Utah Archaeology 1990

Virgin Anasazi architecture - Towars a broader perspective

VIRGIN ANASAZI ARCHITECTURE: Toward A Broader Perspective Richard K. Talbot, Office of Public Archaeology, Brigham Young University, 105 Allen Hall, Provo, Utah 84602 ABSTRACT A review of Virgin, Kayenta, and Mesa Verde Anasazi architecture suggests temporal and spatial variability in structural shape and the occurrence of certain internal features. This variability indicates that Virgin area architecture, although at times slow to develop, is generally much more dynamic internally than previously thought. It also suggests an adherence to the broad patterns of regional architectural change. Temporally variable economic and social requirements or pressures probably had the greatest impact on Virgin architecture. Placing Virgin Anasazi architecture in a regional context provides a better perspective on its origins and development. INTRODUCTION No other characteristic, with the exception of ceramics, has been presented as more representative of the Virgin Anasazi than architecture. Yet, for the most part, a convincing distinctiveness of Virgin architecture continues relatively undefined in the current literature. In fact, the distinguishing characteristic of Virgin architecture most researchers are able to agree upon is its complacency. Definitions of and reasons for this complacency are less clear. The premise of this paper is that in order to define Virgin architecture, one must first understand the mechanisms behind its development. The primary focus is on temporal and spatial variability in architecture among the major Northern Anasazi groups-the Virgin, Kayenta, and Mesa Verde-as evidenced by general structural form or shape and, to a lesser degree, certain internal features. The paper attempts to demonstrate that Virgin Anasazi architecture is not nearly as complacent as thought to be, but instead conforms to the dynamic nature of Southwestern architecture in general. It argues that Virgin Anasazi architecture developed from a complexity of influences, most notably economic and social change and continuity, through time and space. BACKGROUND Regional Studies Architectural studies have been an integral part of Southwestern archaeology almost since its inception, mostly in the form of either detailed site descriptions, or more complex discussions of feature development or formal transitions (i.e., Morris 1939; Brew 1946; Bullard 1962; Gillespie 1975; Lipe and Breternitz 1980; Hewitt et al. 1983; Kane 1986; Gilman 1987; Wilshusen 1988a). Beginning in the 1950s and continuing to the present, some researchers have also taken a hard look at functional determiners in Anasazi architecture (i.e., Smith 1952; Hill 1968, 1970; Sullivan 1974; Jorgenson 1975; Gillespie 1976; Clemen 1976; McGuire and Schiffer 1983; Bagley-Baumgartner 1984; Ciolek-Torrello 1985; Wilshusen 1988b). Each of these researchers relied upon formal attributes of architecture at least to some degree, while many went even farther, utilizing artifact inventory- and/or activity-oriented characteristics as well in deriving functional interpretation. One work in particular has influenced many archaeologists' views on Anasazi architecture. Bullard (1962) went to great lengths in comparing and contrasting formal pit house architectural features in specific areas and sites, from pit house size to numerous types and sizes of subfloor pits. His analysis provided an insight into regional styles and attributes on a scale that would be difficult to match today, given the continually expanding data base. On the other hand, this increasing data set provides a wealth of information not available to UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 1990 pp. 19-41 20 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 1990 Bullard three decades ago, and much of his discussions and interpretations are certainly now out of date. Interestingly, however, some of his terminology and typology still appears in Virgin area reports. Virgin Anasazi Studies The vast majority of Virgin Anasazi site reports are primarily descriptive, and attempt little beyond conjecture about the formal and functional development of architecture. Notable exceptions include Dalley and McFadden's (1985) discussion on roomblock development, and Lyneis's (1986a) analysis of room size correlation. Most recently, Dalley and McFadden (1988; see also 1985) and Thompson and Thompson (1983; see also Walling et al. 1986, and Walling and Thompson 1988) have reviewed and/or expressed opinions on general aspects of Virgin Anasazi architectural development. In addition, Fairley (1989) has presented a thorough review of research to date, including architectural information, for the Virgin area. SOUTHWESTERN ARCHITECTURE ORIGINS The roots of Southwestern architecture are generally thought to come from two sources (Woodbury 1979; Martin 1979; Jennings 1989). The first was the early spread of pit house architecture into North America from Northern Asia. The growing data base here indicates a long tradition of pit house use, especially in the western United States (Daifuku 1952; Jennings 1978; Cressman 1986; Butler 1986; Elston 1986; McGuire 1984). These are typically shallow circular features, some quite large. The second source of Southwestern architecture is much later Mesoamerican influence northward into the Southwest (Plog 1979; Martin and Plog 1973). The Hohokam, for example, seem to represent this influence quite well. Hohokam pit structures are distinctly rectangular to square, with rather complex roofing and floor plans. Mogollon pit structures, which early on were typically circular to ovoid, by A.D. 700 take on a distinctive subrectangular shape (this, coincidentally, during the Hohokam Colonial Period expansion). It was the blending of these influences coupled with an impressive flare for localized innovation that created the distinctive Formative architectural styles in the Southwest. How the Anasazi built upon these influences has never been thoroughly explored, although it seems they were quite adept and even prolific at changing styles and forms to meet their needs. Still, certain regions apparently advanced socio-politically, economically, and/or technologically much more quickly than others. Differential rates of diffusion from these areas, as well as locally variable stylistic preferences further cloud the picture. It is not surprising that every Anasazi site demonstrates a certain degree of architectural individuality, in an overall matrix of regional commonality of form and function. THE NORTHERN ANASAZI The dynamics of Southwestern architectural development described above apply equally to what is here referred to as the Northern Anasazi area. The Northern Anasazi includes the Virgin, Kayenta, and Mesa Verde Anasazi (Figure 1). The direct and/or indirect influence of both the Kayenta and Mesa Verde Anasazi can be found to varying degrees across much of southern Utah and northern Arizona, and it is these two groups which are assumed to have had the greatest influence upon the Virgin Anasazi. This, plus the fact that relative chronologies and a wealth of architectural information are available for these areas, makes the Kayenta and Mesa Verde areas excellent yardsticks from which to compare Virgin area architecture. For this analysis, the Virgin area was subdivided into Upper (southwestern Utah) and Lower (Nevada) Virgin, to provide a better prospective on variability within the Virgin Anasazi region (for now, too little is known of the Arizona Strip area to include in this analysis). The Mesa Verde area likewise was separated into the Central (southwestern Colorado) and Western (southeastern Utah) Mesa