural affiliation of 

most historic components. Euroamerican 

manufactured goods were the most common on 

historic components, but they may have been used 

by any ethnic group. Unless there was something 

clearly ethnic present in the cultural remains, 

components were called "Historic Unknown." 

Although several Native American groups used 

the El Malpais area historically, only two Native 

American components were identified. Acoma, 

Zuni, Laguna, and Ramah Navajo used the area 

for hunting, herding, ranching, and maintaining 

religious shrines. Hispanics and Anglos also used 

the area, but it is often difficult to differentiate 

these cultural affiliations in the archeological 

remains. 

There appears to be some spatial 

differentiation in the historic use of the El Malpais 

area. Logging and other activities that leave 

evidence of camps and create trash dumps are 

more common on the west side. The east side was 

often the location of homesteads, ranching and 

herding activities, and agricultural features. 

Temporally, the east and west sides do not appear 

to differ. Both have evidence of pre-1900 and 

post-1950 use. and in each area the main period of 

activity was 1920 to 1950. 

Concluding Remarks 

A total of 2,737 ha (6.763 acres) were 

surveyed in Phase I, which represents 

approximately 39 percent of the total El Malpais 

National Monument survey sample area. While 

both the random and judgmental samples are far 

from complete, the data recovered so far suggest 

intermittent human use of the malpais over much 

of the last 12.000 years. Unsurprisingly. Puebloan 

and Historic period archeological materials occur 

in much higher frequency than Paleoindian and 

Archaic materials. The majority of Puebloan 

materials date from approximately A.D. 900 to 

1150. which suggests a significant and 

concentrated era of use of the lava bed and its 

margins coincident with the Pueblo II period boom 

in population and the concomitant expansion of 

settlement throughout much of the Colorado 

Plateau. The final 100 years of this period also 

coincide with the spread of Chacoan great houses 

and their associated communities. One such 

community. Las Ventanas was surveyed as part of 

the project, and others are known in the Cebolla 

and Armijo Canyon areas along the east margin of 

the malpais. Although the El Malpais area 

continues to be occupied after A.D. 1150. 

habitation within the park boundaries ceases, and 

use is limited to a variety of specialized activities 

related to farming, plant gathering, hunting, and 

religious activities. Habitation is confined to 

apparently more productive areas at higher 

elevations along the flanks of Cebollita Mesa to 

the east and in the El Morro Valley to the west. 

By about A.D. 1350 or 1400, even the large 

aggregated pueblos in these areas are abandoned. 

Late prehistoric and early historic use of El 

Malpais, while undoubtedly occurring, has left 

few visible traces. Following pacification of the 

Navajo and construction of the railroad, Euroamerican activity throughout the region increases 

markedly with material remains of the 1920 to 

1950 era most frequent. 
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 175 

Although based on an incomplete sample, the 

data collected during Phase I have allowed 

preliminary examination of several key research 

issues. An initial chronological framework based 

on discrimination of temporal differences in 

ceramic assemblages has been developed and 

should be refined and improved during the 

remaining phases of the project as the sample is 

increased. Refinement of the production spans of 

individual ceramic types through examination of 

tree-ring dated contexts, and perhaps through new 

excavations, will be crucial to narrowing the time 

ranges of the current assemblage clusters. The 

preliminary functional typology presented here, 

particularly the criteria used for separating 

habitation and non-habitation components, should 

be independently evaluated using a variety of 

architectural and artifactual attributes. Climatic 

and environmental variation and their relationship 

to settlement and population growth and decline 

are crucial aspects of the data base that hold great 

potential for further detailed investigation. The 

temporal correlation between abandonment of the 

El Malpais habitations and the collapse of the 

Chacoan system around A.D.I 150 raises questions 

about the relative importance of, and roles played 

by environmental and social factors and the effects 

of their interplay upon the El Malpais' expanding 

twelfth century population. The Phase 1 artifact 

data suggest the operation of independent ceramic 

and lithic exchange networks involving both local 

and broader, regional exchange systems. 

Recovery of additional data from the remaining 

sample areas will undoubtedly clarify, and perhaps 

resolve, some of the unexpected patterns observed 

between the Phase I sample units, particularly for 

lithic materials. As a whole, the El Malpais region 

presents as many challenging opportunities for 

archeological investigation as any area in the 

Southwest, and we hope that in future years, that 

challenge and the research begun here will be 

carried forward to the benefit of the park and its 

visitors. 

1

 In a number of cases, sites identified in the field as 

having more than one Puebloan component were lumped into 

a single Puebloan component during the cluster analysis due 

to small sample sizes and the impossibility of distinguishing 

these component samples statistically. 
Appendix 1 

Site Recording Manuals and Forms 

177 
178 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

El Malpais Archeological Survey 

2002 Site Recording Form Manual 

A SITE is defined as an assemblage of 10 or more artifacts with or without a feature, or a feature with or without 

artifacts. The boundary of a site is marked when the distance from one artifact to the next is greater than 20 meters. 

When a site is found, the Site Recording Form is filled out. 

An ISOLATED OCCURRENCE (IO) is a single artifact such as a projectile point, ceramic vessel, other significant or 

highly unusual artifact, a cluster of sherds from a pot drop, or a single minor feature. If no other artifacts or features are 

found within a 20-m radius, the 10 form is filled out. In an effort to keep IO types consistent, please refer to the list on 

the last page of this manual. 

Please do not add drawings or comments on the back of a page. They are likely to be missed, and it makes 

xeroxing the forms more difficult. Also, please don't use partial pieces of paper for drawings or notes, use a fullsize piece. 

The following instructions pertain to the Site Recording Form, however, several fields are also on the IO form and the 

same directions apply to those. 

Final Check List: Check or give count as appropriate. For artifact forms, indicate the number of forms. This should be 

completed after documentation of the site. 

Field No. ELMA- Enter number following the ELMA prefix as assigned by the crew chief. This number will serve as 

the temporary field number and will be marked on the aluminum site stake in form of "ELMA xxx" as the reference 

number for park records. The ELMA field number should be written on the top of all recording form pages and used for 

labeling all associated documentation (topo maps, photo logs, GPS logs, etc.). When re-recording sites—if an ELMA# 

has been previously assigned, that number should be maintained. If several previously recorded ELMA sites are rerecorded as a single site, the newly recorded site should be assigned only one of the previous ELMA #s, although all the 

ELMA #s should be listed under "Previous Site Nos./Names/Dates" in the "Previous Investigations" section. If the site 

was previously recorded using another temporary field numbering system and/or LA#, it will still require an ELMA#. 

LA#: This refers to the Laboratory of Anthropology site number. For newly recorded sites, LA# will be assigned later 

and should be left blank. If a site already has an LA#, it should be entered here. If two or more previously recorded 

LA# sites are re-recorded as one site, only one of the LA#s should be maintained (preferably the earliest), although all 

LA #s should be listed under "Previous Site Nos./Names/Dates" in the "Previous Investigations" section. 

Priority U: Pre-assigned number used to identify the survey area (taken from the map of sample areas). This refers to 

the larger area you are in, not the smaller "grid number" (see below). 

Grid #: This will be completed in the lab. 

Burn #: If you are in one of the park's burn units, enter that number here. 

Survey Organization: This has been filled in for you. 

Recorders (15 char): Enter three initials for each crew member with crew chief listed first (e.g.. MSP.JDO.ECF.CLM). 

Date: Recording date by month (2 charac), day (2 charac), and year (2 charac.) (e.g., 05-20-02). 

Start & Finish time: Record your start and finish times using military time (1000, 1200, 1600, etc.). Start time should 

reflect when you first arrive on the site, finish time should indicate when you've completed all recording tasks and have 

picked up the pinflags. If site recording spans more than one day. show both start and finish times. 

Total time: Subtract the start time from the finish time, and enter the product. This will be completed by the lab 

archaeologist. 
SITE RECORDING MANUALS AND FORMS 1 79 

I. SITE CLASSIFICATION 

Indicate only one component type or cultural affiliation per component number! Choose from the lists below, and use 

the code and text in the appropriate spaces. 

Component Type: Choose one that best describes the component's major feature. Use code & text. 

01 Pueblo ( 3 rooms) 09 Agricultural 21 Road 

02 Small structure (1-2 rooms) II Thermal feature 22 Trail 

90 Great house 12 Storage 30 Stone circle 

91 Possible structure 13 Lithic/ceramic scatter 40 Camp 

04 Pitstructure 14 Ceramic scatter 50 Pot cache 

92 Kiva 15 Lithic scatter 94 Reservoir (domestic) 

93 Great kiva 23 Historic trash 95 Rock art/inscriptions 

06 Rockshelter 17 Quarry 98 Unknown 

08 I lomestead ranch 18 Shrine 99 Other (describe) 

96 Animal husbandry 20 Rock cluster, indet. 

Cultural Affiliation: enter appropriate affiliation of each component. Use code & text. 

01 Paleoindian 

02 Archaic 

03 Basketmaker 

04 Puebloan 

05 Navajo 

06 Native American (specific culture group and/or temporal association unknown) 

07 Euroamerican 

08 Spanish 

09 Unknown 

10 Historic, unknown affiliation 

99 Other (use for any cultural affiliation not listed above; describe) 

Period: Insert the estimated occupation dates or time period based on ceramic, lithic. or other evidence. 

Dating Method: Indicate which dating technique(s) you used for each component. Use code & text. 

00 None 

01 Ceramics 

02 Projectile points 

03 Other artifacts 

04 Features 

05 Dendro 

06 Radiocarbon 

07 Obsidian hydration 

08 Architectural style 

99 Other (specify) 

Brief narrative of site: Give a short, succinct summary of what is there (components, features). 

VT site? Indicate "Yes" or "No." A "VT" site has a structure or group of related structures that are "ruined," have 

exposed intact structural fabric (stone: stacked stone, alignments, structural rubble, as well as wall remnants, cairns, lava 

bridges, masonry shrines, granaries; earthen: berms; wood: beams, construction boards, posts, etc.), and are no longer 

used. 
180 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

2._ LOCATION: 

State: New Mexico has been filled in for you. 

County: Cibola County has been filled in for you. 

Topo/Quad: Enter the name of topo/quad map. 

Aerial #: Enter the aerial photo number. 

GPS file#: Enter GPS file #. 

UTM Zone: Circle whether the UTM is in Zone 12 or 13. The monument is located in two UTM zones. 

Easting & Northing will be filled in later 

T, R, '/J, %,'/«, Section: Lab archaeologist will enter as appropriate. 

Site Location Access: Provide a brief description of how to find the site using named landmarks whenever possible and 

be consistent when referring to named places and roads. 

3. ENVIRONMENT AND SITE SETTING: 

Aspect: This variable describes the direction of the downward slope of the site's setting. Record this as a cardinal 

direction (e.g.. N. SSW, etc.). If the sites is on an open fiat area with a 360° view, enter "999." 

Slope: Slope is measured in degrees below horizontal. Enter the slope of the landform on which the site is located. Use 

a clinometer or the slope meter on your compass to determine the slope in degrees (not percentage). If the site is level, 

enter "0." If it is variable, with multiple slopes, enter "999". 

Elevation: Enter elevation in feet from the USGS topo map. 

Landform(s): Refers to the immediate site location. Enter up to 2 codes for landform. if applicable. 

01 alluvial fan: cone-shaped deposit of alluvium that forms at drainage mouth. Often found where mountain runoff 

empties onto plain. 

02 arroyo/wash: channel of ephemeral or intermittent stream with banks of usually unconsolidated material, often 

vertical. 

03 Bench terrace: narrow strip of mostly level land usually parallel to and higher than valley bottom. Long axis of 

bench parallels stream, and often drops vertically to stream. Edge away from stream often bounded by steep, 

ascending slope 

04 blowout: hollow depression in sand deposit formed by wind erosion. 

03 marsh: low area, usually water logged, supports riparian vegetation. 

06 cave, ice: cave with ice formations. 

07 cliff •'bluff: steep, high rock face or slope forming margin of mesa; any headland with precipitous face. 

08 cliff base: foot of high, steep, or overhanging rock face. 

09 dune: mound, hill, or ridge of windblown sand. silt. 

10 valley: low-lying area bounded by hills, mesas, or mountains, often traversed by drainages from uplands. 

11 hill/mesa slope: sloping side of well-defined natural elevation: smaller than mountain. 

12 hill/mesa top crest, summit of well-defined natural elevation: smaller than mountain; includes volcanic plug, and 

cinder cones. 

13 lava flow: "malpais": solid or crumbled mass of basalt rock resulting from volcanic flow. 

14 lava tube: linear cave-like feature in lava flow formed by complete or partial withdrawal of molten lava after crust 

formation. 

15 plain/flat: extensive level or gently undulating terrain, unbroken by marked elevation change. 

16 ridge: relatively narrow, steep-sided elevation, often occurring between drainages. 

17 saddle: low point on ridge; often concave indent on spine of elevation; divide. 
SITE RECORDING MANUALS AND FORMS 181 

18 talus slope: slope created by accumulation of boulders, rocks, and scree below steeper slope. 

19 cave: natural cavity, chamber beneath earth surface or in rock face. 

20 rock shelter: overhang, indentation, or alcove formed naturally by erosion or rock fall in a rock face: usually not of 

great depth. 

21 lava edge: interface between lava termination and land beyond flow. 

22 kipuka: "island" of land surrounded by lava. 

23 low rise: minor though distinct elevation above surrounding terrain. 

Deposition Type: Indicate significant depositional or erosional processes that have contributed to the formation of 

archeological deposits on the sites. Enter code(s) for primary types. 

00 None 

01 Aeolian: wind-deposited sediments. 

02 Alluvial: water-deposited sediment and rock 

03 Colluvial: sediment and rock deposited by gravity and other processes. 

05 Bedrock, other: non-lava bedrock. 

07 Residual: in situ decomposing bedrock. 

10 Lava: molten rock flowing on eartlrs surface: can be smooth, ropy (pahoe-hoe) or sharp, rubbly (a-a). 

99 Other: write in descriptive term when none of above apply. 

Soil Type: Based on general field observations; insert code(s) for one primary soil type, two if applicable. 

00 Lava 

02 Clay loam: very fine-grained, high percentages of clay and organic material: can be impervious to water. 

05 Sand: siliceous deposit; medium-coarse in texture; composed mostly of quartz particles. 

08 Sandy loam: clay, silt, sand, and organic material, high percentage of organic material with sandy texture. 

10 Silty clay: fine-grained, clay and silt, high percentage of silt in the clay. 

11 Silty clay loam: clay, silt, and organic material, high percentages of silt and clay in organic matrix. 

12 Silty loam: silt and organic material with high percentage of silt and organic matter. 

13 Gravels: very coarse grained. 

14 Bedrock, other 

15 Cinders 

16 Silty sand: fine- to medium grained, sand and silt: high percentage of silt in sand matrix 

99 Other: specify what it is. 

Veg. Community: Record the primary on-site vegetation community code for the overstory. Four communities have 

been identified in El Malpais (Bleakly 1997:113) 

Ol-Mixed conifer woodland community: This community is composed primarily of Ponderosa pine with 

lesser numbers of Douglas fir. Rocky Mt. Juniper, and pinyon pine. It covers most of the four older flows and adjacent 

areas in the northwest. This is the highest portion of the monument (up to about 2438 m or 8000 ft) and is contiguous 

with the Zuni Mts. McCartys, the youngest flow, is nearly barren or sparsely vegetated with shrubs, grasses, and stunted 

conifers, common in the northwestern part of the monument, 

02-Pinyon-juniper woodland or Shrub/conifer community: Pinyon-juniper woodland comprises the majority 

of this community. It is most common on the sedimentary substrates or on cinders in the monument, ponderosa pines 

can also be present. 

03 and 04-Grassland and grass/shrub-land communities: These communities dominate the landscape 

surrounding and on the youngest flows. The Grassland community (03) is most common on the east and south in 

North Pasture and the North Plains. The alluviul deposits adjacent to the flows also supports grasslands. Typical grasses 

are blue grama, and sideoats grama, little bluestem. three-awns, squirreltail. junegrass, and ring muhley. Common 

shrubs are rubber rabbitbrush, gray horsebrush, sages, and broom snakeweed. One-seed junipers are occasionally 

present, especially on lave outcrops. This community has been heavily grazed for > 100 years. 

The Grass/shrub-land community (04) is best developed on the west along the middle part of County Road 

42. This community is also present on the old basalt in the south and west portions of the monument, areas with welldeveloped eolian soils overlying the old basalt flows. The grass/shrub-land community, which includes stunted conifers, 

also occurs on the lava flows, particularly McCartys and on a-a lava of the upper Bandera flow. The most typical shrubs 
182 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

include Apache plume. New Mexico olive, and fragrant ash. Stunted ponderosa and pinyon pines are present on the 

younger flows. The grasses are the same as those found in the grassland community. 

Cinders are a loose substrate that supports similar vegetation to sedimentary soils. Pinyon-juniper woodland is 

found on cinders as well as on sandy substrates near sandstone outcrops. The alligator juniper is also found on cinders, 

possibly because they retain more moisture than the sedimentary soils. 

Lava edges and edges between flows often support denser vegetation, primarily because of collection of runoff 

from non-lava substrates and from lava edges. Aspen trees are found at these edges and often in small collapses within 

the flows. 

Ice-cave communities typically form bands of growth, especially different lichen species, that occur 

consistently from the deeper, colder, moister depths of the caves to the warmer, drier regions nearer the entrances. 

Mosses are present in many ice-cave entrances, and a particular gooseberry (Ribes inerme) occurs exclusively in icecave collapses. 

Nearest Water: Enter appropriate code for nearest water source and name if there is one, from topo map; indicate 

whether water type is intermittent (01) or permanent (02): enter direction using letter abbreviations (N, NE, ENE. 

etc.), and distance in meters (from topo map). If the water source is on-site, enter distance as 0 (zero). 

01 Stream/arroyo - Streambed in a desert area that can be transformed into a temporary watercourse after heavy rain. 

02 Spring/seep - continuous or intermittent flow of water from ground (spring), or a slow ooze of groundwater onto the 

surface of rock or earth (seep). 

03 Ice cave - cave or collapsed lava tube in which perpetual ice forms because cold, dense winter air sinks in the cave, 

and density stratification between the cold air and the lighter summer air keeps warmer air from entering the cave. 

04 Pothole/tinaja - a hole or depression worn into rock by the circulating action of wind or water, sand, gravel that 

becomes filled with water during precipitation. 

05 Ephemeral pond - a small, temporary body of water that fills during heavy precipitation 

06 Cave, other - natural recess, cavity, or chamber(s), or lava tube collapse, that is open horizontally or vertically to the 

outside. 

99 Other - specify'water source if not one of the above. 

Site setting description: Brief narrative description of the site setting. Use words not codes. 

4. SITE CONDITION. IMPACTS. THREATS: 

Site Condition: Overall condition of the site based on the cumulative effect of all site impacts. 

01 Good—no clear evidence of major negative disturbance or deterioration by natural forces or human 

activities; site is stable; no treatment required in near future. 

02 Fair—clear evidence of minor disturbance and deterioration by natural forces or human activity; with no 

corrective action, site will degrade to poor; corrective action recommended for stabilizing site. 

03 Poor—clear evidence of major disturbance and deterioration by natural forces or human activity; with no 

corrective action, destruction of remaining site integrity and data potential anticipated; corrective action 

may be required. 

04 Unknown-site condition unknown; available information insufficient to evaluate condition. 

Impact/disturbance- a detectable result of natural forces or human activities that has had a negative effect on the 

integrity or data potential/scientific research value of the site. 

Site Impact/Disturbance Type: Check the type(s) that apply (they are listed on the form and below): 

01 Bioturbation 07 Grazing 12 Vandalism 

02 Construction/development 08 Logging 13 Vegetation 

03 Deflation 09 Recreation 14 Aggradation 

04 Erosion-water 10 Road 99 Other (specify) 

05 Erosion-wind 11 Trail 00 None 

06 Fire 

Impact/Disturbance Level: Indicate the impact level for each impact type checked above according to the following 

scale: 
SITE RECORDING MANUALS AND FORMS 183 

00 None 

01 Destroyed—the effect has destroyed the site: 

02 Severe—the effect is so great that the site is in the advanced stages of being destroyed. The site or major 

parts of it will likely be irretrievably lost if actions aren't taken to protect or preserve it. 

03 Moderate—the effect is significant and the site is in the intermediate stage of being destroyed. The 

disturbance is causing, or the threat of that disturbance is leading to. significant site damage. 

04 Low—the effect is minimal and the site is in the preliminary stages of deterioration. The effects of the 

disturbance are minimal, and are not yet causing significant damage. 

99 Other. 

Threat- detectable condition, natural force, or human action that has not yet caused site damage, but that has the 

potential to do so if not corrected. It is predicted or expected to have a harmful effect. Threats can predict 

impacts/disturbances. 

Site Threat Type: Use the appropriate Site Impact Types above and enter the code next to Threat Type. 

Threat Effect Level: Use the following codes to estimate threat level: 

00 None 

01 High- total loss, irretrievable. If left uncorrected, a severe threat can lead to this level of impact to a site. 

02 Moderate- partial loss, potentially irretrievable. Either the threat will take a longer time to result in total 

loss, or the threatened impact is not as potentially destructive as in the former situation. 

03 Low- partial loss, can be repaired or mitigated. Either the threat will take longer than the previous two 

selections to have a severe effect or resuit in total loss to a site, or loss or damage will be partial and 

correctable. 

04 Negligible- no measurable threat is evident. 

05 Unknown level. The archeologist is unable to identify the threat to a site, despite examination of its 

condition. The impact is recognizable, but its threat to site integrity is not evident. 

06 Emergency- impacts are severe and threat of impacts is immediate. Specify if the site needs attention 

within 6 months. 

Fire threats (potential): Provide percentages of brushy ground cover and pine duff cover on-site and count the 

number of downed logs > 3" diam., standing snags, and stumps. You may estimate if an exact count is not possible. 

Enter 0 if not applicable - do not leave blank. 

Comments: Elaborate if necessary to make clear what the threats and their level of potential impact are. 

5. SITE EVALUATION: 

This section is for recording site eligibility for the National Register and its potential to yield further information for 

research and interpretation. 

NRHP Eligibility: Eligibility recommendations as suggested by your crew chief using the following codes: 

01 Eligible 

02 Not eligible 

99 Unknown, need more data 

00 Not applicable 

NRHP Criteria: Enter all applicable criteria for site eligibility using the following codes: 

01=Criterion A Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of our 

history. 

02=Criterion B Associated with the lives of persons significant to our past. 

03=Criterion C Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; or 

represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or that represent a significant and 

distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. 

04=Criterion D Has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. 
184 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Research Potential: Assessment of research potential—consider preservation, uniqueness, and dating potential in 

making this evaluation. 

00 None 

01 Low 

02 Moderate 

03 High 

Basis for Recommendation: Consider the following: 1) why the site was found to meet the eligibility criteria; or 2) why 

the site was recommended as not eligible; and 3) why the site was evaluated as eligibility unknown and what additional 

information is needed. 

Recommendations: Check all applicable recommendations; 

01 No further work—the site does not require any further work or management consideration under present 

conditions 

02 Additional research—site is worthy of consideration for additional research 

03 Records search—Conduct background research (primarily pertains to historic sites); e.g., literature search, 

oral history, ethnographic research, review of early plats and maps 

04 Collect—for actively eroding/threatened sites; mitigate loss via data recovery 

05 Test—for actively eroding/threatened sites; mitigate loss via data recovery; or test to confirm that 

questionable features/sites are a feature/site 

06 Excavate—for actively eroding/threatened sites; mitigate loss via data recovery 

07 Monitor condition—periodic inspections to track changes in condition due to natural and human causes 

(ideally all sites are recommended for monitoring, however check this recommendation if the site is higher 

priority or of greater concern than the "'norm'") 

08 Stabilization/backfill—to halt deterioration. 

09 Erosion control—to direct water flow around rather than through a site in cases where it is possible to do 

so without otherwise impacting the site. 

10 Chronometric dating-sampling for appropriate chronometric dating, such as radiocarbon, dendros. 

thermoluminescence. archeomag. etc. 

99 Other - specify 

6. PHOTOGRAPHS: 

This record is in addition to the Photo Log. 

Roll #: enter the film roll number (pre-numbered on the canister): preface the number with a B (for black and white) or 

C (for color). Thus, the roll # for year 2002 will be B02-01. B02-02. C02-01. etc. 

Exposure #: Exposure number as indicated on the camera's counter. Make sure the counter reads the same number as 

the entry in the Photo Log. Always write down photos even if they are mistakes. 

Brief description: Give a short description of the shot, including direction, people in photo (if any), features (code and 

text). 

7. COLLECTION: 

This record is to be filled out in addition to the FS Log and artifact bag tag for collected artifacts. 

FS#: assigned by the lab archaeologist or by your crew chief 

Artifact #: Use same number as you use on the artifact inventory forms, if appropriate. 

Description: Use standardized terminology, describe from general to specific, and be consistent in terminology. 

Examples: 

Sherd. St. Johns BR. bowl bodv 
SITE RECORDING MANUALS AND FORMS 185 

Projectile point, Elko corner notched, chert, San Andres 

8. SITE DATA: 

This refers to the site as a whole, not individual components. 

Maximum Site Dimensions: Length and width measurements at the widest points in meters. Measurements may be 

paced to the nearest meter. 

Site Area: Length x width from above. Unless the site boundary is a very odd shape, multiplying the measurements is 

sufficient. 

Stratigraphy & Depth of Areheological Deposits: check the appropriate box and fill in the Estimated Depth of 

Deposits, if you were able to determine this, and check the Basis for Depth Determinations. 

Assemblage size (all components): check the appropriate boxes for artifact classes and their corresponding estimated 

frequency. Provide counts only when there are fewer than 100 items in an artifact class. 

Dating potential: Check all appropriate boxes based on your evaluation of the site. 

Assemblage remarks: If you need to say something about the artifact assemblage, keep if brief and concise. 

Previous Investigations: 

Previous Site Nos./Names: Enter all known temporary and permanent site numbers and names that were used prior to 

this survey. If combining two or more previously recorded sites, make sure all site numbers are shown. 

Project Name/Type/Date: Indicate when, conducted by whom, and what type of project. 

Site Markers: Describe the type and location of any previously placed site markers and show the location on site sketch 

map (make sure to differentiate between the old and new site markers on the map). 

Surface Collection: Indicate, if known, whether the site was previously collected and how: also indicate where the 

collection is. if known. 

Excavation: Indicate whether site was previously excavated and by whom, if known. Also indicate how it was 

excavated, if known. 

Comments: Additional comments as necessary. 

9. FEATURES 

Features are recorded separately by component, and each component has its own feature page. 

Architectural Features: Features are numbered within feature type within a component. For example, Component 1 

has two pueblos (01-1 & 01-2) and one small structure (02-1); Component 2 has one small structure (02-1) and a 

possible structure (03-1). 

Feature Type: choose from the following list of codes: 

01 Pueblo (> 3 rooms) 20 Depression 

90 Great house 10 Structure, historic 

02 Small structure (1-2 rooms) 08 Hogan 

03 Structure, possible 09 Granary 

15 Structure, other 12 Stone circle 

11 Rubble, architectural 17 Shrine 

04 Pitstructure 98 Archit. feat., unknown 

21 Kiva 99 Archit. feat., other 

91 Great kiva 

Feat. #: 1 to n depending on how many features are of the same type (e.g.. 3 pitstructures are 04-1. 04-2, 04-3). 
186 EL MALPAIS ARCIIEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Struct. Dimen. (LxVVxH): Structure dimensions at widest points, measured to nearest 10 of meter, only if structure 

boundaries are clear. This is the size of the structure as built, if still visible, and not the extent of rubble. If only one 

original dimension is measurable, enter that dimension in the appropriate field. If the feature is circular, enter the 

diameter under length and width. 

Rubble Dimen. (LxVVxH): Rubble dimensions at widest points, measured to nearest 10th of meter. This is intended to 

include wall fall and rubble that extends beyond the original construction footprint. Always fill in the rubble dimension 

even if it is the same as the structure dimension. 

