Anasazi Communities at Dolores: Early Small Settlements in the Dolores River Canyon and Western Sagehen Flats Area

This volume reports on a series of investigations in the Dolores River canyon and the western Sagehen Flats area of the Dolores Project. Included in the collection are an overview of the Grass Mesa Locality (with summary of Dolores Archaeological Program systematics), the results of the 1979-1980 Grass Mesa Locality Testing Program, and 6 site reports that describe excavations undertaken between 1979 and 1983. The excavated sites reported include: (1) LeMoc Shelter (5MT2151), which exposed 5 Anasazi occupations between A.D. 750 and 950; (2) Prince Hamlet (5MT2161), a Pueblo I habitation occupied between A.D. 720-840; (3) Hamlet de la Ofla (5MT2181), with a primary occupation between A.D. 780 and 810 and a later field house manifestation; (4) Kin Hush (5MT2336), with multiple occupations assigned to the A.D. 760-850, A.D. 850-975, and A.D. 1050-1200 periods; (5) Pozo Hamlet (5MT4613), a pithouse and associated features with construction traits of both Basketmaker III and Pueblo I periods between A.D. 600 and 780; and (6) Poco Tiempo (5MT2378), a Basketmaker III site dating between A.D. 690 and 730

Breaking Ground: The Neolithic Arrives in the American Southwest

The Neolithic Revolution was not a single event, but took place at many different times and places around the world. Bill Lipe reveals how this momentous transition gave rise to the Dillard site near Mesa Verde

Early Agricultural Societies in the Southwest: The Basketmaker II Case

This presentation was given in Anthropology 539 on November 1, 2018

Conserving the in Situ Archaeological Record

In the 20th century, archaeologists made great strides in learning to understand the material record of past human life. Concurrently, destruction of the archaeological record increased as population growth, economic development, and looting took a rising toll. During the past one hundred years, most countries established laws to protect at least major archaeological sites and to curtail illegal excavation and export of antiquities. Although often ineffective in practice, these laws formally recognized a national interest in archaeological conservation. By the end of the century, some nations, primarily in the developed world, had fairly effective legal and bureaucratic systems for balancing the value of in-place conservation of significant archaeological sites against economic developments that would destroy them. The creation of organizations such as ICOMOS and ICCROM and the promulgation of standards and agreements such as the World Heritage Convention built a framework within which archaeological conservation could be pursued at an international level, both complementing and reinforcing national efforts. Hence, the past century was a time of great progress in conservation of the archaeological record. But what of the future? Below, I briefly characterize the archaeological record and the threats to it, and then consider its fate in the 21st century

The Mesa Verde Region: Chaco's Northern Neighbor

In public perceptions of Southwestern archaeology, two images compete for attention-Pueblo Bonito, its massive masonry walls rising above the floor. of Chaco Canyon in New Mexico, and Cliff Palace, its many rooms clustered under the canyon rim at Mesa Verde in Colorado. Both of these iconic sites are in the drainage basin of the San Juan River, an area of more than thirty thousand square miles that nurtured the growth and florescence of early Puebloan culture between about 500 and 1300 CE. Chaco Canyon is located on one of the southern tributaries of the San Juan, whereas the Mesa Verde culture area occupies the northern part of the drainage basin, extending across parts of southwestern Colorado, northeastern New Mexico, and southeastern Utah. This area has large tracts of wind-deposited soil that can be productively dry farmed (that is, watered by direct rainfall alone). The Pueblo communities of the Mesa Verde region knew about, interacted with, and were affected by the growth and decline of the major Chacoan centers at Chaco Canyon and, later, Aztec.Lipe, William D. 2004. The Mesa Verde Region: Chaco's Northern Neighbor. In In Search of Chaco: New Approaches to an Archaeological Enigma, edited by David Grant Noble, pp.107-115. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM

Anasazi culture and its relationship to the environment in the Red Rock Plateau region, Southeastern Utah

