Gendered analysis of lithics from the centralMesa Verde region

Fumiyasu Arakawa

Abstract

Archaeologists have emphasized men’s activities and neglected the role of women

in their analyses of lithic assemblages. In this study, I argue that both men and

women created lithic debitage and used stone tools. I further argue that women

created and used stone tools primarily in the context of activities conducted at

residential sites; in contrast, men created and used tools away from the residential

site. I build expectations for my analyses by examining ethnographic data. I use

these expectations to examine lithic assemblages produced between A.D. 1050

and 1300 in the central Mesa Verde region. Women’s use of lithics includes

tools used in maize grinding, including the use of peckingstones to refurbish

manos and metates. In contrast, men’s activities included the production of

projectile points; I demonstrate that this mostly occurred outside the village.

I use these insights to examine Rosaldo’s (1974) proposition that social and econ-

omic power is tied to gender and whether one’s role includes access to public

contexts or is restricted to domestic contexts. I conclude that that was not the

case in the central Mesa Verde region where gender roles appear to have been

complementary.

Resumen

En sus análisis de conjuntos líticos, los arqueólogos han enfatizado las actividades de los

hombres y han dejado de lado el papel de las mujeres. En este estudio, argumento que

tanto los hombres como las mujeres creaban desechos de talla lítica y usaban herramientas

de piedra. Argumento, además, que las mujeres creaban y usaban herramientas de piedra

primeramente en el contexto de actividades en sitios residenciales; por el contrario, los

hombres creaban y usaban herramientas fuera del sitio residencial. Construyo expectativas

para este análisis a través de una examinación de datos etnográficos. Utilizo estas expec-

tativas para examinar conjuntos líticos producidos entre 1050 y 1300 d.C. en la región

central de Mesa Verde. El uso de líticos por las mujeres incluía herramientas utilizadas

para moler maíz, incluyendo el uso de piedras para picar para arreglar manos y

metates. Por el contrario, las actividades de los hombres incluía la producción de

puntas de proyectil; demuestro que esto ocurría por lo general fuera de la aldea. Utilizo

estas ideas para examinar la aseveración de Rosaldo (1974) de que el poder social y eco-

nómico está ligado al género y al hecho de si el papel de uno incluye acceso a contextos

públicos, o si se limita a contextos domésticos. Concluyo que eso no era el caso en la

KIVA: The Journal of Southwestern Anthropology and History, Vol. 78, No. 3 (Spring 2013), pp. 279–312.Copyright © 2013 Arizona Archaeological and Historical Society. All rights reserved. 279DOI 10.1179/0023194013Z.0000000003

región central de Mesa Verde, donde los papeles de género parecen haber sido

complementarios.

GENDER AND THE PRODUCTION OF STONE TOOLS IN PUEBLOSOCIETY

In the 1980s, archaeologists began to systematically identify an andro-centric bias in the interpretation of the archaeological record (e.g. Gero

and Conkey 1991). These studies highlighted a clear pattern in which menwere visible in archaeological interpretation and women were, by and large,invisible. At times this bias that emphasized the actions of males was implicitand assumed. The androcentric bias was particularly prevalent in the interpret-ation of stone tools, which were, for the most part, interpreted as being associ-ated with male activities (Thomas 1983: 439). Critiques of the androcentric biasin archaeological interpretation resulted in new analyses that sought to engenderthe past and develop methods to identify whether specific activities were con-ducted by men or women (Gero and Conkey 1991; Sassaman 1992; Frankand Weedman 2005).

The research presented here examines differences in how men and womenwere involved in the production and use of stone tools in ancestral Pueblosociety. To address this question, I examine lithic assemblages in the centralMesa Verde region from A.D. 1050 to 1300 and show that there were gendereddifferences in production and use of stone tools and how these differences mightbe structured by the location of raw materials used to manufacture stone tools.

To support my hypothesis, I review the Pueblo ethnographic record andevaluate how these ethnographic observations are applicable to lithic data inthe central Mesa Verde region. This includes a discussion of Pueblo culturalgeography and how space is conceived as being gendered. Next, I comparelithic data from the central Mesa Verde region to the ethnographic model.I show that tool-stone procurement patterns and lithic reduction activitieswere gendered activities. I further argue that tool-stone procurement and thepreference for specific types of raw materials for specific types of stone toolsreflect the different use of space by men and women in the central Mesa Verderegion. I do this by examining raw material types that were used for manufactur-ing projectile points and food processing tools, which include manos andmetates for grinding food and peckingstones that were used to roughen thesurface of these grinding tools. The ethnographic model and bioarchaeologicalevidence (Martin 2000) show that women expended a great deal of time andenergy in food processing activities and that the food processing tool kits usedfor these activities were located within the village. In contrast, men were theprimary gender involved in the hunting of game, especially large game, andthese hunting activities took place outside their villages.

Fumiyasu Arakawa280

GENDERED SPACE AND ACTIVITIES IN PUEBLO SOCIETY

Recent studies show that most ancestral Pueblo people from the central MesaVerde region migrated into the northern Rio Grande region during the thirteenthcentury (Ortman 2012); it is likely that some Pueblo people from the centralMesa Verde also moved to the Hopi area in Arizona and the Acoma-Zuni areain New Mexico at this time. In the northern Rio Grande region, Tewa-speakingPueblo people claim—and several archaeologists concur—that they are the des-cendants of these central Mesa Verde region people (Cameron 1995; Cordell1995; Lipe 1995, 2010; Duff and Wilshusen 2000; Cameron and Duff 2008;Ortman 2009, 2010, 2012). Ortman (2009, 2010, 2012) presents multiplelines of evidence—archaeological, bioarchaeological, linguistic, and ethnohistoric—to argue that most inhabitants of the central Mesa Verde region during theeleventh through thirteenth centuries spoke Tewa, and that most of thesepeople moved to the area along the Rio Grande where the Tewa language isspoken today (although see Boyer et al. 2010 for a different interpretation).

The primary concern of the ethnographers who documented the easternPueblos of the Rio Grande was on overall descriptions of sociopolitical organiz-ation, such as kinship systems and ritual ceremonies. When ethnographies diddescribe gendered activities, these may not have been the primary purpose ofthe ethnography. Those ethnographic descriptions may be also incompleteand biased towards male activities (Ortiz 1969; Eggan 1979). Despite this lackof specificity about men’s vs. women’s activities, many eastern Pueblos, particu-larly the Tewa, share a similar cultural geography regarding the gendered concep-tualization of space (Lange 1959; Ortiz 1969, 1979; Hill 1982; Anschuetz et al.2002). In the Pueblo world, all human and non-human beings are defined andrepresented by a central place (Ortiz 1972: 142). Ortiz (1969) explains thecardinal dimensions of the Tewa world and suggests that the world nearthe village, with the fields, crops, and houses, is the feminine world, whereasthe world at the edges, with the mountains, snowpack, rainclouds, and gameanimals, is the masculine world (Figure 1). Some ethnographic data examinethis concept of landscape in greater detail. For example, the pueblo of OhkayOwingeh (formerly called San Juan) classifies their physical world into threeconcentric spheres. The first sphere (the village, farmlands, and other lowlandsnear the village) is defined and occupied by women; women know andcontrol the knowledge of important family practices within this sphere. Thesecond sphere lies beyond the first, and it is the domain of both men andwomen who share knowledge of the hills, mesas, and washes. The outermost,third sphere is comprised of distant hunting and gathering areas that arepurely the domain of men (Figure 1; Anschuetz et al. 2002). Among SantaClara Pueblo, Arnon and Hill (1979: 303) noted that while farming was donemostly by men, with the assistance of women in communal tasks, women

Gendered analysis of lithics from the central Mesa Verde region 281

primarily worked within the household, caring for children, preparing food, andmaking pottery. Hill (1982: 162–164) found Santa Clara men engaged in tasksmostly in the field, and Santa Clara women in and around the home. In sum,these ethnographies reveal distinct men’s and women’s domains and their differ-ential use of space.

Lowell (1991) compiled information about the organization of men’s andwomen’s labor at Hopi and Zuni from early Spanish documents and fromethnographies that date to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.She found that there was a difference in how men and women used dwellings,kivas, and the village. Women conducted most food preparation activities indwellings, including food storage, corn grinding, cooking, and serving. Thedomestic dwellings were effectively the women’s domain (Stevenson 1904;Hough 1915; James 1919; Cushing 1920, 1979; Bunzel 1929; Stephen 1936;Beaglehole 1937; Hammond and Rey 1940; Eggan 1950; Powell 1972; Lowell1991: 452; Titiev 1992).

On the other hand, men generally brought food, stone, and wood to thedwellings (Mindeleff 1891; Hough 1915; Parsons 1917; James 1919; Benedict1934; Beaglehole 1937; Simmons 1942; Eggan 1950; Titiev 1992). Accordingto Lowell, “their [men’s] primary loci of economic activities are outside of the

FIGURE 1. The Tewa world (adapted from Ortiz 1969 and Anschuetz et al. 2002).

Fumiyasu Arakawa282

village proper, in the corn field, woods, and quarries” (1991: 452). At Hopi andZuni pueblo men spent far more time in activities outside of the village properthan did women (Mindeleff 1891; Stevenson 1904; Hough 1915; James 1919;Bunzel 1929; Beaglehole 1937; Simmons 1942; Eggan 1950; Lowell 1991:459; Titiev 1992). Men’s activity areas inside the village were limited andtended to occur in specific spaces. For example, kivas were associated withmen’s activities, including the manufacture of stone tools (Lowell 1991: 454),while women’s activities in kivas were limited to food processing activities onthe basis of the discovery of some groundstone tool kits (Morris 1986,Kuckelman and Morris 1988).

