ROCK ART and ONTOLOGY: PATTERNS of HOHOKAM IMAGERY by DEIANIRA MORRIS a Thesis Submitted to the Honors Coll

Home , Southwestern archaeology, South Mountain Park, Tumamoc Hill

Rock Art And Ontology: Patterns Of Hohokam Imagery

Item Type text; Electronic Thesis

Authors Morris, Deianira

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.

Download date 01/10/2021 08:36:08

Item License http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/632702 ROCK ART AND ONTOLOGY:

PATTERNS OF HOHOKAM IMAGERY

DEIANIRA MORRIS

______

A Thesis Submitted to The Honors College

In Partial Fulfillment of the Bachelors degree With Honors in

Anthropology

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

M A Y 2 0 19

Approved by:

______

Dr. Barbara J. Mills Department of Anthropology

ABSTRACT

Although the Hohokam produced a number of rock art sites that feature a variety of images, rock art scholars have yet to explore how often different types of images occur at these sites or how they are associated on individual rock features. As such, the purpose of this project was to analyze the glyphs at two Hohokam rock art sites, South Mountain and Tumamoc Hill, to look for possible patterns in how often an image occurs at each site, and how often it co-occurs with other types of glyphs at the same site. By examining these topics in relation to the ontology of identity, this project revealed that the Hohokam tended to utilize the same types of images in their rock art at both sites, but used them with different frequencies. In addition, the co- occurrence of different glyphs types tended to strongly correlate to the numerical occurrence of the image at the site. This could indicate that the Hohokam ontologically situated themselves within a broader regional context, but expressed the individual identities of their communities through the frequency that they used the different images.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES...... iv

LIST OF FIGURES………...... v

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………...... 1

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW……. …...... 5 Rock Art Research in the Southwest……...... 5 Identity in Southwestern Rock Art …...... 7 Rock Art Theory and Interpretation…...... 8 A Critical Analysis of Dominant Rock Art Paradigms …...... 10 A Dynamic Combination …...... 14

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY………………………………………………...... 16 My Approach……………………...... 16 Samples…………………………………………………………………………...... 17 Categorization…………...... 18 Analysis Methods ...... 19 Sample Controls ...... 20

CHAPTER 4: THEORY, METHOD, AND DATASET...... 22 The Hohokam...... 22 Hohokam Rock Art...... 24 South Mountain Archaeological Site...... 26 Tumamoc Hill Archaeological Site...... 28

CHAPTER 5: DATA ANALYSIS...... 31 South Mountain Batch...... 33 Tumamoc Hill Batch...... 38 Comparison...... 44

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS...... 50 Discussion...... 50 Conclusions…………...... 53

REFERENCES CITED...... 57

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: South Mountain General Category Frequencies of Occurrence ……………...33 Table 2: South Mountain Representational Subcategory Occurrence Frequencies…….34 Table 3: South Mountain Geometric Subcategory Occurrence Frequencies…...………35 Table 4: South Mountain General Category Frequencies of Co-occurrence …….…….36 Table 5: South Mountain Representational Subcategory Co-occurrence Frequencies with Anthropomorphs…………………………………………………………………….….37 Table 6: South Mountain Geometric Subcategory Co-occurrence Frequencies with Anthropomorphs……………………………………………………………………...... 38 Table 7: Tumamoc Hill General Category Frequencies of Occurrence...... ………….39 Table 8: Tumamoc Hill Representational Subcategory Occurrence Frequencies..…….39 Table 9: Tumamoc Hill Geometric Subcategory Occurrence Frequencies..…………...41 Table 10: Tumamoc Hill General Category Frequencies of Co-occurrence…………...42 Table 11: South Mountain Representational Subcategory Co-occurrence Frequencies..43 Table 12: Tumamoc Hill Geometric Subcategory Co-occurrence Frequencies with Anthropomorphs...... 44 Table 13: Statistical Comparison of Glyph Frequencies at South Mountain and Tumamoc Hill……………...…………………………………………………………...47