Verde, since an abundance of comparative data from both areas is available. Architectural information was drawn from published VIRGIN ANASAZI ARCHITECTURE 21 I J .S u 1 1 u s Q 3 I 22 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 1990 sources representing the central areas of the five subdivisions described in the text. The primary references for each of these subdivisions are summarized below. Upper Virgin Numerous excavations have been carried out in or very near the upper Virgin River drainage (Billat 1990; Dalley and McFadden 1985,1988; Walling and Thompson 1988; Walling et al. 1986; Thompson 1980; Nickens and Kvamme 1981; Allison 1990; Schroeder 1955; Aikens 1965, 1966; Day 1966; Gunnerson 1962; Pendergast 1960; Wade 1967). Unfortunately, absolute dating has been attempted only in the most recent excavations, and then with often limited success. Still the overall data set is sufficiently large to permit general comparisons with other Anasazi areas. Lower Virgin Information from the lower Virgin River drainage (Lyneis 1986a, 1986b; Lyneis et al. 1989; Myhrer 1989; Jenkins 1981; Shutler 1961; Wade 1967) is somewhat sparse, with data on architectural variability only recently beginning to increase. Adequate dating of most sites is still lacking. The area, however, appears sufficiently distinct architecturally from that of the Upper Virgin to provide a comparative sample. Kayenta The Black Mesa project (Gumerman 1970; Gumerman et al 1972; Gumerman and Euler 1976; Klesert 1978; Klesert and Powell 1979; Powell et al. 1980) and a few additional survey and excavation projects (Lindsay et al. 1968; Ambler et al. 1964; Ambler and Olson 1977; Stein 1984), have succeeded in refining localized architectural styles for the central Kayenta area. Likewise, chronology is fairly well established. Western Mesa Verde In addition to Brew's (1946) classic study on Alkali Ridge, more recent work on or near White Mesa (Agenbroad et al. 1981; Davis 1983; Davis et al. 1985; Talbot et al. 1982; Lindsay 1981; Nielson et al. 1985), and to the east in Montezuma Canyon (Wilde and Thompson 1988; Thompson et al. 1988; Christensen 1980; Nielson 1978; Harmon 1979; D. Miller 1974; B. Miller 1976; Patterson 1975;) have greatly increased the data base on Anasazi sites in southeastern Utah. Chronology is well-developed, although certainly not to the extent of the nearby Central Mesa Verde area. Central Mesa Verde The recent Dolores Archaeological Project (Kane and Robinson 1986,1988; Kohler et al. 1986) was the principal source for comparative data from the Central Mesa Verde area, although Mesa Verde proper (Hayes and Lanchaster 1975; Rohn 1971, 1977; Swannack 1969) and other nearby site reports (Gillespie 1975, 1976; Morris 1939) were also consulted. These reports generally present a wealth of detailed and chronologically tight information on architectural change. TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL COMPARISONS For reasons discussed previously, architectural forms vary considerably in the Virgin area, as well as in the Anasazi area as a whole. Still, we are dealing with a single cultural construct-the Anasazi-and general functional classifications should be expected to cross-cut regional boundaries. To demonstrate architectural temporal and spatial variability, this study will focus on three functionally distinct architectural forms: pit houses, kivas, and roomblocks. These structural forms represent the primary loci of habitation, ceremonial, and storage activities. No other characteristic of Northern Anasazi pit houses, kivas or roomblocks demonstrates variability over time and space better or more clearly than does structural shape or form. This analysis, then, will address directly the regional evolution of structure shape. Local or regional variability in VIRGIN ANASAZI ARCHITECTURE 23 Years A.D. 1300 1100 900 700 500 Central Mesa Verde mi m 1 m I . .y yy yy - - 1 H Western Mesa Verde I ? 1 1 i Kayenta ? ;-;:;: i ? . • ^ y Upper Virgin yy yy yy yy Lower Virgin ':'•:•: ; • ; ? ? ? ? • Beginning and ending dates tentative only H Circular | = | D-Shaped |xx| Subrectangular Figure 2. Temporal variation in pit house shape by region. other characteristics (e.g., size, depth, wall or roof construction, etc.) or internal features (e.g., subfloor pits, vent shafts, hearths, etc.) likewise can illustrate architectural dynamics quite as well. Unfortunately, inherent complexities in site or feature descriptions and interpretations make some of these features more difficult to address at this level of analysis. A few of these, however, will be discussed briefly. Pit Houses Early pit houses in the Northern Anasazi area are basically circular in plan (Figure 2). Circular structures are found until ca. A.D. 750 in the Central Mesa Verde area. Distinctly D-shaped pit houses, however, appear ca. A.D. 600, and last until A.D. 800. Around A.D. 700 (possibly earlier) a subrectangular pit house shape also appears and continues in use for at least 200 years. The result of this change is an intriguing 200 year span (A.D. 600-800) where change from circular to D-shape to subrectangular shapes occurs. The A.D. 700-750 period in particular demonstrates extreme diversity. Some circular structures present during the succeeding A.D. 900-1000 period are identified by Kane (1986) as more closely related to kivas. Circular pit houses reappear between A.D. 1000-1200; however, these are likely seasonal field houses, having been constructed with little effort (Kane 1986). The changes occurring in the Central Mesa Verde area are reflected to varying degrees in other areas. The Western Mesa Verde area has circular pit houses to A.D. 800, D-shaped between A.D. 700-900 and subrectangular between A.D. 750-950. Possible field houses similar to those in the Central Mesa Verde appear at least between A.D. 1000 and 1100. The Kayenta area saw the continued use of circular pit houses until A.D. 1000. Subrectangular structures appear ca. A.D. 900. The Upper Virgin area shows much the same transitional pattern as other areas, with circular structures occurring at least until A.D. 1100, 24 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 1990 D-shaped structures between A.D. 1000 and 1100, and subrectangular structures appearing ca. A.D. 1050 (Figures 3 and 4). The Lower Virgin area appears to use the circular shape until abandonment. Although no D-shaped or subrectangular pit houses are described in published sources, Shutler (1961) mentions their occurrence in limited numbers. Kivas The transition from pit house to kiva appears to be temporally variable across the Northern Anasazi area (Figure 5). Generally, what most excavators are comfortable with calling a true "kiva" is recognized in the Central and Western Mesa Verde areas as early as A.D. 875-900. Slightly later, perhaps around A.D. 950, kivas begin appearing in the Kayenta area. Limited evidence from the Upper Virgin area includes a questionable kiva, with indeterminant but possibly early dating, from Zions Park (Schroeder 1955; see Fairley 1989:131-135 for a discussion), as well as post-A.D. 1050 kivas from Little Creek Mountain and the Kaibab Paiute Reservation (Walling and Thompson 1988; Thompson 1980), at Colorado City (Gardiner Dalley, personal communication, 1990), and further to the east at Bonanza Dune (Aikens 1965). No acceptable evidence for kivas has yet been presented for the Lower Virgin area. Like pit houses, kiva development exhibits evidence of change in shape through time. Early Central and Western Mesa Verde area kivas are basically circular, with a somewhat crude construction. Kivas with recesses (keyhole-shaped kivas) appear as early as A.D. 1000, although they become