Shape: This is for constructed shape, use indeterminate/unknown if you can't tell: 

05 D-shaped 

06 U-shaped 

07 L-shaped 

08 Linear 

09 Arcuate 

10 Irregular 

99 Indeterminate/unknown 

# Rooms visible: The number of rooms actually definable, based on visibility of two or more walls. 

# Rooms estimated: This estimate includes visible rooms, adjustments for multiple stories, and any additional rooms 

based on the extent of the roomblock. 

# Stories: At highest point. For a baseline guide, you may equate 2 m with each story. 

Constr. Methods: Use two categories as necessary; code the predominant type first. The data should reflect original 

feature construction, not present condition. 

01 Coursed masonry 

02 Uncoursed masonry 

03 Semi-coursed masonry 

04 Single stone 

05 Vertical slab 

06 Jacal 

07 Adobe 

08 Core veneer 

09 Excavated 

10 Natural shelter 

1 I Log construction 

12 Frame construction 

13 Upright posts 

14 Rock concentration 

15 Rock alignment 

16 Double stone 

98 Other (specify) 

99 Unknown/indet. (specify) 

Constr. Materials: Use two categories as necessary; code the predominant type first. The data should reflect original 

feature construction, not present condition. 

01 Sandstone, shaped 

02 Limestone, shaped 

03 Mixed stone, shaped 

04 Stone, shaped, other 

05 Sandstone, unshaped 

06 Limestone, unhaped 

07 Mixed stone, unshaped 

08 Basalt, unshaped 

09 Basalt, shaped 

10 Unshaped. other 

11 Boulders, sandstone 

12 Boulders, limestone 

13 Boulders, basalt 

14 Bedrock, sandstone 

15 Bedrock, limestone 

16 Lava flow (basalt) 

17 Mortar/adobe 

18 Vegetal material 

19 Wood (natural) 

20 Milled lumber 

21 Concrete 

22 Metal 

98 Other (specify) 

99 Unknown/indet. (specify) 

Room sizes: If there are measurable rooms in a structure, indicate the Feat. Type and # (e.g., 02-1), Room #(1,2, etc.), 

interior length to the nearest 10" of meter, and interior width to the nearest 10"' of meter. Do this only for rooms with 

portions of all 4 walls visible. Number the measured rooms on the site map. 

01 Rectangular 

02 Square 

03 Circular 

04 Oval 
SITE RECORDING MANUALS AND FORMS 187 

Non-architectural features: Features are numbered within feature type within a component. For example, Component 

1 has two rubble scatters (93-1 & 93-2) and one hearth (26-1); Component 2 has one rubble scatter (93-1). 

Feature Type: choose from the following list of codes and names 

13 Storage cist 

05 Wall" 

93 Rubble scatter 

07 Sweat lodge 

16 Windbreak 

25 Game trap 

26 Firepit/hearth 

27 Ash stain 

28 Fire-cracked rock conceit. 

29 Thermal feature, other 

30 Rock alignment 

31 Rock concentration/pile 

32 Cairn 

33 Quarry 

35 Check dam (agric.) 

36 Grid garden 

90 Other agricultural 

37 Reservoir 

38 Corral 

39 Pen 

40 Fence 

41 Road 

49 Trail 

50 Hand/toe holds 

46 Rock art (prehistoric) 

47 Inscriptions (historic) 

60 Blazed tree 

91 Earth berm/mound 

71 Shrine (non-architectural) 

92 Vessel or other cache 

94 Bedrock grinding/sharpening 

98 Unknown non-archit. Feat. 

99 Other/indet. non-archit. feat. 

Feat. #: 1 to n depending on how many features are of the same type (e.g.. 2 firepits are 26-1, 26-2). 

Feat. Diinen. (LxVVxH): Feature dimensions at widest points, measured to nearest lO1'

1

 of meter, only if feature 

boundaries are clear. This is the size of the feature as built, if still visible, and not the extent of rubble. If only one 

original dimension is measurable, enter that dimension in the appropriate field. If the feature is circular, enter the 

diameter under length and width. 

Feat. (Rubble) Extent. (LxVVxH): Feature dimensions at widest points, measured to nearest 10lh of meter. This is 

intended to include rubble that extends beyond the original construction footprint. Always fill in the rubble dimension 

even if it is the same as the feature dimension. 

Shape: This is for constructed shape, use indeterminate/unknown if you can't tell: 

01 Rectangular 

02 Square 

03 Circular 

04 Oval 

05 D-shaped 

06 U-shaped 

07 L-shaped 

08 Linear 

09 Arcuate 

10 Irregular 

99 Indeterminate/unknown 

Constr. Methods: Use two categories as necessary; code the predominant type first. The data should reflect original 

feature construction, not present condition. 

01 Coursed masonry 

02 Uncoursed masonry 

03 Semi-coursed masonry 

04 Single stone 

05 Vertical slab 

06 Jacal 

07 Adobe 

08 Core veneer 

09 Excavated 

10 Natural shelter 

11 Log construction 

12 Frame construction 

13 Upright posts 

14 Rock concentration 

15 Rock alignment 

16 Double stone 

98 Other (specify) 

99 Unknown/indet. (specify) 

Constr. Materials: Use two categories as necessary; code the predominant type first. The data should reflect original 

feature construction, not present condition. 

01 Sandstone, shaped 

02 Limestone, shaped 

03 Mixed stone, shaped 

04 Stone, shaped, other 

11 Boulders, sandstone 

12 Boulders, limestone 

13 Boulders, basalt 

14 Bedrock, sandstone 

21 Concrete 

22 Metal 

98 Other (specify) 

99 Unknown/indet. (specify) 
188 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

05 Sandstone, unshaped 15 Bedrock, limestone 

06 Limestone, unhaped 16 Lava flow (basalt) 

07 Mixed stone, unshaped 17 Mortar/adobe 

08 Basalt, unshaped 18 Vegetal material 

09 Basalt, shaped 19 Wood (natural) 

10 Unshaped, other 20 Milled lumber 

Artifact Scatters: Identify artifact scatters within components. Use the following codes for the type of scatter: 

65 Mixed lithic and sherd scatter— Neither are a dominant part of the assemblage. Determine percentage of 

lithics and ceramics in the scatter based on site observations and on the results of sampling procedures 

when applicable. Percentage is an estimate only. 

66 Ceramic-dominant lithic and ceramic scatter—At least 80% of the artifacts are ceramics (< 20% are 

lithics). Even if you only have a few lithics on an otherwise extensive ceramic scatter, you would use this 

scatter type (i.e., if you have both ceramics and lithics in your analytical sample, you must record the 

scatter as lithic and ceramic). 

67 Lithic-dominant lithic and ceramic scatter—At least 80% of the artifacts are lithics (< 20% are ceramics). 

Even if you only have a few ceramics on an otherwise extensive lithic scatter, you would use this scatter 

type (i.e., if you have both lithics and ceramics in your analytical sample, you must record the scatter as 

lithic and ceramic). 

68 Ceramic scatter 

69 Lithic scatter 

70 Midden 

71 Pot drop 

72 Historic trash scatter 

73 Historic trash dump 

98 Unknown 

99 Other (specify) 

Scatter #: 1 to n depending on how many scatters are the same type (e.g., 65-1, 65-2). 

Dimensions (in): Maximum length x width to nearest tenth of a meter. 

10. ARTIFACT SAMPLE AREAS 

Selecting Sample Areas: These are some general guidelines for choosing sample areas. In general, the aim is to 

analyze 1% of the ceramics and lithics on a site. This will vary, of course, depending on situations you encounter in the 

field. Sometimes, you will want to sample several features, possibly with a 100% sample. Sample areas should be 

linear transects whenever possible and should be placed in areas of abundance that represent the range of the artifact 

assemblage on the entire feature, component, or site. The first sample area, called the "core area," should be defined to 

include lithics and ceramics when both are present, and all items within the core area should be analyzed. 

Lithic samples: If the core area does not represent 1% of the lithics. additional samples should be selected to 

bring the sample up to 1%. Each sample area should be recorded on a separate lithic form. Please do not combine 

samples on a single page because it complicates data entry. In addition to recording all the lithics in the sample area(s), 

all flaked lithic tools and groiindstone on the entire site should be recorded if the analyzed samples are only a portion of 

a site. Any "rest of site" samples can be done on one tool form. 

Ceramic samples: The primary aim of the ceramic analysis is to analyzed approximately 200 sherds per 

sampled feature so that occupation dates can be assigned to the site (or component or feature). If the 200 sherds do not 

represent a 1% sample of the estimated number of sherds, expand the sample area to collect a 1% sample. Each sample 

area should be recorded on a separate ceramic form. 

Filling out the lithic and ceramic forms: To facilitate data entry, we ask that if you use tick or tally marks on the 

debitage and ceramic forms, please clearly indicate the total count for each cell on the form. If it is possible to 

temporarily collect the items you're analyzing, then you can sort them into categories and count them without using tick 

marks. If that isn't possible, please make sure that the tally stands out from the tick marks. 
SITE RECORDING MANUALS AND FORMS 1 89 

Feat. Type/#: Enter the feature type and number being sampled. That is, if you're sampling scatter 65-1. that's what 

goes in this space. If you're sample comes from on top of small structure 02-2, then that's the feature you're sampling. 

Sample #: Samples are numbered consecutively within component and feature. Start with sample # 1 for each feature 

sampled. When sherd and lithic samples are from exactly the same area, each is assigned the same sample number (e.g., 

1). Additional sample areas within the feature receive the next number in the sequence (e.g.. 2). 

Sample Type: Indicate the type of sample according to the following codes: 

10 lithic & ceramic core area 

11 lithic only core area 

12 ceramic only core area 

13 lithic & ceramic supplemental area 

14 lithic only supplemental area 

15 ceramic only supplemental area 

16 mixed euroamerican trash 

17 glass only 

18 metal only 

19 rest of site 

20 other (specify) 

Association: Enter type and number of structure/feature with which the feature being sampled is associated, if any. For 

example, if you have a site with two pueblos (01-1 and 01-2), and your sample is from an artifact scatter directly 

associated with the second pueblo, the association for that sample would be 01-2. Use 00 for general site association. 

Dimensions: Dimensions of sampled area in meters, length x width to tenth of a meter. If sample area is circular, 

provide dimension as a diameter and indicate in comments. 

Area: Area of sample unit in square meters. If the area is not square or rectangular, take this into account when 

calculating the sample area. Try to avoid oddly-shaped sample areas! 

ISOLATED OCCURRENCES (IPs) 

Use the same codes/terminology as on the site form for comparable categories (e.g., landform, soil, etc.). If the IO 

contains several different items, list the IO type according to the most significant item. For example, if it's a cairn with a 

few sherds, call it a cairn. The following represent types found in 2000 and 2001 at El Malpais: 

Bedrock mortar 

Cairn 

Lava bridge 

Hand/toe holds 

Rock pile or concentration 

Rock alignment 

Wall 

Shrine 

Hearth 

Fire-cracked rock 

Ceramic/lithic scatter 

Ceramic scatter 

Lithic scatter 

Pot cache 

Pot drop 

Projectile point 
190 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Groundstone 

Lithic tool, other 

Manuport 

Marker, sandstone or other 

Inscription 

Rock art 

Please use these types for the IOs. If you find something that isn't on this list, write it down and notify the lab 

archaeologist so she can decide the "official" name and can add it to the list. Do not add plural forms of any of the 

above types (e.g.. it's called "Projectile point" even if you find more than one point; the fact that there are 2 of them can 

go in the description.) 

Include relevant size and/or material type in the description section. If your 10 contains a projectile point, don't forget 

to draw it on a separate piece of graph paper. 
SITE RECORDING MANUALS AND FORMS 191 

FINAL CHECK LIST: (check items in first column; give counts for artifact forms) ['age 

Site stake Sketch map Lithic debitage form Hist, glass form 

GPS Photos Lithic tool form Hist, cans, etc. form 

Site location Collections Ceramic form Hist, ceramics form 

Hist misc. form 

EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

2002 SITE RECORDING FORM 

LA No. Priority# Grid# Burn# Organization NFS. 1MSF-CAP 

Date Start time Finish time Total time 

of 

Field No. ELMARecorders 

1. SITE CLASSIFICATION 

Comp. Type 

Comp. #1: 

Cultural Affiliation Period Dating Method 

Comp. #2 

Comp. #3 

Brief narrative of site: 

VTsite? Yes No 

2. LOCATION 

State: New Mexico 

GPS file # 

T N, R VV; 

County: Cibola Topo/Quad 

UTM zone: 12 ] 3 E 

% of the % of the 

Aerial # 

Location/Access 

3. ENVIRONMENT AND SITE SETTING 

N 

% of Section # 

Aspect Slope Elevation ft. 

Landform (code): 

alluvial fan/01 cave/19 

arroyo/wash/02 cave, ice/06 

bench/terrace/03 cliff/bluff/07 

blowout/04 cliff base/08 

(enter one code, two if applicable) 

dune/09 lava llow/13 marsh/05 

hill/mesa slope/11 lava tube/14 plain/flat/15 

hill/mesa top/12 lava edge/21 ridge/16 

kipuka/22 low rise/23 rock shelter/20 

saddle/17 

talus slope/18 

valley/10 

other (specify)/99 

o 
192 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Field No. ELMA- LA No. 

Deposition type (code): , (enter one code, two if applicable) 

aeolian/01 bedrock, other/05 lava/10 other (spceify)/99 

alluvial/02 colluvial/03 residual/07 none/00 

Page of 

Soil type (code): 

clay loam/02 

sand/05 

(specify )/99 

sandy loam/08 

silty clay/10 

(enter one code, two if applicable) 

silty clay loam/11 bedrock, other/14 cinders/15 lava/00 

silts loam/12 gravcls/13 silty sand/16 other 

Vegetation community (code): (enter one code for overstory) 

mixed conifer woodland/01 pinyon-juniper woodland/02 grassland/03 grass/shrubland/04 other (speeify)/99 

Nearest water (code): 

stream/arroyo/01 

spring/seep/02 

Type: Name 

ice eave/03 ephemeral pond/05 

pothole/tinaja/04 cave, other/06 

Direction 

other (specifyV5>9 _ 

Distance 

Site setting description: 

4. SITE CONDITION, IMPACTS, AND THREATS 

Site condition: (01=good. 02=fair. 03=poor. 04=unknown) 

Site impact/Disturbance types: Type Level Type Level 

(enter codes as needed) Type Level Type __ Level 

none/00 erosion-water/04 logging/08 vandalism/12 

bioturbalion/01 erosion-wind/OS recreation/09 vegetation/13 

construction/development/02 lire/06 road/10 aggradation/14 

deflation/03 grazing/07 trail/11 other (speeify)/99 

Impact level: ()0=none. 01=destroved. ()2=severe. 03=moderate. 04=lovv. 99=other. specify 

Site threat types: Type Level Type Level 

(use Impact codes from above) Type Level Type Level 

Threat level: 00=none: 01=hi«h - results in total, irretrievable loss; 02=modcratc - results in partial loss, potentially irretrievable; 03=low -

partial loss, can be repaired or mitigated; 04=negligible; 05=unkno»n level of threat: 06=eniei'gency 

Fire threats (potential): enter counts or percentages as indicated 

% brushy ground cover; _ % pine duff cover: /fdovvn logs > 3" diam.: //standing snags: //stumps 

Comments 
SITE RECORDING MANUALS AND FORMS 193 

Page of 

Field No. ELMA- LANo. 

5. SITE EVALUATION 

NRHP eligibility (00=not applicable; 01=eligible; 02=not eligible; 99=unkno\vn. need more data) 

NRHP citeria for eligibility (01=Criterion A. 02=Criterion B, 03=Criterion C, 04=Criterion I)) 

Research potential (00=none, 01=low. 02=moderate, 03=high) 

Basis for recommendation 

Recommendations: 

no further work/01 

additional research/02 

other (specif) )/99 

, (enter one code, two if applicable) 

records search/03 test/05 monitor condition/07 

collect/04 excavate/06 stabilize/backfill/08 

Comments 

erosion control/09 

chronometric dating/10 

6. PHOTOGRAPHS 

Roll # Exposure Brief Description 

7. ARTIFACT COLLECTION 

FS# Artifact* Description 
194 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Page of 

Field No. ELMA8. SITE DATA 

Maximum Site Dimensions 

LA No. 

Site Area 

Stratigraphy & Depth of Archeological Deposits (choose one): [_~J unknown/not determined 

[7J no subsurface deposits present ETJ subsurface deposits present O stratified subsurface deposits 

present 

Estimated Depth of Deposits: 

Basis for Depth Determinations: O estimated [~J shovel/trowel tests O core/auger tests [~J excavations 

I I road or arroyo cuts fj rodent burrows [~J other observations (describe): 

Assemblage Size (all components): 

artifact class 0 

estimated frequency 

Is 10s 100s 1000s >10,000 'Counts (if <100) 

lithic artifacts (choose one): I I 

(include debitage) 

prehistoric ceramics (choose one): [~J 

• • • • 

D D D D 

historic artifacts (choose one): ETJ CL] L__J [ ] L~! 

total assemblage size (choose one): I I I I I I I I I I 

• 

• 

D 

• 

*please provide rough counts (+/- 10 items) if estimated frequency is less than 100 items 

Dating Potential: [_J radiocarbon |~J dendrochronology Q archeomagnetism 

hydration 

0 relative techniques (e.g. seriation. diagnostics, etc.) O other methods (specify): 

Assemblage Remarks: 

O obsidian 

Previous Investigations: 

Previous Site Nos./Names: 

Project Name/Type/Date:_ 

Site Marker(s): 

Comments: 

Surface Collection: Excavation: 

x 
Field No. ELMA- LA No. 

SITE RECORDING MANUALS AND FORMS 195 

Pag* of 

Component No. 

9. FEATURES 

ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES 

Feat, 

type 

Feat 

# 

Struct. Dimen. 

LxWxH (m) 

Rubble Dimen. 

LxWxH (in) 

Shape # Rooms 

Visible 

# Rooms 

Est. Stories 

Constr. 

iVFetliods 

Constr. 

Materials 

ROOM SIZES 

Feat. 

Type/# 

Room # Room Dimen. 

LxVV (m) 

Feat. 

Type/# 

Room 

U 

Room Dimen. 

LxVV (m) 

Feat. 

Tvpe/# 

Room # Room Dimen. 

LxVV (m) 

NON-AItCHFTECTURAL FEATURES 

Feat. 

Type 

Feat. 

44 

Feat. Dimen. 

LxWxH (m) 

Feat. (Rubble) Extent 

LxWxH (m) 

Shape Constr. 

Methods 

Constr. Materials 
196 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Page of 

Field No. ELIV1A- LA No. Component No. 

ARTIFACT SCATTERS 

Scatter 

type 

Scatter 

# 

Dimen. LxW (in) 

10. ARTIFACT SAiVlPLE AREAS 

Feat. 

Type/# 

Sample 

# 

Sample 

Type 

Assoc. Dimen. LxW or D (m) Area (m ) 
SITE RECORDING MANUALS AND FORMS 197 

Page of 

EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

ISOLATED OCCURRENCE (IO) FORM (2002) 

IO** Priority** Grid** Burn** Organization NPS. IMSF-CAP 

Recorders Date Start time Finish time Total time 

1. IO CLASSIFICATION 

IO Type Cultural Affiliation Period 

Brief description 

2. LOCATION 

State: New Mexico County: Cibola Topo/Quad Aerial ** 

GPS file ** UTMzone: 12 13 E N 

T N. R E; % of the % of the % of Section ** 

Location/Access 

3. ENVIRONMENT AND IO SETTING 

Aspect Slope ° Elevation ft. 

Landform Deposition Soil Vegetation 

Comments: 

4. PHOTOGRAPHS 

Roll ** Exposure Brief Description 

5. ARTIFACT COLLECTION 

FS# Artifact** Description 

6. NUMBER of illustration(s) attached (Do illustrations on graph paper and attach to 

form.) 
198 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGIC AL SURVEY 

El Malpais Archeologicai Survey 

2002 Ceramic Inventory Form 

Page of 

Site# 

Association 

Component # 

Recorder 

Sample # 

Date 

Sample Type 

Total Analyzed 

Dimensions (m) 

Ceramic dates 

Ceramic Type 

(see manual for descriptions) 

CIBOLA GRAY WARE 

(01) Lino Gray 

(02) Plain Gray 

(03) Kana'a Neck Banded (8-20mm) 

(04) Narrow Neck Banded (3-10mm) 

(05) Neck Corrugated 

(06) Clapboard Corrugated 

(07) Indented Corrugated 

(08) Incised Corrugated 

(09) PI I Corrugated Rim 

(10) PII/PI1I Corrugated Rim 

(11) PHI Corrugated Rim 

UNKNOWN GRAY WARE 

(12) Unknown plain gray 

(13) Unknown corrugated gray 

(14) Unknown gray 

GRAY WARE, OTHER 

Jars 

Body Rim 

Bowls 

Body Rim 

Unknown Other 

Comments: 
SITE RECORDING MANUALS AND FORMS 199 

Page of 

El Malpais Archeological Survey 

2002 Ceramic Inventory Supplemental Form, cont. 

Site # Component # Sample U 

Ceramic Type 

(see manual for descriptions) 

MOGOLLON BROWN WARE 

(15) Alma Plain 

(16) Plain Brown 

(17) Reserve Plain Smudged 

(18) Reserve Plain Corrugated 

(19) Reserve Plain Corrugated, Smudged 

(20) Reserve Incised Corrugated 

(21) Reserve Incised Corrugated, Smudged 

(22) Reserve Indented Corrugated 

(23) Reserve Indented Corrugated, Smudged 

(24) Tularosa Patterned Corrugated 

(25) Tularosa Patterned Corrugated, Smudged 

(26) Alma Neck Banded (8-20mm) 

(27) Three Circle Neck Corrugated (3-10mm) 

(28) Los Lunas Smudged 

UNKNOWN BROWN WARE 

(29) Unknown plain brown 

(30) Unknown corrugated brown 

(31) Unknown brown 

BROWN WARE, OTHER 

Jars 

Body Rim 

Bowls 

Body Rim 

Unknown Other 
200 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

P:i"C of 

El Malpais Areheologieal Survey 

2002 Ceramic Inventory Supplemental Form, cont. 

Site# Component # Sample # 

Ceramic Type 

(see manual for descriptions) 

CIBOLA WHITE WARE 

(32) La Plata B/W 

(33) White Mound BAV 

(34) Kiatuthlanna B/W 

(3?) Red Mesa B/W 

(36) Gallup B/W 

(37) Escavada B/W 

(38) Puerco B/W 

(39) Indeterminate Puerco series 

Cebolleta B/W 

(40) Gallup style 

(41) Escavada style 

(42) Puerco style 

(43) Reserve style 

(44) Snow-flake style 

(45) Indeterminate 

(46) Reserve B/W 

(47) Tularosa B/W 

(48) Indeterminate Reserve'Tularosa B/W 

(49) Pinedale B/W 

(50) Indeterminate Cibola B/W 

(51) Plain Cibola White 

SOCORRO B/W 

(52) Variant #1 (black temper.unslipped) 

(53) Variant #2 (Ig.white temper, washy slip) 

(54) Indeterminate 

SAN JUAN WHITE WARE 

(55) McElmo B'W 

(56) Mesa Verde B/W 

(57) McElmo Mesa Verde B/W 

Jars 

Body Rim 

Bowls 

Body Rim 

Unknown Other 
SITE RECORDING MANUALS AND FORMS 201 

UNKNOWN WHITF. WARE 

(58) Unknown Organic Painted White Ware 

(59) Unknown White Ware 

WHITE WARE, OTHER 
202 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Page of 

El Malpais Archeological Survey 

2002 Ceramic Inventory Supplemental Form, cont. 

Site# Component # Sample # 

Ceramic Type 

(see manual l'or descriptions) 

WHITE MOUNTAIN RED WARE 

(60) Puerco B/R 

(61) WingateB/R 

(62) Wingate Poly 

(63) St. Johns B/R 

(64) St. Johns Poly 

(65) Springerville Poly 

(66) Pinedale B/R 

(67) Pinedale Poly 

(68) Indeterminate VVMR 

(69) Indeterminate WMR--B/R 

(70) Indeterminate WMR-Poly 

(71) Unnamed Red-on-White 

UNKNOWN RED WARE 

(72) Unknown Painted Red Ware 

(73) Unknown Red Ware 

RED WARE, OTHER 

UNKNOWN TYPE/WARE 

OTHER/MISCELLANEOUS 

Jars 

Body Rim 

Bowls 

Body Rim 

Unknown Other 
SITE RECORDING MANUALS AND FORMS 203 

Pace of 

EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

2002 LITHIC DEBITAGE FORM 

Site # Component # Sample # 

Association Recorder 

Sample Type Dimensions (m) 

Date Total Analyzed 

Material 

Type 

% 

Cortex 

Biface Reduction (flake size) 

1 2 3 4 

Core Reduction (flake size) 

1 2 3 4 

Indet. 

flake 

Ait" . 

Debris 

Tool 

No. ? Count 

% Cortex: 0- none; 1- < 75%; 2- =/> 75%. Flake Size: 1= <lcm; 2= I -3cm; 3= 4-6cm; 4= >6cm 

Common Lithic Types: San Andres chert; Zuni Spotted chert; Chuska chert. Grants Ridge obsidian; Red Hill/Mule 

Creek obsidian, Socorro jasper; basalt; silicified wood: quartzite: chalcedony. 
204 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

FLAKED AND NON-FLAKED STONE TOOL FORM 2002 

Page of 

Site n 

Association 

Component # Sample # Sample Type 

Recorder Date 

Dimensions (m)_ 

Total Analyzed 

Art. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

Art. 

Type Material Cood. 

Size (mm) 

I. \V 111 

Thermal Alter, (up 

to 3 entries) Retouch 

it ed»e, 

surface 

I'se wear 

(up to 3 entries) 

I'se wear distr. 

(tip to 2 entries) 
SITE RECORDING MANUALS AND FORMS 205 

Page of _ 

EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

2002 FLAKED AND NON-FLAKED STONE TOOL FORM, Cont. 

Site # Component # Sample # 

Art. 

it 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

Art. 

Type Material Cond. 

Size (mm) 

1. \V TH 

Thermal Alt. (up 

to 3 entries) Retouch 

it edge, 

surface 

Use wear 

(up to 3 entries) 

I'se wear distr. 

(up to 2 entries) 
Dimen.(m) 

Assoc. 

Recorder_ 

Date 

CLASS TYPE SHAPE CONTENTS MATERIAL CAN 

PART 

SEAM CLOSURE OPENING CAN DIM. 

PROC. X 

FASTENER 

TYPE 

SKETCHES COMMENT 

COMMENTS: 

206 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

ELMA# 

Comp.# 

Samp.# 

Samp. Type 

CAN AND FASTENER FORM 
SITE RECORDING MANUALS AND FORMS 207 

ELMA# . 

Comp.#_ 

Samp.#_ 

HISTORIC CERAMICS CODING FORM Dimen.(m)_ 

Assoc. 

Samp. Type_ 

Recorder(s) 

Date 

CLASS BODY 

COMMENT: 

VESSEL 

TYPE 

CONDITION GLAZE, 

SLIP 

DEC. MAKER'S 

MARK 

SKETCHES COMMENT 
208 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

ELMA# Glass Coding Form Dimen. (m)_ 

Comp.# Assoc. 

Samp.# Recorder(s) 

Samp. Type Date 

CLASS TYPE COLOR FINISH CONDITION BASE SHAPE LABEL LETTERING MAKER'S MARK SKETCH COMMENT 

COMMENT: 
Appendix 2 

Site Number Concordance 

209 
210 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Appendix 2, Table 1. Sites listed by ELM A number, LA number, and site name. 