In summary, the ethnographic model has several aspects. First, ethno-graphic studies demonstrate that many Pueblo people conceptualized space ingendered terms, such that the area within the village is female and areasdistant from the village are male. Additionally, these studies indicate thatthere was a gendered division of labor. Women were in charge of food proces-sing activities and most of these activities occurred inside the residential site.In contrast, hunting large game was mostly done by men at locations outsidethe village. Many of the activities associated with tool manufacture for largegame hunting, especially projectile point manufacture, were also done outsidethe village; when they do occur within the village those activities were concen-trated in specific spaces, such as kivas.

CROSS-CULTURAL ANALYSES OF GENDERED ACTIVITIES

The model derived from Pueblo ethnography can be supplemented with cross-cultural analyses of the gendered division of labor. This cross-cultural analysis isused to identify tool classes that are best for analyzing men’s activities and toolsthat are best for identifying women’s activities.

MEN’S ACTIVITY: PROJECTILE POINT MANUFACTURE AND USE

I investigate the relationship between gender and activities beginning with therelationship between men and the manufacture of projectile points. Using theHuman Relation Area Files (HRAF), Burton and colleagues (1977:231, Table 1)coded 50 different technological activities from a total of 185 societies toexamine the gendered division of labor. They recorded 73 societies engaged instone-working activities and found that men were the more frequent producers ofstone tools in 67 groups (91.7%). In the remaining six societies (8%) men andwomen displayed roughly equal participation in the production of stone tools.Although this study and others documented some stone-tool production bywomen (Hough 1897; Burton et al. 1977; Brandt and Weedman 2002; Weedman2005), evidence for projectile point manufacture by women is almost absent.

Gendered analysis of lithics from the central Mesa Verde region 283

In a worldwide cross-cultural study, Ellis (1997) found that most projectilepoints were used for large game hunting and killing humans in warfare. Szuter(2000: 208) also found that in the American Southwest, projectile point use andmanufacture are exclusively associated with men. In her study of the westernPueblos, Lowell (1991) shows that Hopi and Zuni men were responsible forhunting and maintained their hunting tools, including projectile points. Inshort, there is a strong cross-cultural and ethnographic pattern that identifiesmales with the manufacture and use of projectile points. These projectilepoints are used for deer and other large game while garden hunting of lago-morphs and other small animals was conducted by adults of both gendersand children using a variety of hunting implements (Szuter 2000). Given thisstrong pattern, I focus on the manufacture and use of projectile points as areliable indicator of men’s activities and examine whether these activities tookplace inside or outside of villages in the central Mesa Verde region.

WOMEN’S ACTIVITY: GRINDING STONE TOOL KITS

There is a strong association of women and food processing tasks. Using HRAF,Burton et al. (1977:231, Table 1) found that in 160 of 185 societies (86%), mostof the cooking and preparing of vegetal food activities were done by women. Infour of 185 societies (2%), men and women displayed a roughly equal partici-pation in food processing activities. On the basis of Ember’s (1983: 297) andKurz’s (1987) cross-cultural studies, it is noted that women are more likely toparticipate in food collection, storage, and processing. Kurz (1987: 45)concluded that on the basis of a sample of 44 tribal societies, women didmore than 80 percent of the tasks associated with food processing.

In the American Southwest, both ethnographically and historically, foodprocessing was predominantly done by women. Among the historic pueblos,women’s most important task was grinding corn meal for daily activities, cer-emonies, and rituals (Stevenson 1892; Hough 1915; Parsons 1919, 1939;Cushing 1920; Dennis 1940; Castetter and Bell 1942; O’Kane 1950; Ezell1961; Longacre 1970: 49; Schlegel 1977; Uderhill 1979; Foote and Schackel1986; Young 1987; Fratt 1991; Lowell 1991; Titiev 1992; Mobley-Tanaka1997: 445). On the basis of a strong relationship between women and foodprocessing activities, Crown (2000: 221–222) and Mills (2000: 303) arguethat grinding equipment was used and associated with primarily women’sactivities.

EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF PECKINGSTONE USE

Analyses of middens and coprolites and isotopic studies of human bone(Matson and Chisholm 1991) demonstrate that maize was the single most

Fumiyasu Arakawa284

important subsistence resource to ancestral Pueblo Indians. As discussedpreviously, HRAF files and Pueblo historical documents demonstrate thatfood processing and preparation are predominantly women’s activities. Oneof the most important and time-consuming food processing activities forPueblo women was grinding corn. The primary tools for grinding food,predominantly maize, to prepare it for cooking, are manos, metates, andpeckingstones. Peckingstone tools were used for refurbishing manos andmetates (Adams 2002: 152–153).

The use of peckingstones for shaping and refurbishing manos and metatesis supported by experimental research. This experiment was conducted by CrowCanyon researchers and participants (Crow Canyon Archaeological Center2010). The first step was to manufacture cores from Morrison silicified sand-stone. This is the most common raw material for peckingstones in stone toolassemblages from the central Mesa Verde region; the material is abundant inthe canyons of southwestern Colorado. Cores are rocks with multiple scarsformed by removing flakes from the surface. During this experiment, a muchharder stone, like a quartzite river cobble, was used to remove flakes from acobble of Morrison silicified sandstone (see Dodd 1979 for a discussion ofhammerstones). The Morrison cores were then used to peck and battermany different items that ancestral Pueblo people modified, includingtimber, hides, animal bones, and pieces of sandstone.1 On the basis ofthis experiment, we found that the edges of peckingstones dulled and bluntedvery easily when struck against sandstone, but not when modifying othermaterials. It is also important to note that harder hammerstones (e.g. rivercobbles or quartzite) may cause shatter or damage the sandstone mano andmetates. The relatively softer Morrison material may have been essentialfor manufacturing and refurbishing sandstone manos and metates by theancestral Pueblo people. Our experiments complement the previous experi-mental and microwear analysis and archaeological-ethnographic study byDodd (1979) on Armijo rockshelter battered tools (peckingstones). Dodd(1979: 239) states, “An almost certain use of the Armijo implements was theshaping of metates and manos, and the roughening of their surfaces to keepthem sharp.”

Our experiments along with Dodd’s research (1979) indicate that pecking-stones were almost certainly made by battering Morrison silicified sandstonecores against sandstone (most often Dakota Formation sandstone) to manufac-ture and refurbish manos and metates and to shape building stones. For severalreasons, I believe peckingstones were used primarily as a part of food prep-aration tool kits rather than for construction. First, most building stone wasunshaped or only minimally shaped and when these stones were shaped thiswas only done once. In contrast, the manufacture of manos and metates wasan intensive process of shaping stone and these tools needed continuous

Gendered analysis of lithics from the central Mesa Verde region 285

refurbishing after they were manufactured. Experimental and ethnographicsources (McGuire 1893; Pond 1930; Dodd 1979: 238) indicate that thesurface of sandstone metates and manos had to be refurbished about everytwo hours. Second, peckingstones were used to manufacture and refurbishground stone tools from the Archaic period up until the present day in themodern pueblos (Martin 1940; Martin and Rinaldo 1960; Martin et al. 1967;Dodd 1979). Third, the frequency of peckingstones was just as common at theDuckfoot site in the southwestern Colorado, where the architecture did notinvolve pecked-block masonry, as it was at later sites where pecked-blockmasonry was present.2 Fourth, peckingstones are found together with metatesand manos in food preparation activity areas (Reiter 1938: 163; Woodbury1954: 93; Martin et al. 1967: 69; Morris 1986; Hruby 1988; Kuckelman andMorris 1988; Lightfoot and Etzkorn 1993). In the Crow Canyon ArchaeologicalCenter database (http://www.crowcanyon.org/research/research.asp), research-ers identified six late Pueblo sites that contained mealing bins; at two sites,Shields Pueblo and Sand Canyon Pueblo, these mealing bins containedmetates with at least one peckingstone. Nine of ten peckingstones collectedfrom these mealing bins were made of Morrison rocks (Till and Ortman2007). In addition, Mobley-Tanaka’s (1997:442, Table 2) study of gender andritual space noted that more peckingstones (archaeologists [Morris 1986; Kuck-elman and Morris 1988] used the term “used cores,” however my analysisdescribes them as peckingstones made of Morrison rocks) were found inmealing rooms where women’s food processing activities occurred than else-where in the central Mesa Verde region during the twelfth and thirteenth centu-ries. Finally, the ethnographic record also supports the interpretation thatpeckingstones were primarily used to manufacture and refurbish manos andmetates (Cushing 1920: 308; Bartlett 1933: 4; Gifford 1940; Simpson 1952:185; Lange 1959: 174; Eddy 1964; Bandelier 1966: 156, 1970: 46). Hough(1897) recorded a Tewa woman who used a peckingstone to make a mano formaize grinding. According to Hough (1897: 191):

In the summer of 1896 the writer quite unexpectedly observed the process of dres-

sing down one of the oblong hand-stones used by the Hopi women in grinding

corn. While sitting in the house of Kutchvei, awaiting the arrival of Nampeo the

potter, an old woman was seen to draw from beneath her rug an unfinished

mealing stone. This she laid across her knees and producing a hammerstone,

began to peck the corn-grinder into shape by rapid and continuous blows,

raising an ear-torturing noise. The grinder had previously been subject to much

work during the old woman’s leisure moments. The observation is a most inter-

esting one, throwing light on an ancient process, and giving meaning to the ham-

merstones [peckingstones] in the fabrication of grinders, metates, and other

utensils made of granular materials found in the prehistoric pueblos.