The problem addressed by this study is specification of the principal cultural and environmental variables that enabled the Anasazi, during five phases of culture, to occupy and adapt to the environment of the Red Rock Plateau, a part of the Glen Canyon area of southeastern Utah. Although the Red Rock Plateau lies well below the altitude normally favored by the Anasazi, it had good enough soil and water in a few places to attract fairly heavy occupations at several times. The most favored locations were canyons cut into the Glen Canyon group of sandstones. These canyons have numerous springs and, at the time of Anasazi occupation, had sandy alluvial floors that were flooded after showers; they thus could support crops even though rainfall alone is inadequate for dry-farming. The canyons also had a wild flora much richer than that of the barren divides between streams, and an important game animal--big horn sheep--was apparently not uncommon. The region's first occupation, probably in or near the third century A.D., was by Basket Makers of the White Dog phase. White Dog sites cluster in the only habitable canyons that give easy access to the highlands north and east of the Red Rock Plateau. It was postulated that the White Dog people depended both on farming in the canyons and on food collecting in the adjacent highlands. Pinyon nuts, grass seeds, deer, and rabbits are important wild foods that are more abundant in the highlands than in the Red Rock Plateau. The reason's for the region's long abandonment between ca. 300 or 400 and 1100 A.D. are not entirely clear. There are some indications that during this period the Anasazi, who initially favored sheltered canyon farming locations, were turning increasingly to open highland fields, because of improved crops, houses, dry-farming techniques, and/or climate. The early Klethla phase occupation of the Red Rock Plateau (ca. 1100-1500) probably is an overflow of the peak population that was inhabiting the adjacent highlands as this time. This occupation also correlates with a long period of above-average rainfall. The many small Klethla sites were clustered in the Red Rock Plateau canyons most suited to farming and were not confined to the highland margins as had been the White Dog sites. The region's abandonment about 1150 correlates with the depopulation of most of the Glen Canyon area and probably with the onset of a severe drought. The reoccupation of the Red Rock Plateau in the early 1200's may correlate with displacement of population from adjacent regions due to cooling climate, which affected high-altitude sites, and to arroyo-cutting, which affected canyon settlements. The Red Rock Plateau was affected by neither factor. The Horsefly Hollow phase (ca. 1210-1260), formed by immigrants from both the Mesa Verde and Kayenta branch areas, was the time of the region's heaviest occupation; all the potentially habitable canyons were settled during this phase. Despite a general trend to large pueblos current in the Four Corners area at this time, the Red Rock Plateau sites remained small and dispersed even where soil and water appear to have been sufficient to support larger residential groups. Abandonment of the region at the end of this phase correlates roughly with the onset of the "great drought." The emigrants probably settled in one or more of the large pueblos build in the Navajo Mountain region about this time. During the Pueblo IV period (ca. 1300-1600), small group of Hopi travelled into or through the Red Rock Plateau. These parties may have been engaged in hunting, trade, or pilgrimages to shrines, but clearly did no farming. Note: Completed at Yale University, this dissertation presents early research by Dr. Bill Lipe, co-PI for the Cedar Mesa archaeological project based in the southwestern United States

Using Science to Revive Old Excavations

The value (and excitement) of archaeological field work doesn’t end when the pits are backfilled, the artifacts are analyzed, and the reports written. At least that’s true if the collections are safely curated in a well-run museum. Specimens collected long ago can often be revisited with new research methods to reveal new information of scientific and educational value. This is why archaeologists save archaeological collections long after they were initially studied. Here, I give two examples of recent scientific analyses of specimens from one of the first excavations I ever directed

Using Science to Revive Old Excavations

The value (and excitement) of archaeological field work doesn’t end when the pits are backfilled, the artifacts are analyzed, and the reports written. At least that’s true if the collections are safely curated in a well-run museum. Specimens collected long ago can often be revisited with new research methods to reveal new information of scientific and educational value. This is why archaeologists save archaeological collections long after they were initially studied. Here, I give two examples of recent scientific analyses of specimens from one of the first excavations I ever directed

Breaking Ground: The Neolithic Arrives in the American Southwest

The Neolithic Revolution was not a single event, but took place at many different times and places around the world. Bill Lipe reveals how this momentous transition gave rise to the Dillard site near Mesa Verde.Lipe, William D. (2014). Breaking ground. Current World Archaeology, Issue 68, pp. 24-31

Archaeological Values and Resource Management

In what follows, I begin with a general discussion of archaeological resource value and the role of authenticity. Next is a brief section on the contexts in which archaeological resource values are formed and accessed. In the main part of the chapter, I consider in more detail each of the six values already noted, with some comments on how current management approaches might be improved to better ensure that these values can be realized as public benefits. I draw examples largely from US public land contexts. Archaeological resource management requires numerous actors, including firms or individual consultants working under contract. In the US federal system, however, it is agency managers who are responsible for developing and maintaining programs for managing the archaeological resources controlled or affected by their agencies, including implementing sections 106 and 110 of the National· Historic Preservation Act. Consequently, I often refer to "managers" as the primary agents in archaeological resource management while recognizing and in fact advocating that multiple other stakeholders need to be involved in these efforts as well.Lipe, William D. 2009. Archaeological Values and Resource Management. In Archaeology and Cultural Resource Management: Visions for the Future, edited by Lynne Sebastian and William D. Lipe, pp. 41-63. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe, NM