KLM A No. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

l(i 

11 

12 

13 

11 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

22 

24 

25 

26 

2" 

28 

20 

30 

32 

34 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

41 

45 

16 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

50 

LA No. Site Name 

140545 

140547 

32006 

140549 

140551 

32003 

140553 

140554 

140742 

140556 

140558 

140559 

140561 

140565 

140566 

140568 

140569 

140570 

140573 

32004 

140575 

140743 

140577 

140578 

140579 

140580 

140581 

140582 

140583 

140584 

140744 

140586 

140745 

140587 

140589 

140590 Kipuka Shelter 

140591 

140592 

140593 

140746 

140594 

140595 

140596 

140597 

140598 

140599 

140600 

140601 

140602 

140603 

140604 

140268 

140605 

3 1909 

3 1997 

140606 

ELM.A No. 

60 

6 1 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

81 

82 

83 

84 

86 

87 

88 

89 

00 

01 

02 

93 

94 

95 

06 

97 

98 

99 

loo 

101 

102 

103 

104 

105 

106 

107 

108 

109 

110 

111 

112 

113 

114 

115 

IK, 

LA No. 

31919 

31918 

140607 

140608 

140609 

140610 

140611 

140612 

31897 

140613 

140614 

3 1924 

31915 

31896 

140615 

140616 

140617 

140618 

140619 

140620 

140621 

3 1902 

31901 

31900 

140622 

31899 

140623 

140624 

140625 

140626 

140627 

140628 

140629 

140630 

140631 

140632 

140633 

137261 

135907 

135908 

135909 

135910 

135911 

135912 

31927 

140634 

140635 

140636 

32064 

140637 

140638 

137262 

32061 

135913 

137263 

137264 

Site Name 
SITE NUMBER CONCORDANCE 211 

Appendix 2, Table I. (Continued). 

ELMANo. 

117 

1 IS 

119 

120 

121 

122 

127 

124 

127 

126 

127 

12S 

120 

130 

131 

172 

1 7 7 

134 

175 

176 

137 

17S 

170 

140 

141 

142 

147 

144 

145 

146 

147 

I4S 

140 

150 

151 

157 

154 

155 

156 

157 

158 

150 

160 

161 

162 

167 

164 

165 

166 

167 

168 

160 

170 

171 

172 

177 

174 

l.A No. 

137265 

135914 

135915 

135916 

137266 

135917 

137267 

137268 

137269 

135918 

137270 

135919 

135920 

137271 

140639 

140640 

32062 

140641 

3 1929 

140642 

135921 

137272 

135922 

135923 

137273 

135924 

135925 

135926 

140643 

140644 

140645 

135927 

135928 

135929 

140646 

140647 

140648 

140650 

140270 

140271 

140272 

31932 

140651 

32026 

140652 

140653 

140654 

140655 

140656 

140657 

140658 

31914 

140659 

140660 

140661 

31910 

140662 

Site Name ELMANo. 

175 

176 

177 

INS 

184 

188 

189 

190 

191 

192 

1 93 

194 

195 

196 

197 

198 

199 

200 

201 

202 

203 

204 

205 

206 

207 

208 

209 

210 

211 

212 

213 

214 

215 

216 

217 

218 

219 

220 

221 

222 

223 

224 

225 

226 

227 

228 

229 

230 

231 

232 

233 

234 

235 

236 

237 

238 

239 

l.A No. 

140663 

140664 

140665 

32019 

140666 

140667 

1328 

32057 

140668 

140273 

140274 

140275 

140276 

140277 

140278 

102227 

140279 

140280 

140281 

140282 

140283 

140284 

140288 

140289 

140290 

140291 

140292 

140293 

140294 

140295 

101702 

140296 

140297 

140298 

140299 

140300 

140301 

140302 

140303 

140304 

140305 

140306 

140307 

102229 

102228 

140308 

140309 

140310 

140311 

140314 

140316 

140318 

140321 

140323 

140326 

140328 

140329 

Site Name 

Las Ventanas. Candelaria Ruin 

Ted Graffs Sawmill 
212 EL MALPAIS ARCHE0L0G1CAL SURVEY 

Appendix 2, Table 1. (Continued). 

E LM A No. 

240 

241 

242 

243 

244 

245 

246 

247 

248 

249 

250 

251 

252 

253 

254 

255 

256 

257 

258 

259 

260 

261 

262 

263 

264 

265 

266 

267 

268 

269 

270 

271 

272 

273 

274 

275 

276 

277 

278 

279 

LA No. 

140333 

140336 

140345 

140346 

140347 

140348 

140349 

140350 

38594 Lost Lava 

38594 Lost Lava 

140351 

140353 

140354 

140355 

140356 

140357 

140358 

140359 

140360 

140684 

140361 

140362 

140363 

140365 

140364 

140366 

140367 

140368 

140369 

140370 

140371 

140372 

140373 

140669 

140374 Ken's Clu 

140375 

140376 

140377 

140670 

140378 

Site Name 

Trail Site 

Trail Site 

ster 

ELMANo. 

280 

281 

282 

283 

284 

285 

286 

287 

288 

289 

290 

291 

292 

293 

294 

295 

296 

297 

298 

299 

300 

301 

302 

303 

304 

305 

306 

307 

308 

309 

310 

311 

312 

313 

319 

328 

329 

334 

3 3 5 

336 

LA No. 

140379 

140380 

140381 

140382 

140383 

140384 

140385 

140386 

140387 

140388 

140389 

140390 

140391 

140392 

140393 

140394 

140395 

140396 

140397 

140398 

140399 

140400 

140401 

140402 

140403 

140404 

140405 

140406 

140407 

140408 

140409 

140410 

140411 

140412 

140413 

140414 

140415 

140416 

140671 

140417 

Site Name 
SITE NUMBER CONCORDANCE 213 

Appendix 2, Table 2. Sites listed by LA number, ELM A number, and site name. 

LA No. HI.MA No. Site Name LA No. ELMA No. Site Name 

1328 189 Las Ventanas. Candelaria Ruin 137261 98 

31896 73 137262 112 

31897 68 137263 115 

31899 86 137264 116 

31900 83 137265 117 

31901 82 137266 121 

31902 81 137267 123 

31909 57 137268 124 

31910 173 137269 125 

31914 169 137270 127 

31915 72 137271 130 

31918 61 137272 138 

31919 60 137273 141 

31924 71 140268 55 

31927 105 140270 156 

31929 135 140271 157 

31932 159 140272 158 

31997 58 140273 192 

32003 6 140274 193 

32004 20 140275 194 

32006 3 140276 195 

32019 178 140277 196 

32026 161 140278 197 

32057 190 140279 199 

32061 113 140280 200 

32062 133 140281 201 

32064 109 140282 202 

38594 249 Lost Lava Trail Site 140283 203 

38594 248 Lost Lava Trail Site 140284 204 

101702 213 Ted GrofTs Sawmill 140288 205 

102227 198 140289 206 

102228 227 140290 207 

102229 226 140291 208 

135907 99 140292 209 

135908 100 140293 210 

135909 101 140294 211 

135910 102 140295 212 

135911 103 140296 214 

135912 104 140297 215 

135913 114 140298 216 

135914 118 140299 217 

135915 119 140300 218 

135916 120 140301 219 

135917 122 140302 220 

135918 126 140303 221 

135919 128 140304 222 

135920 129 140305 223 

135921 137 140306 224 

135922 139 140307 225 

135923 140 140308 228 

135924 142 140309 229 

135925 143 140310 230 

135926 144 140311 231 

135927 148 140314 232 

135928 149 140316 233 

135929 150 140318 234 
214 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Appendix 2, Table 2. (Continued). 

LA No. ELM A No. Site Name LA No. LLM A No. Site Name 

140321 235 140395 296 

140323 236 140396 297 

140326 237 140397 298 

140328 238 140398 299 

140329 239 140399 300 

140333 240 140400 301 

140336 241 140401 302 

140345 242 140402 303 

140346 243 140403 304 

140347 244 140404 305 

140348 245 140405 306 

140349 246 140406 307 

140350 247 140407 308 

140351 250 140408 309 

140353 251 140409 310 

140354 252 140410 311 

140355 253 140411 312 

140356 254 140412 313 

140357 255 140413 319 

140358 256 140414 328 

140359 257 140415 329 

140360 258 140416 334 

140361 260 140417 336 

140362 261 140545 1 

140363 262 140547 2 

140364 264 140549 4 

140365 263 140551 5 

140366 265 140553 7 

140367 266 140554 8 

140368 267 140556 10 

140369 268 140558 11 

140370 269 140559 12 

140371 270 140561 13 

140372 271 140565 14 

140373 272 140566 15 

140374 274 Ken's Cluster 140568 16 

140375 275 140569 17 

140376 276 140570 18 

140377 277 140573 19 

140378 279 140575 21 

140379 280 140577 23 

140380 281 140578 24 

140381 282 140579 25 

140382 283 140580 26 

140383 284 140581 27 

140384 285 140582 28 

140385 286 140583 29 

140386 287 140584 30 

140387 288 140586 34 

140388 289 140587 37 

140389 290 140589 38 

140390 291 140590 39 Kipuka Shelter 

140391 292 140591 40 

140392 293 140592 41 

140393 294 140593 42 

140394 295 140594 44 
Appendix 2, Table 2. (Continued). 

SITE NUMBER CONCORDANCE 215 

LA No. 

140595 

140596 

140597 

140598 

140599 

140600 

140601 

140602 

140603 

140604 

140605 

140606 

140607 

140608 

140609 

140610 

140611 

140612 

140613 

140614 

140615 

140616 

140617 

140618 

140619 

140620 

140621 

140622 

140623 

140624 

140625 

140626 

140627 

140628 

140629 

140630 

140631 

140632 

140633 

140634 

140635 

HLM A No. 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

56 

59 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

07 

69 

70 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

84 

87 

88 

89 

90 

91 

92 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

106 

107 

Site Name LA No. 

140636 

140637 

140638 

140639 

140640 

140641 

140642 

140643 

140644 

140645 

140646 

140647 

140648 

140650 

140651 

140652 

140653 

140654 

140655 

140656 

140657 

140658 

140659 

140660 

140661 

140662 

140663 

140664 

140665 

140666 

140667 

140668 

140669 

140670 

140671 

140684 

140742 

140743 

140744 

140745 

140746 

HI.MA No. 

108 

110 

1 1 1 

131 

152 

134 

136 

145 

146 

147 

151 

153 

154 

155 

160 

192 

163 

164 

165 

166 

167 

168 

170 

171 

172 

174 

175 

176 

177 

184 

188 

191 

273 

278 

335 

259 

9 

22 

52 

36 

43 

Site Name 
Appendix 3 

A Preliminary Ceramic Sourcing Study for the 

Las Ventanas Area of the Cebollita Mesa 

Region, El Malpais National Monument 

Hannah V. Fretwell 

The first phase of the sample archeological 

inventory for El Malpais National Monument in 

west-central New Mexico has resulted in the 

identification and recording of 306 archeological 

sites. The majority of these recorded sites are 

Pueblo 11 (A.D. 900 to 1130/1150) in age, 

although some late Pueblo 1 and Pueblo III sites 

are present as well (sec Figure 3.1 and Table 3.4). 

The monument and the areas sampled by the 

survey arc part of the Cebollita Mesa region. 

Cebollita Mesa and the east periphery of El 

Malpais, including the Las Ventanas area (Dittert 

1959). were intensely occupied by ancestral 

Puebloans during the Pueblo 11 period. Portions of 

the Las Ventanas area were surveyed during the 

2001 season of the El Malpais Archeological 

Inventory. 

Prehistoric ceramics, over 18.981 of which 

were analyzed in the field from 204 sites, are 

representative of a regional Cebolletan expression 

of the Cibolan ceramic tradition as defined by 

Dittert (1949. 1959). The purpose of this study is 

to further our understanding of the local 

manufacture of pottery in this region, during the 

late Cebolleta and Pilares phases (A.D. 1050 to 

1125 and 1125 to 1200). Although preliminary. 

the study aims at the identification of locally made 

wares and local clay sources through the collection 

and reflring of clay samples and prehistoric 

sherds. 

Background 

El Malpais National Monument, established in 

1987, is located on the southeastern edge of the 

Colorado Plateau. Encompassing roughly 114.000 

acres, most of the monument is comprised of 

basalt lava flows, the most recent dating to just 

3.200 to 3.600 years ago (Laughin and 

WoldeGabriel 1997). The monument has come to 

be known for its extensive lava tubes, some of 

which contain ice year around. Areas not covered 

by basalt are primarily located along the northwest 

and eastern sides of the monument. The northwest 

non-basalt portion consists of San Andres 

Limestone and Abo. Yeso, and Glorieta 

Sandstones. The eastern side of the park, the most 

extensively surveyed so far. contains Mancos 

Shale and Ties Hermanos. Zuni. Entrada. and 

Dakota Sandstones that in places form dramatic 

bluffs overlooking the lava. Significant prehistoric 

habitation appears to be concentrated in these nonlava portions of the monument. Sites recorded so 

far are largely Red Mesa (A.D. 870 to 950). 

Cebolleta (A.D. 950 to 1 125). and Pilares (A.D. 

1 125 to 1200) phase in age and range from large, 

multi-room pueblos and small one-room structures 

(postulated to be field houses) to featureless 

artifact scatters. 

The environment of El Malpais is semiarid 

and characteristic of high desert: the dominant 

vegetation is pinyon-juniper woodland and grass217 
218 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

land. Although there are no known permanent 

water sources within the monument aside from ice 

in some of the lava tubes, springs have been 

reported both to the east and southeast of the 

malpuis at the heads of Cebollita Canyon and 

Armijo Canyon, respectively (see Figure 1.1). 

Ephemeral drainages, tinajas in the sandstone, and 

water pooling at the edge of the lava, all of which 

depend on precipitation, would have been the 

primary water sources available seasonally to 

prehistoric inhabitants. 

Previous and Current Investigations 

Pioneering archeological work in the Cebollita 

Mesa region was conducted by Dittert (1949, 

1959) and Ruppe (1953) fifty years ago. Since 

then, a number of investigations key to the further 

development and refining of Dittert's ceramic 

typology have been carried out. These include 

Marshall's ceramic research in the Cebolla 

Canyon (1991) and the Cerritos de Jaspe areas 

(1993), as well as Wilson's ceramic analysis of the 

Armijo Canyon survey sites (1994). 

Current research in the Cebollita area includes 

ongoing archeological survey by the National Park 

Service (NPS) to inventory sites within El Malpais 

National Monument and survey of portions of the 

adjoining El Malpais National Conservation Area 

managed by the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM). The primary goal of these investigations 

is to identify and document cultural resources so 

that they may be preserved and protected. 

Culture History: General Trends in Occupation and Ceramic Phase Designations 

Dittert identifies several trends in occupation 

for the Cebollita Mesa region (1959: 52-65). 

These include population movement between 

topographic landforms over time, especially a 

general shift of large habitation sites down to 

valley floors by the Red Mesa and Cebolleta 

phases (A.D. 870 to 1100)', followed by a return 

to low mesa tops during the subsequent Pi lares 

and Kowina phases (A.D. 1 100 to 1400)'. Dittert 

also notes that sites were commonly inhabited for 

relatively short periods of time and then later reinhabited. He bases this conclusion on ceramics. 

architecture, and refuse. Although many of the 

sites have ceramics from multiple phases, there is 

no evidence of continuation between the phasesceramic types representing separate phases are 

each clustered around certain features or portions 

of the sites. Ceramic analysis carried out during 

recent archeological work in the monument 

supports this conclusion. In addition, structures at 

these larger habitation sites often have additions 

exhibiting later architectural styles and middens 

tend to be relatively sparse. 

Dittert (1959) defined ceramic phase 

designations for the Cebollita Mesa region from 

Pueblo I to Pueblo V based on changes in the frequencies of various types. This typology has since 

been refined by other researchers (i.e., Marshall 

1991; Wilson 1994). This study is most concerned with the ceramics from the late Cebolleta and 

Pilares phases. The late Cebolleta phase covers the 

mid-to-late Pueblo II period, dating from A.D. 

1050 to 1125. In this phase, white ware is 

dominated by Cebolleta Black-on-white, Socorro 

Black-on-white, and the Puerco Series of the 

Cibola White Ware. Plain Gray remains the most 

common of the gray ware types, although 

Indented Corrugated occurs in higher frequencies 

than in earlier phases and is the most numerous of 

the corrugated gray ware types. White Mountain 

Red Ware types make their appearance during this 

phase but occur in small numbers, usually in the 

form of Puerco Black-on-red or Wingate Blackon-red. Brown ware types are predominantly 

Indented Corrugated and Indented Corrugated 

Smudged (Marshall 1991; Wilson 1994:62). 

The Pilares phase dates from A.D. 1125 to 

1200, or late Pueblo II to early Pueblo III. During 

this phase, white ware is dominated by Cebolleta 

Black-on-white. Socorro Black-on-white is also 

common, as is Tularosa Black-on-white and 

Reserve Black-on-white. Although dwindling in 

numbers. White Mountain Red Ware is present, 

usually in Wingate, Puerco, and St. Johns Blackon-reds. Although Plain Gray may still be 

present, Indented Corrugated is the most common 

gray ware. Brown ware occurs primarily as Plain 

Corrugated Brown and Indented Corrugated 

Brown (Marshall 1991; Wilson 1994:62). 
CERAMIC SOURCING STUDY 219 

CeboIIeta Black-on-white 

In his dissertation, Dittert (1959) discusses the 

divergence of ceramic types specific to the 

Cebollita Mesa region from the Cibola Tradition 

during the Pueblo II period. He describes these 

types as regional expressions of Cibola Gray Ware 

(Northern Corrugated, Kowina Indented, and 

Kovvina Banded), Cibola White Ware (CeboIIeta 

Black-on-white and Kowina Black-on-white), and 

White Mountain Red Ware (North Plains Blackon-red, North Plains Polychrome, Kowina Blackon-red. and Kowina Polychrome). all 

distinguished on the basis of differences in 

decoration, paste, and slip. Of these types. 

CeboIIeta Black-on-white is the most pervasive in 

the Las Ventanas area of the Cebollita Mesa 

region. 

Malpais survey is the refinement of the regional 

ceramic typology created for the area. Another 

major goal is to better understand the nature of 

intra- and inter-regional interaction and exchange. 

To both of these ends, the purpose of this study is 

to further our knowledge of local ceramic 

production through the identification of locally 

produced and locally used wares and the clay 

sources exploited in their manufacture. Although 

necessarily addressed in a preliminary fashion 

here, we must first understand local ceramic 

production and utilization from raw material 

procurement and methods of manufacture to the 

distribution, use. and discard of vessels, if we are 

to discern the role that non-local ceramics played 

within the society. 

Sherd and Clay Sampling 

As a type of Cibola White Ware, CeboIIeta 

Black-on-white is generally characterized by its 

soft and very white paste, thick walls, and thick, 

waxy, off-white slip (Dittert 1959:400). A number 

of different Pueblo II Cibola design styles are 

found on CeboIIeta Black-on-white, especially 

Reserve, Escavada. and Puerco (Wilson 1994:53). 

Based on personal experience analyzing ceramics 

from this area. CeboIIeta Black-on-white is quite 

distinctive, and its identification has been very 

consistent among analysts during the last two field 

seasons. 

Problem Domain 

Although Dittert and Ruppe laid the 

groundwork for understanding prehistoric 

occupation of the Cebolleta-Acoma culture area, 

many questions remain unanswered. As Schachner 

(2001:22) notes. EI Malpais National Monument 

occupies a unique position, located at the 

boundary of multiple ceramic distributions such as 

White Mountain Red Ware, Socorro Black-onwhite, and Mogollon Brown Ware. The cooccurrence of brown ware and gray ware in the 

area led Dittert and Ruppe to suggest migration 

and mixing of Anasazi and Mogollon groups. 

Due to the position of the monument at a 

cultural crossroads, one of the goals of the El 

It was assumed that the wares produced 

locally in the study area were most likely culinary 

wares and the regional version of the Cibola 

White Ware, CeboIIeta Black-on-white. Ten Plain 

Gray and five CeboIIeta Black-on-white sherds 

were collected from the surface of four surveyed 

sites primarily from midden contexts. Site record 

forms from these sites were consulted to relocate 

artifact concentrations with adequate numbers of 

these two wares to allow for the collection of 

relatively large sherds. At the conclusion of this 

study, the sherds were returned to their respective 

contexts within each site. 

While all of the sampled Plain Gray sherds are 

from jar bodies, the CeboIIeta Black-on-white 

sherds are from both jar and bowl bodies and rims. 

The small size of the sample is a result of the 

limitations inherent in surface remains, exposure 

to collection over recent decades, and current El 

Malpais National Monument policies restricting 

artifact collection. 

Sites were selected for sampling based on 

period of occupation, size, location, and 

convenience of access. ELMA 57, 60. 68, and 189 

are all multi-room pueblos occupied primarily 

during the late CeboIIeta (A.D. 1050 to 1 125) and 

late Cebolleta/Pilares (A.D. 1050 to 1200) phases. 

They are located in the Las Ventanas sample area 
220 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

on the eastern side of the monument. All four sites 

are close to one another. LI.MA 57 and 60 are 

located on the same ridge 0.5 km apart and at the 

same elevation (2.073 m). LI.MA 189 is 1.0 km 

directly dovvnslope from ELMA 68. 

ELMA 189 is better known as Las Ventanas 

Ruin (LA 1328), a large previously recorded site 

thought to be a Chacoan outlier based on its great 

house with Chacoan style masonry, the presence 

of three road segments, and a great kiva (Marshall 

et al. 1979). This site may have functioned as a 

center for community integration and/or interregional trade. ELMA 68 has a large roomblock. 

probably two-story, and at least two kivas. ELMA 

60 consists of one large roomblock, three small 

roomblocks. and two possible kivas. ELMA 57 

encompasses five moderately sized roomblocks 

and three possible kivas. 

Collection of Clays 

A total of 13 clay samples were collected 

subjectively and unsystematically. Areas 

examined for clays were selected on the basis of 

the nearest exposure of particular geological 

formations to the sites included in the study and 

from reports of possible clay sources by El 

Malpais survey crew members. Nine of the 

thirteen clays were collected within 3.0 km of the 

Las Ventanas sites, and the remaining four clays 

were collected from the west side of the 

monument, near Loma Montosa, approximately 12 

km from the sites considered. Within these areas, 

samples were taken wherever promising-looking 

clay deposits were encountered. The collection of 

the samples involved cleaning off the face of the 

exposure with a trowel and then scooping at least 

one pound of the clay into a plastic bag. The 

position was then recorded with a Global 

Positioning System (GPS) unit and photos were 

taken. 

Of the 13 clays collected, two were found to 

be unsuitable for pottery manufacture (Clays 1 and 

7) and were taken out of the study. Upon 

examination in the lab, it was discovered that 

Clay Sample Number 

1 

2 

3 

•I 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

1 1 

12 

13 

Formation 

Dakota Sandstone 

Mancos Shale 

Mancos Shale 

Mancos Shale 

Chinle Formation 

Chinle Formation 

Chinle Formation (ash) 

Chinle Formation 

Zuni Sandstone 

Zuni Sandstone 

Mancos Shale 

Zuni Sandstone 

Zuni and or Mancos? 

several of the clays were from different formations 

than initially expected upon collection. This was 

due in part to misinformation during the first 

collection episode and the interdigitating nature of 

the geologic strata along the eastern flanks of the 

monument where it was often difficult to tell 

which formation(s) were contributing to a 

particular clay. Clays 9. 10. 12, and 13 were 

initially thought to derive from the Zuni Sandstone 

on the basis of geologic maps: however, once 

these clays were tired, they most closely 

resembled Mancos Shale. In their raw form these 

clays appeared to be from the Zuni Sandstone, but 

because they were taken from the contact zone 

between the Zuni Sandstone and the Mancos 

Shale, they apparently contained enough Mancos 

Shale to influence their tiring color. Appendix 3. 

Table 1 lists the clay samples taken and the 

geologic formations from which they are derived. 

Most of the major formations are represented 

among the fired clay samples except for Dakota 

Sandstone. One sample (Clay 1) was taken from 

the Dakota Sandstone, but proved to be too sandy 

to stand up to further testing. The lack of analyzed 

Dakota Sandstone clay was also due to difficulty 

of access. Dakota Sandstone is generally located 

near the tops of the mesas on the eastern side of 

the monument, and when this formation was 

reached, no suitable clay deposits were found. As 

will be discussed later, future investigations of 

clay sources will require a relatively large-scale 

and more systematic clav survey. 

Appendix 3, Table 1. Collected clays and geologic formations. 
CERAMIC SOURCING STUDY 221 

Sherd and Clay Attributes and Properties 

Initially Recorded 

After the collection of sherd and clay samples 

in the field, further analysis of both was carried 

out in the lab. This included recording various 

properties of the clays and sherds both before and 

after refiring. Properties recorded for clays prior to 

firing were odor, condition, hardness, texture, 

workability, presence of impurities, degree of 

swelling (bentonitic or not), linear shrinkage, 

weight shrinkage, and Munsell color (Appendix 3, 

Table 2). Two sets of untempered test tiles were 

made for each clay; one was used for firing and 

comparison with retired sherds, and the other was 

used to record drying shrinkage. Shrinkage was 

calculated by recording changes in both weight 

and the length of a 50 mm line drawn into the 

surface of the tile after 24 and 48 hour intervals of 

air drying and then again after 24 hours in a 

drying oven. Percentage shrinkage was calculated 

using the following formula: 

((initial weight -final weight)/ initial weightjx 100. 

Likewise, for linear shrinkage, the above formula 

was used, but with length substituted for weight. 

For sherds, attributes recorded prior to firing 

included vessel form, temper type, Munsell color 

of paste and slip (or exterior color, if slip was 

absent as is the case in gray ware), hardness (using 

Moh's scale), and original firing atmosphere 

(Appendix 3, Table 3). Each sherd was given a 

number according to its site number and type. In 

addition, its shape was traced on paper to aid in 

identification in later analyses because the sherds 

themselves were not physically labeled. For 

example. Plain Gray sherds from ELMA 68 were 

assigned the prefix "68G'? and then numbers from 

1 to 10, and Cebolleta Black-on-white sherds from 

ELMA 68 were assigned the prefix "68C" and 

numbers from 1 to 5. 

Refiring Methods and Analysis 

Rice (1987). Rye (1981) and Shephard (1995 

[1956]) all discuss the utility of experiments 

involving oxidation, or refiring of sherds, in 

analyzing and comparing clay composition and 

reconstructing original firing temperature. Much 

like Duffs (1993) ceramic sourcing research, this 

study involved the refiring of sherds and clay 

samples to a uniform temperature to control for 

variations in condition and temperature of past 

firings of vessels. Once this was done, sherds were 

compared both to each other and to clay samples. 

A small chip was removed from each sherd 

with a wet saw. The chips were then reined in an 

electric kiln in 25 °C increments for 5 minutes 

each. After each refiring episode, Munsell color of 

paste and slip or surface. Molts hardness, and 

degree of thermal expansion were recorded. When 

there was a significant change in at least two of 

these attributes, the sherd chip was removed from 

further refiring episodes as original tiring 

temperature was exceeded. Usually, there was a 

significant change in all three of these attributes 

when a chip was withdrawn from further retiring. 

Finally, the sherd chips were retired at 900 °C 

for 5 more minutes (this temperature far exceeded 

original firing temperatures for all the sherds 

analyzed). After 24 hours in a drying oven, test 

tiles of clays were also tired at this same 

temperature for 30 minutes. As the electric kiln 

cooled extremely rapidly when the door was 

opened to place either sherd chips or test tiles 

inside, timing did not begin until 900 °C had again 

been reached. Therefore, sherd chips and tiles had 

a 5 to 10 minute warming period before soaking 

time (the period of exposure to a constant degree 

of heat in the kiln) began. After 30 minutes of 

soaking time, test tiles were allowed to remain in 

the kiln as it cooled from 900 °C to 700 °C. before 

they were removed. 

After this final refiring, Munsell color (for the 

paste of sherd chips), weight, and apparent 

porosity were recorded for sherds and test tiles. 