Fumiyasu Arakawa286

These five points support the interpretation that peckingstones in the centralMesa Verde region were used by women during the manufacture and refurbish-ing of manos and metates. The refurbishing of these groundstone tools wouldhave been part of their daily routine.

MEN’S AND WOMEN’S USE OF STONE TOOLS IN THE CENTRAL MESAVERDE REGION

I examinemen’s and women’s use of stone tools in the central Mesa Verde regionby focusing on projectile points and peckingstones. The section that followsintroduces the three villages used in my study. Next, I discuss the developmentof the raw material classification used in this study. I follow this with an assess-ment of the availability of these raw materials based on a resource survey I con-ducted in Yellow Jacket Canyon and on my documentation of quarry sites ofCretaceous Dakota/Burro Canyon silicified sandstone (hereinafter referred toas the “Kdb”), which was a common material used in the manufacture of projec-tile points. These studies provide the necessary background for my analysis ofthe manufacture of projectile points and peckingstones.

SHIELDS, YELLOW JACKET, AND SAND CANYON PUEBLOS

I focus on three sites: Shields Pueblo (5MT3807), Yellow Jacket Pueblo (5MT5),and Sand Canyon Pueblo (5MT765), which are located in a 1,817 km2 studyarea in southwestern Colorado (Figure 2). These sites represent typicalcanyon-oriented late Pueblo occupations in the central Mesa Verde region;material remains recovered from these sites are characterized by similar patterns,such as pottery types (predominantly corrugated gray ware and Pueblo IIIMcElmo and Mesa Verde black-on-white) and stone tools (e.g. small side- orcorner-notched points) and debitage largely made on Morrison rocks(Arakawa 2000; Ortman 2003; Till and Ortman 2007). During the late PuebloII and III periods (A.D. 1050–1300), population density in the region signifi-cantly increased and people began living in aggregated villages (Lipe andVarien 1999a, 1999b; Varien 1999; Varien and Wilshusen 2002; Varien et al.2007). Shields, Yellow Jacket, and Sand Canyon pueblos were investigated bythe Crow Canyon Archaeological Center from 1984 to 2002; I analyzed alldebitage from each site while Crow Canyon staff analyzed the tools fromthese assemblages (Ortman 2000, 2002, 2003; Till and Ortman 2007).

THE GEOLOGY OF THE STUDY AREA AND RAW MATERIAL TYPES

The canyons in the Great Sage Plain portion of the central Mesa Verde regioncontain exposures of Jurassic (Morrison) and lower to middle Cretaceous

Gendered analysis of lithics from the central Mesa Verde region 287

(Burro Canyon and Dakota) formations. These formations contain flakablestones including chert, chalcedony, silicified sandstone, silicified mudstone,and altered volcanic ash; Arakawa and Gerhardt (2007: 70–75) provide detaileddescriptions of each type of raw material. Arakawa and Gerhardt (2007, 2009)broadly classified the lithic raw materials from these formations into ten differ-ent types. First, we distinguish origins as sedimentary, igneous, or metamorphic.The majority of the lithic materials are of sedimentary origin, and these arefurther divided into silicified sedimentary rocks and precipitate of silicamaterials. Finally, rocks are sorted by color and texture. This method providesa useful way to distinguish and identify each raw material type, allowing it tobe associated with specific geological formations and members. Six materialtypes dominate the assemblages, as seen in Table 1.

Archaeologists (Hruby 1988: 29; Stevenson 1984; Lightfoot and Etzkorn1993) have asserted that the majority of lithic raw materials in the centralMesa Verde region are abundantly and ubiquitously distributed within this land-scape. To determine the validity of this statement, I conducted a survey of 16km2 in the upper portion of Yellow Jacket Canyon to investigate the lithologyand distribution of raw materials (Figure 3; Arakawa 2000). During thissurvey, I examined all exposures of the Morrison Formation to identify rawmaterials suitable for stone tool manufacture. Raw materials that were suitable

FIGURE 2. The study area of central Mesa Verde region (Map Provided Courtesy of the CrowCanyon Archaeological Center).

Fumiyasu Arakawa288

for knapping were examined with a hand lens, and color, mineral composition,and texture were recorded. Each location was photographed, plotted on a topo-graphic map, and recorded using a Geographic Positioning System device. Irecorded the presence of culturally modified materials, including proximaland angular shatter flakes, cores, and other artifacts.

FIGURE 3. The reconnaissance in the upper portions of Yellow Jacket Canyon. This figure showsMorrison only around Yellow Jacket Pueblo.

Table 1. Six raw materials found in the central Mesa Verde region.

Material Type Age, Formation(s), and Member

Silicified sandstone (Kdb) Cretaceous-age Dakota/Burro Canyon Formation

Chalcedony Cretaceous-age Burro Canyon Formation

Chert (Kbc) Cretaceous-age Burro Canyon Formation

Altered volcanic ashes (Jmbc) Jurassic-age Morrison Formation, Brushy Basin Member

Silicified mudstones (Kjm) Cretaceous-age Burro Canyon Formation/Jurassic-age MorrisonFormation Brushy Basin Member

Silicified chert (Kjc) Cretaceous-age Burro Canyon Formation/Jurassic-age MorrisonFormation Brushy Basin Member

Gendered analysis of lithics from the central Mesa Verde region 289

Morrison Formation Raw Materials (Kjm and Kjc). The geology of Yellow JacketCanyon is typical of many other canyons in the Four Corners area. The distri-bution of knappable Morrison Formation rocks is illustrated in Figure 3,showing that they are widely distributed in the canyon (Figure 4). Artifactssuch as cores, hammerstones, and pottery were present at some but not all ofthe areas where suitable material occurs.

Raw material from the Morrison Formation is the most abundant lithicresource at sites in the region. At Yellow Jacket Pueblo, more than 90 percentof the cores and more than 80 percent of peckingstones were made of MorrisonFormation materials. More than 90 percent of the debitage is from MorrisonFormation rocks at Shields, Yellow Jacket, and Sand Canyon pueblos. Thewide availability was documented in the portion of Yellow Jacket Canyon thatI surveyed, and this ubiquitous distribution appears to be typical of othercanyons that expose the Morrison Formation. The results of this lithic rawmaterial survey indicate that Morrison Formation lithic materials were directlyprocured from areas nearby most occupied sites in the region (e.g. within 2 km).Thus, raw materials for peckingstones came from local and easily accessiblesources.

Dakota/Burro Canyon (Kdb) Raw Materials. Dakota/Burro Canyon (Kdb) rawmaterials are not nearly as ubiquitous as Morrison Formation raw materials;however, the Kdb material was prized for stone tool manufacture. Kdb materialwas used to make projectile points at all three villages (comprising more than40 percent of the projectile point material recovered). Other raw materialsused to produce projectile points include silicified sandstone, agate/chalcedony,and Burro Canyon chert, Morrison chert, obsidian, unknown chert or siltstone,and nonlocal chert. Morrison chert is the only material that was easily accessible;all other local raw materials used for projectile points were scarce in the centralMesa Verde region, and many of the raw materials were nonlocal and came froma great distance. It is likely that residents of villages in the Mesa Verde regiontraveled long distances to obtain high-quality raw materials to make projectilepoints.

Analysis of the lithics from Yellow Jacket, Shields, and Sand Canyonpueblos indicate that more than 40 percent of projectile points are made ofKdb silicified sandstone.3 Kdb silicified sandstone is fine-grained with limitedflaws. Thus, Kdb material was the most popular raw material for the manufac-ture of projectile points in the region and was the raw material most readilyavailable.

I conducted a lithic source survey to locate the source of Kdb silicifiedsandstone. I obtained 91 records of possible lithic quarry sites from the Color-ado Office of Archaeological Historic Preservation (OAHP) and visited each ofthese sites. I also visited three additional quarries that local archaeologists had

Fumiyasu Arakawa290

FIGURE 4. The above picture shows an exposure of the local canyon environment, facing south ofYellow Jacket Canyon. The bottom picture displays a portion of the canyon, showing abundantMorrison Formation rocks on the ground.

Gendered analysis of lithics from the central Mesa Verde region 291

identified but which had not yet been included in the State of Coloradoinventory.

I collected non-artifact lithic materials from each of these sites; these arecurated at the Bureau of Land Management’s Anasazi Heritage Center nearDolores, Colorado. I also photographed the outcrops at each site, recordedtheir size, noted the raw material type present, and obtained the UniversalTransverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates.

Fifty-three of the 94 quarries (56%) contained the Kdb silicified sandstonematerial (Arakawa 2006: 360–365). Figure 5 shows the distribution of Kdbsilicified sandstone quarries in this study area. At most of the quarries, I observeddebitage, cores, tested cobbles, and bifacial thinning flakes, all evidence thatancestral Pueblo people knew of those quarries, tested the raw material, andobtained raw material from them by direct or indirect procurement (Ute andNavajo people may have also used these quarries, but their presence in thestudy area is very rare compared to the intensive ancestral Pueblo occupationas documented in Varien et al. [2007: 276]).

FIGURE 5. This figure shows all three pueblos and outcrops/quarries of Kdb silicified sandstone.

Fumiyasu Arakawa292

Figure 5 shows that the Kdb resources were not only fewer in number butalso unevenly distributed. To procure Kdbmaterials, Pueblo people had to travelbeyond the immediate proximity of the settlement. For most residential sites,people would have to travel more than 7 km to obtain these materials; thiscorresponds roughly to the 7 km and 18 km catchment zones discussed byVarien (1999: 153–155) where people gathered most of their wild food andnon-food resources. This contrasts with the procurement pattern for MorrisonFormation materials discussed above, which could be found in the immediatevicinity of most settlements.