much more common in the A.D. 1100-1300 period. Square kivas are rare but present in the Mesa Verde area ca. A.D. 1200-1300. A variation commonly found during the later period is a keyhole-shaped kiva within a square outer frame, typical of cliff dwellings and larger open pueblos. Kayenta area kivas are essentially circular (or occasionally D-shaped) until at least ca. A.D. 1100. Keyhole-shaped kivas become common after this time. Some square kivas appear ca. A.D. 1200-1250, with recesses present at least by A.D. 1250-1300. The few possible Virgin Anasazi kivas appear to be circular only. Evidence of keyhole-shaped or square kivas has yet to be found, at least in the upper and lower Virgin River drainages (although the Arizona Strip area may yet reveal such forms). Roomblocks Surface roomblocks, like pit houses and kivas, demonstrate a wide range and variety of forms through time and space. In general, evolution of certain distinctive styles can be traced through much of the Northern Anasazi area (Figure 6). The precursors to surface roomblocks at the earliest Anasazi sites are circular or oval, slab-lined subterranean cists. The cists may be either non-aligned and randomly placed, or in distinct clusters. Often, although not always, these cists are situated somewhere between north and west of the pit house(s). Later the cists are aligned in a slight crescentic arc. Cists are followed by surface slab, jacal or adobe rooms, still in somewhat of an arc. As time progresses, these crescentic roomblocks can become quite elaborate, with masonry construction becoming dominant, and with shapes that range from a C-shape to a horseshoe or D-shape, and even a full circle. Crescentic and linear roomblocks are contemporaneous for a long period of time throughout the Northern Anasazi area, and it is not uncommon to find sites that utilize both styles or even blend the two styles in one pueblo construction. Like the crescentic form, linear roomblocks are at first quite simple, consisting of a simple line of two or three rooms. This form is then expanded to include L-, V- or U-shaped pueblos, with jacal rooms often utilized as the wing portions of this expanded style. Late in the Anasazi period these linear units often become fully square or rectangular pueblos, with storage rooms, habitation rooms and kiva(s) all in an enclosed unit. The review of Northern Anasazi roomblock evolution is here divided into two parts: roomblock VIRGIN ANASAZI ARCHITECTURE 25 Inferred feature continuation Subfloor pit/main post holes ^ Subfloor pit g> Post hole fft KEY: £2 Clay/Sand Wdo» 0 •umtPoati E3 cm ..... jaoal Wan Outline Seals: L e •Mt/Udder Hotot -- Floor Rapak [QD Sandstone Slabs C Vessel Fraanents L LHMo Cenoenvstlof) Figure 3. Examples of Early Virgin Anasazi pit houses. Top: 42Ws326, ca. A.D. 650-750 (Billat 1990). Bottom: 42Ws388, ca. A.D. 800-850 (Walling et al. 1986). 26 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 1990 2 m. Scale: l KEY: (g) Wall Clay • Rock ffl. Wall Slab/Stona Figure 4. Examples of Later Virgin Anasazi pit houses. Top: 42Wsl346, ca. A.D. 1000-1050? (Dalley and McFadden 1988) Bottom: 42Ws395, ca. AD. 1100-1150 (Walling et al. 1986). VIRGIN ANASAZI ARCHITECTURE 27 3> a s MM 1 1 * • ' : i ' > * • BBH mi ^s^mm •7?rr: 2332' U) u O E g (X <B U <=n nn d o •5b o .52 o s o h s Western Kayenta Upper Virgin Lower Virgin Mesa Verde Central Mesa Verde Years A.D. • llll Hi • 'II llllllllll minimi llllllllll lllllllllll i iiiniiiii iiiiiiiiii n ^ & «* M II ;:;v;::;;;; lllllllllll ><^fffA >:81 mm N H 1300 1100 900 700 500 £ .. o E 5 o d O '5b D U « 1 d d o o a u H K 3 25 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 1990 alignment and room function associations. The first addresses directly the different forms Northern Anasazi roomblocks may take, while the second describes regional variability in the storage room/habitation room relationship, which directly affects structural form. Roomblock Alignment Cists are common in the Central and Western Mesa Verde areas until ca. A.D. 750-800. However, beginning ca. A.D. 700-750, surface rooms appear, sometimes scattered and sometimes in definite arcs. The early crescentic roomblocks (although apparently less common in the Western Mesa Verde) continue in use and become increasingly complex (to C-shape or horseshoe shape) until ca. A.D. 900-1000. After that time crescentic pueblos become much less common than the more formalized linear pueblos. Still, a few impressive D-shaped or other crescentic forms can be found. Linear roomblocks, on the other hand, appear at about the same time (A.D. 700-750), but by A.D. 900-1050 tend to become very formalized in L-shapes. By A.D. 1150-1250 U-shapes as well as some fully enclosed units are being utilized. The use of cists in the Kayenta area continues until ca. A.D. 900-950, while scattered surface rooms appear at least by ca. A.D. 850. No indications of crescentic roomblocks were found in the available literature of the study area, although such roomblocks are present on the Paria Plateau in the transitional area between the Kayenta and Virgin areas (Mueller et al. 1968). Definite linear construction styles appear at least by A.D. 950 as well-developed single line, L- or V-shaped forms. By A.D. 1050 a U-shape is being utilized as well. The Upper Virgin area appears to utilize scattered, clustered and/or contiguous cists up until ca. A.D. 1050 (Figure 7). By A.D. 900 some locations (specifically the St. George Basin) begin utilization of a linear form of roomblock, at least contemporaneously with, if not earlier than, crescentic roomblocks (Figure 8-top). Both styles continue in use until abandonment. The more complex U-shaped linear units appear only late in the Anasazi occupation of the area. Circular-shaped (including horseshoe, D-shaped or nearly full-cirded; Figure 8-bottom) sites probably best represent late occupations, although they may be utilized as early as A.D. 900-1050 (i.e., ZNP-3 [Schroeder 1955] and some sites to the south on Yellowstone Mesa [Jim Allison, personal communication 1990]). Again, extensive site information is lacking for the Lower Virgin. A small number of cists dating roughly to the A.D. 1000-1100 period have been found. Whether external cists were used before then, or whether pit house interior storage received greater emphasis, is unknown. Roomblocks appear at least by ca. A.D. 1000-1050. The early roomblocks, like those of the Upper Virgin, seem to be both linear and crescentic. Thereafter, crescentic forms seem to quickly become dominant. Habitation and Storage Rooms A discussion on the functional development of roomblocks is beyond the scope of this analysis. Still, from a purely formal view, the differences in roomblock development are intriguing. Specifically, the habitation room/storage room relationship can be shown to have developed two or three distinct forms, depending on the location within the Northern Anasazi area. Some of the first surface habitation rooms to appear in the Central and Western Mesa Verde areas are formally separated from the storage units. By ca. A.D. 750, larger habitation rooms begin to be placed in front of the smaller storage rooms, especially in the larger sites. This pattern is generally maintained throughout later puebloan development in these areas. In contrast to the Western and Central Mesa Verde, the Kayenta area developed a distinctive habitation-storage room ground plan. As roomblocks developed, surface jacal structures were at first separate, and then incorporated into the roomblocks. However, instead of being placed in front of the masonry storage rooms, jacal (and occasional masonry) habitation structures are more commonly placed at the ends of the roomblock, either as the "wings" in a distinctive U-shape, or as VIRGIN ANASAZI ARCHITECTURE 29 Cist Complex I 42WS 326 E upo«r wall Rubbl* Clay Floor LhnH UprtoM Slab Figure 7. Examples of Virgin Anasazi cists. Top: 42Ws326, ca. A.D. (Billat 1990). Bottom: 42Ws388, ca. A.D. 800-850 (Walling et al. 1986). 