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Rock Art Panel from South Mountain Featuring Anthropomorphs, Quadrupeds, and Circles………………………………………….…………………………………………….18 Figure 2: Single Circular Glyph from South Mountain………………………………….…..19 Figure 3: Multiple Circular Glyphs from South Mountain…………………………………..19 Figure 4: Archaic Glyph at Tumamoc Hill…………………………………………………...21 Figure 5: Distribution of General Categories…………………...…………………………....45 Figure 6: Percentages of Petroglyph Subcategories at South Mountain and Tumamoc Hill...46 Figure 7: Co-Occurrence of Anthropomorphic Glyphs with All Image Categories …...……48

Chapter 1: Introduction

In the U.S. Southwest, a persistent interest in the archaeological study of past cultures has been fostered by the preservation of a vast amount of historical remains into contemporary times.

Among the many changes this discipline has undergone as it has developed is that the range of topics being studied has significantly broadened to include many subjects that were considerably neglected during the earliest phases of southwestern archaeology. One such topic that has become of greater interest in recent decades is the study of rock art.

In the field of archaeology, the term “rock art” refers to a specific type of material culture that is defined as “images pecked into or painted on stone” by people in the past (Schaafsma

1980:1). Rock art can be found in almost every region in the world and normally consists of three primary categories, petroglyphs, pictographs, and geoglyphs, which are differentiated according to how they are produced. Petroglyphs are images that have been created by carving into rocks, pictographs are images that have been painted onto rocks using mineral or organic paint (Schaafsma 1980:25), and geoglyphs were produced by clearing areas on the ground or by arranging individual rocks into shapes (Thiel 1995:3). Of the three different types, petroglyphs and pictographs often occur the most frequently in many regions, including the Southwest.

When studying rock art, scholars often facilitate their analyses by categorizing the many characteristics of rock art into hierarchical units that can be then be independently examined. The smallest scale of rock art categorization, often called “glyphs” or “elements,” refers to “a single design or image” that is that has been placed on some type of natural geologic formation (Thiel

1995:3). Rock art sites can consist of anywhere from individual images to thousands of individual elements concentrated within an area. Another phrase that is often used by researchers

1 when analyzing rock art at this level is “motifs.” This term, however, is less clearly defined as some researchers use this as a synonym for individual elements (Wright 2011), while other rock art scholars have also defined this as a “group of elements that together make up a coherent piece of a design,” similar to how archaeologists specializing in the study of ceramics have defined motifs on vessels (Wallace 2001:401).

The next scale in rock art analysis is focused on the rocks upon which the images are located. The two most frequently occurring types of rock art, petroglyphs and pictographs, are usually situated on immobile geological formations such as boulders, cliff faces, and cave walls.

The rock formations on which images are found are referred to by researchers as either “panels,” in reference to the “artistic” nature of the images, or “features,” which is the archaeological term for non-portable material culture (Munson 2002; Schaafsma 1980; Wallace and Holmlund 1986).

The term “panel” can also refer to the different faces of a rock feature (Wright 2011). Features and panels can have any number of glyphs ranging from one or two designs located on a specific area of the rock to dozens of different images that completely cover the formation. Locations where multiple rock art panels are found are referred to as “rock art sites.”

The third scale of analysis most often implemented by researchers examines the distribution of rock art across regional landscapes, and explores the similarities and differences of the designs found at individual sites. In many regions where rock art is found, researchers have noted patterns of rock art sites that exhibit similar design content, creation technique, and geographical proximity to specific cultures (Schaafsma 1980). Over time, researchers have grouped these similar patterns of rock art into “styles,” which are defined as similar traditions of rock art production that were practiced by certain communities or cultures (Schaafsma 1980). In the Southwest, rock art styles, such as the “Archaic Abstract Style” and the “Hohokam Gila

Style,” are determined by correlating the similar patterns of rock art traditions to the cultures that occupied the areas where the sites are located and were likely involved in the production of the images (Schaafsma 1980).