My examination of the manufacture of projectile points focuses on Kdbmaterials because so many quarry sites contained this silicified sandstone andmore than 40 percent of projectile points recovered from villages of Shields,Yellow Jacket, and Sand Canyon were made from this raw material.

LITHIC REDUCTION ACTIVITY AT CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGIONHABITATION SITES

To investigate whether males manufactured their projectile points at habitationsites, I analyzed debitage at Shields, Yellow Jacket, and Sand Canyon pueblos. Toconduct this analysis, I followed Patterson’s bifacial-reduction model (1990),which was developed using archaeological and experimental data. Patterson(1990) conducted an experiment on bifacial reduction reducing a flake to a bifa-cial dart-point preform. In his experiment, all knapping was done by soft percus-sion, using deer-antler or elk-antler billets and Texas flints. He concluded that ahigh percentage of small flakes in the debitage assemblage is a useful indicator ofbifacial-reduction activities, and distinct from other strategies such as corereduction. Figure 6a shows his model and graphs the percentages of flakes indifferent size categories; it shows a negative exponential curve with a highfrequency of small flakes and is indicative of bifacial reduction. In contrast, agraph with an irregular curve indicates that core reduction or other modes oflithic reduction took place.

Some (Andrefsky 2001: 3, 2007; Shott 1994: 92–94) have criticizedPatterson’s analytical technique, noting that a simple focus on the size and quan-tity of debitage makes it difficult to segregate a particular lithic activity—likebifacial reduction—from multiple episodes of lithic reduction using a varietyof reduction strategies at a site. In my study, this problem is minimized by focus-ing on a single raw material type, the Kdb silicified sandstone used in theproduction of formal tools. In addition, bifacially reducing flakes producesmany more small thinning flakes when compared to core reduction andbipolar reduction, which produce many more large flakes. This is supportedby Stahle and Dunn’s (1984) experiment which replicated the bifacial-reductionprocess. Their analysis of debitage showed that the size of debitage flakes

Gendered analysis of lithics from the central Mesa Verde region 293

decreased from earlier (mostly core reduction) to later reduction stages (mostlybifacial thinning). This same result is seen in the analysis of Clovis point pro-duction by Morrow (1997) that shows mean flake weight becomes graduallyless as the manufacturing process approaches an end product.

Analyses of flake size at Shields, Yellow Jacket, and Sand Canyon pueblosare shown in Figure 6b. Lithic artifacts from these sites were recovered primarily

FIGURE 6. (a) Patter-son’s flake-size dis-tribution for bifacialreduction (adaptedfrom Patterson1990:551). (b) Theresult of bifacialreduction activities atthese three villages.

Fumiyasu Arakawa294

from trash middens. Three different size grades are used, which from largest tosmallest are the following: 2.54 cm (1.0 inch and above), 1.27 cm (1.0 to 0.5inch), and .635 cm (0.5 to 0.25 inch). I used mean percent counts for the depen-dent variable, in line with Patterson’s analytical method. The assemblages forYellow Jacket Pueblo and Shields Pueblo contain a high count percent of Kdbsilicified sandstone in the size 1.27 cm category, suggesting flakes and angularshatter debris were produced during blank manufacture. When graphed, thecurve is irregular rather than the negative exponential curve expected for bifacialreduction. The Sand Canyon Pueblo assemblage has more small flakes indicat-ing that bifacial reduction likely occurred; however, the negative slope shows astraight line rather than a negative exponential curve because a relatively highpercentage of Kdb silicified sandstone in the size 1.27 cm category are stillpresent. These results suggest that even villagers at Sand Canyon probably didnot frequently engage in bifacial reduction that characterizes the end stages ofprojectile point manufacture (Whittaker 1994: 200).

Microdebitage Analysis. Before this conclusion can be accepted, I also consideredwhether small flakes were lost as a result of recovery techniques that emphasizedthe use of 1/4-inchmesh screen. To assess whether this recovery method failed torecover the smallest flakes, I conducted amicrodebitage analysis from these threesites.4

Microdebitage is defined as flakes that are smaller than .635 cm (less than0.5 inches). I conducted flintknapping experiments to estimate how muchmicrodebitage would be produced by bifacial reduction during the end stagesof projectile point manufacture. I compare the results of these experiments tomy analysis of microdebitage collected from sediment samples.

I commissioned three skilled flintknappers to replicate typical Puebloanprojectile points that were the average size of points recovered from YellowJacket Pueblo: average measurements were 2.63 cm long, 1.37 cm wide, and0.3 cm thick. The flintknappers manufactured side- and corner-notched projec-tile points like those found at Shields, Yellow Jacket, and Sand Canyonpueblos and collected all the debitage they produced. They used local Kdbsilicified sandstone materials collected from quarry sites in the central MesaVerde region. To produce the points the flintknappers selected an appropriateflake of Kdb material and primarily used pressure flaking to thin andshape the flakes and produce the points. Five projectile points weremanufactured.

This produced an average of 45 pieces of debitage larger than 2.8 mm (.11inch) but less than 6.35 mm (.25 inch). Based on this experiment, I assume that45 pieces of debitage in this size category is the expected number of flakes for theproduction of one projectile point.

Gendered analysis of lithics from the central Mesa Verde region 295

Crow Canyon Archaeological Center excavators collected 1 liter of sedi-ment samples as described in the Center’s field and laboratory manuals (CrowCanyon Archaeological Center 2003, 2004; Ortman et al. 2005). The contextssampled were primarily middens, roomblock floors, hearths found in both pit-structures and rooms. Sediment samples from Yellow Jacket, Sand Canyon, andShields pueblos were processed using the water-screen method described in thelaboratory manual (Ortman et al. 2005). Microdebitage is recovered from theheavy fraction of these samples, and I analyzed heavy-fraction samples for thisstudy. My analysis did not produce a typology of microdebitage such as theone described by Fladmark (1982). Instead I counted how many flakes werein the size category that was larger than 2.8 mm (.11 inch) and smaller than6.35 mm (.25 inch). I also recorded the raw materials for each piece ofmicrodebitage.

Figure 7 plots the quantities of small debitage collected from five differentcontexts: floors, middens, pit-structure/kiva hearths, and room hearths.5 Thisfigure shows that most microdebitage recovered from these contexts was madeof mudstone/chert from the Morrison Formation, the materials used toproduce themajority of peckingstones. Only 26 pieces of Kdb silicified sandstonewere recovered; far fewer than the 45 pieces produced on average in theexperimental replication of a single projectile point. This result indicates that

FIGURE 7.Microdebitage and rawmaterial types, including chalcedony, Cretaceous Burro CanyonFormation chert (Kbc), Cretaceous Dakota/Burro Canyon Formation silicified sandstone (Kdb),Morrison silicified chert (Kjc), and Morrison silicified mudstone (Kjm). No Brushy Basin chert(Jmbc) was found.

Fumiyasu Arakawa296

point manufacture did not occur in these contexts at the three villagesand since the variety of contexts sampled would include the most likely placeswhere this debitage would have been discarded, this result indicates that theinhabitants of these villages did not manufacture many projectile points atthese sites.6

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

This paper has examined the gendered use of stone tools in the central MesaVerde region. I used ethnography to examine Pueblo cultural geography andestablish that Pueblo people view the world as gendered: pueblo villages andthe area immediately around these settlements are feminine and areas at agreater distance from the settlement are masculine. Pueblo ethnography alsodocuments a division of labor in Pueblo society such that female activities aredomestic work that largely occurs at the residential sites while men’s workincludes many activities away from the village. Cross-cultural analyses werethen conducted to demonstrate that men are overwhelmingly the gender thatproduces and uses projectile points and women are overwhelmingly thegender that produces and uses food processing tools, including tool kits forgrinding corn. I present the results of experimental studies that indicate thatpeckingstones found at sites in the central Mesa Verde region were an importantpart of these corn-grinding tool kits. These ethnographic, cross-cultural, andexperimental studies were the basis for selecting projectile points and maize-grinding tools for my analyses.

This foundation provided the groundwork for my gendered analysis ofstone tool use in central Mesa Verde region. I developed a classification of rawmaterials and conducted fieldwork to assess the availability of the Morrisonrocks that were used to produce peckingstones and the Kdb silicified sandstonethat was used to produce projectile points. This fieldwork demonstrated thatMorrison stone was ubiquitous and would have been available in a short dis-tance from the habitation site. The Kdb silicified sandstone was only found atquarries that are rare in comparison to the Morrison materials and that wouldhave been obtained at greater distances from the habitation site.

Finally, I examined the Kdb debitage and determined that small bifacialthinning flakes that are created during the manufacture of projectile points arescarce at habitation sites. This demonstrates that Kdb projectile points werenot made at habitation sites in the region. In summary, this study shows thatwomen used peckingstones made from Morrison Formation stone that wasobtained at a short distance from the habitation site. In contrast, men usedKdb silicified sandstone to manufacture these projectile points. Men obtainedthis raw material at a distance from the village and they manufactured thesepoints, by and large, outside the village.

Gendered analysis of lithics from the central Mesa Verde region 297

Lithic studies have successfully addressed many issues—documentingchanges in the technology of stone-tool production, identifying different func-tional uses of bifacial and expedient tools, and differentiating raw stone procure-ment patterns for high vs. low-quality materials (Odell 2000; Andrefsky 2005)—but there is much room for improving our understanding of how the manufac-ture and use of stone tools was gendered. Several studies have demonstrated anandrocentric bias in archaeological interpretations and worked to remedy thisproblem by identifying the gendered nature of specific activities (Conkey andSpector 1984; Gero 1991; Gero and Conkey 1991; Walde and Willows 1991;Conkey 1992, 2005; Nelson et al. 1994, 2006; Wright 1996; Nelson 1997).This includes archaeologists working in the southwestern United States thathave engendered their studies of ancestral Pueblo society (Neitzel 1991;Mobley-Tanaka 1997; Rautman 1997; Ortman 1998; Crown 2000; Hegmonet al. 2000; Mills 2000; Potter 2002; Shackley 2005; Roth 2010).