30 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 1990 J 1 6 m L Figure 8. Examples of Virgin Anasazi surface roomblocks. Top: 42Wsl346, ca. A.D. 1000-1050 (from Dalley and McFadden 1988). Bottom: 42Ws50, ca. A.D. 1050-1150? (Aikens 1965; metric scale and north arrow added). VIRGIN ANASAZI ARCHITECTURE 31 the circular-to-subrectangular ends to a bar-bell or baton shape. Often a group of habitation rooms are found in a linear arrangement, separate from the storage units. The equally distinctive Kayenta mealing room is typically set in an area to the northeast of the kiva/pit house, in front of or next to the roomblock. Small to medium-sized Upper Virgin roomblocks tend to follow the general pattern of the Kayenta area, with jacal or masonry habitation structures often attached to the end(s) of the storage structure alignment (Figure 8-top). Many sites incorporate the habitation rooms into the actual roomblock alignment interior (see Figure 8-bottom). Lower Virgin sites are similarly constructed, with jacal wings, end and/or interior roomblock habitation rooms. Alignments of habitation rooms only are also known for later (A.D. lOOOs-HOOs) occupations. Internal Features Although structural shape is one of the best demonstrators of temporal and spatial architectural variability, other characteristics or features can also provide valuable comparative data. Unlike structural shape, however, comparisons of these features can be rather challenging, especially when such features are present in some structures, but not in others. Likewise environmental constraints such as ground conditions and materials availability, and interpretational variability by area researchers can mask the true nature of these features or characteristics. As a result, beginning and/or ending use dates of many of these features are still somewhat obscure, as are reasons for their apparent randomness in occurrence. Still, general temporal and spatial variability was noted in some of these features as this analysis progressed, and it was felt they could also provide important comparative data. To this end, observations on a few of these are made below. Entrance/Ventilation One of the most obvious features associated with Northern Anasazi subterranean structures is the entrance and/or ventilation system. Orientation is similar throughout the region, being primarily to the south or southeast. Antechambers persist until at least A.D. 700 in the central Kayenta area, A.D. 775 in the Central Mesa Verde, A.D. 850-900 in the Western Mesa Verde, and A.D. 950 in the Upper Virgin. In the latter area, however, most antechambers are recognizably distinct from those to the east, being little more than small recesses (see Figure 3-top and Figure 4-top). Ventilator tunnels appear early in both the Western Mesa Verde and Kayenta areas around A.D. 600, and by A.D. 700 in the Central Mesa Verde. In the Upper Virgin literature vents are rare, although Walling and Thompson (1988:23) indicate they appear "frequently" in pit structures. Kivas also contain ventilator tunnels. Freestanding deflectors, common in both the Western and Central Mesa Verde areas, are somewhat more rare in the Kayenta area, and almost nonexistent in the Virgin area. In contrast to the typical roof ladder entrance portrayed as common for Northern Anasazi sites, the Kayenta area began utilizing ramps in pit structures between A.D. 600-700. Upper Virgin pit houses, on the other hand, occasionally contain a step-slab, depression, or small recess against one wall, suggestive of a step entrance. Evidence is lacking from the Lower Virgin area for both ventilation and entrance systems. Benches The use of full, three-quarter, half or even smaller benches around subterranean structures is variable for the Northern Anasazi area. In the Central Mesa Verde, benches are common in pit houses between A.D. 600-800, but are less common after that. By contrast, benches are rare in both Western Mesa Verde and Kayenta pit houses. The Upper Virgin area use of benches was common, although certainly not prevalent, beginning at least in the A.D. 600s, and likely continuing until abandonment (see Figure 3-bottom and Figure 4-top). Some Lower Virgin pit houses also apparently contained benches, at least early on (e.g., Shutler 1961). The use of benches in kivas is much 32 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 1990 more common across most of the Northern Anasazi area, often being the norm rather than the exception. Wingwalls Wingwalls are slab, adobe or occasionally jacal separation walls extending from the side walls inward toward the hearth. They appear in early Central and Western Mesa Verde sites by A.D. 600-650. Wingwalls may occur for only a short period (ca. A.D. 600s-700s) in the Kayenta area, and apparently not at all in Virgin sites. Platforms Platforms are small triangle-shaped areas usually created by low adobe ridges extending out from the pit house hearth to a wall (usually either the southern or eastern wall). Although the term platform suggests a raised area, it seems more often to be at or even below floor level. These are found in the Western Mesa Verde area as early as A.D. 750, and at least by A.D. 850-900 in the Central Mesa Verde. Examples from the Kayenta area date roughly between A.D. 600-850. The entry boxes in later Kayenta surface habitation rooms may also be variations of this feature. The Upper Virgin area began utilizing platforms ca. A.D. 1050. This feature has yet to be noted in the Lower Virgin area. Vaults - Vaults, also often identified as ceremonial vaults, magic pits or as footdrums, are rectangular to elongated oval, often slab-lined, deep pits or trenches located near the hearth. These pits are usually either capped with adobe or exhibit evidence of wood roofing. Their presence in later well-developed kivas in the Central and Western Mesa Verde suggest that these are ceremonial features. Vaults may appear in the Central Mesa Verde area ca. A.D. 775-850 or earlier, in either a position lateral to, or less frequently behind, the hearth. Interestingly, only one or possibly two early (ca. A.D. 750-900) vaults could be located in the entire Western Mesa Verde area, although they become more common in later times. Vaults may be present in some Kayenta pithouses by A.D. 800-850. However, in this latter area the vault is exclusively situated behind the hearth. The Upper Virgin area also contains evidence for vaults as early as A.D. 800-850, in the same position (behind the hearth) as in the Kayenta area (see Figure 3-bottom and Figure 4-top). Again, no recognizable vaults are present in Lower Virgin structures. Sand-filled Pits Oblong to almost rectangular sand-filled pits in Northern Anasazi pit houses are often referred to as warming pits or heating pits (and may be occasionally confused with floor vaults). The sand is usually very clean, although charcoal and rocks or slabs may be present. Sand-filled pits are found in a moderate number of pit houses as early as A.D. 650-700 in the Central and Western Mesa Verde areas. Individual pits may be found between the hearth and a side wall. When two are present they are usually located on opposite sides of the hearth, parallel to each other. Kayenta pit houses do not contain warming pits, at least not in a recognizably regular shape or pattern as in the Mesa Verde area. Many Upper Virgin pit houses (possibly as