Although not necessarily able to provide fine 

resolution information on clay sources, retired 

color can be quite useful in detecting broad 

differences in clay composition indicative of 

different geologic formations. In her discussion of 

the relationship between clay color and 

composition, Shepard emphasizes that while 
222 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

"color doesn't afford an accurate key to the 

chemical composition of clay, it serves as a 

simple, direct criterion for classification when 

firing conditions are standardized, and, for 

comparative purposes, pottery samples can be 

retired under standard conditions (1995 

[1956]: 102).'" Other researchers conducting 

retiring experiments in the Southwest United 

States have divided Munsell colors into groups 

from white to buff to red, the specific color 

designations within each being close enough to 

indicate a similar source type (Windes 1977; Mills 

1992; Fowler 1991). Appendix 3. Table 4. 

recreated directly from Fowler (1991 :Table 4), 

presents the most common color groups and their 

Munsell colors. 

From the work of these researchers, certain 

color groups may be broadly assigned to different 

geologic formations. For example, Dakota 

Sandstone clays generally fire to buff and Chinle 

Formation clays fire to red (Duff 1993:81). 

Therefore, if sherds fire to the same color group, 

we mav make the argument that thev are made 

Appendix 3, Tabic 2. Properties of an fired clays. 

Clay Linear 

Sample /Weight 

No. formation Raw Color Odor Condition Hardness Texture Bcntonmc Workability Impurities Shrinkage 

Large 

1 Dakota not gritty-lots very poor—too pieces of 

Sandstone IOYRS/0 much tine sandy low of sand no much sand organies 

2 Mancos very plastic, low 7.8% 

Shale I0YR3/1 musts plats low not gritty no yield point organies 19.0% 

3 Mancos slightly plastic, high 8.2% 

Shale 2.5Y 5/4 musts very platy low not gritty no yield point organies 21.2% 

not 

4 Mancos much lithilied and 6.2% 

Shale 2.5 Y 4/2 odor platy low some grit no very short unknown 18.7% 

lithilied and very line 5.8% 

5 Chinle 2.5Y 7/3 sour platy vers low not gritty no plastic, but short organies 18.0% 

good; plastic, 

slightly medium yield some 6.6% 

6 Chinle 5YR4/3 musty platy low not gritty no point organies 17.0% 

dry 

7 Chinle slightly homogeneous very poor—too unknown, 

(ash layer) 2.5Y 7/2 musty powder low some grit no much ash sour taste 

good; plastic. 

medium yield some 6.8% 

8 Chinle 5YR4/3 musty platy low not gritty no point organies 16.7% 

very good; 

plastic. 

9 Zuni and platy/ medium yield 8.6% 

Mancos'.' 10YR5/4 musty sandy low not gritty no point organies 19.9% 

10 Zuni and plastic, low yield 8.4% 

Mancos'.' IOYR5/3 musty sandy low gritty no point unknown 13.5% 

11 Mancos plastic, low yield 8.6% 

Shale I0YR5/2 musty platy low not gritty no point organies 20.1% 

12 Zuni plastic, low yield 11.2% 

Sandstone 10YR4/2 musty platy low not gritty no point organies 22.5% 

13 Zuni and plastic, low yield 11.0% 

Mancos 10 YR 5/3 musty very platy moderate not gritty no point organies 24.7% 
CERAMIC SOURCING STUDY 223 

Site and Sherd 

No. 

ELMA 57 

57G01 

57G02 

57G03 

57G04 

57G05 

57G06 

57G07 

57G08 

57G09 

57G10 

57C01 

57C02 

57C03 

57C04 

57C05 

ELMA 60 

60G01 

60G02 

60G03 

60G04 

60G05 

60G06 

60G07 

60G0S 

60G09 

60G10 

60C01 

60C02 

60C03 

60C04 

60C05 

ELMA 68 

68G01 

68G02 

68G03 

68G04 

68G05 

68G06 

68G07 

68(308 

68G09 

68G10 

68C01 

68C02 

68C03 

68C04 

68C05 

ELMA 189 

189G01 

I89G02 

1S9G03 

189G04 

189G05 

1S9G06 

189G07 

189G08 

189G09 

189G10 

I89C01 

189C02 

189C03 

189C04 

189C05 

Historic Acorns 

Sherd 

Vessel Form 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

bowl body 

jar body 

bowl body 

bowl body 

jar rim 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

bowl body 

jar body 

jar body 

bowl body 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

bowl body 

jar body 

jar body 

bowl body 

bowl rim 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

jar body 

bowl body 

jar body 

bowl bodybowl rim 

Temper Type 

sand &sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand &sherd 

sand & sherd 

tine sand&sherd 

sand & sherd 

sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand & sherd 

sand? 

sand & sherd 

unknown 

Paste Color 

glev 6/ 

7.5 YR 6/2 

gley 11 

1OYR 6/2 

gley 5/ 

glev 7/ 

gley 11 

1 OYR 7/1 

gley 5/ 

gley 5/ 

glev 8/ 

glev 11 

gley 8/ 

glev 6/ 

gley 8/ 

7.5YR 7/1 

1 OYR 6/1 

gley 5/ 

gley 5/ 

gley 5/ 

glev 6/ 

2.5Y 5/1 

gley 67 

gley 6/ 

gley 8/ 

2.5Y7/1 

gley 8/ 

gley 8/ 

gley 8/ 

gley 8/ 

7.5YR8/I 

2.5Y 7/1 

7.5R 5/0 

2.5Y8/I 

2.5Y7/1 

2.5Y 7/2 

1 OYR 8/1 

2.5Y7/1 

2.5Y 8/1 

2.5Y7/I 

7.5YR 7/1 

2.5Y 7/1 

1 OYR 8/1 

2.5Y 8/1 

7.5R 6/0 

I0YR7/1 

gley 6/ 

gley 6/ 

glev 6/ 

gley 8/ 

gley 6/ 

1 OYR 5/1 

1 OYR 6/4 

gley 6/ 

1 OYR 6/1 

gley 8/1 

glev 8/1 

glev 8/1 

1 OYR 7/1 

gley 8/1 

IOYRS/2 

Surface Color 

(slip or exterior) 

2.5Y 7/1 

2.5Y 7/2 

1 OYR 5/1 

1 OYR 6/3 

1 OYR 6/3 

1 OYR 8/1 

1 OYR 7/2 

gley 6/ 

10YR5/1 

I0YR 7/2 

5Y8/1 

2.5Y 8/2 

2.5Y8/1 

5Y8/1 

5Y 8/1 

2.5Y 7/1 

2.5Y 8/2 

2.5Y 8/2 

2.5Y8/1 

2.5Y 8/2 

2.5Y8/1 

2.5Y 7/2 

1 OYR 7/1 

2.5Y 7/2 

1 OYR 7/2 

2.5 Y 8/2 

2.5Y 8/2 

2.5Y 7/4 

2.5Y 8/3 

2.5Y 8/4 

2.5Y 7/2 

2.5Y 7/1 

2.5Y 6/2 

2.5Y 6/2 

2.5Y 6/3 

10 YR6/4 

5Y7/1 

2.5Y 6/1 

2.5Y7/2 

2.5Y 6/3 

5Y 8/1 

2.5Y 7/4 

2.5Y8/1 

2.5Y 8/3 

5Y 8/1 

9 

1 OYR 7/2 

1 OYR 6/3 

1 OYR 8/2 

1 OYR 7/3 

1 OYR 5/1 

1 OYR 6/4 

1 OYR 6/2 

10YR 7/4 

1 OYR 6/4 

1 OYR 8/3 

1 OYR 8/2 

1 OYR 8/2 

10 YR8/2 

I0YR5/2 

Mobs Hardness 

(paste) 

4.5 

4.5 

5.0 

4.5 

4.5 

4.5 

4.5 

4.5 

5.0 

4.5 

5.5 

5.5 

4.5 

5.5 

4.5 

5.5 

4.5 

4.5 

4.5 

4.5 

4.5 

4.5 

4.5 

4.5 

4.5 

5.5 

4.5 

3.5 

4.5 

5.5 

4.5 

3.5 

4.5 

4.5 

4.5 

6.0 

5.5 

4.5 

4.5 

4.5 

4.5 

4.5 

3.5 

4.5 

5.5 

4.5 

4.5 

4.5 

4.5 

3.5 

3.5 

3.5 

3.5 

3.5 

3.5 

3.5 

3.5 

3.5 

3.5 

4.0 

4.5 

Original Firing 

Atmosphere 

reducing 

reducing 

reducing 

reducing 

reducing 

reducing 

reducing 

reducing 

reducing 

reducing 

oxidizing 

oxidizing 

oxidizing 

oxidizing 

oxidizing 

reducing 

reducing 

reducing 

reducing 

reducing 

reducing 

reducing 

reducing 

reducing 

reducing 

oxidizing 

oxidizing 

oxidizing 

oxidizing 

oxidizing 

reducing 

reducing 

reducing 

reducing 

reducing 

reducing 

reducing 

reducing 

reducing 

reducing 

oxidizing 

oxidizing 

oxidizing 

oxidizing 

oxidizing 

reducing 

reducing 

reducing 

reducing 

reducing 

reducing 

reducing 

reducing 

reducing 

reducing 

oxidizing 

oxidizing 

oxidizing 

oxidizing 

oxidizing 

oxidizing 

Appendix 3, Table 3. Properties of sherds before retiring 
224 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Appendix 3, Tabic 4. Munsell color groups 

(after Windes 1977 and 

Mills 1987). 

Group 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

Color 

Buff 

Buff 

Buff 

Yellowish Red 

Yellowish Red 

Red 

Red 

Code (Munsell Color 1973) 

10 YR 8 1 -8,4 

I0YR7/1 -7/4 

2.5YN8/-8/4 

5Y8/1 -8/4 

7.5YRN8/-8/4 

7.5YRN7/-7/4 

I0YR8/6-8/8 

10YR 7/6-7/8 

5 YR8/1 -8/4 

5 YR7/1 -7/4 

7.5 YR8/6 

7.5 YR7'6-7/8 

7.5 YR 6/6-6/8 

7/5 YR 5/4 - 5/8 

5 YR 7/6-7/8 

5 YR 6/6-6/8 

5 YR 5/4-5/8 

2.5 YR 6/4-6/8 

2.5 YR 5/4 - 5/8 

2.5 YR 4 4-4/ 8 

10 R 6/3 

10 R 5/3 - 5/8 

from the same clays. Likewise, if clays fire to the 

same color groups as sherds, they probably 

represent the general type of source clay used by 

prehistoric potters. While differences in color may 

indicate different source clays, they may also 

reflect differences in tempering material. This will 

be an important factor to consider when 

interpreting the meaning of color differences 

between test tiles and sherds, as no temper was 

added during the making of the test tiles. 

Another key aspect of the retiring analysis is 

the determination of apparent porosity, a measure 

of the open pore spaces in a sample. This was 

achieved following the methods described by Duff 

(1993) and included boiling refired sherd chips 

and test tiles in water for two hours. Each was 

then weighed in and out of water. Apparent 

porosity, expressed as a percentage, was 

calculated using the following formula: 

weight of saturated sample in air weight of dry sample X 100 

weight of sample in air weight of sample in water 

Apparent porosity is useful in determining 

differences in clay composition because different 

clays contain different amounts of natural fluxes. 

Along these same lines, apparent porosity of 

sherds will also reflect the addition of fluxes by 

potters. Aplastics in a clay, occurring naturally or 

added intentionally, also influence porosity; the 

larger the size of the aplastics, the higher the 

porosity. All of the sherds sampled in this study 

are tempered with fairly fine sand and/or sherd. 

Forming techniques also influence porosity, but 

because both the Plain Gray and Cebolleta Blackon-white vessels in the Cebollita Mesa region are 

formed by the coil and scrape technique, this is 

not a likely source of variation in the present 

sample. Duff (1993:41) also uses differences in 

apparent porosity as a measure of the number of 

potters making a certain type of ware. 

Results 

Recorded properties of clays and sherds before 

firing have been presented in Appendix 3. Tables 

2 and 3. This section will focus on the 

presentation of retiring data including color and 

apparent porosity. 

Original Firing Temperatures 

Through incremental retiring and recording of 

changes in color, hardness, and thermal expansion 

of sherd chips, it was found that the original tiring 

temperature of all sherds, both Plain Gray and 

Cebolleta Black-on-white, was exceeded by 650 

°C to 700 °C. While the Cebolleta Black-on-white 

sherds appear to have slightly higher firing 

temperatures than the Plain Gray sherds, this 

difference is not significant. Although lower than 

expected, these firing temperatures are within the 

range noted ethnographically for Pueblo potters 

using open fires, particularly potters at Santa Clara 

and San lldefonso pueblos (see Shepard 1995: 87, 

Table 3). This low temperature also makes sense 

given the lack of evidence for kilns in the survey 

area and the soft pastes of both Cebolleta Blackon-white and Plain Gray. The presence of sooting 

on several of the Plain Gray sherds suggests use 

for cooking, and if so, having thick walls and low 

firing temperatures would have increased porosity 

and resistance to thermal shock. Firing at a low 

temperature would prevent vitrification and filling 

up of open pore spaces. The open pores would 

allow heat to be conducted more efficiently (an 
CERAMIC SOURCING STUDY 225 

Site Sampled/ 

Formation Sampled 

ELMA 57 

ELM A 60 

ELMA 68 

ELMA 189 

Historic Acoma 

Dakota Sandstone 

Mancos Shale 

Mancos Shale 

Mancos Shale 

Chinle Formation 

(with ash) 

Chinle Formation 

Chinle Formation (ash) 

Chinle Formation 

Zuni Sandstone 

Zuni Sanstone 

Mancos Shale 

Zuni Sandstone 

Zuni and/or Mancos? 

Ceramic Type/ 

Sample Number 

Plain Gray 

Cebolleta B/W 

Plain Gray 

Cebolleta B/W 

Plain Gray 

Cebolleta B/W 

Plain Gray 

Cebolleta B/W 

CLAY 1 

CLAY 2 

CLAY 3 

CLAY 4 

CLAY 5 

CLAY 6 

CLAY 7 

CLAY 8 

CLAY 9 

CLAY 10 

CLAY 1 1 

CLAY 12 

CLAY 13 

Clays 

Not Fired 

X 

X 

1 

(Buff) 

9 

4 

8 

4 

7 

-

7 

1 

+ 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 

(Buff) 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

4 

1 

4 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3 

(Buff) 

-

-

1 

-

2 

-

-

-

-

4-

-

-

-

-

-

+ 

-

Color 

4 

(Yellowish 

Red) 

-

-

_ 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Groups 

5 

(Yellowish 

Red) 

-

-

1 

-

-

-

+ 

+ 

• 

-

-

-

-

: 

i 

-

+ 

6 

(Red) 

-

-

_ 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

t 

+ 

-

-

-

-

-

7 

(Red) 

-

-

_ 

1 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Total 

10 

5 

10 

5 

10 

5 

10 

5 

alternative for increasing thermal shock resistance 

would be to fire vessels at very high temperatures 

to increase vitrification, while maintaining thin 

walls to conduct heat). Apparent porosity 

measurements also support this determination of 

low firing temperature. Porosity is high for 

Cebolleta Black-on-white sherds from all sites and 

is particularly high for the Plain Gray sherds from 

ELMA 57 and 60. 

Retired Color 

After the sherd chips were fired to 900 °C and 

Munsell color of the paste was recorded, they 

were divided into color groups by site (Appendix 

3, Table 5). Sixty-seven percent (n = 40) of the 

sherds collected fired to Color Group 1 (Buff), 25 

percent (n = 15) fired to Color Group 2 (Buff), 

and 5 percent (n = 3) fired to Color Group 3 

(Buff). The remaining 3 percent (n = 2) fired to 

other colors. Divided by ware. 78 percent (n = 3 1) 

of the Plain Gray sherds fired to Color Group 1, 

13 percent (n = 5) fired to Color Group 2, 7 

percent (n = 3) fired to Color Group 3, and one 

sherd fired to Color Group 5. For the Cebolleta 

Black-on-white sherds, 45 percent (n = 9) fired to 

Color Group 1. 50 percent (n = 10) fired to Color 

Group 2, and one sherd fired to Color Group 7. 

Although the sample is small, particularly for 

Appendix 3, Table 5. Color groups for fired clay samples and refired sherds. 
226 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Appendix 3, Table 6. Apparent porosity of clays 

C'la\ Sample Number Percent Apparent Porosilv 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

8 

9 

10 

I I 

12 

13 

29.15 

27.36 

35.79 

37.83 

3 1.02 

28.77 

32.38 

32.72 

31.40 

31.55 

32.72 

Cebolleta Black-on-white, some patterns are 

evident. Whereas the Plain Gray sherds appear to 

be dominated by a single buff color group, the 

Cebolleta Black-on-white sherds are more evenly 

distributed between two buff color groups. In 

addition, both Plain Gray and Cebolleta Black-onwhite sherds from ELMA 68 and 189 are made 

from a greater variety of clay sources than those 

from ELMA 57 and 60. The significance of this 

will be discussed in greater detail in following 

sections. 

The clays fired to very different colors than 

the sherds (Appendix 3, Table 5). While the 

majority of the sherds fired to buff color groups. 

all but two of the test tiles fired to yellowish-red 

or red. Of the 1 1 clays fired, 7 fired to Color 

Group 5 (yellowish-red), 2 fired to Color Group 6 

(red), and 2 (Clays 5 and 12) fired to Color Group 

3 (buff). Apart from a few possible exceptions 

such as Clays 5 and 12, it appears that Pueblo II 

and early Pueblo III potters were not using these 

clay sources. Because Dakota Sandstone is 

known to fire to the buff color groups, the results 

emphasize the lack of Dakota Sandstone clay 

samples in this study and strengthen the argument 

that potters in the Cebollita Mesa region were 

using the Dakota Sandstone Formation as a clay 

source. The Dakota Sandstone should be a 

priority target for clay sampling in future research. 

Apparent Porosity 

Apparent porosity measurements of the fired 

test tiles are quite similar to one another, an 

unsurprising finding considering that most of the 

samples contain Mancos Shale (Appendix 3, Table 

6). From the refired color analysis, we know that 

the ceramic types under study were not made with 

these clays, and so comparison of the apparent 

porosity of test tiles and sherds is not useful. 

However, one sherd, 68G06, that fired to the same 

color group as many of the clays has an apparent 

porosity of 26.32 percent, not far from the range 

we see for the test tiles. The three sherds firing to 

Color Group 3 (189G07. 189G08. and 68G01) on 

the other hand, have apparent porosity 

measurements of 45.21 percent, 33.33 percent, 

and 38.46 percent, suggesting either that they are 

not made from buff firing clays represented by 

Clay 5 or Clay 12, or that the tempering materials 

used increased their porosity substantially. Future 

research would benefit from experiments that add 

various amounts of sand and sherd temper to clay 

test tiles to obtain a range of colors and porosity 

measurements for each clay source. 

The results of apparent porosity measurements 

for refired sherds are quite interesting. The Plain 

Gray sherds from ELMA 57 and 60 have an 

average apparent porosity of 50.25 percent and 

52.47 percent, respectively. The Plain Gray sherds 

from ELMA 68 and 189, on the other hand, have 

an average apparent porosity of 35.38 percent and 

38.61 percent, respectively (Appendix 3. Figure 

1). To test the null hypothesis of no significant 

difference between these four porosity 

measurements, a Model II Random Effects 

ANOVA was performed (Appendix 3. Table 7). 

Using the F distribution, an F critical value of 2.23 

was obtained, indicating that the difference in the 

mean apparent porosity of the samples from the 

four sites is statistically significant at the 0.05 

level. 

A comparison of mean apparent porosity of 

the Cebolleta Black-on-white sherds depicted in 

Appendix 3. Figure 2 suggests a similar trend to 

the Plain Gray sherds. The average apparent 

porosity of Cebolleta Black-on-white sherds from 

ELMA 57 and 60 is 44.85 percent and 44.48 

percent, respectively, while that for sherds from 

ELMA 68 and 189 is 41.07 percent and 41.53 

percent, respectively. As with the Plain Gray 
CERAMIC SOURCING STUDY 227 

Appendix 3, Figure 1. Mean percent of apparent porosity of Plain Gray by site. 

Appendix 3, Table 7. A NO VA table for apparent porosity of Plain 

Gray sherds between 

sampled sites. 

Source of Variation 

Among Groups 

Within Groups 

Total 

df 

3 

36 

39 

SS 

21-14.82 

1834.79 

3979.61 

MS 

714.94 

50.97 

Fs 

14.03 

porosity measurements, a Model II ANOVA was 

performed to test the null hypothesis that the four 

measurements are not significantly different 

(Appendix 3, Table 8). With an F critical value of 

2.46 and an alpha of 0.05, it was found that there 

is not a statistically significant difference between 

the four sites in apparent porosity of Cebolleta 

Black-on-white sherds. 

Although there is no significant statistical 

difference between sites in apparent porosity of 

Cebolleta Black-on-white, it is suspected that 

perhaps there would be if a larger sample size 

could be obtained. It is important to note that 

although sherds and test tiles were boiled and 

measured in two separate batches at two different 

times, error and variation in method cannot 

account for the differences we see. The reason for 

this is that the sherd chips from ELMA 57, 60 and 

68 were all boiled during one episode, and then 

those from ELMA 189 were boiled and measured 

in another episode. The striking similarities in 

Plain Gray porosity between ELMA 57 and 60 and 

between ELMA 68 and 189 (Appendix 3, Figure 

1) and the differences between these two groups 

remain to be explained. 
228 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Appendix 3, Figure 2. Mean percent of apparent porosity of Cebolleta Black-on-white by site. 

Appendix 3, Table 8. A NOVA table for apparent porosity of Cebolleta 

Black-on-white sherds between sites. 

Source of Variation 

Among Groups 

Within Groups 

Total 

uT 

3 

16 

19 

SS 

57.48 

1871.72 

1926.2 

VIS 

19.16 

116.98 

Fs 

0.16 

Interpretation 

The dramatic differences in the colors of the 

collected clays compared to the colors of the 

sampled sherds, after controlling for both firing 

temperature and firing atmosphere, strongly 

indicate that the clay sources sampled in this study 

do not represent those used for pottery making in 

this area during the late Cebolleta and Pilares 

phases (A.D. 1050 to 1200). Buff firing Clay 5 

and Clay 12 (Color Group 3) may be exceptions. 

However, because the addition of aplastics is 

known to affect the overall color of fired clay, 

future experiments should include tempering of 

collected clays with materials commonly used in 

the area, namely sand and sherd. 

The very fact that none of the clays sampled 

adequately match those apparently used in the 

production of Plain Gray or Cebolleta Black-onwhite vessels is in itself valuable information. 

Although the Dakota Sandstone Formation was 

suspected from the onset of the study to be the 

primary clay source for ceramics, particularly for 

Cebolleta Black-on-white, the ability to eliminate 

almost every other formation in the area 

strengthens this suspicion. Dakota Sandstone is 

known to fire to buff, the same firing color as the 

majority of the ceramic pastes sampled. It is 
CERAMIC SOURCING STUDY 229 

locally available, and it is the most likely source 

for clays used by Acoma potters in the area both 

historically and today. A single historic Acoma 

sherd was also refired to 900 °C with the rest of 

the sherd chips, and its buff colored paste falls in 

Color Group 1, as does the paste of most of the 

prehistoric sherds (Appendix 3, Table 5). The 

paucity of good clay samples of Dakota Sandstone 

in this study, unintentional and unfortunate as it is, 

provides a strong focus for future research. 

Even though it is not possible to come to a 

firm conclusion regarding the particular clay 

sources used for Cebolleta Black-on-white and 

Plain Gray vessels, this study suggests interesting 

differences in the kinds of clays used. EEMA 57 

and 60, only 0.5 km apart, have ceramics made 

from very similar clays. Plain Gray and Cebolleta 

Black-on-white vessels seem to have been made 

from the same clays, primarily those firing to 

Color Group 1. and there is not much deviation 

from this. Plain Gray and Cebolleta Black-onwhite sherds from ELMA 68 and 189, on the other 

hand, tend to be made from a greater variety of 

clays. 

Apparent porosity measurements of Plain 

Gray sherds support this pattern. There is a 

statistically significant difference in the apparent 

porosity of Plain Gray sherds from these four sites. 

From Appendix 3. Figure 1. it is clear that Plain 

Gray samples from ELMA 57 and 60 are very 

similar in apparent porosity, as are those from 

ELMA 68 and 189. In addition, the samples from 

ELMA 57 and 60 have a much higher percentage 

of open pore space than those from ELMA 68 and 

189. The situation may be similar with the 

Cebolleta Black-on-whitc sherds, although the 

difference is not statistically significant, perhaps 

due to the very small sample size. 

Conclusion 

Several limitations or potential sources of 

error became apparent during the course of the 

research. Apart from the already mentioned small 

sherd and clay sample sizes, the study did not 

control for form or design style of Cebolleta 

Black-on-white sherd samples. More importantly. 

limited time, initial unfamiliarity with the details 

of the geology of the area, and mixing of clays at 

contact zones resulted in a failure to obtain any 

usable Dakota Sandstone clay samples. Because 

the clays sampled do not appear to be those used 

by prehistoric potters in the Las Ventanas area, the 

sources of the clays actually used remain 

unknown. 

The meaning of the differences in color and 

apparent porosity of sherds between the sites 

considered is not entirely clear. They may reflect 

differences in clay composition and therefore 

specific clay sources exploited or differences 

between potters (clay sources used, amount of 

temper added to clays, degree and type of clay 

preparation, etc.). The focus on one or two clay 

sources exhibited at ELMA 57 and 60 may 

represent a more common or "normal" pattern for 

inhabitants of this area during the Cebolleta phase, 

while ELMA 189 (and perhaps ELMA 68 as well) 

may diverge from this norm because of differences 

in exchange relationships or social groups. 

In this regard, it is important to consider what 

is known about ELMA 189. the Las Ventanas 

Ruin, in particular. Given that this site is a 

Chacoan outlier, complete with a great house, 

roads, and a great kiva, it is perhaps not surprising 

that this site displays a greater variety of clays in 

the sample of Plain Gray and Cebolleta Black-onwhite sherds collected in this study. During recent 

recording of the site by the El Malpais 

Archeological Survey, over 1.500 sherds were 

analysed. The site was found to have a greater 

range of ceramic types and many more imported 

brown wares than other sites recorded. In 

addition. Socorro Black-on-white comprises an 

unusually high percentage of the white ware at this 

site in comparison to other sites in the El Malpais 

area. 

In discussing the conspicuous divergence of 

the frequencies of imported wares at the Las 

Ventanas site from those found in most of the sites 

in this area, Schachner (2002) suggests that the 

direct or indirect association of the inhabitants 

with the Chaco sphere may haw allowed them to 

engage in •"preferential exchange" of these wares. 
230 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

He also notes that the Skull Site in the Cebolla 

Canyon area, a great house with Chacoan 

characteristics, also has a high frequency of 

Socorro Black-on-white compared to sites in the 

surrounding area. 

We may postulate that ELMA 189 may have 

functioned as a center for community integration, 

serving contemporary Pueblo II and early Pueblo 

III sites in the area, or at least as a center for 

interregional trade. ELMA 68, also with an 

unusually high frequency of Socorro Black-onwhite and a range of clay types, may have been 

more directly connected to ELMA 189, by simple 

proximity and/or by social or kin ties, than to other 

multi-room pueblos located farther away. ELMA 

57 and 60 may also have been connected through 

social ties, some of which may have influenced 

choice of clays and subtleties in the making of 

vessels or even the possibility of communal firings 

of vessels between the sites. While intriguing, the 

strength of this possible explanation requires more 

evidence than is provided by only four sites and 

small samples of two ceramic wares. 

Phase dates given here are those assigned by Dittert (1959). 

and differ somewhat from the dates assigned to these phases 

by the PI Malpais Archeologieal Survey. See figure 3.1 for a 

correlation of PI Malpais area dating schemes. 
CERAMIC SOURCING STUDY 231 

References 

Dittert, A. E.. Jr. 