Although the presence of rock art in the Southwest has been documented as far back as the eighteenth century (Wright 2011), systematic research did not begin until the early twentieth century and, at that time, consisted almost entirely of basic inventorying or rudimentary theories about the origin and meaning of the images based on ethnographic references (Fewkes 1892;

Mallery 1886, 1893). The first comprehensive study of southwestern rock art was conducted in the late twentieth century by Polly Schaafsma, who examined different styles of rock art in the

Southwest, provided methods for categorizing rock art based on region, and inspired much of the contemporary research that has followed this project (Schaafsma 1980). In the past few years, interest in rock art has grown and scholars have also begun to explore how the analysis of rock art could be utilized to provide insights about past societies (e.g., Bernardini 2005; Hays-Gilpin

2004; Munson 2002; Wright 2011; Young 1988).

One subject that has been explored by some southwestern archaeologists is the potential to correlate the analysis of rock art to the study of identity. In many social sciences, identity is generally defined as a continuous social process in which people relate themselves and others to larger social groups through certain attributes or practices that are associated with those particular groups (Díaz-Andreu and Lucy 2005:1). The construction and maintenance of identity is often intertwined with other social processes or relationships such as gender, age, religion, status, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Ethnicity, which is defined as “culturally constructed notions of shared origins,” was one of the first types of identity to be studied in archaeology because it was often examined in relation to the origin or development of different cultures that

3 were being studied (Lucy 2005:104). As other social sciences have become more aware of the different types of identity that can develop, archaeologists have correspondingly begun to realize that many of these identities can be distinguished and studied through material culture to provide insight into how they were constructed and maintained in past societies.

In rock art research, scholars have begun to explore methods of distinguishing different forms of identity in the designs of the images found in rock art as well as their distribution across the landscape. Similar to how the archaeology of identity in general has progressed, much of research discussing identity in southwestern rock art has primarily focused on ethnicity

(Bernardini 2005; Munson 2002). Some archaeologists, however, have begun to explore other types of identities that can be distinguished in rock art, such as gender (Hays-Gilpin 2004) or identities maintained through status and power in the community (Wright 2011).

In addition to the development of the subjects being investigated in southwestern rock art research, theories regarding how the purpose of these images have correspondingly undergone significant changes. For a number of years, many of the theories used to analyze rock art primarily contextualized the images as aspects of religion or ritual practice (e.g., Steward 1929;

Hernbrode and Boyle 2013; Schaafsma and Schaafsma 1974), while other projects attempted to interpret the images (e.g., Garfinkel 2006; Whitley 1998). Although there were a few notable researchers that explored more diverse approaches to studying rock art (e.g., Young 1988), the insights provided by many these frameworks have been distressingly limited. As a result, researchers have begun to seek new theoretical approaches that can fill the gap.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Rock Art Research in the Southwest. The presence of rock art in the U.S. Southwest has been documented as far back as the eighteenth century by Jesuit priests traveling in the area

(Wright 2011:5). Academic interest in the study of southwestern rock art, however, was not expressed until the late nineteenth century when scholars, such as J. Walter Fewkes and Garrick

Mallery, began to publish inventories of individual rock art sites in Arizona and New Mexico

(Fewkes 1892; Mallery 1886, 1893). The first attempt to systematically inventory rock art at the regional scale was produced in the early twentieth century, when Julian Steward published a comprehensive report of numerous sites found in the Southwest (Steward 1929). The following years saw a continuation of Steward’s initiative as his own works were joined by the products of other researchers who examined patterns of rock art in the Southwest.