Despite this exemplary research, relatively few studies have examinedhow the manufacture and use of stone tools was gendered. With regard to theprocurement of raw materials for stone tool manufacture, archaeologists havespeculated that men procured particular raw materials for specific tool types(Shackley 2005; Abbott 2006) while women utilized abundant local materialsfor domestic activities (Kaldahl 1999). Until now, this idea has not beenaddressed through empirical research.

Having examined the gendered nature of raw material procurement andthe subsequent manufacture and use of specific stone tools, I close by consider-ing the implications of my study for examining how economic and social powerwas shared by men and women. Rosaldo’s classic study (1974: 36) argues thateconomic and social power differences between women and men are anchoredin the differences in their participation in domestic vs. public spheres. Seenthrough Rosaldo’s lens, the gender-differentiated activities revealed by thisstudy could be seen as evidence supporting the association of women withthe domestic sphere and men with the wider public sphere; by extension thiscould be seen as indicating that men and women in the central Mesa Verderegion had differential access to economic resources and social power. I,however, argue that residents of the central Mesa Verde region did not displaystrong power differences between men and women. Instead, I follow Crown(2000) and build on her observation that women and men in Pueblo societyparticipated in complementary relations with regard to social and economicpower.

In Pueblo cultural geography, the village is the location of a sacred centerplace, a place that connects the living with ancestors and this world to the under-world (Ortiz 1969; Dozier 1970: 203–204). There is typically a shrine that marksthis sacred center place in the village. I argue that domestic spaces in Pueblosettlements, by virtue of their association with this sacred aspect of villages,

Fumiyasu Arakawa298

are also important sacred areas. This is especially true in the central Mesa Verderegion where the juxtaposition of sacred and domestic space was expressed in thedistinctive character of specific buildings and in the location and layout of entirevillages.

Small, household kivas built in the central Mesa Verde region betweenabout A.D. 1050 and 1300 are one example of this comingling of the sacredand domestic space. These Mesa Verde kivas are distinct when compared withthose in other parts of the ancestral Pueblo world: they have an unusuallyhigh frequency relative to surface rooms, they have a relatively standardizedsize and shape, they have a distinctive roof, and they sometimes have muralswith a specific type of decoration (Lipe 1989; Ortman 2008b: 242–243, 2012:217, 232–234). There is abundant evidence that small household kivas in theMesa Verde region were the location of domestic activities—including foodpreparation and corn grinding (Cater and Chenault 1988; Kuckelman andMorris 1988; Lekson 1988; Lipe 1989; Morris 1991; Errikson 1993; Ortman1998; Adams 1999; Lipe and Varien 1999a: 284; Hegmon et al. 2000: 75–76;Varien 2012)—and these kivas clearly served as the principal building in theMesa Verde Pueblo house (Lipe 1989; Varien 2012).7

But it is also clear that small household kivas also served ritual and sym-bolic ends (Lipe 1989: 64). They contained ritual features such as sipapus andfloor vaults which were the location of ritual activities. The keyhole shape ofthe kiva also reflects ritual symbolism; this keyhole shape is same shape as theshrine that marks the earth navel for Pueblo people who speak the Tewalanguage (Ortiz 1969: 24, 141), and shrines have been found around centralMesa Verde villages dating to the thirteenth century that are similar in shapeto these Tewa shrines (Ortman 2008a:138). The keyhole shape and roof entryof kivas in the central Mesa Verde are remarkably standardized; these formalattributes likely relate to an overarching concept in Pueblo ideation thatdescribes people as emerging into this world from a series of underworlds(Parsons 1939: 210–218) and specifically to the Tewa concept of emergencefrom a single world below (Ortiz 1969: 13, 23–25).

Additional evidence for the entanglement of the domestic and sacred inthe small household kivas can be found in Swentzell’s (1990) and Ortman’s(2008b, 2012: 217, 233–241) research. Ortman shows that one of the dominantforms of decoration on murals found on the lower walls of small kivas was theuse of designs found on pottery bowls. In addition, a horizon line was some-times painted on the pilasters. The pilasters support roof timbers that werecribbed, forming a roof that looked like a basket of timbers. As reconstructedby Ortman, this symbolism is rich and multilayered, but a general summary isthat kiva architecture reflects the worldview of Pueblo people who are Tewaspeakers; they metaphorically see the earth as a bowl and the sky as a basket(Swentzell 1990). Again, this view of the cosmos is gendered, and it links the

Gendered analysis of lithics from the central Mesa Verde region 299

domestic with the sacred. Tewa thought views the basket as cold and as repre-senting the sky and maleness; in contrast, pottery is viewed as warm and repre-senting the earth and femaleness.

Ortman (2012: 241–245) further shows that the container imagery thatwas first associated with individual buildings in the A.D. 1100s was laterapplied to entire villages during the thirteenth century. He argues that this canbe seen at the canyon-rim villages located throughout the Great Sage Plain.Ortman’s analyses describe how this container imagery was materialized inthe layout of these late villages, and how it became embedded in the Tewalanguage.

It is this juxtaposition of the domestic and sacred in central Mesa Verderegion buildings and villages that serves as the basis for my interpretation thatmen and women participated in complementary relations with regard tosocial and economic power. Women’s daily activities occurred in domesticspaces that were simultaneously saturated with symbolism that was central tothe worldview of Pueblo society in the central Mesa Verde region and thisaffirmed the importance of women’s work and the domestic sphere. This analy-sis also leads to the conclusion I have presented here: the gendered nature ofPueblo thought integrated the domestic and public spheres and pointed tothe integration of maleness and femaleness. Peckingstones were predominantlywomen’s tools; the raw material for these tools was available in close proximityto the village and they were used in domestic settings. Projectile points weremen’s tools; the raw material was obtained at a distance from the village andthey were manufactured and used in settings far from the village.

But it is unlikely that these were separate spheres in the Pueblo world;instead, I have argued that they were part of a philosophical system that empha-sized the integration of these spheres. The Tewa proverb for strength is “be awoman, be a man,” and the summer chief is called “mother” even though heis male. All of this suggests that the unification of male and female propertieswas an important element of ancestral Tewa ideation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was funded by the National Science Foundation under grantBCS-0408793, the Don Crabtree Scholarship from the Department of Sociology,Anthropology, and Criminal Justice, University of Idaho. This paper has bene-fited from the comments of Mark Varien, Patricia Crown, Timothy Kohler,Andrew Duff, William Lipe, Scott Ortman, William Andrefsky, WilliamWalker, Josie Chang-Order, Patricia Flint-Lacey, Chris Nicholson, ElizabethStone, and Susan Vetter. The author would like to thank Lisa Young and otherreviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions to improve the manu-script. Special thanks to William Andrefsky, Paul Ermigiotti, and Jeff Rasic for

Fumiyasu Arakawa300

replicating the projectile points, and also to Crow Canyon Archaeological Centerfor allowing me to use their facility and space while I was analyzing soil samples.Also, special thanks to Tracy Murphy at Anasazi Heritage Center for accessingand reanalyzing some lithic assemblages.

Notes

1. It is interesting to inquire how many of the “cores” in the assemblage are earlystages of peckingstones. When one produces a peckingstone, “preforms” of thepeckingstones look like multi-directional cores. These preforms or multi-directional cores have sharp acute angles for pecking other materials. To betterunderstand this subject, I investigated the Yellow Jacket Pueblo assemblage andidentified three different core types—bifacial cores, unidirectional cores, andmulti-directional cores. Crow Canyon researchers collected a total of 112 cores from thepueblo, but seven cores were identified as just flakes. Thus, the total of 105 coreswere analyzed for this purpose. About 21 percent of cores were bifacial cores;30.4 percent were unidirectional cores; and 44.7 percent were multi-directionalcores. Eighty one percent of bifacial cores were made of Morrison materials,whereas for unidirectional and multi-directional cores 92–93 percent weremade of Morrison materials. In short, about the half of the cores collected fromYellow Jacket Pueblo identified as multi-directional cores made of Morrisonmaterials. I believe that these were possibly manufactured as the preform ofpeckingstones.

2. The ratio of peckingstones and gray wares sherds is .00466 (470 peckingstonesand 100,772 pieces of gray wares) at Duckfoot, whereas the ratio from SandCanyon Pueblo is .00456 (375 peckingstones and 82,240 gray wares). Thisresult suggests the frequency of peckingstone use is similar in the Pueblo I(Duckfoot) and Pueblo III (Sand Canyon) sites. In this comparison, I used thetotal number of gray ware sherds because studies have found that the accumu-lation of utility wares (gray wares) at a site can provide useful estimates of theoccupation span and the population density of a site (Lightfoot 1994; Varienand Ortman 2005). Gray ware pottery counts, therefore, can be used to standar-dize differences between sites that are the result of population size and the lengthof occupation.

3. Although the nearest Kdb silicified sandstone quarry from Shields Pueblo isapproximately 4.8 km (3 miles) and the distance between them is very close incomparison with that of the Sand Canyon Pueblo and Yellow Jacket Pueblosites, residents of Shields Pueblo procured and used more than 70 percent ofMorrison rocks for peckingstones. This suggests that the proximity distance of2 km radius, as Varien (1999) used for his catchment analysis, does support myargument for a preference for certain tool types (i.e. peckingstones and projectilepoints) and their raw material types by genders in the central Mesa Verde region.