1949 The Prehistoric Population and Architecture of the Cebolleta Mesa Region, Central 

Western New Mexico. Unpublished M.A. 

Thesis. University of New Mexico, 

Albuquerque. 

1959 Culture Change in the Cebolleta Mesa 

Region. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, 

University of Arizona, Tucson. 

Duff, A. I.E. 

1993 An Exploration of Post-Chacoan Community Organization Through Ceramic 

Sourcing. M.A. Thesis, Arizona State 

University. 

Fowler, A. 

1991 Brown Ware and Red Ware Pottery: An 

Anasazi Ceramic Tradition. Kiva 56:123-

144. 

Mills. B. 

1987 Ceramic Production and Distribution. In 

Archaeological Investigations at Eight Small 

Sites in West-Central New Mexico, edited by 

P. Hogan, pp. 145-154. Office of Contract 

Archaeology, University of New Mexico, 

Albuquerque 

1992 Standardization, Specialization, and 

Ceramic Production: A Comparison of 

Historic and Protohistoric Zuni. Paper 

presented at the 57'1' Annual Meeting for the 

Society of American Archaeology. 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

Rice, P. ML 

1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 

Rye, O. S. 

1981 Pottery Technology: Principles and 

Reconstruction. Taraxacum, Washington. 

D.C. 

Laughlin, A. W.. and G. Wolde-Gabriel 

1997 Dating the Zuni-Bandera Volcanic Field. 

In Natural History of El Malpais National 

Monument, compiled by K. Mabery, pp. 25-

29. New Mexico Bureau of Mines and 

Mineral Resources, Bulletin 156. New 

Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. 

Socorro. 

Marshall, M. P. 

1991 Ceramic Analysis. In The Prehistoric 

Cebolla Canyon Community: An Archaeological Class III Inventory of 320 Acres of 

BTM hand at the Mouth of Cebolla Canyon, 

by F. E. Wozniak and M. P. Marshall, pp.6-

1-6-42. Prepared for the USDI. Bureau of 

Land Management. Office of Contract 

Archaeology, University of New Mexico, 

Albuquerque. 

1993 Archaeological Investigations in the 

Cerritos de Jaspe Subunil of the El Malpais 

Conservation Area. The 1991 BLM Survey. 

Office of Contract Archaeology, University 

of New Mexico. Albuquerque. 

Ruppe, R. J. 

1953 The Acoma Culture Province: An 

Archaeological Concept. Unpublished Ph.D. 

Dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge. 

Schachner, G. 

2001 ELM A 2000 Preliminary Ceramic 

Analysis. In A Cultural Resource Inventory 

Pilot Survey at El Malpais National 

Monument, West-Central New Mexico: 

Preliminary Results of the 2000 Field 

Season, by J. L. McVickar. pp. 99-1 18. Park 

Paper ELMA-04, National Park Service 

Inter-mountain Support Office, Santa Fe. 

2002 Interim Ceramic Report for the El Malpais 

National Monument Survey: The 2000. 2001. 

and Spring 2002 Seasons. Unpublished 

manuscript on file. National Park Service 

Intermountain Support Office, Santa Fe. 

Shepard, A. O. 

1995 [1956] Ceramics for the Archaeologist. 

Carnegie Institution of Washington, 

Washington. D.C. 
232 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Wilson. C. D. 

1994 Armijo Canyon Ceramic Analysis. In The 

Armijo Canyon Archaeological Survey, by J. 

Elyea. P. Hogan. and C. D. Wilson, pp. 49-

69. Prepared for the Bureau of Land 

Management. Rio Puerco District. Office of 

Contract Archaeology, University of New 

Mexico. Albuquerque. 

Windes. T. C. 

1977 Typology and Technology of Anasazi 

Ceramics. In Settlement and Subsistence 

Along the Lower Chaco River: The CGP 

Survey, edited by C.A. Reher. pp. 169-370. 

University of New Mexico Press, 

Albuquerque. 
Appendix 4 

A Survey of Lithic Raw Material Sources In 

and Around El Malpais National Monument 

./. David Kilby 

This report presents the results of a lithic raw 

material survey carried out as a component of the 

Phase I pilot survey conducted during the summer 

of 2000 at El Malpais National Monument 

(McVickar 2001). Preliminary results from the 

first field season of the archeological survey 

indicated the need for a better understanding of the 

locations of sources for lithic raw materials used 

prehistorically. Specifically needed was 

information allowing the distinction of local from 

non-local and exotic raw materials in the 

archeological record. The raw material survey 

reported here was carried out in order to provide 

this information. 

Introduction 

The results of the year 2000 field season of the 

archeological inventory survey of El Malpais 

National Monument (McVickar 2001) indicated 

that data representing chipped-stone raw material 

use were patterned both through time and across 

space. Preliminary analyses of these data (Kilby 

2001) revealed that Archaic hunter-gatherers in 

the monument used a relatively narrow range of 

raw materials in equal amounts, while more 

sedentary Puebloan groups utilized a slightly 

wider range but concentrated on a few specific 

raw materials. For raw materials with known 

sources, such as San Andres chert and Grants 

Ridge obsidian, variation in relative abundance in 

site assemblages from the monument seemed to be 

explainable in terms of differences between 

"local'" versus "non-local" resources. Further, it 

was found that the overall abundance of some 

groups of raw materials increased or decreased 

from north to south along the eastern margins of 

the McCartys Lava Flow near the eastern 

boundary of the monument. Here again, patterns 

in the data representing raw materials with known 

sources suggested that directional patterns might 

be explained by distance to raw material source. 

In other words, a simple distance-decay model of 

the abundance of particular raw materials seemed 

to hold true. 

The source areas for many of the raw material 

types identified during the survey, however, are 

poorly known. Clearly, interpretations of the lithic 

component of the archeological record of El 

Malpais National Monument would benefit greatly 

from a more thorough knowledge of the source 

areas for particular raw materials. Unfortunately, 

due to the complexity and vastness of scale of 

Southwestern geology, identifying the source or 

sources for each raw material found on 

archeological sites within the monument does not 

appear to be a reasonable goal. A more practical 

approach is a survey of portions of the monument 

and the immediate surrounding area that is 

structured by local geology and surface hydrology. 

with the goal of identifying raw materials that are 

available in the local environment. Such a survey 

was undertaken between April and June 2001. 

The objectives, methods, and results of that survey 

are presented in the following pages. 

-> *> ~> 

2 J J 
234 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Objectives 

The broader objective of a lithic raw material 

survey for El Malpais National Monument is to 

better understand the variety and availability of 

resources used for making chipped-stone tools in 

the area in and around El Malpais National 

Monument. This knowledge will improve our 

ability to distinguish between locally available and 

non-local or exotic raw materials and strengthen 

our interpretations of variation in raw material use 

within sites, across space, and through time. 

A series of volcanic events are the part of the 

geologic record for which El Malpais National 

Monument is best known (for an overview see 

Chapter 2). but little, if any, rock useful as a raw 

material for chipped-stone technologies was 

produced by these events. The majority of the 

basalt within the monument is the result of 

relatively slow-cooling flows that yielded ropy, 

bubbly rock. Of greater interest to prehistoric 

users of chipped-stone tools in the El Malpais area 

are materials available in the landscapes of the 

monument periphery. The objectives of this 

survey are thus focused more upon discerning the 

lithic raw material resources available in the 

geology of the monument periphery than upon the 

geological resources of the El Malpais National 

Monument itself. The fundamental objective is to 

identify raw materials that are locally available in 

primary, alluvial, or relict contexts. 

More specific objectives relate to particular 

groups of raw materials. Of particular interest are 

Permian cherts known in the Zuni Mountains 

north and northwest of the monument. These 

cherts include San Andres chert (a.k.a. fingerprint 

chert) of the San Andres Formation and Zuni 

spotted chert (also known as yellow-brown spotted 

chert, dendritic jasper, Chinle chert) that may 

derive from the San Andres Formation or an 

overlying unit. Specific objectives are to locate 

and describe the secondary sources of these cherts 

(mostly from alluvial contexts) that are 

geographically closest to the monument and to 

explore the potential locations of primary sources 

based on these data and published information. 

The second group includes the remaining 

locally available lithic raw materials, whether or 

not they have been found in archeological contexts 

within the monument. Part of this objective is to 

evaluate whether some of the relatively abundant 

raw materials in the archeological record are 

available locally. Of particular interest are 

chalcedony with red inclusions, chalcedony with 

black inclusions, cherts and silicified woods of 

various color and quality, quartzites, and finegrained basalt. It should be noted that Grants 

Ridge obsidian (also referred to as pitchstone 

[Dittert 1959]) is common on sites in El Malpais 

National Monument; however, because its source 

in the area southwest of Mt. Taylor is relatively 

well known, this raw material was not investigated 

as a part of this project. 

Methods 

The objectives of the raw material survey 

were reached through examining a sample of 

landform surfaces and drainages with alluvial 

deposits surrounding the monument. Drainage 

deposits are particularly useful because their 

bedloads provide samples of rock that can be 

found upstream from that point. Sample units in 

alluvial deposits were chosen according to 

drainage areas, drainage size, the number of 

geological formations exposed within the drainage 

(or. in the case of Permian cherts, the presence of 

Permian limestone within them regardless of the 

number of formations exposed), and the ease of 

access to the area. Sample units on landform 

surfaces were chosen according to the probability 

that critical geologic units were exposed. 

Sampling was carried out with the aid of 

Geographic Information System (GIS) map layers 

including surface geology, hydrology, roads, and 

Public Land Survey System (PLSS) data 

coverages (data derived from Resource GIS 

Clearinghouse 1996; 1998). The GIS allowed 

general 2.59 sq km (1.0 sq mi) sample locations 

to be chosen by examining the surface geology 

contained within individual drainage basins. 

Where possible, sample locations were chosen at 

points downstream of confluences in order to 

increase the upstream area represented in the 
sample. PLSS data coverages provided township, 

range, and section information for each sample 

area enabling sample areas to be identified on 

quadrangle and public lands maps. The sample 

location sections were then examined relative to 

roads providing public access, and specific sample 

units were chosen for field inspection. In many 

cases, sample units were modified, deleted, or 

added in the field due to logistical reasons such as 

posted land or practical reasons such as poor 

geologic exposure. Further, some units, such as 

those containing the Dittert Site (LA 11723) and 

the La Vega Site (LA 9075) were added 

judgmentally. 

To provide order to the fieldwork, the sample 

units were grouped into five survey areas, Zuni 

Mountains East, Zuni Mountains, Cebollita North, 

Cebollita South, and Cenitos de Jaspe (Appendix 

4. Figure 1). Each sample unit was inspected by 

walking over the surface or along the drainage and 

manually testing cobble and gravel specimens by 

striking them with a hammerstone. Notes were 

recorded describing the properties, size range, and 

abundance of useful lithic raw material in the 

sample unit. Sample locations were numbered and 

recorded with a GPS and were added as a map 

layer to the GIS. Legal descriptions for each 

sample location are on file at El Malpais 

National Monument. 

Results by Survey Area 

A total of 23 sample units was inspected, 

ranging from spot inspections to relatively long 

linear transects along drainages. The units are 

grouped into five survey areas on the north, east. 

and south sides of El Malpais National Monument, 

each oriented toward the investigation of a 

particular range of geologic units (Appendix 4. 

Figure 2). The area to the west of the monument 

is almost entirely covered by older basalt flows 

that extend for miles to the west and south. The 

results of the survey are presented below by area 

and unit. 

LITHIC RAW MATERIAL SOURCES 235 

Zuni Mountains East 

The Zuni Mountains East area (Appendix 4, 

Figure 3) includes sample units along the eastern 

flanks of the Zuni Mountains immediately north of 

the monument. Units in this area were chosen to 

specifically target the Permian San Andres 

Formation, but drainages also cut the Yeso 

(Permian) and Chinle (Triassic) Formations, along 

with Glorieta Sandstone (Permian) and Quaternary 

alluvium (Appendix 4, Table 1 provides a 

summary of the geologic units in Appendix 4, 

Figures 3-7). These units are often complex and 

discontinuous due to faulting and volcanic 

activity. Three sample units were inspected in this 

area, including the La Vega Site. 

Unit 1. Outcrops of San Andres chert 

have been reported from the area of the La 

Vega site (LA 9075) (Amick 1997; 

Sullivan 1987; Sullivan and Boyer 1988). 

The site itself is a complex multicomponent site ranging from Folsom to 

ancestral Pueblo in age. The site was 

visited to ascertain the range of variation 

of San Andres chert in the area as well as 

to observe its geological context. 

Primary outcrops were found about 

0.5 km west/southwest of the ancestral 

Pueblo roomblocks. Chert and chert 

reduction debris are dense on the surfaces 

of several low, rounded hilltops of San 

Andres Limestone. The chert is veryabundant but varies in quality. Raw 

material at the surface is broken and 

contains many natural planes of 

weakness-probably a result of surface 

weathering. Scattered small depressions 

indicate that some raw material has been 

excavated from subsurface contexts. 

Exposed material in these depressions is 

less flawed and occurs in larger size 

ranges than the material exposed at the 

natural surface. Although much of the 
236 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Appendix 4, Figure 1. Physiographic overview showing locations of survey. 

Appendix 4, Figure 2. Surface geology overview showing locations of survey. 
LITHIC RAW MATERIAL SOURCES 237 

Appendix 4, Figure 3. Zuni Mountains East Survey Area. 

San Andres chert is primarily white, color 

ranges to gray, purple, orangish yellow, 

and pinkish red. Banks (1990:70-71) 

suggests that the reddened colors may be a 

result of patination; samples examined in 

this survey had some increased pinkness 

on older surfaces and bands and clouds of 

pink on fresh interior surfaces. These 

colors occur with or without the 

characteristic fine gray swirls and lines 

that have given it the nickname 

"fingerprint chert." The fingerprint 

pattern tends to be denser and more 

striking near cortical areas of nodules. All 

observed specimens were opaque. 

Unit 2. This unit contains an arcing 

drainage that begins on the east side of 

Loma Montosa, a small butte capped by 

the Chinle Formation, and arcs around its 

north end, ultimately heading westward 

toward Valle de Ios Cerritos Canyon. The 

hilly surface surrounding the butte is 

primarily San Andres Formation 

limestone. The small drainage flows 

across portions of both the Chinle and San 

Andres Formations. 

Small specimens of gray and redorange cherty rock were observed in the 

western end of the arroyo channel: 

however, no chert was observed on the 

hilly San Andres surface north of Loma 

Montosa. Siliceous raw material generally 

increases in the arroyo gravels as one 

progresses upstream toward the butte. 

Larger specimens in this area (larger than 

2 cm) are clearly petrified wood. Petrified 

(silicified) wood is abundant on the 

eastern slope of the butte and generally 

increases as one progresses up the hill to 

the crest. The Chinle Formation appears 

to be its source. The petrified wood is 

found in a wide variety of colors, with 

rusty reddish-orange with streaks and 

mottles being bv far the most common. 
238 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Other varieties include dark gray-brown, 

maroon, and mottled red-and-gray or pinkand-gray. The latter occurs within the 

range of color of San Andres but retains a 

subtle woody structure and, where present, 

a distinctive dark exterior band of bark. 

Almost all observed specimens of petrified 

wood are glossy and opaque ("cherty"). 

Clasts range in size to over 10 cm, but are 

limited by internal flaws. Aside from 

these internal flaws, the rock is relatively 

isotropic and not splintery. A single light 

gray chalcedonic artifact (a small core) 

was observed, and it is not known whether 

this rock is derived from this part of the 

Chinle Formation or elsewhere. In 

general, the petrified wood is of moderate 

quality but clue to internal flaws it 

provides raw materials of rather small 

sizes. 

Also noted was a possible clay source 

at the base of the reddened sediments of 

the Chinle Formation (Dittert [1959:186] 

also describes the Chinle as a source for 

pottery clay for Acoma). The clay is 

brown-gray with thick bands of red. In at 

least one and possibly two areas, there 

appear to be excavations into the side of 

the hill exposing the clay. The most 

obvious is located at the base of a thick 

juniper on the lower hillslope on the 

eastern side of the butte. 

Unit 3 (small canyon east of Bonita 

Canyon). This survey unit consists of 

small but deeply incised south-flowing 

drainages that come together near 

Highway 53. Together these drainages cut 

through San Andres, Glorieta Sandstone, 

Yeso. and Chinle Formations. 

The western branch is eroded 

primarily in San Andres Limestone, 

although Glorieta Sandstone and Yeso 

Formation rocks occur upslope. Some San 

Andres chert in very small (1 to 2 cm) 

sizes was observed in the alluvium. Along 

Appendix 4, Tabic 1. Geologic units used in text and figures (adapted from Resources GIS Clearinghouse 

1998). 

Ago Code Definition 

Quaternary Qa Alluvium; upper and middle Quaternary 

Ql Landslide deposits and colluvium 

Qb Basalt and andesite flows and local vent deposits 

Qbo Basalt or basaltic andesite: middle and lower Pleistocene 

Tertiary Tmb Basalt and andesite flows: Miocene 

Cretaceous Kcc Crevasse Canyon Formation; coal-bearing units are Dilco and Gibson Coal Members 

Kg Gallup Sandstone: generally regressive marine sandstone: Turanian 

King Gallup Sandstone and underlying D-Cross Tongue of the Mancos Shale: Turanian 

Kth Ires Hermanns Formation: formerly designated as Lower Gallup Sandstone in the Zuni Basin; Turanian 

Km Mancos Shale: divided into Upper and Lower parts by Gallup Sandstone 

Triassic @c Chinle Group: Upper Triassic: includes Moenkopi Formation (Middle Triassic) at base in many areas 

Permian P Permian rocks, undivided 

Psa San Andres Formation: limestone and dolomite with minor shale: Guadalupian in south, in part Leonardian to 

north 

Pg Glorieta Sandstone; texturally and mineralogically mature, high-silica quartz sandstone 

P) Yeso Formation: sandstones, siltstones. anhydrite, gypsum, halite, and dolomite: Leonardian 

Pa Abo Formation: red beds, arkosic at base, finer and more mature above 

Proterozoic Xm Lower Proterozoic metamorphic rocks, dominantly felsic volcanic, volcaniclastic 

Xp Lower Proterozoic plutonic rocks (older than 1600 mya) 

Xmo Lower Proterozoic metamorphic rocks, dominantly mafic (1720-1760 mya) 
LITHIC RAW MATERIAL SOURCES 239 

Appendix 4, Figure 4. Zuni Mountains Survey Area. 

Appendix 4, Figure 5. Cerritos de Jaspe Survey Area. 
240 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Appendix 4, Figure 6. Ce boll it a North Survey Area. 

Appendix 4, Figure 7. Cebollita South Survey Area. 
LITHIC RAW MATERIAL SOURCES 241 

the slope of the western wall of this 

canyon are relatively thin (2 to 5 cm) 

lenses of chert. This chert is gray to dark 

gray with distinctive "fingerprint" swirls. 

It is slightly coarser on average than that 

observed at La Vega but remains a chert 

of moderate to good quality. The chert 

occurs in nodular form and has a relatively 

hard, rough, thin, gray to grayish-brown 

cortex. Some small pieces of red-banded 

petrified wood were noted in the alluvium 

as well and, as described below, probably 

are derived from the Chinle Formation. 

The eastern branch consists of a steep, 

narrow canyon cut into the San Andres 

and Chinle Formations. Very thin (1 to 2 

cm) lenses of white chert (presumably San 

Andres) occur within clasts of limestone 

in the alluvium in the lower part of the 

drainage. Petrified (siliciiled) wood is 

abundant throughout the drainage in 

generally dark tones of red, brown, 

orange, pink, and white in banded and 

mottled patterns. The petrified wood is 

opaque and generally grainy. Some finegrained and glossy bands of about 3 cm in 

width occur, but the material is elsewhere 

grainy and in some cases splintery. This 

petrified wood is apparently derived from 

the Chinle Formation and occurs in sizes 

up to 10 cm. 

Zuni Mountains 

The eastern part of the Zuni Mountains is a 

geologically complex area in which rocks formed 

as recently as the Quaternary overlay the plutonic. 

Lower Proterozoic rocks formed 1,600 million 

years ago that compose the core of the mountain 

range. Of particular interest in the Zuni 

Mountains survey area (Appendix 4, Figure 4) is 

the San Andres Limestone along Zuni Canyon and 

the undifferentiated Permian unit immediately 

west of it. Given the possibility that Zuni spotted 

chert is derived from something that once overlay 

the San Andres Formation and is now eroded in 

most areas, this undifferentiated unit could 

potentially be a source of this chert. Also present 

in the area is the earlier Permian Yeso Formation, 

Quaternary basalt, and the aforementioned Lower 

Proterozoic rocks. Four units were investigated in 

this area. 

Units 4 and 5 (Oso Ridge). Both of these 

units were chosen judgmentally as a 

potential source area for Zuni spotted 

chert based on reports of this chert being 

found here (Cameron 1997) and farther 

west on Oso Ridge (Alfred Dittert. 

personal communication 2001). Surface 

visibility was poor due to forest cover, 

however, and inspections at two areas of 

exposed outcrops (these appeared to be 

Yeso Formation sandstone) on steep 

slopes yielded no evidence of usable 

chipped-stone raw material. 

Unit 6 (Agua Fria Creek). This unit 

consists of a stretch of Agua Fria Creek, a 

major drainage that drains areas of the 

Yeso Formation (including the north side 

of Oso Ridge). Quaternary basalts, and 

various Proterozoic plutonic and mafic 

rocks. Quartz is abundant in sizes up to 5 

cm; however, it is rather coarse with a 

natural structure that limits its usefulness 

for tool making. The quartz is typically 

translucent white with traces of pink and 

gray coloring. It is presumably derived 

from the surrounding plutonic lower 

Proterozoic rock units. Also noted were 

small amounts of siliciiled wood of poor 

quality for chipped-stone raw material. 

The small splintery petrified wood is of 

unknown origin, but may be lag from 

some long-eroded portion of the Chinle 

Formation. 

Unit 7 (Zuni Canyon). Zuni Canyon is a 

major northeast-flowing creek that has 

incised deeply through undifferentiated 

Permian rocks, the San Andres Formation, 

and minor remnants of the Chinle 

Formation. A Quaternary basalt flow 

encroaches on the upper parts of the 
242 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

canyon. Two areas along the canyon were 

inspected. Large boulders of San Andres 

Limestone are present in both but increase 

as one moves downstream. Small 

amounts of San Andres chert were 

observed in the alluvial gravels of the 

channel-these were light blush-gray with 

faint "fingerprint" patterns. San Andres 

chert is reported to be very abundant in 

parts of the canyon (Phillipe LeTourneau, 

personal communication 2002), and given 

the area of San Andres Formation being 

eroded by the canyon, is likely to be true. 

Cerritos de Jaspe 

The Cerritos de Jaspe area is a pocket of 

northeast-southwest trending San Andres 

Formation limestone and Yeso Formation 

sandstone hills that is surrounded by Quaternary 

lava flows. The southwestern flanks are 

composed almost entirely of San Andres 

Limestone. This survey area (Appendix 4, Figure 

5) was extensively examined both along the road 

and into canyons with promising exposures. The 

results indicate that some survey units were placed 

stratigraphically above the San Andres. No 

knappable raw material was observed, and it 

appears that no San Andres or other chert is 

available in this area. It may be that only upper, 

non-chert-bearing members of the San Andres 

Formation are exposed at the surface in the 

Cerritos de Jaspe area. The following units were 

surveyed: 

Unit 8. This unit is a small canyon with 

little limestone exposed. 

Unit 9.. This unit is a small canyon with 

good limestone exposures. 

Unit 10. This unit is a limestone outcrop 

on a hill. 

Unit 11. This unit is a small canyon with 

limited limestone exposures. 

Unit 12.. This unit is a larger canyon with 

no limestone exposure. 

Unit 13.. This unit is in a valley with poor 

exposures. 

Unit 14. This unit is on a hilltop with 

extensive limestone exposure. 

Cebollita North 

Units in the Cebollita North survey area 

(Appendix 4, Figure 6) were chosen to provide a 

sample of the material available along the western 

slopes of Mesa Negra and North Cebollita Mesa. 

Together these landforms consist of Cretaceous 

rocks, including Mancos Shale, Gallup Sandstone, 

and the Crevasse Canyon Formation, and are 

capped by a Miocene basalt flow. Surrounding 

and connecting the mesas are Quaternary landslide 

deposits (colluvium) made up of debris from the 

aforementioned geologic units. Below this apron 

are extensive exposures of the Dakota Sandstone. 

Sample units in this and the Cebollita South area 

were modified in many cases because of posted 

land and the nature of the drainages and arroyos. 

Three sample units were investigated in the 

Cebollita North area; each of them are oriented to 

drainages along the eastern slopes of the mesas 

that are eroded into the Quaternary colluvium 

(which can be considered a sample of overlying 

units) and directly into the overlying Cretaceous 

and Miocene units in their upper reaches. 

Unit 15. This unit consists of the lower 

reaches of a small, steep drainage that cuts 

through the Dakota Sandstone and, in its 

upper reaches, the Quaternary colluvium. 

It is situated east-southeast of the BLM's 

El Malpais Ranger Station along Highway 

117. Quartzite is reported from the 

Dakota conglomerate and gravel sections 

(Dittert 1959:186), but none was found in 

this area. No material useful for chippedstone reduction was observed. 

Unit 16. Unit 16 consists of a steep 

drainage along the middle slope of Mesa 

Negra, the upper ends of which reach the 

base of the Miocene basalt at the top of the 

mesa. Medium- and fine-grained basalt is 
LITHIC RAW MATERIAL SOURCES 243 

abundant and available in all practical size 

ranges. The fine-grained basalt flakes 

particularly well and forms a strong, sharp 

edge. It is dark gray in color and weathers 

to reddish-brown on the surface and along 

fissures. The medium-grained basalt 

flakes less well. It is gray with a slight 

purple tinge and weathers to a rough light 

gray on exterior surfaces. These basalts 

are likely derived from the Miocene cap of 

Mesa Negra. 

In addition to basalt, a knappable 

gray-green siltstone was found. The 

siltstone flakes well, but is relatively soft 

and thin edges are weak and tend to 

crumble. It weathers to reddish-orange to 

maroon on exterior surfaces and was 

observed in size ranges up to 5 cm. The 

stone is presumably from one of the 

Cretaceous formations, but it is not clear 

which one. 

end of Cebollita Mesa, which is capped by 

Miocene basalt. Five units were investigated in 

the Cebollita South area, including one along 

upper Sand Canyon, two along Cebolla Canyon, 

and one on the Mesa separating them. In addition, 

the Dittert Site was visited. 

Unit 18 (Upper Sand Canyon). This unit 

consists almost entirely of Cretaceous 

sedimentary rocks; however, the only 

usable raw materials found were clasts of 

basalt up to about 7 cm. Two varieties 

were observed; both are relatively finegrained and flake well. One is dark 

brownish-gray and weathers to burgundy 

on exterior surfaces. The other is gray and 

weathers to reddish brown. As there are 

no major basalt surfaces remaining in this 

area west of Cebolla Canyon, these basalt 

clasts are most likely remnants of the same 

Miocene basalt that caps Cebollita Mesa 

but are locally eroded. 

Unit 17. This unit lies south of Unit 16 

along a drainage similar to the one found 

in Unit 16. Fine-grained basalt was found 

in abundance here, as well as smaller 

amounts of green siltstone. In addition, a 

small, notched tool was found that had 

been made on a primary flake from a wellrounded cobble of pinkish chert with red 

cortex. It is not known if this material is 

from the immediate area (the 100 percent 

cortical flake suggests it might be); 

although it may derive from conglomerate 

layers within the Dakota Sandstone. 