Although this early phase of rock art recording provided an essential basis for rock art research today, a systematic examination of the different types of rock art produced by

Southwestern cultures was not conducted until in the late twentieth century. In the 1970s, Polly

Schaafsma published a number of books that constituted some the first research projects dedicated to systematically analyzing the different types of rock art in the Southwest. After continuing her research for the next decade, Schaafsma produced a compendium of information on southwestern rock art that was unprecedented in both its scale and extensive detail at the time

(Schaafsma 1980). This text presented a significantly thorough examination of the different types of rock art found in the Southwest and detailed a systematic method of organizing them into typological categories, called “styles,” based on their geographical distribution (Schaafsma

1980). Schaafsma also provided a guideline for constructing a relative chronology of rock art based on geological principles of desert varnish and erosion (Schaafsma 1980). As a result,

Schaafsma’s contributions to the systematic analysis, typological categorization, and dating of rock art have become the template for most contemporary archaeologists interested in researching southwestern rock art.

Although great strides were made in southwestern rock art research, the discipline itself was still relatively neglected in comparison to other archaeological media, such as ceramics, which received far more attention throughout the late twentieth century. As a result, the majority of the rock art inventories produced during this time were conducted by avocational organizations, cultural resource management projects, and private individuals who were intrigued by rock art (e.g., Ferg 1979; Wallace and Holmlund 1986). In more recent years, interest in the archaeological study of rock art has been renewed by research projects that have explored the potential for rock art to promote a more comprehensive understanding of past cultures. One such project was the detailed inventory and analysis of rock art sites found in the

South Mountains near Phoenix, Arizona conducted by Aaron Wright (2011). As described by

Polly Schaafsma, Wright’s published book on Hohokam rock art in the South Mountains offered a “dynamic new synthesis of the Hohokam” by “establishing new strategies for future research integrating rock art with social, religious, and political processes” (Schaafsma 2015:461).

Although exemplary in its own right, the South Mountain project is among an increasing range of research into southwestern rock art interested in utilizing the study of these images to generate a greater understanding of the past cultures that once inhabited the Southwest (e.g., Hartmann and Boyle 2013; Rogers 2003; Throgmorton 2017)

The subject of dating rock art has also garnered an increasing amount of attention from the academic community as new technology has become available and some rock art scholars are now exploring how the images could be utilized to date rock art sites (e.g., Bednarik 2002). In

6 addition, a number of researchers have explored diverse approaches to analyzing rock art, such as collaborating with Indigenous scholars and tribal members to gain non-Western perspectives on rock art (Young 1988), and comparing rock art to other types of archaeological media (Hays-

Gilpin 2004). Along with these interests, there has been a significant increase in scholars who are concerned with the long-term preservation of rock art, as the majority of this material culture is continuously exposed to both the natural elements and human vandalism (Hays-Gilpin and

Sundstrom 2011; Wright 2017). Today, the contemporary community of rock art research in the

Southwest is comprised of civilian rock art enthusiasts, undergraduate and graduate students, and professional archaeologists united in their fascination and enthusiasm to learn more about the images pecked, incised, and painted onto rock formations across the region.

Identity in Southwestern Rock Art. As the field of rock art research has developed, scholars have begun to utilize rock art analysis to examine more anthropological questions that are interested in the function and influence of social processes, such as identity, in past cultures.

In his South Mountain project, one of the topics that Aaron Wright explored was how the distribution of rock art on the landscape could relate to the construction of identities based on status and power within the Hohokam social structure. Although Wright’s analysis was primarily focused on one type of identity, his research corresponded to an increasingly diverse range of literature in southwestern archaeology that utilizes rock art to study how various forms of identity developed in past societies.

Similar to Wright, some archaeologists have correlated rock art analysis to how people in the past utilized the distribution of these images on the landscape as a means of demonstrating their identity (e.g., Munson 2002). Other scholars have applied the analysis of rock art images to study how familial identities are established and maintained throughout time (e.g., Bernardini

2005), or how rock art was associated with the negotiation of gender identity in past societies

(e.g., Hays-Gilpin 2004).