Gendered analysis of lithics from the central Mesa Verde region 301

4. The microdebitage remains were collected from various activity areas in thevillages. In the future, the study of floor assemblages would be worthwhile inorder to identify locations where groundstone manufacture and projectile pointmanufacture occurred within the village boundaries.

5. I randomly selected sediment samples from these three sites. However, I only usedsediments which included a recorded volume. For unprocessed sediments, Ideleted sediments of less than 750 ml and more than 1200 ml. For heavy fractionsoils, I analyzed only soils of more than 400 ml and less than 700 ml.

6. This sediment study is still primarily an examination for determining and identi-fying actual projectile point and bifacial manufacture within a village. There areseveral factors to consider for future research. First, sediment samples were col-lected and analyzed from three different villages. Second, sediment samples col-lected from these sites are relatively limited. People might argue that thePuebloans manufactured projectile points and bifaces in plazas or other openspaces within a village. I, however, argue that middens are a representation ofthe total accumulation of trash; thus, sediment samples from middens shouldrepresent sufficient amounts of small debitage from tool-sharpening andmanufacture. Nevertheless, we still need to obtain more data to evaluate thesefindings.

7. I argue that pit-structures (kivas) in the central Mesa Verde region were used forboth domestic and ceremonial purposes, and the use of pit-structures in thisregion is different to that in other contemporary and historical pueblos. Therehas been a great deal of research on household organization in the region(Lekson 1989; Lipe 1989; Lightfoot 1994; Varien 1999). This research has ident-ified the architectural and extramural spaces used by the household. Theseprevious studies reveal that in most cases buildings that archaeologists call“kivas” were used for domestic activities and were the focal structures for thehousehold. The architectural suite used by the household therefore includedabove-ground rooms, the pit-structure or kiva, extramural work areas, andmiddens where refuse was deposited. Lekson (1988, 1989) was one of thepioneer archaeologists to argue that the prehistoric kivas in the central MesaVerde region were used for both domestic and ceremonial purposes (also Caterand Chenault 1988; Lipe 1989; Lipe and Varien 1999a, 1999b). Ortman (1998,170–173) also contends that the small size of kivas in the central Mesa Verderegion indicates that both men and women in an extended family or in lineage-based kin groups used them. These smaller kivas generally contain evidence ofdomestic activity such as maize-grinding facilities and cooking pots, both associ-ated with daily and ritual access by women (Mobley-Tanaka 1997). In short, priorto the depopulation of the central Mesa Verde region, kivas were utilized fordomestic purposes with use for ritual on appropriate occasions (Lekson 1989;Lipe 1989, 55, Lipe and Varien 1999a, 1999b).

Fumiyasu Arakawa302

REFERENCES CITED

Abbott, David R.2006 Hohokam Ritual and Economic Transformation: Ceramic Evidence from the Phoenix

Basin, Arizona. North American Archaeologist 27(4): 285–310.Adams, J. L.1999 Refocusing the Role of Food Grinding Tools as Correlates for the Subsistence

Strategies of Gatherers and Early Agriculturalists in the American Southwest.American Antiquity 64: 475–498.

2002 Ground Stone Analysis. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah.Andrefsky, William Jr.2001 Emerging Directions in Debitage Analysis. In Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning,

edited by William Andrefsky, Jr. pp. 2–14. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.2005 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.2007 The Application and Misapplication of Mass Analysis in Lithic Debitage Studies.

Journal of Archaeological Science 34: 392–402.Anschuetz, K. F., T. J. Ferguson, H. Francis, K. B. Kelley, and C. L. Scheick2002 That Place People Talk about: The Petroglyph National Monument Ethnographic Landscape

Report. National Park Service, Petroglyph National Monument, Albuquerque, NewMexico.

Arakawa, Fumiyasu2000 Lithic Analysis of Yellow Jacket Pueblo as a Tool for Understanding and Visualizing Women’s

Roles in Procuring, Utilizing, and Making Stone Tools. Master’s thesis, Dept ofAnthropology, Sociology, and Criminal Justice, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.

2006 Lithic Raw Material Procurement and the Social Landscape in the Central Mesa VerdeRegion, A.D. 600–1300. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.

Arakawa, Fumiyasu and Kimberlee M. Gerhardt2007 Toolstone Procurement Patterns on Wetherill Mesa, A.D. 600 to 1280. Kiva 73:

69–87.2009 Geoarchaeological Investigation of Lithic Resources in the Central Mesa Verde

Region, Colorado, USA. Geoarchaeology 24: 204–223.Arnon, N. S. and W. W. Hill1979 Santa Clara Pueblo. InHandbook of North American Indians, Vol. 9: Southwest, edited by

A. Ortiz, pp. 296–307. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.Bandelier, Adolph F.1966 The Southwestern Journals of Adolph F. Bandelier, 1880–1882, edited by C. H. Lange

and C. L. Riley School of American Research, University of New Mexico Press,Albuquerque.

1970 The Southwestern Journals of Adolph F. Bandelier, 1883–1884, edited by C. H. Langeand C. L. Riley School of American Research, University of New Mexico Press,Albuquerque.

Bartlett, K.1933 Pueblo Milling Stones of the Flagstaff Region and Their Relation to Others in the Southwest: A

Study in Progressive Efficiency. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 3, Flagstaff, Arizona.Beaglehole, Ernest1937 Notes on Hopi Economic Life. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 15: 1–88.

Benedict, Ruth1934 Patterns of Culture. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

Gendered analysis of lithics from the central Mesa Verde region 303

Boyer, Jeffrey, James L. Moore, Steven A. Lakatos, Nancy J. Akins, C. Dean Wilson,and Eric Blinman2010 Remodeling Immigration: A Northern Rio Grande Perspective on Depopulation,

Migration, and Donation-Side Models. In Time of Peril, Time of Change: ExplainingThirteenth Century Pueblo Migrations, edited by Timothy A. Kohler, Mark D. Varien,and Aaron M. Wright University of Arizona, Tucson.

Brandt, S. A. and K. Weedman2002 Woman the Toolmaker. Journal of Archaeology Science 29: 50–53.

Bunzel, Ruth L.1929 Introduction to Zuni Ceremonialism. Bureau of American Ethnology Annual Report 47:

467–544.Burton, M. L., L. A. Brudner, and D. R. White1977 A Model of the Sexual Division of Labor. American Ethnologist 4: 227–251.

Cameron, Catherine M.1995 Migration and the Movement of Southwestern Peoples. Journal of Anthropological

Archaeology 14: 104–124.Cameron, Catherine M., and Andrew I. Duff2008 History and Process in Village Formation: Context and Contrasts from the Northern

Southwest. American Antiquity 73: 29–57.Castetter, E. F. and W. H. Bell1942 Pima and Papago Indian Agriculture. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Cater, J. D. and M. L. Chenault1988 Kiva Use Reinterpreted. Southwestern Lore 54: 19–32.

Conkey, M. W.1992 Contexts of Action, Contexts for Power: Material Culture and Gender in the

Magdalenian. In Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, edited by J. M.GeroM. W. Conkey, pp. 57–92. Basil Blackwell, Cambridge.

2005 The Archaeology of Gender Today: New Vistas, New Challenges. In Gender inCross-Cultural Perspective, edited by C. B. Brettell and C. F. Sargent, pp. 53–62.Pearson Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Conkey, M. W., and J. Spector1984 Archaeology and the Study of Gender. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory,

edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 1–38. Academic Press, New York.Cordell, Linda1995 Tracing Migration Pathways from the Receiving End. Journal of Anthropological

Archaeology 14: 203–211.Crow Canyon Archaeological Center2003 Research Publications and Databases. Electronic document, http://crowcanyon.org/

publications/site_reports_databases.asp2004 Research Publications and Databases Laboratory Manual for Lithic Raw Material

Classification. Electronic document, http://crowcanyon.org/publications/manuals_guides.asp

2010 Archaeology Lab Program Participants Make Stone Tools. Electronic document, http://www.imakenews.com/crowcanyon1/e_article001739173.cfm?x=bgRKmj5,b64wNvTq,accessed July 20, 2013

Crown, Patricia L.2000 Women & Men in the Prehispanic Southwest: Labor, Power, and Prestige. Advanced

Seminar Series. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Fumiyasu Arakawa304

Cushing, F. H.1920 Zuni Breadstuff. Indian Notes and Monographs 8. Museum of the American Indian

Heye Foundation, Indian of North America, New York.1979 Zuni: Selected Writings of Frank Hamilton Cushing, edited by J. Green University of

Nebraska Press, Lincoln.Dennis, W.1940 The Hopi Child. D. Appleton-Century, New York.

Dodd, Walter A. Jr.1979 The Wear and Use of Battered Tools at Armijo Rockshelter. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis,

edited by Brian Hayden, pp. 231–242. Academic Press, New York.Dozier, E. P.1970 The Pueblo Indians of North America. Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, Illinois.

Duff, Andrew I., and Richard H. Wilshusen2000 Prehistoric Population Dynamics in the Northern San Juan Region, A.D. 950–1300.

Kiva 66: 167–190.Eddy, F. W.1964 Metates and Manos: The Basic Corn Grinding Tools of the Southwest. Popular Series

Pamphlet 1. Museum of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Eggan, F.1950 Social Organization of the Western Pueblos. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.1979 Pueblos: Introduction. InHandbook of North American Indians, Vol. 9: Southwest, edited

by A. Ortiz, pp. 224–235. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.Ellis, C. J.1997 Factors Influencing the Use of Stone Projectile Tips: An Ethnographic Perspective. In

Perspectives on Projectile Technology, edited by H. Knecht, pp. 37–66. PlenumPublishing, New York.