Cebollita South 

The Cebollita South survey area (Appendix 4, 

Figure 7) is located almost entirely in the Cebolla 

Wilderness southeast of El Malpais National 

Monument. Geological surfaces in this area are 

mostly comprised of Cretaceous sandstones, 

including the Tres Hermanos Formation (formerly 

known as the Lower Gallup Sandstone). Mancos 

Shale, Gallup Sandstone, and the Crevasse 

Canyon Formation. To the north lies the southern 

Unit 19 (small tributary of Cebolla 

Canyon). Unit 19 consists of a small 

channel north of Cebolla Canyon that 

reaches up through Cretaceous units to the 

base of the Miocene basalt on Cebollita 

Mesa to the north. Fine-grained basalt 

with a burgundy exterior is found here. In 

addition, a light gray silicified limestone 

was observed. This material is very hard 

but difficult to control and tends to step 

out with smaller flakes. It was found in 

size ranges up to 5 cm in the alluvium. 

Unit 20 (small tributary of Cebolla 

Canyon). This unit is a steep channel 

west of Cebolla Canyon that reaches up 

through Cretaceous units. No materials 

useful for chipped-stone reduction were 

observed. 

Unit 21 (mesa top between Cebolla and 

Sand Canyons). A spot inspection was 

made of Unit 21 located on the mesa 

separating Cebolla and Sand Canyons. 

The surface is reddened loam resulting 
244 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

from the weathering of the Crevasse 

Canyon Formation. Orange and reddish 

petrified wood is found sporadically on 

this surface. It is typically splintery and 

coarse and of little use for chipped-stone 

reduction. Its presence on the Crevasse 

Canyon Formation surface is curious-it 

may be derived from here or lagged out 

from a long-eroded remnant of the Chinle 

Formation. 

Unit 22 (Dittert Site). The Dittert Site 

(LA 11723) was visited to see which, if 

any. of the raw materials observed in Sand 

and Cebolla Canyons its inhabitants were 

using. Fine-grained basalt with burgundy 

weathering surfaces appeared to be the 

most abundant chipped stone on the site 

surface. This basalt is indistinguishable 

from that found in many of the units in 

Cebollita North and Cebollita South that is 

apparently derived from the Miocene 

basalt capping the mesas in the area. 

A greenish-gray siltstone (similar in 

appearance to that of Unit 17) of relatively 

poor quality is also common. In addition, 

a pinkish-orange siltstone is not 

uncommon at the site. Nothing like the 

latter was observed in the raw material 

survey: however, it would not be 

unexpected in the Cretaceous geology of 

the area. 

Both San Andres chert and Zuni 

Spotted chert are present but in relatively 

small quantities. This is not surprising 

given that the Zuni Mountains lie directly 

on the other side of the rough lava 

surfaces of the malpais. Black and white 

chalcedonic (translucent) petrified wood is 

relatively common at the site and has been 

observed at other sites in the eastern part 

of the monument. This material is 

different in quality and appearance from 

any found in the Chinle Formation in this 

survev. Its origin is currently unknown. 

Discussion 

The investigation of these five survev areas 

has resulted in the identification of source areas 

for at least five raw materials. Multiple source 

areas were identified for most of these. The raw 

material sources found (or in the case of Zuni 

spotted chert, sought) are discussed here along 

with the characteristics of the raw materials 

themselves. 

San Andres Chert 

San Andres chert, also known as fingerprint 

chert, was perhaps the most abundant raw material 

resource of good quality encountered in the 

survey. There is an extensive outcrop of this 

material adjacent to the La Vega site (LA 9075), 

and it was observed in drainages flowing out from 

the southeastern tip of the Zuni Mountains and in 

Zuni Canyon flowing northeastward across the 

northeast flanks of the mountains. Based on this 

small sample, it seems probable that the chert is 

available in virtually every drainage flowing out of 

the eastern slopes of the Zuni Mountains. The 

chert, however, does appear to be limited to the 

mountains themselves. Areas of San Andres 

Limestone near Loma Montosa and in the Cerritos 

de Jaspe were not found to contain chert of anykind. It seems likely that it is only in substantially 

uplifted areas such as the Zuni Mountains that the 

San Andres is sufficiently eroded to expose the 

chert beds. The chert may exist in a deeply buried 

context in other areas of San Andres Limestone 

but is apparently not available anywhere on the 

surface. 

The results of the survev also indicate a wide 

range of color variation within San Andres chert. 

At La Vega, colors range from pure white to gray 

with shades of pink, purple, yellow, and orange. 

In Unit 3 the chert is darker gray with shades of 

purple. The chert occurs in nodular form and has 

a relatively hard, rough, thin, gray to grayishbrown cortex. San Andres chert often exhibits the 

characteristic fingerprint whorls, especially in 

areas near cortex, but in many cases it does not. 
LITHIC RAW MATERIAL SOURCES 245 

The chert may have clouds or speckles of color or 

be monochrome. Every observed specimen was 

found to be opaque, and this may serve as a 

helpful characteristic in distinguishing San Andres 

from other cherts in this color range. 

Based upon the apparent abundance of this 

raw material north of El Malpais National 

Monument and its frequency in the local 

archeological record, the importance of San 

Andres chert to the prehistoric inhabitants of the 

monument is difficult to overestimate. The area 

around La Vega has continually been an important 

source for lithic raw materials for the last 10.500 

years (Amick 1997). It may be more than a 

coincidence that the Zuni-Acoma Trail crosses the 

malpais immediately to the south of this area. The 

trail may provide the easiest access from the east 

to sources of San Andres chert. 

Zuni Spotted Chert 

Zuni spotted chert (also known as yellowbrown spotted chert, dendritic jasper, Chinle chert) 

was not encountered in a non-archeological 

context anywhere in the survey. Inspection of 

Units 4. 5. and 6 was specifically targeted in order 

to locate outcrops of this chert along the eastern 

portions of Oso Ridge. It has been reported from 

the area of the "Big Notch" farther west along Oso 

Ridge (Alfred Dittert. personal communication 

2001) as well as Lookout Mountain and Mt. 

Sedgewick (Cameron 1997: LeTourneau 1997) in 

the Zuni Mountains. During this project, early 

stage reduction debris of this material was 

observed in the vicinity of Bluewater Lake on the 

north side of the mountains. It is clear from the 

archeological record that this material was 

important prehistorically: it is second in 

abundance to San Andres chert on Pueblo period 

sites recorded during the 2000 field season at El 

Malpais National Monument (Kilby 2001). It was 

moved relatively great distances by Folsom 

hunters (Huckell and Kilby 2000) and by the 

Chacoan Anasazi (Cameron 1997). The material 

must have been abundantly available at some 

location or locations near the Zuni Mountains. 

however large primary outcrops of the material 

remain poorly known. 

Petrified Wood 

Petrified (silicified) wood was primarily 

encountered in the Chinle Formation around Loma 

Montosa and in Unit 3 north of the monument, 

where it is abundant. This raw material varies 

greatly in color and quality but occurs in generally 

dark tones of red, brown, orange, pink, and white 

in banded and mottled patterns. The petrified 

wood is opaque and grainy. Some fine-grained 

and glossy bands of about 3 cm in width occur, but 

the material is elsewhere grainy and in some cases 

splintery. Bark can be distinguished on some 

specimens and is usually dark brown to black. 

Petrified wood was also found in Agua Fria 

Canyon in the Zuni Mountains (Unit 6) and on a 

mesa top in the Cebolla Wilderness (Unit 21). In 

both of these locations, the materials were found 

to be opaque with distinct structure ("splintery") 

that interferes with flake control, making them of 

relatively poor quality for lithic reduction. 

No chalcedonic (translucent) petrified wood 

was found in the survey, although it is relatively 

abundant in the archeological record of the 

monument. Light translucent petrified wood, 

referred to as Zuni silicified wood or Chinle wood 

(Cameron 2001) is reported from the Chinle 

Formation along the edges of the San Juan Basin 

(Love 1997) and is potentially available in the 

Chinle Formation adjacent to the monument. 

Basalt 

Fine-grained basalt was encountered in the 

Cebollita North and South areas. It is locally 

abundant in areas adjacent to the Miocene basalt 

flows that cap Mesa Negra and North and South 

Cebollita Mesas. It was also found in Sand 

Canyon away from these landforms and may occur 

in a lag deposit there. The Miocene basalt is gray 

to dark gray with generally gray to reddish-brown 

cortex and is well suited for lithic reduction. 
246 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Other Raw Materials Identified in the 

Survey 

Other materials were found in smaller 

quantities in the survey. A greenish-gray siltstone 

was encountered in Unit 17 that is of moderate 

quality for lithic reduction. This material appears 

to have been used by the occupants of the Dittert 

Site south of the monument. 

White quartz was found in Agua Fria Canyon 

in the Zuni Mountains. The quartz is typically 

translucent white with traces of pink and gray 

coloring. It is rather coarse with natural structure 

that limits its usefulness for tool making. 

Because of the limited scope of this survey 

and impossibility of locating every raw material 

available along the margins of the monument, 

materials that occur in small lenses or as alluvial 

clasts within larger rock units had a particularly 

low probability of being sampled. In particular, 

quartzites reported to be available in the Dakota 

Sandstone (Dittert 1959) might be expected to be 

present locally but were not detected by the 

survey. Also, siltstones of various colors seen at 

the Dittert Site and in the archeology of the 

monument might be expected to be found in 

relatively small concentrations within the 

Cretaceous units along the eastern and southern 

periphery of the monument, but no evidence of 

these was found. 

Raw Materials Not Identified in the Survey 

Other raw materials found in the archeological 

record of the monument are probably not present 

within the confines of the valley in which El 

Malpais National Monument is located. These 

materials can be tentatively designated non-local 

or exotic. These designations are considered 

tentative because, due to the limited sample 

investigated in this raw material survey, it is 

always possible that additional, undiscovered raw 

materials are present along the periphery of the 

monument. Greater variation in documented raw 

materials may also exist. With these caveats in 

mind, it is proposed that the remaining raw 

materials that were considered of particular 

interest based upon the 2001 field season. 

including chalcedony with red inclusions, 

chalcedony with black inclusions, chalcedonic 

silicified wood, and other cherts of various colors, 

be considered non-local. 

Published information provides suggestions 

for the sources for some of these remaining raw 

materials. Dittert (1959:182-183,187) reports that 

fibrous crypto-crystalline quartzes "which 

approximate chalcedony" including agate (a 

chalcedony with bands, mottles, or dendrites of 

color), carnelian (a translucent chalcedony with 

red or orange), and other chalcedonies occur along 

the southern edge of the Plains of San Augustin 

and in the Mangus Mountains. It is possible that 

sources for materials identified in the pilot survey 

at El Malpais such as chalcedony with red 

inclusions and chalcedony with black inclusions 

may be found in those areas. When data from all 

time periods are combined, those raw materials 

known to be from the north generally decrease 

from north to south (Kilby 2001:133-135). 

Conversely, the chalcedonies generally increase in 

abundance from north to south in the monument, 

suggesting that the sources of the chalcedonies 

may indeed lie south of the monument. 

Alternately, the chalcedony with red inclusions is 

similar in appearance to some translucent 

materials from the Pedernal chert source located 

far to the northeast of the monument and could be 

a variety of Pedernal chert. As Jemez obsidian 

from near the Pedernal source has been identified 

in archeological contexts within the monument, 

the occurrence of Pedernal chert would not be 

beyond reason. For now, the source of chalcedony 

with red inclusions is not known with certainty, 

but its pattern of distribution indicates that the 

southern source is most likely. 

Cherts other than those discussed above may 

be from a variety of primary and secondary 

contexts. Marshall (1993) reports a purple chert 

coming from theYeso Formation at Little Hole-inthe-Wall within El Malpais National Monument. 

This area was not visited in the current survey; 
LITHIC RAW MATERIAL SOURCES 247 

however, no cherts were identified in parts of the 

Yeso Formation investigated farther north in the 

Zuni Mountains. Investigating the Little Hole-inthe-Wall area for this chert may be a worthwhile 

future endeavor. Morrison Formation cherts (from 

very pale colors to green, brown, yellow, red, and 

purple), including Laguna chert from near Laguna 

Pueblo, outcrop sporadically north of the 

monument along the edges of the San Juan Basin 

(Cameron 2001:83). A red mottled chert that has 

until now been identified as Socorro jasper (Kilby 

2001) does not appear to fit descriptions of 

samples of that material from the source (Robert 

Dello-Russo, personal communication 2000). The 

origin of this mottled red chert and its relationship 

to Socorro jasper is unknown and worthy of 

further investigation. Cherts may also occur as 

secondary clasts in sedimentary rocks in the area, 

particularly the Dakota Sandstone. 

Chalcedonic petrified wood in various, often 

bright colors including white, pink, yellow, 

orange, and lavender, is associated with the Chinle 

Formation. Translucent petrified wood in this 

color range, often called Zuni silicified wood or 

Chinle wood (Cameron 2001:83), was not found 

in the survey area. It is thought to be derived from 

fossil logs in the Chinle Formation that are more 

common to the west of the El Malpais area in New 

Mexico and into eastern Arizona (Bruce Huckell, 

personal communication 2001). 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

The results of this survey provide information 

allowing certain raw materials to be designated as 

locally available to prehistoric groups using the El 

Malpais area. A few raw materials, ranging from 

poor to very good in quality, are located adjacent 

to the monument on the north, east, and south. 

Areas to the west and southwest appear to be 

relatively devoid of raw materials useful for 

chipped-stone reduction. San Andres chert and 

dark cherty petrified wood from the Chinle 

Formation can be found in abundance immediately 

north of the monument, as well as a low quality 

quartz and, presumably, Zuni spotted chert. Also 

available to the north is Grants Ridge obsidian. 

Fine-grained basalt as well as lesser amounts of 

siltstone, petrified wood, and probably quartzite 

(although no artifact-quality quartzite was 

identified on the survey) are found to the east and 

south. 

Appendix 4, Table 2 presents raw material 

type designations used in the El Malpais 

archeological survey given the current state of 

knowledge of their sources (it includes many raw 

materials otherwise not discussed in this report). 

In order to better understand raw material use at El 

Malpais, future raw material investigations should 

focus on: (1) locating the easternmost (closest to 

the monument) source of Zuni spotted chert; (2) 

comparing chalcedony with red inclusions to 

materials from the San Augustin Plains, Mangus 

Mountains, and Pedernal chert sources in order 

that they may be differentiated; (3) comparing 

mottled red chert from El Malpais to samples of 

Socorro jasper: and (4) locating and describing the 

purple chert reported to be in the Little Flole-inthe-Wall area. 
248 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Raw Material Availability I'rimaiy Source 

San Andres chert local San Andres limestone 

Grants Ridge obsidian local Mt. Taylor volcanics 

Petrified wood (cherty) local Chinle Formation 

Fine-grained basalt local Miocene basalt 

Green siltstone local Cretaceous sedimentary rocks 

Quart/ local Proterozoic plutonic rocks 

Zuni spotted chert local Zuni Mountains 

Other siltstone local? Cretaceous sedimentary rocks? 

quartzite local? Dakota Sandstone. Cretaceous sedimentary rocks 

Petrified wood (chalcedonic) non-local unknown (Chinle Formation?. Santa F'e Formation?) 

Chalcedony w/red non-local unknown (San Augustin Plains/Mangus Mtns. Pedernal?) 

Chalcedony w/black non-local unknown (San Augustin Plains/Mangus Mtns?) 

Other chert non-local various (some in Cretaceous sedimentary rocks) 

Jemez obsidians non-local Jemez volcanics 

Mule Creek/Red Hill obsidian non-local Catron and Reserve Counties volcanics 

Chuska chert non-local Chuska Sandstone 

Pedernal chert non-local Pedernal 

Socorro jasper non-local Ladron Mountains 

Appendix 4, Table 2. Raw material sources and availability in the El Malpais area. 
LITHIC RAW MATERIAL SOURCES 249 

References 

Amick . D. S. 

1997 Foisom Collections from the La Vega Site 

in West-Central New Mexico. Current 

Research in the Pleistocene 14:1-3. 

Banks, L. D. 

1990 From Mountain Peaks to Alligator 

Stomachs: A Review of Lithic Raw Material 

Sources in the Trans-Mississippi South, the 

Southern Plains, and Adjacent Southwest. 

Oklahoma Anthropological Society Memoir 

#4. Oklahoma Printing Services, Norman. 

Oklahoma. 

Cameron, CM . 

1997 The Chipped Stone of Chaco Canyon. In 

Ceramics, Lithics, and Ornaments of Chaco 

Canyon, vol. 2. edited by F. J. Mathien. pp. 

531-658. Publications in Archeology 18G. 

Chaco Canyon Studies, National Park Service, 

Santa Fe. 

2001 Pink Chert, Projectile Points, and the 

Chacoan Regional System. American 

Antiquity 66:79-101. 

Dittert, A. E., Jr. 

1959 Culture Change in the Ceholleta Mesa 

Region Central Western New Mexico. 

Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of 

Arizona, Tucson. 

Huckell. B. B. and J. D. Kilby 

2000 Foisom Point Production at the Rio 

Rancho Site. New Mexico. Paper presented at 

the 67th Annual Meeting of the Society for 

American Archaeology, Philadelphia. 

Kilby, J. D. 

2001 Preliminary Lithic Analysis for the 2000 

Field Season of the El Malpais Archeological 

Survey. In A Cultured Resource Inventory 

Pilot Survey at El Malpais National 

Monument. West-Central New Mexico: 

Preliminary Results of the 2000 Field Season, 

by J. L. McVickar. pp. 1 19-153. Park Paper 

ELMA-04, National Park Service, 

Intermountain Support Office, Santa Fe. 

LeTourneau. P. D. 

1997 Sources and Prehistoric Use of YellowishBrown Spotted Chert in Northwest-central 

New Mexico. Paper presented at the 62nd 

annual meeting of the Society for American 

Archaeology, Nashville. 

Love, D. W. 

1997 Petrographic Description and Sources of 

Chipped Stone Artifacts in Chaco Canyon. In 

Ceramics, Lithics, and Ornaments of Chaco 

Canyon, vol. 2, edited by F. .1. Mathien, pp. 

610-642. Publications in Archeology 18G. 

Chaco Canyon Studies. National Park Service, 

Santa Fe. 

Marshall, M. P. 

1993 Archaeological Investigations in the 

C err it os de Jaspe Subunit of the El Malpais 

Conservation Area. The 1991 BLM Survey. 

Office of Contract Archaeology, University' Of 

New Mexico. Albuquerque. 

McVickar, .1. L. 

2001 A Cultural Resource Inventory Pilot 

Survey at El Malpais National Monument. 

West-Central New Mexico: Preliminary 

Results of the 2000 Field Season. Park Paper 

ELMA-04. National Park Service, 

Intermountain Support Office. Santa Fe. 

Resource Geographic Information System 

Clearinghouse 

1996 Volume 3: Digital Elevation Models, 

Shaded Relief Images, PLSS, and NM Land 

Status Files (Version 1.0). New Mexico 

Resource Geographic Information System 

Program, University of New Mexico. 

Albuquerque. 

1998 Volume 1: Resource Data (Version 2.0). 

New Mexico Resource Geographic Information System Program. University of New 

Mexico, Albuquerque. 
250 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Sullivan, R. B. 

1987 A Research Design for the Mitigation of 

LA9075, The LaVega Site, Along NM53, 

Cibola County, New Mexico. Laboratory of 

Anthropology Note 360. Museum of New 

Mexico. Santa Fe. 

Sullivan, R. B.,and J. L. Boyer 

1988 LaVega (Cibola County). Laboratory of 

Anthropology Note 430:5-6. Museum of New 

Mexico, Santa Fe. 
References 

Abbott, D. R. 

2000 Ceramics and Community Organization 

Among the Hohokam. University of Arizona 

Press, Tucson. 

Adams. E. C. 

1991 The Origin and Development of the 

Katsina Cult. University of Arizona Press, 

Tucson. 

Adams, J.L. 

1993 Toward Understanding the Technological 

Development of Manos and Metates. Kiva 

58:331-344. 

1999 Refocusing the Role of Food-Grinding 

Tools as Correlates for Subsistence Strategics 

in the U. S. Southwest. American Antiquity 

64:475-498. 

Anderson, E.C. 

1957 Metal Resources of New Mexico. New 

Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral 

Resources, Bulletin 39. New Mexico Institute 

of Mining and Technology, Socorro. 

Baars, D. L. 

1983 The Colorado Plateau, A Geologic 

History. University of New Mexico Press, 

Albuquerque. 

Bandelier. A. F. 

1892 Final Report of Investigations among the 

Indians of the Southwestern United States, 

Carried on Mainly in the Years from 1880 to 

1885, Part II. Papers of the Archaeological 

Institute of America, American Series, No. 4. 

Cambridge. 

Baxter, M. J. 

1994 Exploratory Multivariate Analysis in 

Archaeology. Edinburgh University Press. 

Edinburgh. 

Beal, J. D. 

1976 An Archaeological Survey of the Malpais 

Recreation Area. Manuscript on file, School 

of American Research, Santa Fe. 

Bemardini, W. 

1999 Reassessing the Scale of Social Action at 

Pueblo Bonito. Kiva 64:447-470 

Bettinger, R. L., J. F. O'Connell, and D. H. 

Thomas 

1991 Projectile Points as Time Markers in the 

Great Basin. American Anthropologist 

93:166-172. 

Bleakly, D. L. 

1997 Plant Life on the Lava—the Vegetation 

and Flora of El Malpais. In Natural History 

of El Malpais National Monument, compiled 

by K. Mabery. pp. 113-122. New Mexico 

Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, 

Bulletin 156. New Mexico Institute of 

Mining and Technology, Socorro. 

Broster, J. B. 

1980 Paleo-Indian Occupation of the Cebolleta 

Mesa Region, New Mexico. Paper presented 

at First Annual meeting of New Mexico 

Archaeological Council. 

1982 Summary. In A Cultural Resource 

Management Plan for Timber Sale and 

Forest Development Areas on the Pueblo of 

Acoma, Volume 1, edited by J. B. Broster and 

B. G. Harrill, pp. 59-60. ForestryArchaeological Program, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, Albuquerque. 

Broster, J. B., and B. G. Harrill, editors 

1982 A Cultural Resource Management Plan 

for Timber Sale and Forest Development 

Areas on the Pueblo of Acoma, Volume 1. 

251 
252 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Forestry Archeological Program. Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, Albuquerque. 

Cameron. CM . 

2001 Pink Chert. Projectile Points, and the 

Chacoan Regional System. American 

Antiquity 66:79-101. 

Carlson. R. L. 

1970 White Mountain Red Ware: A Pottery 

Tradition of East-Central Arizona and 

Western New Mexico. Anthropological 

Papers of the University of Arizona No. 19. 

University of Arizona Press. Tucson. 

Cascadden. T., A. M. Kudo, and J. W. Geisman 

1997 Discovering the Relationships in a Family 

of Volcanoes—Cerro Candelaria. Twin 

Craters, Lost Woman Crater, and Lava 

Crater. In Natural History of El Malpais 

National Monument, compiled by K. Mabery. 

pp. 53-59. New Mexico Bureau of Mines 

and Mineral Resources, Bulletin 156. New 

Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, 

Socorro. 

Cohen, M.N. 

1985 Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The Meaning of Social Complexity. In Prehistoric 

Hunter-Gatherers: The Emergence of 

Cultural Complexity, edited by T. D. Price 

and J. A. Brown, pp. 99-119. Academic 

Press. Orlando. 

Colton, H. S., and L. L. Hargrave 

1937 Handbook of Northern Arizona Pottery 

Wares. Museum of Northern Arizona 

Bulletin 11. Northern Arizona Society of 

Science and Art, Flagstaff. 

dishing, F. H. 

1886 A Study of Pueblo Pottery as Illustrative 

of Zuni Culture Growth. In Fourth Annual 

Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology. 

pp. 467-521. U.S. Government Printing 

Office, Washington. D.C. 

Danson, E. B. 

1957 An Archaeological Survey of West Central 

New Mexico and East Central Arizona. 

Papers of the Peabody Museum of 

Archaeology and Ethnology 44(1). Peabody 

Museum. Cambridge. 

Dart. A. 

1982 Glass Artifacts. In A Cultural Resource 

Management Plan for Timber Sale and 

Forest Development Areas on the Pueblo of 

Acoma. Volume 1, edited by J. B. Broster and 

B. G. Han-ill. pp. 150-157. Forestry 

Archaeological Program. Bureau of Indian 

Affairs. Albuquerque. 

Dean. J. S. 

1996 Demography. Environment, and Subsistence Stress. In Evolving Complexity and 

Environmental Risk in the Prehistoric 

Southwest, edited by J. A. Tainter and B. B. 

Tainter, pp. 25-56. Santa Fe Institute Studies 

in the Sciences of Complexity, Proceedings 

Volume XXIV. Addison-Wesley Publishing 

Company, Reading, Massachusetts. 

Dean, J. S., W. Doelle. and J. D. Orcutt 

1994 Adaptive Stress, Environment, and 

Demography. In Themes in Southwest 

Prehistory, edited by G. J. Gumerman, pp. 

53-86. School of American Research Press, 

Santa Fe. 

Cowgill, G. 

1968 Archaeological Applications of Factor, 

Cluster, and Proximity Analysis. American 

Antiquity 33:367-375. 

Crown, P. L. 

1994 Ceramics and Ideology, Salado 

Polychrome Pottery. University of New 

Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 

Dickfoss, P. V.. .1. L. Betancourt, L. G. Thompson. 

R. M. Turner, and S. Thornstrom 

1997 History of Ice at Candelaria Ice Cave. In 

Natural History of El Malpais National 

Monument, compiled by K. Mabery, pp. 91-

112. New Mexico Bureau of Mines and 

Mineral Resources, Bulletin 156. New 

Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, 

Socorro. 
REFERENCES 253 

Dittert, A. E., Jr. 

1949 The Prehistoric Population and 

Architecture of the Cebolleta Mesa Region, 

Central Western New Mexico. Unpublished 

Masters Thesis, University of New Mexico, 

Albuquerque. 

1959 Culture Change in the Cebolleta Mesa 

Region Central Western New Mexico. 

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of 

Arizona, Tucson. 

1998 The Acoma Culture Province during the 

Period A. D. 1275-1500: Cultural Disruption 

and Reorganization. In Migration and 

Reorganization: The Pueblo IV Period in the 

American Southwest, edited by K. A. 

Spielmann, pp. 81-90. Arizona State 

University Anthropological Research Papers 

No. 51. Tempe. 

Doleman, W. H. 

1990 El Malpais National Conservation Area 

1989 Archeological Survey: Final Summary 

Report. Prepared for Bureau of Land 

Management, Albuquerque District. Office 

of Contract Archeology, University of New 

Mexico, Albuquerque. 

Duff, A. 1. L. 

1996 Ceramic Micro-Seriation: Types or 

Attributes? American Antiquity 61:89-101. 

2002 Western Pueblo Identities: Regional 

Interaction, Migration, and Transformation. 

University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 

Duff. A. I. L.. S. Eckert. and K. W. Kintigh 

1995 Upper Little Colorado Prehistory Project 

Field Manual. Manuscript in possession of 

the authors. 

Eckert, S. 

1995 The Process of Aggregation in the PoslChacoan Era: A Case Study from the Lower 

Zuni River Region. Unpublished Master's 

thesis. Department of Anthropology. Arizona 

State University. Tempe. 

Eckert, S., and D. Huntley 

1998 Chaves-Hummingbird Archaeological 

Project: Ceramics Analysis Manual for the 

Lower Puerco Area. Manuscript in 

possession of the authors. 

Ellis, F. H. 

1959 An Outline of Laguna Pueblo History and 

Social Organization. Southwestern Journal 

of Anthropology 15:325-347. 

1974a Pueblo Indians II: Archaeologic and 

Ethnologic Data: Acoma-Laguna Land 

Claims. Garland, New York and London. 

1974b Pueblo Indians HI: Anthropology of 

Laguna Pueblo Land Claims. Garland, New 

York and London. 

Elyea, J. 