early as A.D. 800-850), on the other hand, contain groups of from 2-5 oblong-to-rectangular pits. Rather than being located on opposite sides of the hearth, however, these pits are distinctively situated near the back wall, often in an arc and pointing toward the hearth (see Figure 3-bottom and Figure 4). As with the Central and Western Mesa Verde pits, these are typically filled with clean sand and often capped by adobe. Many contain a stone slab in the fill or on the pit bottom. Such pits have yet to be reported in the Lower Virgin area. Slab/Masonry Construction Methods of wall construction are determined, to a large extent, by structural type, location, etc. For VIRGIN ANASAZI ARCHITECTURE 33 example, slab^lining in a structure was often necessary to shore up slumping walls, while masonry construction may have been more practical for the deepest structures. Still, temporal and spatial variability are evident in the use of these construction methods. Limited full or partial slab-lining (espedally in antechambers), may appear as early as A.D. 650-700 in the Western Mesa Verde area, yet not until A.D. 850-900 in the Central Mesa Verde, and then only occasionally. In kivas the slab-lining may front the bench, or the wall above the bench. Slab-lining is occasionally found in Kayenta pit houses (examples in the study area date to ca. A.D. 850-900, although they may occur earlier), but becomes more common when combined with masonry construction in kivas. Slab-lined (or occasionally boulder-lined) pit houses in the Upper Virgin area are common beginning ca. A.D. 600-700, although in many cases the slab-lining is partial only (see Figures 3 and 4). Full or partial slab- or boulder-lined pit houses are rare but still present in the Lower Virgin, apparently contemporaneous with those in the Upper Virgin area. The use of formal masonry in subterranean structures appears almost exclusively limited to kivas, with its introduction corresponding to the appearance of kivas in each of the Northern Anasazi areas discussed above. The only exceptions are a few pit houses from the Dolores area dating between A.D. 840-900. Since the dating coincides closely with the appearance of kivas, it is possible this initial use of masonry reflects the transition from pit house to kiva that is happening at this time. DISCUSSION This analysis has focused on demonstrating how spatial and temporal variability are reflected in Northern Anasazi architecture, with structural shape a prime example of that variability. The Virgin area follows, for the most part, the same patterns of architectural development as are present in the Kayenta and Mesa Verde areas. This is not, or at least should not be news to anyone familiar with the Virgin area (see, for example, Aikens 1966), and does not take away from the recognition of at least differing degrees of Virgin Anasazi "in situ development" (Dalley and McFadden 1988:277). Yet Virgin area research, including architecture, is increasingly presented from a decidedly introverted, isolationists perspective. This seems, as much as anything, to be part of a defensive posture against characterizations of the Virgin Anasazi as a subgroup of the Kayenta Anasazi. The evidence presented here suggests that, just as certain architectural characteristics are indeed sufficiently distinct from those of the Kayenta (or Mesa Verde) area to support Virgin area taxonomic equivalency arguments, other characteristics directly or indirectly reflect significant outside influence. Therefore, while Virgin architecture can and should be studied internally, its regional context deserves as much if not more attention. Perhaps the most striking aspect of this analysis is the evidence for temporal disparity in architectural change between the Northern Anasazi groups. The complacency of Virgin Anasazi architecture referred to by some researchers (i.e., Walling and Thompson 1988; Dalley and McFadden 1988) is likely a manifestation of this temporal disparity. Indeed, certain major architectural forms (e.g., kivas, D-shaped or subrectangular pit houses, surface roomblock construction) occur as much as 150-300 years earlier in the Mesa Verde area, and 50-150 years earlier in the Kayenta area. Other characteristics or internal features likewise seem temporally variable in their appearance in and across the Virgin area. If a complacency exists within Upper Virgin architecture, it occurs prior to A.D. 900. After that time, surface roomblocks, then variation in pit house shape, and finally kivas appear. These all represent major changes which together reflect a dynamic period of architectural flux. Changes prior to A.D. 900 are less dramatic, but still evident. Pit houses, for example, display significant internal variability. Vaults, warming pits and likely numerous other internal features were often incorporated into pit house construction during this early period, while randomly placed cists became grouped or aligned in arcs. At the SR-9 sites (Billat 1990) pit house size, construction, and 34 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 1990 internal features vary considerably, even though the structures are generally contemporaneous. Therefore, caution must be taken not to equate what may be an initial slow response to regional architectural developments with an absence of internal change in Virgin architecture. In a sense, Virgin as well as Northern Anasazi architecture was probably never truly complacent, but instead responded to, and was a manifestation of, individual, local, and regional variability. The same evidence for Upper Virgin peoples adopting most Northern Anasazi architectural developments at a gradual pace is even more prominent in the Lower Virgin area. Lower Virgin subterranean structures seem to carry on the earlier, simpler styles for a much longer period of time, with little evidence of major shifts. Still, very little is known regarding the early Anasazi inhabitants of the lower Virgin drainage, and it seems likely that future research will show the architecture to be dynamic in its own right. To this point the primary focus of this analysis has been on how Virgin architecture compares to that of other Northern Anasazi groups. Temporal disparity in the occurrence of many architectural features also suggests, in part, why architecture often appears different. Other factors likely are involved. Referring to complacency in the archaeological record, Dalley and McFadden (1988:277) suggest that "while some change may be from outside impetus, it is obviously well screened through a Virgin cultural filter." Fairley (1989:101) sees site type and settlement pattern diversity as reflecting general "adaptive flexibility," complemented by temporal differences and social factors. This analysis likewise sees a complex mixture of temporally variable internal and external influences, some stronger than others, that affect architectural development. The complexity of influences on Virgin architecture can best be understood by examining the factors most likely to provide these influences. Nabokov and Easton (1989:16), expanding on Rapoport's (1969) work, have described six primary "modifying factors" for architecture: technology, climate, economics, social organization, religion and history. Each of these factors can affect the type, style and function of architecture at any particular time. For example, environment, maintenance concerns, subsistence intensification, population aggregation, and increased social integration are all commonly seen as possible major influencing factors in the Southwestern pithouse-to-pueblo transition (Gilman 1987; Hegmon 1989, 1990; Plog 1974; Wilshusen 1988b; McGuire and Schiffer 1983). Certain