Ember, C.1983 The Relative Decline in Women’s Contribution to Agriculture with Intensification.

American Anthropologist 85: 285–305.Errickson, M.1993 Archaeological Investigations on Prehistoric Sites: Reach III of the Towaoc Canal, Ute

Mountain Ute Reservation, Montezuma County, Colorado. Four Corners ArchaeologicalProject Report, No. 21. Complete Archaeological Service Associates, Cortez,Colorado.

Ezell, P. H.1961 The Hispanic Acculturation of the Gila River Pimas. American Anthropological

Association 63(5) part 2.Fladmark, K. R.1982 Microdebitage Analysis: Initial Considerations. Journal of Archaeological Science 9:

205–220.Foote, C. J. and S. K. Schackel1986 Indian Women of New Mexico 1535–1680. In New Mexico Women: Intercultural

Perspectives, edited by J. M. Jensen and D. A. Miller, pp. 17–40. University of NewMexico Press, Albuquerque.

Frank, Lisa and Kathryn Weedman2005 Gender and Hide Production. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.

Fratt, L.1991 A Preliminary Analysis of Gender Bias in 16th and 17th Century Spanish Colonial

Documents of the American Southwest. In The Archaeology of Gender: Proceedings

Gendered analysis of lithics from the central Mesa Verde region 305

of the 22nd Annual Chacmool Conference, edited by D. Walde and N. D. Willows,pp. 245–251. University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.

Gero, Joan M.1991 Genderlithics: Women’s Roles in Stone Tool Production. In Engendering Archaeology:

Women and Prehistory, edited by Joan M. Gero and M. W. Conkey, pp. 163–193. BasilBlackwell, Oxford.

Gero, Joan M. and M. W. Conkey1991 Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Gifford, E. W.1940 Culture Element Distributions VII: Apache-Pueblo. University of California

Anthropological Records 4. Berkeley, California.Hammond, George P. and Agapito Rey1940 Narratives of the Coronado Expedition 1540–1542. The University Press, Albuquerque.

Hegmon, Michelle, Scott G. Ortman, and Jeannette L. Mobley-Tanaka2000 Women, Men, and the Organization of Space. In Women & Men in the Prehispanic

Southwest: Labor, Power, and Prestige, edited by Patricia L. Crown, pp. 43–90.Advanced Seminar Series. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Hill, W. W.1982 An Ethnography of Santa Clara Pueblo New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press,

Albuquerque, New Mexico.Hough, W.1897 Stone Working at Tewa. American Anthropologist 10: 191.1915 The Hopi Indians. Torch Press, Cedar Rapids.

Hruby, T. H.1988 Dolores Anasazi Household and Interhousehold Cluster Toolkits: Technological

Organization in the Transition from Hamlets to Villages. In Dolores ArchaeologicalProgram: Supporting Studies: Additive and Reductive Technologies, edited by Eric Blinman,Carl J. Phagan, and H. Wilshusen Richard, ppp. 283–362. U.S. Department of theInterior, Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver, Colorado.

James, George W.1919 The Indians of the Painted Desert Region, Wallapais, Havasupais. Little, Brown, and Co.,

Boston.Kaldahl, E. J.1999 Late Prehistoric Technological and Social Reorganization along the Mogollon Rim, Arizona.

Ph.D. dissertation, Dept of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.Kuckelman, K. A. and J. N. Morris (compilers)1988 Archaeological Investigations on South Canal, Vol. 1. Four Corners Archaeological Project

Report No. 11. Complete Archaeological Service Associates, Cortez, Colorado.Kurz, R. B.1987 Contributions of Women to Subsistence in Tribal Societies. Research in Economic

Anthropology 8: 31–59.Lange, C. H.1959 Cochiti: A New Mexico Pueblo, Past and Present. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas.

Lekson, Steve H.1988 The Idea of the Kiva in Anasazi Archaeology. Kiva 53: 213–234.1989 Kivas? In The Architecture of Social Integration in Prehistoric Pueblos, edited byWilliamD.

LipeM. Hegmon, pp. 161–167. Occasional Papers of the Crow CanyonArchaeological Center, No. 1. Cortez, Colorado.

Fumiyasu Arakawa306

Lightfoot, Ricky1994 The Duckfoot Site: Archaeology of the House and Household. Occasional Paper No. 4.

Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado.Lightfoot, Ricky R. and Mary C. Etzkorn1993 The Duckfoot Site: Descriptive Archaeology. Occasional Paper No. 3. Crow Canyon

Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado.Lipe, William D.1989 Social Scale of Mesa Verde Anasazi Kivas. In The Architecture of Social Integration in

Prehistoric Pueblos, edited by William D. Lipe and M. Hegmon, pp. 53–71.Occasional Papers of the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center No.1. Cortez,Colorado.

1995 The Depopulation of the Northern San Juan: Conditions in the Turbulent 1200s.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 14: 143–169.

2010 Lost in Transit: The Central Mesa Verde Archaeological Complex. In Leaving MesaVerde: Peril and Change in the Thirteenth-Century Southwest, edited by A. KohlerTimothy, and Mark D. Varien, and Aaron M. Wright, pp. 262–284. University ofArizona, Tucson, Arizona.

Lipe, William D. and Mark D. Varien1999a Pueblo II (A.D.900–1150). In Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Southern Colorado

River Basin, edited by D. Lipe William, Mark D. Varien, and Richard H. Wilshusen,pp. 242–289. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver, Colorado.

1999b Pueblo III (A.D.1150–1300). In Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the SouthernColorado River Basin, edited by William D. Lipe, Mark D. Varien, and Richard H.Wilshusen, pp. 290–352. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists,Denver, Colorado.

Longacre, W. A.1970 Archaeology as Anthropology: A Case Study. Anthropological Papers 17. University of

Arizona Press, Tucson.Lowell, J. C.1991 Reflections of Sex Roles in the Archaeological Record: Insights from Hopi and Zuni

Ethnographic Data. In The Archaeology of Gender, edited by D. Wade and N. D.Willows, pp. 452–461. University of Calgary, Alberta.

McGuire, J. D.1893 On the Evolution of the Art of Working in Stone. American Anthropologist 6:307–319.

Martin, D. L.2000 Bodies and Lives: Biological Indicators of Health Differentials and Division of Labor

by Sex. In Women & Men in the Prehispanic Southwest: Labor, Power, and Prestige, editedby P. L. Crown, pp. 267–300. Advanced Seminar Series. School of American ResearchPress, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Martin, P. C.1940 The SU Site: Excavations at a Mogollon Village, Western New Mexico, 1939.

Anthropological Series 1. Chicago Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago.Martin, P. C., W. A. Longacre, and J. N. Hill1967 Chapters in the Prehistory of Eastern Arizona, 3. Fieldiana: Anthropology 57. Chicago

Natural History Museum, Chicago.Martin, P. C. and J. B. Rinaldo1960 Table Rock Pueblo, Arizona. Fieldiana: Anthropology 51, no.1. Chicago Natural History

Museum, Chicago.

Gendered analysis of lithics from the central Mesa Verde region 307

Matson, R. G. and B. Chisholm1991 Basketmaker II Subsistence: Carbon Isotopes and Other Dietary Indicators from

Cedar Mesa, Utah. American Antiquity 56(3): 444–459.Mills, Barbara J.2000 Gender, Craft Production, and Inequality. In Women & Men in the Prehispanic

Southwest: Labor, Power, and Prestige, edited by Patricia L. Crown, pp. 301–344.Advanced Seminar Series. School of American Research, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Mindeleff, Victor1891 A Study of Pueblo Architecture: Tusayan and Cibola. Eighth Annual Report of the Bureau

of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution: 1886–1887: 3–298.Mobley-Tanaka, Jeannette L.1997 Gender and Ritual Space During the Pithouse to Pueblo Transition: Subterranean

Mealing Rooms in the North American Southwest. American Antiquity 62:437–448.Morris, James N.1986 Monitoring and Excavation at Aulston Pueblo (Site 5MT2433), a Pueblo II Habitation Site.

Four Corners Archaeological Project Report No. 6. Complete Archaeological ServiceAssociates, Cortez, Colorado.

Mobley-Tanaka, Jeannette L.1991 Archaeological Excavations on the Hovenweep Laterals. Four Corners Archaeological

Project Report No. 16. Complete Archaeological Service Associates, Cortez, Colorado.Morrow, T. A.1997 A Chip off the Old Block: Alternative Approaches to Debitage Analysis. Lithic

Technology 22: 51–69.Neitzel, J. E.1991 Hohokam Material Culture and Behavior: The Dimensions of Organizational

Change. In Exploring the Hohokam: Prehistoric Peoples of the American Southwest,edited by G. J. Gummerman, pp. 177–230. Amerind Foundation New WorldStudies No. 1. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Nelson, M. C., S. M. Nelson, and A. Wylie1994 Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology. Archaeological Papers of the American

Anthropological Association No. 5. American Anthropological Association,Washington, D.C.

2006 Handbook of Gender in Archaeology. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.Nelson, S. M.1997 Gender in Archaeology: Analyzing Power and Prestige. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek,

California.O’Kane, W. C.1950 Sun in the Sky. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.

Odell, G. H.2000 Stone Tool Research at the End of the Millennium: Procurement and Technology.

