Lab News

Fall Lab 2008: Artifact Analysis and Replication

by Fumi Arakawa (Laboratory Analysis Specialist) and Benjamin Bellorado (Laboratory Program Coordinator)

December 9, 2008

Every year, we look forward to Fall Lab as an opportunity to catch up on analyses and special studies that don’t easily fit into the hectic summer schedule. And this year's session was more eagerly anticipated than usual because we were trying out a new approach to involving participants in the research process. In addition to detailed artifact analyses, the 2008 Fall Lab (September 28–October 4) offered archaeological field excursions, an artifact-replication exercise, and the opportunity for participants to read and discuss archaeological literature relevant to the analyses in which they were assisting.

The week's studies focused on selected stone artifacts from two thirteenth-century villages excavated by Crow Canyon: Goodman Point Pueblo (excavated from 2005 to 2007) and Sand Canyon Pueblo (excavated from 1984 to 1993). The first part of the week was devoted primarily to the analysis of projectile points and drills, two chipped-stone tools commonly found at ancestral Pueblo sites. The second part of the week focused on the analysis of ancient pendants. Our goal was to learn more about where the artifacts originated, how and where village residents obtained raw materials, and how they fashioned those materials into tools and ornaments.

Laboratory Program Coordinator Ben Bellorado demonstrates the art of flintknapping. Here, he uses an antler billet to removes flakes from a piece of obsidian as he shapes it into a projectile point.

To get a feel for the landscape and resources used by the ancestral Pueblo people, lab staff and our six program participants toured Goodman Point Pueblo, several other sites in the Goodman Point community, and two ancient stone quarries located about 40 miles distant. A flintknapping demonstration helped participants understand the basic mechanisms of how rocks break and other aspects of chipped-stone-tool manufacture. And a brief overview of how to analyze stone tools prepared everyone for the actual analyses that were to follow.

Stone-Tool Analyses

The first analysis involved an examination of stone debitage, which consists of the waste flakes and other debris produced when making chipped-stone tools. Various flake attributes, including weight, material type, and the presence of cortex (weathered exterior surface) were recorded. Debitage analysis is important because it allows archaeologists to identify raw-material preferences and infer the details of stone-tool manufacture (for example, whether a hammerstone or antler flaker was used to remove flakes in the shaping of a stone tool).

Two Fall Lab participants analyze a stone drill.

Next, the fall lab participants performed a detailed analysis of 70 projectile points and nine drills from Goodman Point Pueblo. The projectile point analysis revealed that the majority of the items were Pueblo II–Pueblo III (A.D. 900–1300) side-notched points, but seven were possibly made during the Archaic period (5500–1000 B.C.), and four dated from the Basketmaker period (1000 B.C.–A.D. 750). The presence of these points at a thirteenth-century village indicates that ancestral Pueblo people found and reused points from earlier—sometimes much earlier—time periods. (For a summary of the time periods defined for the Mesa Verde region, see Peoples of the Mesa Verde Region.)

The drill analysis revealed that eight of the nine drills were made of local quartzites, cherts, or mudstones; one was made of a material from an unknown source. Only two drills were complete, the others having been broken during manufacture or use. This analysis helped the Fall Lab participants understand not only how the residents of Goodman Point Pueblo made stone drills but also how these tools would have been used in the manufacture of pendants—the subject of the next analysis.

Pendant Analysis

A Fall lab participant shapes her pendant by grinding the edges against a sandstone abrader.

The last two days of Fall Lab were devoted to an analysis of stone pendants from Goodman Point and Sand Canyon pueblos. To prepare for this analysis, we—staff and participants—made our own pendants, experimenting with the same materials and technologies used in ancient times. We shaped and polished small pieces of slate, shale, and shell by rubbing them against sandstone abraders, and then we drilled holes with stone drills similar to those we had analyzed earlier in the week. The purpose of this replication exercise was to understand—from firsthand experience—the processes, mechanics, time, and energy needed to produce this type of ornament. In addition, everyone was given a "homework assignment" to read about previous studies of pendants from Pueblo sites throughout the northern Southwest. The readings helped Fall Lab participants view the analysis they were about to perform in the context of other archaeological studies conducted over several decades.

Among the questions we hoped to answer through the pendant analysis were (1) what is the percentage of pendants made with nonlocal materials and (2) is there any evidence that part- or full-time specialists manufactured pendants at Goodman Point and/or Sand Canyon pueblos?

The Fall Lab participants started the analysis with an examination of 22 pendants recovered from Goodman Point Pueblo. Once they were familiar with the analytic method, they proceeded to analyze an additional 55 pendants from the Sand Canyon Pueblo assemblage in just three hours! Only three (4 percent) of the total 77 pendants were made of nonlocal materials—two from Goodman Point and one from Sand Canyon. All three were made of jet, the closest known source of which is located about 200 miles away, near Chaco Canyon in northwestern New Mexico. This percentage of nonlocal material is similar to that recorded for a much larger pendant assemblage (N = 472) from Site 5MT3, located not far from Yellow Jacket Pueblo and excavated by the University of Colorado, Boulder.

The pendant analysis required making and recording detailed observations about each item.

In an attempt to address the question of specialization, the Fall Lab participants examined several attributes related to pendant construction, including pendant size, pendant shape, modification (such as grinding on the edges or surface), and hole-drilling technique. Our goal was to see if any distinctive patterns emerged that might suggest that multiple pendants were made by the same individual. In addition, the group investigated the proveniences in which the pendants were found, hoping that the distribution of these items might indicate that pendant manufacture was concentrated in specific contexts or areas at the sites.

Unfortunately, the data were insufficient for us to draw any inferences about specialization in the manufacture of pendants. The attribute analysis revealed no distinctive patterns, and although the distribution of pendants was somewhat patterned—with most pendants from both Goodman Point and Sand Canyon pueblos found in kiva and room fill—the pattern cannot be directly attributed to manufacturing specialization (that is, where the pendants were eventually found doesn’t necessarily reflect where they were made). Through group discussion, we concluded that examining the distribution of tools used to make pendants (e.g., drills and sandstone abraders) might prove to be a more fruitful approach. Other related issues we might try to address in future studies include (1) whether there were status differences among or between the residents of Goodman Point and Sand Canyon pueblos (and whether pendants are indicators of any such differences) and (2) how the ancestral Pueblo people may have used ornaments to convey specific social messages.

Thanks to All for a Great Week!

The 2008 Fall Lab was a great success. Expanding the program beyond analysis to include experimental artifact replication, a literature review, and group discussions enriched the program for participants and lab staff alike. We thank all of you who attended for your hard work and thought-provoking discussion. You made us think harder about what we do, how we do it, and what the results can teach us about the ancestral Pueblo communities of the central Mesa Verde region. We hope to see you—and many new faces—in 2009!

Like to try your hand at real archaeological lab work? Check out Crow Canyon's 2009 Fall Lab Week! Or go to Research Programs to learn about other opportunities to participate in Crow Canyon's ongoing research—including excavating at our current site.