modifying factors may have greater impacts on architecture in particular places and during particular, often "critical," time periods, and one cannot assume or expect Anasazi groups in the Virgin area to respond to those factors or influences at the same time or in the same manner as groups in other areas. Consideration of the factors described above should help in understanding why Virgin architecture seems to have changed at a generally slower rate than in other areas. Since the Virgin area contains basically similar environmental zones as are found in the rest of the Anasazi area, climate probably had the smallest direct effect on Virgin architectural change. Likewise, Virgin Anasazi history and religion appear generally to follow that of other Anasazi areas. Technology may have been a slightly greater influencing factor for Virgin architectural variability, not for a lack of basic knowledge of construction techniques, but rather in their application. This is most obvious in the Lower Virgin use of adobe and jacal rather than the masonry found more commonly in other areas. Still, this is more likely a reflection of the availability of construction materials than a purposeful attempt to be different (Lyneis 1986a). This leaves two remaining factors which are posited as having the most significant influence on Virgin architecture-economics and social organization. Economically and socially, the Virgin Anasazi changed at a much slower rate than their counterparts in the Kayenta or Mesa Verde heartlands. Specifically, the large population aggregations, subsistence intensification and increased social complexity which took place in those areas did not occur as early or on nearly the same scales in the Virgin area, although Lyneis's (1986a) argument for the late emergence of corporate lineages suggests such changes were beginning to occur prior to abandonment. VIRGIN ANASAZI ARCHITECTURE 35 Consequently, early simpler architectural forms were probably acceptable for a much longer period of time. The change in pit house shape, which Hunter-Anderson (1977) correlates with increased sedentism, occurs well after such changes in other Northern Anasazi areas. The construction of large pueblos, thought to be associated with increased subsistence intensification and demographic pressures (Gilman 1987), occur later and at much reduced levels in the Virgin area than they do to the east. Even the kiva, a primary focus of Anasazi social integration (Hegmon 1989), appears only late, and then somewhat rarely, in the Upper Virgin, and apparently not at all in the Lower Virgin. In sum, Virgin Anasazi architecture is in large part a product of the economic and social requirements of, and pressures on, the Virgin peoples, which in turn appear generally much less intense than in the rest of the Northern Anasazi area. Although architecture reflects the gradual pace of economic and social change in the Virgin area, it cannot explain why these changes did not occur more rapidly. Still, more detailed analyses of Virgin architecture and its influencing factors can provide greater insights into Virgin Anasazi cultural development. At the very least, a change in perceptions of, and approaches to, Virgin architecture is needed. It is hoped that, in the process of defining area culture history and chronology, Virgin architecture does not become entrenched in normative characterizations such as Bullard's (1962:180) southwestern Utah "standard and specialized pithouse type." Rather than repeating generalizations about, or establishing set definitions of, Virgin architecture, we need to address directly the evidence of architectural change and variability through time and space, with an eye toward its origins and influences. Architectural studies also need to be better integrated into settlement/subsistence, paleodemographic, regional interaction, and social organization analyses. Perhaps, then, what this paper is really crying out for is the need to not only recognize, but to begin treating architecture as a dynamic part of Virgin Anasazi life. The data base is growing rapidly (although some important past research data are still unpublished, and likely lie gathering dust on forgotten shelves), and before too long significant gaps in area culture history may be filled in. Architecture, as a prime distinguishing characteristic of the Virgin Anasazi, can and needs to be at the forefront of future research. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This analysis was carried out as part of the recently completed SR-9 project in Washington County, Utah. Appreciation is extended to the UDOT, and to UDOT archaeologist Kenneth Wintch, who supported the project. My special thanks to Lorna Billat, project director, who showed great patience through numerous revisions. Charmaine Thompson and Jim Allison helped guide the paper through its inception and early stages, while Gardiner Dalley, Doug McFadden, Joel Janetski, and Jim Wilde reviewed the first draft. All made valuable and often penetrating comments. REFERENCES CITED Agenbroad, Larry D., William E. Davis, and E. Steve Cassells 1981 1980 Excavations on White Mesa, San Juan County, Utah. Piano Archaeological Consultants, Longmont, Colorado. Submitted to Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. Aikens, C. Melvin 1965 Excavations in Southwest Utah. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 76. Salt Lake City. 1966 Virgin-Kayenta Cultural Relationships. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 79. Salt Lake City. Allison, James R. 1990 Anasazi Subsistence in the St. George Basin, Southwestern Utah. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo. Ambler, J. Richard, and Alan P. Olson 1977 Salvage Archaeology in the Cow Springs Area, 1960. Museum of Northern Arizona Technical Series No. 15. Flagstaff. 36 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 1990 Ambler, J. Richard, Alexander J. Lindsay, Jr., and Mary Anne Stein 1964 Survey and Excavations on Cummings Mesa, Arizona and Utah, 1960-61. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin No. 39. Flagstaff. Bagley-Baumgartner, Kathy 1984 Toward a Functional Classification of Nonceremonial Structures on Black Mesa, Northeastern Arizona. In Papers on the Archaeology of Black Mesa, Arizona, vol. II, edited by Stephen Plog and Shirley Powell, pp. 47-86. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale and Edwardsville. Billat, Lorna Beth 1990 Archaeological Testing and Excavation of Five Western Anasazi Sites along State Route 9, East of Virgin City, Utah. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No. 90-20 (Draft). Brigham Young University, Provo. Brew, John Otis 1946 Archaeology of Alkali Ridge, Southeastern Utah. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Vol. 21. Cambridge. Bullard, William R., Jr. 1962 The Cerro Colorado Site and Pit House Architecture in the Southwestern United States Prior to A.D. 900. Papers of the Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology No. 64. Harvard University, Cambridge. Butler, B. Robert 1986 Prehistory of the Snake and Salmon River Area. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. d'Azevedo, pp. 127-134. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 11, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Christensen, Diana 1980 Excavations at Cave Canyon Village, 1977. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo. Ciolek-Torrello, Richard 1985 A Typology of Room Function at Grasshopper Pueblo, Arizona. Journal of Field Archaeology 12:41-63. Clemen, Robert T. 1976 Aspects of Prehistoric Social Organization on Black Mesa. In Papers on the Archaeology of Black Mesa, Arizona, edited by G. J. Gumerman and R. C. Euler, pp. 113-135. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale and Edwardsville. Cressman, Luther S. 1986 Prehistory of the Northern Area. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. d'Azevedo, pp. 120-126. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 11, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Daifuku, Hiroshi 1952 The Pit House in the Old World and in Native North America. American Antiquity 18(l):l-7. Dalley, Gardiner F., and Douglas A. McFadden 1985 The Archeology of the Red Cliffs Site. Utah Bureau of Land Management Cultural Resource Series No. 17. Salt Lake City. 1988 The Little Man Archaeological Sites: Excavations on the Virgin River near Hurricane, Utah. Utah Bureau of Land Management Cultural Resource Series No. 23. Salt Lake City. Davis, William E. 1983 1981 Excavations on White Mesa, San Juan County, Utah. Piano Archaeological Consultants and Abajo Archaeology, VIRGIN ANASAZI ARCHITECTURE 37 Longmont, Colorado and Bluff, Utah. Submitted to Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. Davis, William E., Larry D. Agenbroad, Mark C. Bond, Gary M. Brown, E. Steve Cassells, Steven D. Emslie, Steven A. Weber, and Deborah A. Westfall 1985 Anasazi Subsistence and Settlement on White Mesa, San Juan County, Utah. University Press of America, Boston. Day, Kent C. 1966 Excavations at Gunlock Flats, Southwestern Utah. In Miscellaneous Collected Papers 11-14, pp. 1-48. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 83. Salt Lake City. Elston, Robert G. 1986 Prehistory of the Western Area. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. d'Azevedo, pp. 134-148. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 11, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Fairley, Helen C. 1989 Prehistory. In Man, Models and Management: An Overview of the Archaeology of the Arizona Strip and the Management of its Cultural Resources. By Jeffrey H. Altschul and Helen C. Fairley. Report prepared for USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, pp. 85-152. St. George. Gillespie, William B. 1975 Preliminary Report of Excavations at the Ute Canyon Site, 5MTUMR 2347, Ute Mountain Ute Homelands, Colorado. Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado. Bureau of Indian Affairs Contract No. MOOC14201498. 1976 Culture Change at the Ute Canyon Site: A Study of the Pithouse-Kiva Transition in the Mesa Verde Region. Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder. Gilman, Patricia A. 1987 Architecture as Artifact: Pit Structures and Pueblos in the American Southwest. American Antiquity 52(3):538-564. Gumerman, George J. 1970 Black Mesa: Survey and Excavation in Northeastern Arizona, 1968. Prescott College Studies in Anthropology No. 2. Prescott College Press, Prescott. Gumerman, George J., and Robert C. Euler (editors) 1976 Papers on the Archaeology of Black Mesa, Arizona. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale and Edwardsville. Gumerman, George J., Deborah Westfall, and Carol S. Weed 1972 Archaeological Investigations on Black Mesa: The 1969-1970 Seasons. Prescott College Studies in Anthropology No. 4. Prescott College Press, Prescott. Gunnerson, James H. 1962 Highway Salvage Archeology: St. George, Utah. In Miscellaneous Collected Papers. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 60, pp. 47-66. Salt Lake City. Harmon, Craig B. 1979 Cave Canyon Village: The Early Pueblo Components. Department of Anthropology, Publications in Archaeology New Series No. 5. Brigham ' Young University, Provo. Hayes, Alden C, and James A. Lanchaster 1975 Badger House Community, Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado. USDI National Park Service Publications in Archeology 7E, Wetherill Mesa Studies. Washington, D.C. Hegmon, Michelle 1989 Social Integration and Architecture. In The Architecture of Social Integration in Prehistoric Pueblos, edited by William D. Lipe and Michelle Hegmon, pp. 5-14. 38 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 1990 Occasional Papers of the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, No.l. Cortez. 1990 Boundary-Making Strategies in Early Puebloan Societies: Style and Architecture in the Kayenta and Mesa Verde Regions. Paper presented at the Southwest Symposium "Prehistoric Community Dynamics in the North American Southwest", Albuquerque. Hewitt, Nancy J., Allen E. Kane, Arthur Rohr, and Dorin Steele 1983 Temporal Implications of Architectural Characteristics of Anasazi Pitstructures, Southwestern Colorado. Contract Abstracts and CRM Archeology 3(2):133-140. Hill, James N. 1968 Broken K Pueblo: Patterns of Form and Function. In New Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by Sally R. Binford and Lewis R. Binford, pp. 103-142. Aldine, Chicago. 1970 Prehistoric Social Organization in the American Southwest: Theory and Method. In Reconstructing Prehistoric Pueblo Societies, edited by William A. Longacre, pp. 11-58. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Hunter-Anderson, Rosalind L. 1977 A Theoretical Approach to the Study of House Form. In For Theory Building in Archaeology, edited by Lewis R. Binford, pp. 287-315. Academic Press, New York, San Francisco, London. Jenkins, Dennis L. 1981 Cliffs Edge: A Pueblo I Site on the Lower Virgin River. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Jennings, Jesse D. 1978 Prehistory of Utah and the Eastern Great Basin. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 98. Salt Lake City. 1989 Prehistory of North America. 3rd edition. McGraw Hill, New York. Jorgenson, Julia 1975 A Room Use Analysis of Table Rock Pueblo, Arizona. Journal of Anthropological Research 31:149-161. Kane, Allen E. 1986 Social Organization and Cultural Process in Dolores Anasazi Communities, A.D. 600-900. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Final Synthetic Report, compiled by David A. Breternitz, Christine K. Robinson, and Timothy G. Gross, pp. 633-661. Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver, Colorado. Kane, Allen E., and Christine K. Robinson (compilers) 1986 Dolores Archaeological Program: Anasazi Communities at Dolores: Middle Canyon Area. Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver. 1988 Dolores Archaeological Program: Anasazi Communities at Dolores: McPhee Village. Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver. Klesert, Anthony L. (editor) 1978 Excavation on Black Mesa, 1977: A Preliminary Report. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern llinois University Research Paper No. 1. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Klesert, Anthony L., and Shirley Powell (editors) 1979 Excavation on Black Mesa, 1978: A Descriptive Report. Center for Archaeological Investigations Research Paper 8. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Kohler, Timothy A., William D. Lipe, and Allen E. Kane 1986 Dolores Archaeological Prog-am: Anasazi Communities at Dolores-Early Small Settlements in the Dolores River Canyon VIRGIN ANASAZI ARCHITECTURE 39 and Western Sagehen Flats Area. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver. Lindsay, La Mar 1981 Big Westwater Ruin. In Excavation of Two Anasazi Sites in Southern Utah, 1979-1980. Utah Bureau of Land Management Cultural Resource Series No. 9. Salt Lake City. Lindsay, Alexander J., Jr., J. Richard Ambler, Mary Ann Stein, and Phillip M. Hobler 1968 Survey and Excavations North and East of Navajo Mountain, Utah, 1959-1962. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin No. 45. Flagstaff. Lipe, William D., and Cory D. Breternitz 1980 Approaches to Analyzing Variability Among Dolores Area Structures, AD 600-950. Contract Abstracts and CRM Archeology l(2):21-28. Lyneis, Margaret M. 1986a A Spatial Analysis of Anasazi Architecture, A.D. 950-1150, Moapa Valley, Nevada. The Kiva 52:53-74. 