Journal of Archaeological Research 8:269–331.Ortiz, A.1969 The Tewa World: Space, Time, Being, and Becoming in a Pueblo Society. University of

Chicago Press, Chicago.1972 Ritual Drama and the Pueblo World View. InNew Perspectives on the Pueblos, edited by

A. Ortiz, pp. 135–161. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.1979 Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 9: Southwest. Smithsonian Institution,

Washington, D.C.Ortman, Scott G.1998 Corn Grinding and Community Organization in the Pueblo Southwest, A.D. p1150–

Fumiyasu Arakawa308

1550. In Migration and Reorganization: The Pueblo IV Period in the American Southwest,edited by K. A. Spielmann, pp. 165–192. Anthropological Research Papers 51.Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.

Ortiz, A.2000 Artifacts. In The Archaeology of Castle Rock Pueblo: A Thirteenth-Century Village in

Southwestern Colorado. Electronic document, http://crowcanyon.org/ResearchReports/CastleRock/Text/crpw_artifacts.asp

2002 Artifacts. In The Archaeology of Woods Canyon Pueblo: A Canyon-rim Village inSouthwestern Colorado [HTML Title]. Available: http://crowcanyon.org/ResearchReports/WoodsCanyon/Text/wcpw_artifacts.asp.

2003 Artifacts. In The Archaeology of Yellow Jacket Pueblo: Excavations at a Large CommunityCenter in Southwest Colorado [HTML Title]. Available: http://crowcanyon.org/ResearchReports/YellowJacket/Text/yjpw_artifacts.asp.

2008a Action, Place and Space in the Castle Rock Community. In The Social Construction ofCommunities: Agency, Structure and Identity in the Prehispanic Southwest, edited byMarkD. Varien and James M. Potter, pp. 125–154. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek,California.

2008b Architectural Metaphor and Chacoan Influence in the Northern San Juan. InArchaeology Without Borders: Contact, Commerce, and Change in the U.S. Southwestand Northwestern Mexico, edited by Laurie Webster and Maxine McBrinn, pp. 227–255. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

2009 Genes, Language, and Culture in Tewa Ethnogenesis, A.D. 1150–1400. Ph.D. dissertation,Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe.

2010 Evidence Suggestive of a Mesa Verde Homeland for the Tewa Pueblos. In Leaving MesaVerde: Peril and Change in the Thirteenth-Century Southwest, edited by Timothy A.Kohler, and Mark D. Varien, and Aaron M. Wright, pp. 222–261. University ofArizona, Tucson, Arizona.

2012 Wind from the North: Tewa Origins and Historical Anthropology. University of Utah Press,Salt Lake City, Utah.

Ortman, Scott G., Erin L. Baxter, Carole L. Graham, G. Robin Lyle, Lew W. Matis, Jamie A.Merewether, and R. David Satterwhite, and Jonathan D. Till2005 The Crow Canyon Archaeological Center Laboratory Manual, Version 1 [HTML Title].

Available: http://crowcanyon.org/ResearchReports/LabManual/LaboratoryManual.pdf

Parsons, Elsie Clews1917 Notes on Zuni. American Anthropological Association Memoirs 4(1): 151–327.1919 Waiyautitsa of Zuni. New Mexico. Scientific Monthly 9: 443–457.1939 Pueblo Indian Religion. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Patterson, L. W.1990 Characteristics of Bifacial-Reduction Flake-Size Distribution. American Antiquity 55:

550–558.Pond, A.1930 Primitive Methods of Working Stone Based on Experiments by Halvor L. Skavlen. Logan

Museum Bulletin 2(1). Beloit College, Logan Museum, Beloit, Wisconsin.Potter, James M.2002 Community, Metaphor, and Gender: Technology Changes Across the Pueblo III to

Pueblo IV Transition in the El Morro Valley, New Mexico. In Traditions, Transitions,and Technologies: Themes in Southwestern Archaeology, edited by Sarah H. Schlanger,pp. 332–349. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Gendered analysis of lithics from the central Mesa Verde region 309

Powell, John W.1972 The Hopi Villages. Filter Press, Palmer Lake, Colorado.

Rautman, Alison E.1997 Changes in Regional Exchange Relationships during the Pithouse-to-Pueblo

Transition in the American Southwest: Implications for Gender Roles. In Women inPrehistory, North America and Mesoamerica, edited by Cheryl Claassen and RosemaryA. Joyce, pp. 100–118. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Reiter, P.1938 The Jemez Pueblo of Unshagi, New Mexico. School of American Research Monograph 6.

Santa Fe, New Mexico.Rosaldo, M. Z.1974 Women, Culture, and Society: A Theoretical Overview. In Woman, Culture, & Society,

edited by M. Z. Rosaldo and L. Lamphere, pp. 17–42. Stanford University Press,Stanford, California.

Roth, Barbara J.2010 Engendering Households in the Prehistoric Southwest. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Sassaman, Kenneth E.1992 Lithic Technology and the Hunter-Gatherer Sexual Division of Labor. North American

Archaeologist 13: 249–262.Schlegel, Alice1977 Male and Female in Hopi Thought and Action. In Sexual Stratification: A Cross-Cultural

View, edited by Alice Schlegel, pp. 245–269. Columbia University Press, New York.Shackley, M. Steven2005 Obsidian: Geology and Archaeology in the North American Southwest. University of

Arizona, Tucson.Shott, M. J.1994 Size and Form in the Analysis of Flake Debris: Review and Recent Approaches, Journal

of Archaeological Method and Theory 1: 69–110.Simmons, L. W.1942 Sun Chief: The Autobiography of a Hopi Indian. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Simpson, R. D.1952 The Hopi Indians—8. The Masterkey 26: 179–191.

Stahle, David W. and James E. Dunn1984 An Experimental Analysis of the Size Distribution of Waste Flakes from Biface Reduction,

edited by W. F. Limp Arkansas Archaeological Survey Technical Paper No. 2,Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Arkansas.

Stephen, Alexander M.1936 Hopi Journal of Alexander M. Stephen, edited by E. C. Parsons AMS Press, New York.

Stevenson, Adalynn J.1984 Diachronic Analysis of Chipped Stone Materials from Site 5MT3, Yellow Jacket

Pueblo. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder.Stevenson, Matilda Cox1892 The Zuni Indians. Twenty-third Annual Report to the Bureau of American Ethnology. U.S.

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.1904 The Zuni Indians. Bureau of American Ethnology, Annual Report 23:1–634. Swentzell,

Rina1990 Remembering Tewa Pueblo Houses and Spaces. Native Peoples (Winter): 6–12.

Szuter, C. R.2000 Gender and Animals: Hunting Technology, Ritual, and Subsistence in the Greater

Southwest. In Women & Men in the Prehispanic Southwest: Labor, Power, and Prestige,

Fumiyasu Arakawa310

edited by Patricia L. Crown, pp. 197–220. Advanced Seminar Series. School ofAmerican Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Thomas, David H.1983 The Archaeology of Monitor Valley 2: Gatecliff Shelter. Anthropological Papers of the

American Museum of Natural History 59(1).Till, Jonathan and Scott G. Ortman2007 Artifacts. In The Archaeology of Sand Canyon Pueblo: Intensive Excavations at a

Late-Thirteenth-Century Village in Southwest Colorado, edited by A. Kuckelman Kristin[HTML Title]. Available: http://crowcanyon.org/ResearchReports/SandCanyon/Text/scpw_artifacts.asp.

Titiev, Mischa1992 (1944) Old Oraibi: A Study of the Hopi Indians of Third Mesa. Peabody Museum of

Archaeology and Ethnology Papers, v.22, no.1. Cambridge, Massachusetts.Underhill, R. M.1979 Papago Woman. Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, Illinois.

Varien, Mark D.1999 Sedentism and Mobility in a Social Landscape. University of Arizona Press, Tucson,

Arizona.2012 Occupation Span and the Organization of Residential Activities: A Cross-Cultural

Model and Case Study from the Mesa Verde Region. In Ancient Households of theAmericas, edited by John C. Douglass and Nancy Gonlin, pp. 47–78. UniversityPress of Colorado, Boulder.

Varien, Mark D. and Scott G. Ortman2005 Accumulation Research in the Southwestern United States: Middle-Range Theory for

Big-Picture Problems. World Archaeology 37: 132–155.Varien, M. D., S. G. Ortman, T. A. Kohler, D. M. Glowacki, and C. D. Johnson2007 Historical Ecology in the Mesa Verde Region: Results from the Village Project.

American Antiquity 72: 273–299.Varien, Mark D. and Richard H. Wilshusen2002 Seeking the Center Place: Archaeology and Ancient Communities in the Mesa Verde Region.

University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah.Walde, D. and N. D. Willows1991 The Archaeology of Gender. The University of Calgary Archaeological Association,

Calgary, Alberta.Weedman, Kathryn2005 Gender and Stone Tools: An Ethnographic Study of the Konso and Gamo

Hideworkers of Southern Ethiopia. In Gender and Hide Production, edited by LisaFrinkKathryn Weedman, pp. 175–196. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.

Whittaker, John C.1994 Flintknapping: Making & Understanding Stone Tools. University of Texas Press, Austin,

Texas.Woodbury, R. B.1954 Prehistoric Stone Implements of Northeastern Arizona. Peabody Museum Papers 34.

Peabody Museum, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Wright, R. P.1996 Gender and Archaeology. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Gendered analysis of lithics from the central Mesa Verde region 311

Young, M. Jane1987 Women, Reproduction, and Religion inWestern Puebloan Society. Journal of American

Folklore 100(398): 436–445.

Fumiyasu ArakawaNew Mexico State University & Crow Canyon Archaeological Center , Department of

Anthropology, 1525 Steward, Room 323, P.O. Box 30001, MSC: 3BV, Las Cruces, NM 88003farakawa@nmsu.edu

Fumiyasu Arakawa312