1990 The NZ Project Archeological Survey 

Report. Prepared for Bureau of Land 

Management, Rio Puerco Resource Area, 

Albuquerque District. Office of Contract 

Archeology, University of New Mexico, 

Albuquerque. 

Elyea, J., P. Hogan, and C. D. Wilson 

1994 The Armijo Canyon Archeological Survey. 

Prepared for the Bureau of Land 

Management, Rio Puerco District. Office of 

Contract Archeology, University of New 

Mexico, Albuquerque. 

Eschman. P.. and J. Elyea 

1990 Lithic Assemblages of the NZ Project. In 

The NZ Project Archeological Survey Report, 

by J. Elyea, pp. 49-88. Prepared for Bureau 

of Land Management, Rio Puerco Resource 

Area, Albuquerque District. Office of 

Contract Archeology, University of New 

Mexico, Albuquerque. 

Eury, D. 

1997 Foreword. In Natural History of El 

Malpais National Monument, compiled by K. 

Mabrey. pp. 5-6. New Mexico Bureau of 

Mines and Mineral Resources. Bulletin 156. 
254 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

New Mexico Institute of Mining and 

Technology. Socorro. 

Ferguson, T.J., and E. R. Hart 

1985 A Zuni Atlas. University of Oklahoma 

Press, Norman. 

Fewkes, J. W. 

1891 Reconnaissance of Ruins in or Near the 

Zuni Reservation. A Journal of American 

Ethnology and Archaeology 1:93-133. 

Flenniken, J. J., and A. W. Raymond 

1986 Morphological Projectile Point Typology: 

An Experiment and Technological Analysis. 

American Antiquity 51:603-614. 

Grissino-Mayer. H.. T. W. Swetnam, and R. K. 

Adams 

1997 The Rare Old-aged Conifers of El Malpais 

—Their Role in Understanding Climatic 

Change in the American Southwest. In Natural History of El Malpais National Monument, compiled by K. Mabery, pp. 155-161. 

New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral 

Resources, Bulletin 156. New Mexico 

Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro. 

Groody, K. 

1982 Survey and Testing Along NM State Road 

117: The York Ranch Project. Laboratory of 

Anthropology Notes No. 291. Museum of 

New Mexico, Santa Fe. 

Flenniken, J. J., and P. J. Wilke 

1989 Typology, Technology and Chronology of 

Great Basin Dart Points. American 

Anthropologist 1:149-158. 

Fontana, B. L., and J. C. Greenleaf 

1962 Johnny Wards Ranch: A Study in Historic 

Archeology. Kiva 28:67-78. 

Fowler, A. 

1989 Ceramic Types of the Zuni Area. 

Manuscript prepared for the NMAC 

Ceramics Workshop, October 27-29, 1989, 

Silver City, NM. 

Fowler, A., and J. R. Stein 

1992 The Anasazi Great House in Space, Time, 

and Paradigm. In Anasazi Regional 

Organization and the Chacoan System, 

edited by D. E. Doyel, pp. 101-122. 

Anthropological Papers 5. Maxwell Museum 

of Anthropology, Albuquerque. 

Fowler, A., J. R. Stein, and R. Anyon 

1987 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of 

West-Central New Mexico. Manuscript on 

file, Office of the State Archaeologist, 

Historic Preservation Division, State of New 

Mexico, Santa Fe. 

Habicht-Mauche, J. 

1993 The Pottery from Arroyo Hondo Pueblo. 

New Mexico: Tribalization and Trade in the 

Northern Rio Grande. School of American 

Research Press, Santa Fe. 

Halstead, P., and J. O'Shea 

1989 Introduction: Cultural Responses to Risk 

and Uncertainty. In Bad Year Economics: 

Cultural Responses to Risk and Uncertainty, 

edited by P. Halstead and J. O'Shea, pp. 1-7. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

Harlow, F. H. 

1967 Historic Pueblo Indian Pottery: Painted 

Jars and Bowls of the Period 1600-1900. The 

Monitor Press, Los Alamos, NM. 

Hassan, F. A. 

1981 Demographic Archaeology. Academic 

Press, New York. 

Hays-Gilpin, K., and E. van Hartesveldt 

1998 Prehistoric Ceramics of the Puerco 

Valley: The 1995 Chambers-Sanders Trust 

Lands Ceramic Conference. Museum of 

Northern Arizona Ceramic Series No. 7. 

Flagstaff. 
REFERENCES 255 

Head. G. 

1999 Lithic Artifacts. In The Bandelier 

Archeological Survey, edited by R. P. Powers 

and J. D. Orcutt, pp. 469-549. Intermountain 

Cultural Resources Management Professional 

Paper No. 57. Intermountain Support Office. 

National Park Service. Santa Fe. 

Hegmon. M. 

1989 Risk Reduction and Variation in 

Agricultural Economies: A Computer 

Simulation of Flopi Agriculture. Research in 

Economic Anthropology 1 1:89-121. 

Huntley. D.. and G. Schachner 

1999 The Los Gigantes Community: PostChacoan Settlement in the Zuni Region of the 

American Southwest. Poster presented at the 

64th Annual Meeting of the Society for 

American Archaeology, Chicago. 

Ireland. A. K. 

1988 Cultural Prehistory of the El Malpais 

National Monument and National 

Conservation Area. Manuscript on file. El 

Malpais National Monument, Grants, New 

Mexico. 

Hilpert, L.S. 

1969 Uranium Resources of Northwestern New 

Mexico. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 603. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. 

Washington, D.C. 

Hodge. F. W. 

1914 Archaeological Excavations in Western 

New Mexico. In Explorations and FieldWork of the Smithsonian Institution in 1913. 

Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 

63(8):53-58, Washington. D.C. 

Hogan. P. 

1985 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in WestCentral New Mexico: The Fence Lake Coal 

Lease Surveys. Office of Contract Archeology. University of New Mexico. Albuquerque. 

Hogan, P.. and J. C. Winter 

1983 The Navajo Mine Project. Office of 

Contract Archaeology, University of New 

Mexico. Albuquerque. 

Holmes. B. E. 

1989 American Indian Land Use of El Malpais. 

Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management. Zuni Archaeology Program Report 

No. 302. Office of Contract Archeology. 

University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 

Huckell. B. B. 

1996 The Archaic Prehistory of the North 

American Southwest. Journal of World 

Prehistory 10:305-372. 

Irwin-Williams, C. 

1973 The Oshara Tradition: Origins of Anasazi 

Culture. Contributions in Anthropology 5( 1). 

Eastern New Mexico University. Portales. 

Jones, T. L.. G. M. Brown, L. M. Raab, J. L. 

McVickar, W. G. Spaulding, D. K. Kennett, A. 

York, and P. L. Walker 

1999 Environmental Imperatives Reconsidered: 

Demographic Crises in Western North 

America During the Medieval Climatic 

Anomaly. Current Anthropology 40(2): 137-

170. 

Justice. N. D. 

2002 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the 

Southwestern United States. Indiana 

University. Bloomington. 

Kantner, J., and N. M. Mahoney (editors) 

2000 Great House Communities Across the 

Chacoan Landscape. University of Arizona 

Anthropological Papers 64. University of 

Arizona Press, Tucson. 

Kantner, J., N. Bower. J. Ladwig. J. Perlitz. S. 

I lata, and D. Greve 

2000 Interaction Among Great House Communities: An Elemental Analysis of Cibolan 

Ceramics. In Great House Communities 

Across the Chacoan Landscape, edited by J. 

Kanter and N. M. Mahoney, pp. 130-146. 

Anthropological Papers of the University of 

Arizona, No. 64. University of Arizona Press. 

Tucson. 
256 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Kayser, D., and C. Carroll 

1988 Report of the Final Field Season-San 

Augustine Coal Area. Archaeological 

Investigations in West-Central New Mexico. 

Bureau of Land Management Resource 

Series Monograph 5. Santa Fe. 

1150-135(1 edited by M. A. Adler. pp. 131-

144. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 

1998 Tools for Quantitative Archaeology. 

Programs and documentation available from 

the author. 

Kelley, V. C. 

1955 Regional Tectonics of the Colorado 

Plateau and Relationship to the Origin and 

Distribution of Uranium. Publications in 

Geology No. 5. University of New Mexico, 

Albuquerque. 

Keesling, FI. S.. and J. B. Booster 

1982 Historic Site Typology. In A Cultural 

Resource Management Plan for Timber Sale 

and Forest Development Areas on the Pueblo 

of Acoma. Volume 1. edited by J. B. Broster 

and B. G. Harrill. pp. 135-144. Forestry 

Archaeological Program. Bureau of Indian 

Affairs. Albuquerque. New Mexico. 

Kintigh. K. W.. and A. J. Ammerman 

1982 Fleuristic Approaches to Spatial Analysis 

in Archaeology. American Antiquity 47:41-

63. 

Kintigh. K. W., T. L. Howell, and A. I. Duff 

1996 Post-Chacoan Social Integration at the 

Hinkson Site. New Mexico. Kiva 61:257-

274. 

Kintigh. K. W., D. M. Glowacki. and D. L. 

Huntley 

2004 Long-Term Settlement History and the 

Emergence of Towns in the Zuni Area. 

American Antiquity 69:432-456. 

Kessell, J. L. 

1987 Kiva, Cross, and Crown: The Pecos 

Indians and New Mexico 1540-1840. 2nd 

edition. University of New Mexico Press. 

Albuquerque. 

Kilby, J. D. 

2001 Preliminary Lithic Analysis for the 2000 

Field Season of the HI Malpais Archeological 

Survey. In A Cultural Resource Inventory 

Pilot Survey at El Malpais National 

Monument. West-Central New Mexico: 

Preliminary Results of the 2000 Field 

Season, by J. L. McVickar, pp. 119-153. 

Park Paper ELMA-04, Intermountain Support 

Office. National Park Service. Santa Fe. 

Kohler. T. A. 

1989 Introduction. In Bandelier Archaeological 

Excavation Project: Research Design and 

Summer 1988 Sampling, edited by T. A. 

Kohler. pp. 1-12. Reports of Investigations. 

No. 61. Department of Anthropology. 

Washington State University. Pullman. 

I.aughlin. A. W.. and G. WoldeGabriel 

1997 Dating the Zuni-Bandera Volcanic Field. 

In Natural History of El Malpais National 

Monument, compiled by K. Mabery, pp. 25-

29. New Mexico Bureau of Mines and 

Mineral Resources, Bulletin 156. New 

Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, 

Socorro. 

Kintigh, K. W. 

1985 Settlement. Subsistence, and Society in 

Late Zuni Prehistory. Anthropological 

Papers of the University of Arizona, No. 44. 

University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 

1996 The Cibola Region in the Post-Chacoan 

Era. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 

LeBlanc. S. A. 

1978 Settlement Patterns in the El Morro 

Valley, New Mexico. In Investigations of the 

Southwest Archaeological Research Group: 

An Experiment in Archaeological Cooperation, edited by R. C. Euler and G. J. 

Gumerman. pp. 45-51. Museum of Northern 

Arizona, Flagstaff. 
REFERENCES 257 

Lekson, S. H. 

1996 Southwestern New Mexico and 

Southeastern Arizona, A.D. 900 to 1300. In 

77;e Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150-

1350. edited by M. A. Adler, pp. 170-176. 

University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 

Lekson. S. LL. and C. M. Cameron 

1995 Abandonment of Chaco Canyon, the Mesa 

Verde Migrations, and the Reorganization of 

the Pueblo World. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 14:184-202. 

Lightfoot, D. C. 

1997 The Fauna of El Malpais. In Natural 

History of El Malpais National Monument. 

compiled by K. Mabery. pp. 139-154. New 

Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral 

Resources, Bulletin 156. New Mexico 

Institute of Mining and Technology. Socorro. 

Marshall. M. P.. J. R. Stein. R. W. Loose, and J. E. 

Novotny 

1979 Anasazi Communities in the San Juan 

Basin. Public Service Company of New 

Mexico and New Mexico Historic 

Preservation Bureau. Albuquerque and Santa 

Fe. 

Maxwell, C.H. 

1986 Geologic Map of El Malpais Lava Field 

and Surrounding Areas, Cibola County, New 

Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey, Map I1595. scale 1:62,500. 

McGimsey, C. R., Ill 

1980 Mariana Mesa: Seven Prehistoric 

Settlements in West-Centred New Mexico. 

Papers of the Peabody Museum of 

Archaeology and Ethnology 72. Peabody 

Museum, Cambridge. 

Mangum, N. C. 

1990 In the Land of Frozen Fires: A History of 

Occupation in El Malpais Country. 

Southwest Cultural Resources Center 

Professional Papers No. 32. National Park 

Service, Santa Fe. 

Marshall, M. P. 

1991 Ceramic Analysis. In The Prehistoric 

Cebolla Canyon Community: An Archaeological Class III Inventory of 320 Acres of 

ELM Land at the Mouth of Cebolla Canyon, 

by F. E. Wozniak and M. P. Marshall, pp. 6-1 

to 6-42. Prepared for the USDI, Bureau of 

Land Management. Office of Contract 

Archeology, University of New Mexico, 

Albuquerque. 

1993 Archeological Investigations in the 

Cerritos de Jaspe Subunit of the El Malpais 

Conservation Area. The 1991 BLM Survey. 

Prepared for USDI Bureau of Land 

Management. Albuquerque District. Office 

of Contract Archeology, University of New 

Mexico. Albuquerque. 

McVickar, J.L. 

2001a A Cultural Resource Inventory Pilot 

Survey at El Malpais National Monument, 

West-Central New Mexico: Preliminary 

Results of the 2000 Field Season. Park Paper 

ELMA-04, National Park Service 

Intermountain Support Office, Santa Fe. 

2001b An Archeological Survey of Natural 

Bridges National Monument. Southeast Utah. 

Intermountain Cultural Resources 

Management Professional Paper No. 64. 

Intermountain Support Office, National Park 

Service. Santa Fe. 

McVickar, J. L., L. T. Neff. .1. D. Kilby, and J. D. 

Orcutt 

2002 An Archeological Survey in the El 

Malpais National Conservation Area. Cibola 

County. West Central New Mexico. 

Prepared for the Bureau of Land 

Management. Albuquerque Field Office 

under Interagency Agreement GDI011005. 

National Park Service, Intermountain Support 

Office. Santa Fe. 
258 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Mera. H. P. 

1935 Ceramic Clues to the Prehistory of North 

Central New Mexico. Laboratory of 

Anthropology. Technical Series Bulletin, No. 

8. Santa Fe. 

Mills. B. J. 

1987 Ceramic Analysis. In Archaeological 

Investigations at Eight Small Sites in WestCentral New Mexico: Data Recovered at 

the Fence Lake No. I Mine, by P. Hogan, pp. 

83-144. Office of Contract Archaeology. 

University of New Mexico. Albuquerque. 

National Park Service. U.S. Department of the 

Interior 

1989 General Management Plan/Environmental 

Assessment Wilderness Suitability Study. 

National Park Service, El Malpais National 

Monument, Grants, New Mexico. 

O'Hara, J., and J. Elyea 

1985 Projectile Point Typology. In Prehistoric 

Settlement Patterns in West-Central New 

Mexico: The Fence Lake Coal Lease Surveys, 

edited by P. Hogan. pp. 75-98. Prepared for 

the Salt River Project. Office of Contract 

Archaeology. Albuquerque. 

Orcutt. .1. D. 

1999 Chronology. In The Bandelier Archeological Survey: Volume L edited by R. P. 

Powers and J. D. Orcutt. pp. 85-1 16. Intermountain Cultural Resources Management 

Professional Paper No. 57. Intermountain 

Support Office, National Park Service. Santa 

Fe. 

Orcutt. J. D.. E. Blinman. and T. A. Kohler 

1990 Explanation of Population Aggregation in 

the Mesa Verde Region Prior to A.D. 900. In 

Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory. 

edited by P. E. Minnis and C. L. Redman, 

pp. 196-212. Westview Press, Boulder. 

Orcutt. J. D.. .1. L. McVickar. and .1. D. Kilby 

2001 Research Design for EI Malpais National 

Monument Inventory Survey. Manuscript on 

file at the National Park Service, Intermountain Support Office. Santa Fe. 

Peckham, S. L. 

1954 A Pueblo I Site Near San Felipe, New 

Mexico. In Highway Salvage Archaeology. 

Volume I. edited by F. Wendorf. pp. 41-51. 

Museum of New Mexico. Santa Fe. 

1957 Three Pithouse Sites Near Albuquerque. 

New Mexico. In Highway Salvage 

Archaeology, Volume 3. edited by S. 

Peckham, pp. 39-70. Museum of New 

Mexico, Santa Fe. 

1962 Archaeological Salvage Excavations on 

Interstate 40 Near McCartys, New Mexico. 

Laboratory of Anthropology Notes No. 11. 

Museum of New Mexico. Santa Fe. 

Petersen. K. L. 

1987 Summer Warmth: A Critical Factor for 

the Dolores Anasazi. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Supporting Studies: 

Settlement and Environment, compiled by K. 

L. Petersen and J. D. Orcutt. pp. 61-71. 

USDI, Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering 

and Research Center, Denver. 

1988 Climate and the Dolores River Anasazi. 

Anthropological Papers, No. 113. University 

of Utah, Salt Lake City. 

Powell, M. S.. R. P. Powers, and J. D. Orcutt 

2003 Archeological Inventory of the Cherry 

Fire Perimeter. El Malpais National 

Monument and El Malpais National 

Conservation Area, Cibola County, New 

Mexico. Park Paper ELMA-06. Manuscript 

on file. National Park Service. Intermountain 

Support Office, Santa Fe. 

Powers, R. P., .1. Bradford, and S. Adams 

1981 Notes on the Clean-up and Emergency 

Stabilization of the Tower Kiva at the Las 

Ventanas Ruin (LA 1328). Manuscript on 

file at the Chaco Archive. University of NewMexico, Albuquerque. 
REFERENCES 259 

Powers. R.P.. W.B. Gillespie, and S.H. Lekson 

1983 The Outlier Survey: A Regional View of 

Settlement in the San Juan Basin. Reports of 

the Chaco Center No. 3. National Park 

Service. Albuquerque. 

Powers, R. P.. and J. I). Orcutt (editors) 

1999 The Bandelier Archeo/ogical Survey: 

Volumes I and II. Intermountain Cultural 

Resource Management Professional Paper 

No. 57. National Park Service, Intermountain Support Office, Santa Fe. 

Powers. R. P., T. Van Zandt. J. M. Vint, and G.N. 

Head 

1999 Site Typology. In The Bandelier Archeological Survey: Volume I. edited by R. P. 

Powers and J. D. Orcutt. pp. 117-218. 

Intermountain Cultural Resources 

Management Professional Paper No. 57. 

National Park Service. Intermountain Support 

Office. Santa Fe. 

Robinson. W. J., and C. M. Cameron 

1991 A Directory of Tree-Ring Dated 

Prehistoric Sites in the American Southwest. 

Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, The 

University of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona. 

Rock, J. 

1980 Tin Cans: a Few Basics. Manuscript 

prepared for Klamath National Forest. 

Region 5. 

1987 A Brief Commentary on Cans. Coyote 

Press. Salinas. California. 

1990 Basic Bottle Identification. Coyote Press, 

Salinas. California. 

Rogers, B. W., and C. J. Mosch 

1997 In the Basement—Lava-tube Origins and 

Morphology. In Natural History of El 

Malpais National Monument, compiled by K. 

Mabery. pp. 83-90. New Mexico Bureau of 

Mines and Mineral Resources. Bulletin 156. 

New Mexico Institute of Mining and 

Technology, Socorro. 

Roney. J. R. 

1993 A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance 

Survey at Little-Hole-in-the-Wall. Cibola 

County, New Mexico. BLM Report 93(1 V)G. 

Bureau of Land Management. Rio Puerco 

Division. Albuquerque. 

1995 Mesa Verdean Manifestations South of the 

San Juan River. Journal of Anthropological 

Archaeology 14:170-183. 

1996 The Pueblo III Period in the Eastern San 

Juan Basin and Acoma-Laguna Areas. In 

The Prehistoric Pueblo World. A.D. 1150-

1350, edited by M. A. Adler, pp. 145-169. 

University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 

Rose, R. H. 

n.d. Geologic Evaluation Grants Lava Flow 

New Mexico. Manuscript on file. El Malpais 

National Monument. Grants, New Mexico. 

Rozen, K. C. 

1981 Patterned Associations Among Lithic 

Technology, Site Content, and Time: Results 

of the TEP St. Johns Project Lithic Analysis. 

In The Prehistory of the St. Johns Area, East 

Central Arizona: The TEP St. Johns Project. 

Cultural Resource Management Division. 

Arizona State Museum. Tucson. 

Ruppe. R.J. 

1953 The Acoma Cultural Province: An 

Archaeological Concept. Unpublished Ph.D. 

dissertation. Harvard University. Cambridge. 

1966 The Archaeological Survey: A Defense. 

American Antiquity 3 1:3 13-333. 

Sanchez, Joseph 

n.d. Pueblos, Plains, and Province: The New 

Mexico Frontier 1598-1692. Manuscript on 

file at the Spanish Colonial Research Center. 

National Park Service, University of New 

Mexico. Albuquerque. 

Sayles. E. B. 

1982 The Cochise Cultural Sequence in 
260 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Southeastern Arizona. Anthropological 

Papers of the University of Arizona No. 42. 

University of Arizona Press. Tucson. 

Paper presented at the Is' Annual Mogollon 

Conference. New Mexico State University. 

Las duces. 

Sayles. L.B.. and E. Antevs 

1941 The Cochise Culture. Medallion Papers 

29. Gila Pueblo. Globe, Arizona. 

Schachner. G. 

2001 ELMA 2000 Preliminary Ceramic 

Analysis. In A Cultural Resources Inventory 

Pilot Survey at El Malpais National 

Monument. West Central New Mexico: 

Preliminary Results of the 2000 Field 

Season, by .1. L. McVickar. pp. 99-1 1 8. Park 

Paper ELMA 04. National Park Service. 

Inter-mountain Support Office. Santa Fe. 

Shackley. M. S. 

2003 An Energy-Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence 

Analysis of Paleoindian Obsidian Artifacts 

from Northern New Mexico. Letter report 

from the Berkeley Archaeological XRF Lab, 

University of California. Berkeley. Report 

on file at the National Park Service. Santa Ee. 

Smith. W.. R. B. Woodbury, and N. F. S. 

Woodbury 

1966 The Excavation of Hawikuh by Frederick 

Webb Hodge: Report on the HendricksHodge Expedition. Contributions from the 

Museum of the American Indian. Heye 

Foundation 20. Museum of the American 

Indian, New York. 

Spier. L. 

1917 Zuni Chronology. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences 3(3 ):3 80-3 83. 

Sundt, W. M. 

1979 Socorro Black-on-white: Type Description. Exchange, and Refinement. Pottery 

Southwest. Vol. 6. No. 3. 

fainter, J. A. 

1980 Symbolism, Interaction, and Cultural 

Boundaries: The Anasazi-Mogollon Transition Zone in West-Central New Mexico. 

fainter. .1. A., and D. Gillio 

1980 Cultural Resources Overview: Ml. Taylor 

Area. New Mexico. USDA Forest Service. 

Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, and 

Bureau of Land Management. New Mexico 

State Office. Santa Fe. 

Toll, H.W. 

1985 Pottery. Production. and Public 

Architecture and the Chaco Anasazi System. 

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department 

of Anthropology. University of Colorado. 

Boulder. University Microfilms. Ann Arbor. 

1991 Material Distributions and Exchange in 

the Chaco System. In Chaco and Hohokam: 

Prehistoric Regional Systems in the 

American Southwest, edited by P. L. Crown 

and W. J. Judge, pp. 77-107. School of 

American Research Press. Santa Fe. 

2001 Making and Breaking Pots in the Chaco 

World. American Antiquity 66(1): 56-78. 

Toll, H. W., E. Blinman, and C. D. Wilson 

1992 Chaco in the Context of Ceramic Regional 

Systems. In Anasazi Regional Organization 

and the Chaco System, edited by D. E. 

Doyel. pp. 147-158. Maxwell Museum of 

Anthropology. Anthropological Papers No. 

5. Albuquerque. 

Triadan, D. 

1997 Ceramic Commodities and Common 

Containers: Production and Distribution of 

White Mountain Red Ware in the 

Grasshopper Region. Anthropological Papers 

of the University of Arizona No. 61. 

University of Arizona Press. Tucson. 

Tuan, Y. F., C. E. Everard. J. G. Widdison, and I. 

Bennett 

1973 r/ze Climate of New Mexico, revised 

edition. State Planning Office. Santa Fe. 
REFERENCES 261 

Van Dyke. R. M. 

1999 The Chaco Connection: Evaluating 

Bonito-Style Architecture in Outlier 

Communities. Journal of Anthropological 

Archeology 18:471-506. 

2000 Chacoan Ritual Landscapes: The View 

from the Red Mesa Valley. In Great House 

Communities Across the Chacoan 

Landscape, edited by J. Kantner and N. M. 

Mahoney. pp. 91-100. Anthropological 

Papers of the University of Arizona No. 64. 

University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 

Vint, J. M. 

1999 Ceramic Artifacts. In The Bandelier 

Archeological Survey, Volume II. edited by 

R. P. Powers and J. D. Orcutt, pp. 389-467. 

Intermountain Cultural Resources Management Professional Paper No. 57. National 

Park Service, Intermountain Support Office. 

Santa Fe. 

Wait, W. 

1989 An Archaeological Survey of the 

Candelaria Land Exchange: 1920 Acres of 

BLM Land Near Grants. New Mexico. Draft 

2, National Park Service, Southwest Cultural 

Resources Center, Santa Fe. 

Walt, H. J. 

1982 Metal Containers. In A Cultural Resource 

Management Plan for Timber Sale and 

Forest Development Areas on the Pueblo of 

Acoma, Volume 1. edited by J. B. Broster and 

B. G. Hanill. pp. 144-150. Forestry 

Archaeological Program. Bureau of Indian 

Affairs. Albuquerque. New Mexico. 

Ward, A. E., E.K. Abbink, and J. R. Stein 

1977 Ethnohistorical and Chronological Basis 

of the Navajo Material Culture. In Settlement 

and Subsistence along the Lower Chaco 

River, edited by C. A. Reher. pp. 217-279. 

The University of New Mexico Press. 

Albuquerque. 

Waters, M. R. 

1986 The Geoarchaeology of Whitewater Draw. 

Arizona. Anthropological Papers of the 

University of Arizona No. 45. University of 

Arizona Press, Tucson. 

Watson, P.J., S.A. LeBlanc, and C.L. Redman 

1980 Aspects of Zuni Prehistory: Preliminary 

Report on Excavations and Survey in the El 

Morro Valley of New Mexico. Journal of 

Field Archaeology 7:201 -218. 

Wendorf, F. 

1954a The Excavation of a Small Pueblo HI 

Site Near Gallup, New Mexico. In Highway 

Salvage Archaeology, Volume 1. edited by F. 

Wendorf, pp. 1-12. Museum of New 

Mexico, Santa Fe. 

1954b A Pueblo II Site Near Laguna. New 

Mexico. In Highway Salvage Archaeology, 

Volume 1. edited by F. Wendorf. pp. 13-27. 

Museum of New Mexico. Santa Fe. 

1956 The Ceramic Analysis of the New Mexico 

Section of the San Juan Pipeline. In Pipeline 

Archeology, edited by F. Wendorf, N. Fox, 

and O. Lewis, pp. 5-6. Museum of New 

Mexico and Museum of Northern Arizona. 

Santa Fe and Flagstaff. 

Willmer. A. J., and L. J. Goodman 

1995 An Archaeological and Ethnohistoric 

Survey of Cultural Resources Along NM 117. 

Cibola County, New Mexico. Archaeology 

Notes 64. Office of Archaeological Studies. 

Museum of New Mexico. Santa Fe. 

Wills, W.H., and B. Huckell 

1994 Economic Implications of Changing 

Land-Use Patterns in the Late Archaic. In 

Themes in Southwest Prehistory, edited by G. 