1986b Residual Archaeology of the Main Ridge Locality, Pueblo Grande de Nevada. Western Anasazi Reports 3:183-259. Lyneis, Margaret M., Mary K. Rusco, and Keith Myhrer 1989 Investigations at Adam 2 (26Ck 2059): A Mesa House Phase Site in the Moapa Valley, Nevada. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers No. 22. Carson City. Martin, Paul S. 1979 Prehistory: Mogollon. In Southwest, edited by Alfonso Ortiz, pp. 61-74. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 9. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Martin, Paul S., and Fred Plog 1973 The Archaeology of Arizona: A Study of the Southwest Region. The American Museum of Natural History, New York. McGuire, David J. 1984 An Early Archaic Pithouse Structure in the Hanna Basin, Southcentral Wyoming. Paper Presented at 49th Annual Meeting, Society for American Archaeology, Portland. McGuire, Randall H., and Michael B. Schiffer 1983 A Theory of Architectural Design. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3:277-363. Miller, Blaine A. 1976 A Study of a Prudden Unit Site (42Sa971-N) in Montezuma Canyon, San Juan County, Utah. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, Brigham Young University, Provo. Miller, Donald E. 1974 A Synthesis of Excavations at Site 42Sa863, Three Kiva Pueblo, Montezuma Canyon, San Juan County, Utah. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, Brigham Young University, Provo. Morris, Earl L. 1939 Archaeological Studies in the La Plata District, Southwestern Colorado and Northwestern New Mexico. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 519. Washington, D.C. Mueller, James W., Gregory J. Staley, Gayle G. Harrison, Ronald W. Ralph, Carla A. Sartwell, and Ronald P. Gauthier 1968 Paria Plateau Survey Report, 1968 Season. Ms. on file, Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff. Myhrer, Keith 1989 Basketmaker and Puebloan Occupation at the Steve Perkins Site, Moapa Valley, Southern Nevada. Ms. on file, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas. 40 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 1990 Nabokov, Peter, and Robert Easton 1989 Native American Architecture. Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford. Nickens, Paul R., and Kenneth Kvamme 1981 Archaeological Investigations at the Kanab Site, Kane County, Utah. In Excavation of Two Anasazi Sites in Southern Utah, 1979-1980. Bureau of Land Management, Utah. Cultural Resource Series No. 9, Salt Lake City. Nielson, Asa, Joel C. Janetski, and James D. Wilde 1985 Recapture Wash Archaeological Project, 1981-1983, San Juan County, Utah. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No. 87-7. Brigham Young University, Provo. Nielson, Glenna 1978 Excavation in the Basketmaker Component of Cave Canyon Village (Site 42Sa2096) 1976 Field Season, Montezuma Canyon, San Juan County, Utah. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, Brigham Young University, Provo. Patterson, Gregory 1975 A Preliminary Study of an Anasazi Settlement (42Sa971) Prior to A.D. 900, in Montezuma Canyon, San Juan County, Southeastern Utah. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, Brigham Young University, Provo. Pendergast, David M. 1960 The Frei Site, Santa Clara, Utah. In Miscellaneous Collected Papers. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 60, pp. 127-163. Salt Lake City. Plog, Fred 1974 The Study of Prehistoric Change. Academic Press, New York. 1979 Prehistory: Western Anasazi. In Southwest, edited by Alfonso Ortiz, pp. 28-43. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 9. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Powell, Shirley, Robert Layhe, and Anthony L. Klesert 1980 Excavation on Black Mesa, 1979: A Descriptive Report. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Research Paper No. 18. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Rapoport, Amos 1969 House Form and Culture. Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Rohn, Arthur H. 1971 Mug House, Mesa Verde National Park-Colorado. USDI National Park Service Archeological Research Series No. 7D, Washington, D.C. 1977 Cultural Change and Continuity on Chapin Mesa. The Regents Press of Kansas, Lawrence. Schroeder, Albert H. 1955 Archaeology of Zion Park. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 22. Salt Lake City. Shutler, Richard, Jr. 1961 Lost City: Pueblo Grande de Nevada. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers No. 5. Carson City. Smith, Watson 1952 Excavations in the Big Hawk Valley, Wupatki National Monument, Arizona. Museum of Northern Arizona, Bulletin 24. Flagstaff. Stein, Mary Anne 1984 Pottery Pueblo: A Tsegi Phase Village on Paiute Mesa, Utah. Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Methodist University. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor. \ VIRGIN ANASAZI ARCHITECTURE 41 Sullivan, Alan P. 1974 Problems in the Estimation of Original Room Function: A Tentative Solution from the Grasshopper Ruin. The Kiva 40:93-100. Walling, Barbara, Richard Thompson, Gardiner Dalley, and Dennis Weder 1986 Excavations at Quail Creek. Bureau of Land Management, Utah. Cultural Resource Series No. 20. Utah. Swannack, Jervis D., Jr. 1969 Big Juniper House, Mesa Verde National Park-Colorado. USDI National Park Service Archeological Research Series No. 7C, Washington, D.C. Talbot, Richard, Allison Bingham, and Asa S. Nielson 1982 Archaeological Investigations at 42Sa 9937 (Aromatic Village in San Juan County, Utah. Brigham Young University, Museum of Peoples and Cultures, Cultural Resource Management Services. Submitted to City of Blanding, Utah. Thompson, Richard A. 1980 The Little Creek Project: Excavation at 42Ws969: The Tunnel Site. Ms. on file, Southern Utah State University, Cedar City. Thompson, Richard A., and Georgia Beth Thompson 1983 Prehistory and Environment of Southwest Utah. Intersearch, Cedar City. Thompson, Charmaine, James R. Allison, Shane A. Baker, Joel C. Janetski, Byron Loosle, and James D. Wilde 1988 The Nancy Patterson Village Archaeological Research Project, Field Year 1986-Preliminary Report No. 4. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No. 87-24. Brigham Young University Provo. Wade, William D. 1967 Archaeological Investigations in Northwestern Arizona. Ms. on file, Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff. Walling, Barbara A., and Richard A. Thompson 1988 South Creek: Excavations at 42Ws 1712. Western Anasazi Reports 4:1. Wilde, James D., and Charmaine Thompson 1988 Changes in Anasazi Perceptions of Household and Village Space at Nancy Patterson Village. Utah Archaeology (l):29-45. Wilshusen, Richard H. 1988a Architectural Trends in Prehistoric Anasazi Sites During A.D. 600 to 1200. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Supporting Studies: Additive and Reductive Technologies, compiled by Eric Blinman, Carl J. Phagan, and Richard H. Wilshusen, pp. 599-633. Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver. 1988b The Pitstructure to Pueblo Transition: An Alternative to McGuire and Schiffer's Explanation. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Supporting Studies: Additive and Reductive Technologies, compiled by Eric Blinman, Carl J. Phagan, and Richard H. Wilshusen, pp. 703-708. Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver. Woodbury, Richard B. 1979 Prehistory: Introduction. In Southwest, edited by Alfonso Ortiz, pp. 22-30. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 9. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 42 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 1990 Garfield County