.1. Gumerman. pp. 33-52. School of 

American Research Press. Santa Fe. 
262 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Wilson, C. D. 

1992 Implications of Ceramic Resource 

Surveys in the Northern Mogollon Country. 

Paper presented at the 1992 Mogollon 

Conference, Las duces, NM. 

1994 Armijo Canyon Ceramic Analysis. In The 

Armijo Canyon Archeological Survey, by J. 

Elyea. P. Hogan, and C. D. Wilson, pp. 49-

69. Prepared for Bureau of Land Management. Rio Puerco District. Office of Contract 

Archeology, University of New Mexico, 

Albuquerque. 

Windes, T.C. 

1987 Investigations at the Pueblo Alto 

Complex. Volume 2. Architecture and 

Stratigraphy. Publications in Archeology 

18F, Chaco Canyon Studies, National Park 

Service, Santa Fe. 

Woodbury, R.B., and N.F.S. Woodbury 

1956 Zuni Prehistory and El Morro National 

Monument. Southwestern Lore 21(4):56-60. 

Wozniak, F. E., and M. P. Marshall 

1991 The Prehistoric Cebolla Canyon 

Community: An Archaeological Class III 

Inventory of 320 Acres of BLM Land at the 

Mouth of Cebolla Canyon. Prepared for the 

Bureau of Land Management. Office of 

Contract Archeology, University of New 

Mexico. Albuquerque. 

Zedeflo, M.N. 

1994 Sourcing Prehistoric Ceramics at 

Chodistaas Pueblo. Arizona: The Circulation 

of People and Pots in the Grasshopper 

Region. Anthropological Papers of the 

University of Arizona No. 61. University of 

Arizona Press, Tucson. 

1999 A Mountain Sheep Irap at El Maipais 

National Monument. Unpublished Final 

Report to Southwest Parks and Monuments 

Association. Manuscript on IIle. National 

Park Service, Intermountain Support Office. 

Santa Fe. 

Wiseman, R. N. 

1974 The Maipais Reconnaissance: An 

Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation of 

Some Prehistoric Sites in the EI Maipais 

Planning Unit. Socorro District. Bureau of 

Land Management. Museum of New 

Mexico. Santa Fe. 

Zedeno, M. N., J. Schrag-James, R. C. Basaldu 

2001 Overview and Inventory of Ethnographic 

Resources for Petrified Forest National Park. 

El Maipais National Monument and National 

Conservation Area, and El Morro National 

Monument. Prepared for the National Park 

Service, Intermountain Region Support 

Office. Santa Fe. Bureau of Applied 

Research in Anthropology. The University of 

Arizona. Tucson. 
Index 

263 

2002 Cherry Fire, 38 

ad, 31 

Abo Sandstone Formation, 32, 217 

abraders, 121 

Acoma Culture Province, 7 

Acoma Embayment, 31 

Acoma potters. 229; clay source, 238 

Acoma Pueblo, 1 1, 43; use of El Malpais. 13. 131. 

159, 162, 163. 169, 174 

Acoma Pueblo Grant, 44 

adobe wall construction, 40. 41, 42 

agricultural components, 86. 173 

agriculture, historic. 129-130. 174; features, 141. 

162.164 

Agua Fria Canyon, 245, 246 

Agua Fria Creek, 241 

Alben Homestead, 174 

ammunition. 153 

amphibians, 36 

Ancestral Puebloan components. 166 

Anglo settlement, 44 

Archaic, camp sites, 39; component type 

description, 72; components, 46, 166; lithic 

assemblages, 7, 39; projectile points, 39, 45-

46; site locations, 39 

Archeological Sites Management Information 

System (ASMIS), 27, 144 

architectural features. 73 

Armijo Canyon, Pueblo II sites. 41; Pueblo III, 42 

Armijo Canyon Survey, 7, 9. 10, 38 

Armijo Spring, 34 

artifact, sampling and recording, 26-27 

Atsinna. 37 

axes, 121 

Bandelier. Adolph. 14, 37 

Bandera Crater ice caves, 130, 131 

Bandera flow, 31, 125 

basalt, 109. 113, 114, 123, 124, 125, 127, 172. 

234, 242, 243, 244, 245, 247; colors of. 245; 

source location of, 245 

Basketmaker II. 39; component type description, 

72 

Basketmaker III, sites, 39-40 

Basketmaker components, 46-47, 166 

Basque shepherds, 130 

Bat Cave, 138 

bat guano, 131, 138 

beads, 122 

bedrock features. 86, 88 

biface reduction, description of, 7 

Big Tubes area, 138, 159 

birds, 36 

Bluewater Lake, 245 

bomb test site, 13 1 

Bosque Redondo, 44. 130 

Brushy Basin chert, 123, 125 

cairns, 88 

camps, 86; with structures, 138, 173; without 

structures, 132, 138, 173 

Can and Fastener Form, 206 

Candelaria Ruin, 3, 40, 74, 90. 96. See also Las 

Ventanas; LA 1328/1329 

Casa Mosca, 42 

Cebolla Canyon, community, 42; Pueblo II sites, 

41; Pueblo III, 42 

Cebolla Canyon Survey, 7, 9, 10, 38; survey and 

excavation, 37 

Cebolleta Black-on-white, 52. 218, 219, 224. 225. 

226, 227. 228, 229; type definition. 52-53, 219 

Cebolleta phase, 67 

Cebollita Mesa. 68; archeological investigation, 37 

Cebollita Mesa Survey, 38 

Cebollita North lithic raw material survey units, 

242-243 

Cebollita South lithic raw material survey units, 

243-244 

ceramic analysis, interobserver variation, 48 

ceramic artifacts, recording, 48, 50-51; sampling. 

48 

ceramic exchange, 99-108; model, 106-107; 

network boundaries, 12-13: temporal trends. 

104 

ceramic firing temperatures, 224. See also clay 

firing; sherd refiring 

Ceramic Inventory Form, 2002, 198-202 

ceramic phase designations. 21 8 
264 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

ceramic production, lack of compositional studies. 

107: time spans. 1 75 

ceramic research. 218 

ceramic scatters, definition of. 88 

ceramic seriation method. 54-55 

ceramic sherd property recordation, 221 

ceramic sourcing study, apparent porosity 

determination, 224-229: clay sample 

collection. 220; purpose. 217: research goals. 

21 7; sherd sampling strategy. 219 

ceramic temper. 50 

ceramics, historic. 151. 153: datable attributes of. 

151 

ceramics, non-local. 171 

ceramics manual. 50 

Cerritos de Jaspe, area. 172; community. 41, 42: 

lithic raw material survey units, 242 

Cerritos de Jaspe Survey, 9. 10, 38 

Chaco Canyon, influence. 13 

Chacoan. architecture. 41. 42: great house. 3; 

interaction sphere. 124. 128. 229: outliers. 38. 

40-41. 90, 96, 171, 220: phenomenon. 41, 68; 

system. 104. 107. 124, 125, 168, 172, 173. 175 

chalcedony, 109. 123. 124. 125. 127, 172, 234. 

246 

chert, 109, 123, 124, 172, 234, 241, 243, 246. 247. 

See also Brushy Basin chert; Chinle chert: 

Chuska chert; dendritic jasper; fingerprint 

chert; Laguna chert; Pedernal chert; Permian 

cherts; San Andres chert; Socorro jasper; 

yellow-brown spotted chert; Zuni spotted 

chert 

Chinle chert, 234, 245 

Chinle Formation, 235. 237, 238, 241, 244, 245, 

247 

Chinle wood, 245, 247 

choppers. 1 1 7 

chronology, 6. 7, 175; Basketmaker and Puebloan, 

39; qualitative. 67 

Chuska chert, 109, 1 1 1, 114, 1 16, 123, 124 

Cibola ceramic tradition. Cebolletan expression, 

217 

Cibola Gray Ware, 51, 173; description, 51 

Cibola White Ware, 52, 100, 170, 173; description 

52; Puerco Series, 218 

cinders, 36 

Citadel, the, 42 

clay firing, color groups. 222. 224. 225-226; local. 

100. See also ceramic firing temperatures; 

sherd retiring 

clay sample property recordation. 221 

clay source, and geologic formations, 220; 

identification. 217 

climate, 37 

climatic variability. 8 

clothing. 153 

Clovis, 38. 46. 165 

Cluster 1.63-64 

Clusters 1-6. 167 

Cluster 2. 64-65 

Cluster 3. 65 

Cluster 4, 66 

Cluster 5, 66-67 

Cochise, projectile point style, 6, 7, 120; tradition, 

39. 46. 169 

Cody projectile point. 46. ! 65 

Cody Complex. 38 

coins. 153. 157 

component, definition of, 72: functional typology. 

175 

component type, 27. 29 

conifer-woodland community. 35-36 

copper mining, 131 

core, multi-directional. 117 

core reduction, 7; description of, 7 

core tools. 1 1 7 

Coronado, Francisco Vasquez de, 43 

correspondence analysis, 54-55, 62. 63, 166-167 

Corrugated Gray ceramic category, 62 

cortex, and clast size, 127; and level or reduction. 

1 13; field recording of, 1 14; percent and raw 

material type, 114, 116 

Crevasse Canyon Formation, 242, 243. 244 

cultural affiliation, 27; Archaic, 71: Basketmaker 

II, 71; determination of, 27. 71; Euroamerican, 72; Hispanic. 72; Historic 

Unknown, 72; Native American. 71; 

Puebloan, 71; unknown, 72 

culture areas, boundaries of, 11, 169 

Dakota Sandstone Formation, 34, 217, 226, 228, 

229,242. 243, 246, 247 

dams, 86, 141, 173 
INDEX 265 

dating, aceramic sites. 45: using projectile point 

styles. 7; subjective. 167: using ceramic 

assemblages, 7, 166 

debitage, data collection procedures. 111: ratio as 

chronological indicator, 45; size, 1 1 1 

dendritic jasper, 234, 245. See also finger print 

chert; yellow-brown spotted chert; Znni 

spotted chert 

Dittert Site, 40, 41, 235, 244, 246. See also LA 

11723 

domicile historic artifact classes, 153 

Early Gray ceramic category, 62 

economic network, 12; and competition. 12: 

archeological indicators of, 12 

El Calderon. 34; area. 138, 159; flow, 31, 125 

El Malpais National Conservation Area Survey, 

38.40,41.42. 108. 132 

El Malpais National Monument, description, 2-3: 

establishment of, 2; origin of name, 3; size and 

location, 2 

El Morro. 37. 68 

El Morro Valley, 90 

ELMA 42. 46 

ELMA 45. 46 

ELMA 50. 46 

ELMA 51.46 

ELMA 53, 46 

ELMA 55, 145 

ELMA 57. 219-220, 225, 226, 227. 229. 230 

ELMA 60. 219-220. 225. 226. 227. 229, 230 

ELMA 68, 219-220. 226. 227. 229, 230 

ELMA 84. 46 

ELMA 112. 153 

ELMA 113. 141. 142, 159 

ELMA 114. 138. 151 

ELMA 115, 141 

ELMA 116, 141 

ELMA 117. 141 

ELMA 120. 138 

ELMA 127, 144 

ELMA 128. 153 

ELMA 129, 146 

ELMA 133.35. 86. 141 

ELMA 138. 141. 153 

ELMA 139. 141 

ELMA 156. 144-145 

ELMA 175. 157 

ELMA 189. 55. 67. 89. 168, 219-220. 226. 227. 

229, 230. See also Las Ventanas; Candelaria 

Ruin 

ELMA 190. 144, 157. 159. See also LA 32057 

ELMA 198. 142. 153 

ELMA 199. 142 

ELMA 200, 142 

ELMA 201, 141, 142, 153 

ELMA 213, 142, 153. 157, 159 

ELMA 217. 153, 157 

ELMA 227. 86, 138 

ELMA 234, 142 

ELMA 238, 145 

ELMA 242, 142, 153 

ELMA 243, 142 

ELMA 244, 142 

ELMA 245, 138 

ELMA 261, 93 

ELMA 266, 35 

ELMA 267, 35 

ELMA 278, 78, 86 

ELMA 279, 46 

ELMA 284, 67. 153 

ELMA 286. 138 

ELMA 306. 157 

En Medio phase, 39 

encierro, definition of. 3 

encomienda, 43 

Entrada Sandstone Formation, 34, 217 

environment. 217-21 8 

ethnicity, 11 

Euroamerican, land use, 6, 159, 162, 163: use of 

El Malpais, 169. 174 

exchange model. 173: evaluation of. 173 

exchange networks, 170, 175 

farming, 3 

fauna, 3, 36 

feature association, identification of, 29 

fingerprint chert. 234, 237, 244. See also 

dendritic jasper; yellow-brown spotted chert; 

Znni spotted chert 

fire-cracked rock, 122 

flake tools, informal, 1 19; retouched. 1 19 

Flaked and Non-flaked Stone Tool Form, 2002. 

204-205 

flora. 3 

flora/fauna/mineral historic artifact class, 153 
266 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

fluorspar mine. 13 1 

Folsom. 235. 245 

food preparation and consumption historic artifact 

class, 153 

Fort Sumner, 44 

Fort Wingate, 44. 131 

frost-free season, 37 

funding, 1 

Gallup Sandstone Formation, 242, 243 

Garrett Homestead. 144, 1 74 

Geographic Information System (GIS), 234, 235 

geographic survey strata, 15; kipukas, 19; lava 

tube/ice cave system, 19; non-lava and old 

lava. 19; one-kilometer buffer, 19; open lava, 

15 

geology, 3 1-32, 34 

George E. Breece Lumber Company, 130 

glass artifacts. 146. 151; datable attributes of. 151 

Glass Coding Form, 208 

Global Positioning System (GPS), 23, 26, 220, 

235 

Glorieta Sandstone Formation, 32, 217, 235, 238 

Grants Ridge obsidian, 109, 111, 114. 123, 125. 

127, 172,233.234,247 

grass/shrubland community. 36 

grassland community, 36 

gray ware, categorization for sedation, 62 

great house. 74-75. 78 

habitation site locations, 93; through time, 93. 96-

97 

habitation versus non-habitation sites, 168-169 

habitations, criterion, 89; definition of, 88 

Halona wa Itiwanna, 43 

Hawikuh. 43 

herding, 3. 129-130. 13 1, 132. 138, 141. 162, 164. 

174. See also ranching 

Heshotautha Polychrome, 54 

highway construction, 37, 38 

Flispanic. land use patterns. 159. 162, 163; use of 

ElMalpais, 169 

historic artifact classes, miscellaneous, 153 

historic artifact recording method. 145 

Historic Ceramics Coding Form, 207 

historic components. 166, 173; assigning cultural 

affiliation to. 159. 174; dating, 157, 159, 174 

historic construction/maintenance artifacts. 153 

historic isolated occurrences. 173; datin«. 174 

historic land use patterns, 159, 162 

historic site functional categories. 132. 173 

homesteads. 130, 131. 132, 142, 144. 159. 162. 

164,174 

Hoya de Cibola flow, 3 1 

hunting, 3, 138. 174 

hydrology. 34-35 

ice caves, 3. 31. 35, 36. 41. 131; area. 125. 127. 

172; use of. 3. 11 

ice collection, 144-145. 159 

immigration, 92 

Indented Corrugated Brown Ware, 218 

Indented Corrugated Gray Ware, 218 

Indented Corrugated Smudged Brown Ware. 218 

interaction and exchange patterns, 128, 1 70-1 73 

invertebrates. 36 

10 344, 138 

isolated artifacts/features, historic, 145 

isolated occurrence, 120; definition of, 26; 

frequency, 20; recording, 26 

Isolated Occurrence Form, 2002, 197 

Jaspe-Bandera Trail, 41 

Jemez obsidian, 109, 123,246 

judgmental sample, 14-15, 19-20. 165. 174; 

management priority areas, 19-20 

k-means cluster analysis, 54-55, 166-167; of type 

percentages, 62 

Ketchipauan, 43 

Kiatuthlanna Black-on-white, 52 

Kiatuthlanna phase. 40 

kilns. 224 

kipuka. 32, 129. 130; definition of, 3; use of, 3. 11 

kiva, 83 

Kowina Black-on-white, 52 

Kowina phase. 42, 67 

Kowina Ruin. 43 

LA 1328/1329, 40, 67, 74. See also Las Ventanas. 

Candelaria Ruin 

LA 9075, 235. 241. 244, 245. See also La Vega 

Site 

LA 11723, 40, 235, 244. See also Dittert Site 

LA 32057. 157, 159. See also ELMA 190 

La Vega Site. 235. 241. 244, 245. See also LA 

9075 

Laguna, use of El Malpais, 169. 174 
INDEX 267 

Laguna chert. 247 

Las Ventanas. 3. 35. 40. 74, 55. 67. 89, 90. 93. 96. 

102. 103. 104. 107, 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 

173. 174. 219; ceramic assemblage. 102-104. 

107; Survey, 38. See also Candelaria Ruin; 

LA 1328/1329 

Lava Crater. 34; flow, 31. 125 

lava tubes. 3 1 

lithic data collection strategy. 108-109 

Lithic Debitage Form, 2002. 203 

lithic flake size, 1 13 

lithic raw material, 172; Archaic/Basketmaker, 

123; distribution of, 125, 127; frequency of, 

109; late Cebolleta period, 124; late 

Cebolleta/Pilares. 124-125: Red Mesa/ early 

Cebolleta. 123-124; use through time, 122-125 

lithic raw material sources. 109; Archaic. 11, 12, 

233: distance-decay model. 233: exotic, 246-

247: future investigations of, 247; 

identification of, 233; local versus non-local, 

123; non-local, 172; Paleoindian. 11. 12; 

Pueblo period. 233: survey. 108. 109: survey 

areas, 235; survey methods. 234-235; survey 

objectives. 234 

lithic reduction mode, and raw material. Ill; 

criteria for identification. Ill; in relation to 

physical properties of raw material, IN, 113 

lithic reduction strategies. 7 

lithic scatters, definition of. 88 

lithic tools, field recording of. 117. thermal 

alteration of. 1 16 

Little Hole-in-the Wall, 246. 247 

Lizzard House, 42 

logging, 130-131. 132. 138, 141-142. 159. 162. 

164. 174: components. 173-174 

Loma Montosa. 237. 244. 245 

long-distance trade. 12 

Long Walk. 44, 131 

Lookout Mountain, 245 

Los Pilares, 125. 127; district. 40, 172. 173: 

Pueblo I sites, 40; Pueblo III sites, 42 

Los Veteados, district, 40: Pueblo I sites. 40; 

Pueblo II sites. 41: Pueblo III sites, 42 

Lower Gallup Sandstone Formation. 243 

mammals, 36 

Mancos Shale Formation. 34. 21 7. 226. 242. 243 

Mangus Mountains, 246, 247 

manos, 121 

manuports. 121 

Mariana Mesa. 68 

McCartys Crater, 13 1 

McCartys flow, 31, 125 

mealing bins, 121 

metal containers, 146; chronology based on 

contents. 146; chronology based on material 

146; chronology based on technology 146 

nictates, 121 

mining. 144. 162 

mobility, constraints. 12 

mobility versus exchange, 11 

Model II Random Effects ANOVA, 226, 227 

Mogollon Brown Ware, 13. 52, 99, 100. 101. 170. 

171. 172, 173: description. 52: distribution, 

102-103; production location, 100; temporal 

trends, 104 

Morrison Formation, 247 

Mt. Sedgewick. 245 

Narrows, the, 34, 125 

Native American component type, description of. 

72-73 

Native American land claims. 37 

Navajo, 43. 44; relations with Spanish. 43; 

relations with United States, 43: settlement. 

11; use of El Malpais. 11, 13. 131. 132, 169. 

174 

Navajo Cave, 1 74 

New Mexico Cultural Resources Information 

System (NMCRIS), 27 

non-architectural features, 74 

non-habitation site locations, 93, 96; through time. 

93, 96-97 

non-habitations, criterion. 89-90: definition of 89 

North Pasture area. 125. 127. 172 

NZ Project, 7. 10.38.39 

Oak Tree. 42 

obsidian. 109. 172. See also Grants Ridge 

obsidian; Jemez obsidian; Presley Wash 

obsidian; Red Hill/Mule Creek obsidian 

Ohate, Don Juan de. 43 

Oshara, projectile point style, 6, 7. 120; tradition, 

39, 46. 169 

Oso Ridge, 241,245 

pahoehoe, 31 

paleoclimate. 37 
268 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Paleoindian. components, 165; hunting strategies, 

38; lithic assemblages, 7, 38; projectile points. 

7. 38: sites. 7 

palettes, 121 

Pedernal chert. 109, 1 16. 123. 124, 246. 247 

Penal Site. 43 

pendants. 121 

Permian cherts, 234 

pestles. 121 

petrified wood, 109. Ill, 113. 114, 123, 245; 

colors of. 245; source location of. 245. See 

also Chinle wood; silicified wood; Zuni 

silicified wood 

Phase I survey, areas sampled. 20, 23; described. 

1; goals, 20 

physiography, 31-32 

Pi lares phase, 67 

pipeline construction, 37. 38 

Plain Corrugated Brown Ware, 218 

Plain Gray ceramic category, 62; 218, 224, 225, 

226, 227, 228, 229 

Plains of San Augustin, 246, 247 

polishing stones. 121 

population decline. 67; Pueblo III, 42 

population density, 8 

population dynamics, 8, 9. 67, 68, 170; and 

agriculturalists, 8; and environmental stress, 8, 

9; expectations, 90, 169; in relation to adjacent 

areas, 68-69 

population growth, and climate, 11, 175; Pueblo 

II, 41; rate, 92 

Population Period 1, definition of, 90 

Population Period 2, definition of, 90 

population size, estimation of, 90, 169-170 

possible structures, description of, 84 

precipitation. 37 

prescribed-burn survey, 38 

Presley Wash obsidian, 166 

projectile points, 120; as temporally diagnostic, 45 

Public Land Survey System (PLSS), 234, 235 

Pueblo I, diagnostic ceramics, 40; locations, 40; 

sites, 40 

Pueblo II, sites, 40 

Pueblo III, sites, 41 

Pueblo IV. population, 43 

Pueblo Cerrito, 13,42, 103, 171 

Pueblo Revolt, 43 

Puebloan assemblages, 7 

Puebloan component types, 73, 167-168; 

description of, 78, 83 

Puerco Black-on-red, 218 

quartz, 109, 113. 123. 125.241.246 

quartzite. 109. 113. 114, 123. 124. 125. 172.234. 

242, 246, 247 

Quaternary alluvium, 235 

ranching, 174. See also herding 

ranching related historic artifacts. 153 

ranching/herding components, 173 

rancho, 130 

random sample, 14-15, 165, 174: development 

method. 15: purpose. 15 

Red Hill/Mule Creek obsidian, 109, 123, 172 

Red Mesa Black-on-white, 64 

Red Mesa phase, 40 

red ware, categorization for seriation, 62 

report purpose, 1 

reptiles. 36 

research domains, 6-14 

research objectives. 169 

Reserve Black-on-white, 21 8 

Resource G1S Clearinghouse. 234 

roads, historic, 140, 141, 173; prehistoric. 41 

rock alignments, 88 

rock art. 88 

rockshelters, description of, 85 

room counts, 89-90 

sampling design, 14-20 

San Andres chert. 109. 113, 116. 123. 124. 125. 

127. 172, 173, 233, 234, 235, 237, 238, 242. 

244-245, 247; colors, 244-245; raw material 

source location, 244 

San Andres Limestone Formation, 32, 217, 234, 

235,237,238,241,242 

San Juan White Ware, 53, 100 

San Pedro, phase. 39; projectile points, 39 

San Rafael. 130, 131 

sandstone, 109. 121 

Sandstone Bluffs, 34 

sawmill, 141-142, 173-174 

scatter features, 74 

scrapers, 1 19 

settlement behavior, 218; Archaic, 10; 

Paleoindian, 10, Puebloan, 11 
INDEX 269 

sherd retiring, interpretation of colors; method. 

221-222. See also ceramic firing temperatures; clay firing 

shrines, description of, 86 

shrub/conifer community. 36 

silicified wood, 234, 237, 238, 241, 244, 246, 247. 

See also Chinle wood; petrified wood; Zuni 

silicified wood 

siltstone, 243, 244, 246, 247 

site, boundary, definition of, 26; classification and 

provenience hierarchy, 27; definition of, 26; 

density, 20, 23; function, 7; habitation, 

defined. 7; non-habitation, defined, 8; 

recording, 26; variables used to discriminate, 

8; with respect to measuring population. 7, 8 

Site Recording Form, 2002, 191-196 

Site Recording Form Manual, 2002, 178-190 

sites identified, 165 

Skull Site, 13,41, 103. 171,230 

slabs, shaped, 121 

small structure components, description of, 83 

Socorro Black-on-white, 53. 65, 99, 100. 101. 170. 

171. 172, 173, 218. 229. 230; distribution, 13, 

103; production location. 100; temporal 

trends, 104; type description, 54; Variant # 1, 

53; Variant # 2, 53 

Socorro jasper, 247 

Socorroan Brown Ware, 52 

Socorroan network, 41 

soils, 34 

Spanish, colonization, 43; missionization, 43; 

settlement. 130 

Spanish Conquistadors, 3 

springs. 34-35 

St. Johns Black-on-red, 218 

St. Johns Polychrome, 66 

stone circles, 168; description of. 85-86 

stone disk. 122 

storage components, 86 

streams, 35 

survey, coverage, 165; goals. 1; method. 23: 

phases [-III, 1; sectors. 15 

SYSTAT 9. 62 

temperatures, 37 

temporal components, definition of, 27 

tested cobbles. 1 1 7 

thermal features. 86 

thermal shock resistence. 224-225 

tinajas, 218 

tool, historic artifact class, 153 

Tools for Quantitative Archaeology, 62 

trails. 3, 11, 13,88 

transcontinental railroad, 130 

transportation related historic artifact class, 153 

trash dumps, historic, 141, 173 

tree-ring chronology, 37 

Tres Hermanos Sandstone Formation, 34, 217, 243 

Tularosa Black-on-white, 52, 66, 218 

turquoise, 122, 153 

Twin Craters flow, 31, 125 

Two Kipuka, 34, 108 

United States Army. Native American hostilities, 

43 

unknown component type, description of, 73 

Upper Sand Canyon, 243 

uranium mining, 131 

Vanishing Treasures Program, 144 

vegetation, 35-36 

volcanic flows. 3 1 

water collection, 144-145, 159 

White Mound phase, 40 

White Mountain Red Ware, 54, 65. 66, 99. 100, 

101. 170, 171, 172. 173, 218; distribution, 

103; Kowina variant, 54; local characteristics, 

101; location of production. 13, 100-101: 

North Plains variant. 54; temporal trends. 104-

105; type description 54 

white ware categorization for seriation. 62 

Wingate Black-on-red, 218 

yellow-brown spotted chert. 234. 245. See also 

dendritic jasper; fingerprint chert; Zuni 

spotted chert 

Yeso Sandstone Formation, 32, 217, 235. 238. 

241,242.246,247 

Zuni. 68: archeological research. 37; land claim. 

44: Pueblo IV, 43; use of El Malpais. 13. 44. 

129-130. 169. 174 

Zuni-Acoma Trail, 3, 14. 245 

Zuni Canyon, 241, 244 

Zuni Mountains. 125. 130. 131. 234. 235. 244. 

245, 246, 247; lithic raw material survey units. 

241-242 
G^C Y

 U-S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 2005 — 775-391 / 25010 Region No. 8 

270 EL MALPAIS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Zuni Mountains East lithic raw material survey 

units, 235. 237-238, 241 

Zuni Sandstone Formation. 34. 217 

Zuni silicified wood. 245, 247 

Zuni spotted chert. 109. 113, 116, 123. 124, 125. 

127. 172, 234, 241, 244, 245, 247; source 

location, 245. See also dendritic jasper; 

fingerprint chert; yellow-brown spotted chert 

Zuni uplift, 31. 32 

The National Park Service cares for special places 

saved by the American people so that all may 

experience our heritage.