In support of their different hypotheses, these scholars have collectively analyzed a broad variety of rock art characteristics. The focus of some projects was to analyze the distribution and accessibility of rock art on the landscape (e.g., Munson 2002; Wright 2011), while other scholars have compared the rock images to designs in other artistic media, such as textiles and ceramics

(e.g., Hays-Gilpin 2004). Other archaeologists have narrowed the focus of their analysis to the re-occurrence of select elements at different sites with (e.g., Munson 2002) or many sites across time and space (e.g., Bernardini 2005).

Although these projects have directed attention to many aspects of rock art that could provide insight into identity, there have been few projects in southwestern archaeology that have examined the characteristics of broader rock art categories that commonly occur at many sites and how they could relate to processes of identity. As such, one goal of this project is to attempt to fill current research gaps by exploring how the characteristics of rock art design categories, such as their frequency of occurrence and level of visibility, could provide insight into how these types of images were utilized in identity-related processes.

Rock Art Theory and Interpretation: Since the beginning of systematic rock art research in the early twentieth century, one of the primary topics of interest for scholars has also been the theoretical modelling and interpretation of the images being studied. Although rock art research is relatively new in comparison to other fields of archaeological study, the total range of rock art literature in the Southwest is still substantial and complex. As such, this review will only highlight some of the most dominant theoretical approaches to rock art theory that have been influential in this region.

In the Southwest, the earliest attempts to theorize the function of rock art often correlated the images to ethnographic accounts of glyphs being created during ceremonial practices

(Fewkes 1892; Mallery 1886). As such, theories contextualizing rock art as an aspect of religion and ritual provided the basis of many research projects and is still a deeply embedded approach in southwestern rock art research that has persisted into contemporary studies. However, many researchers rely less on the direct historical approach, and often focus on studying the correlation between rock art and religion (e.g., Hernbrode and Boyle 2016; Schaafsma and Schaafsma

1974).

Although many of the approaches to southwestern rock art research originated from archaeologists in this region, there have also been a number of theoretical models conceived outside of the Southwest that had a significant influence on the researchers studying rock art in this part of the country. One paradigm in particular that affected rock art research in the

Southwest came from David Lewis-Williams, an archaeologist specializing in European

Paleolithic rock art. In the late twentieth century, Lewis-Williams proposed that the geometric designs found in the rock art originated from the neuropsychological ability to perceive these symbols in natural patterns and were created by religious leaders, similar to that of a “shaman,” while in a hallucinogen-induced trance-state (Lewis-Williams 2001).

When Lewis-Williams’ theoretical framework came to the attention of southwestern archaeology, one of the most popular approaches for rock art interpretation at the time was the

“hunting magic paradigm.” This theoretical approach, first originated by Robert Heizer and

Martin Baumhoff, stated that rock art was the product of sympathetic magic that was meant to enhance ones’ ability to hunt by depicting the desired animals on stone (Heizer and Baumhoff

1962:239). As the shamanistic neuropsychological model gained notoriety in southwestern rock

9 art research, the approach was correlated with the already popularized sympathetic magic paradigm. The result of this was a theoretical approach that combined both models and proposed that the production of rock art was conducted in ritualistic trance states as a means of ensuring a successful hunt (Whitley 1998).

In addition to paradigms which promoted interpretation of the images and those that perceived rock art as connected to religious behavior, another approach that has influenced southwestern rock art research is the landscape phenomenological model. According to Smith and Blundell, some scholars combine rock art analysis and landscape phenomenology to examine how people “symbolically experienced” the landscape they interacted with and the manner in which this interaction is represented in rock art (Smith and Blundell 2004:241). Some landscape phenomenological approaches examine how cultural identities can be studied by analyzing the distribution rock art on the landscape, while others perceive rock art as a society’s method of reconstructing their worldview onto the landscape (Ouzman 1998; Smith and Blundell

2004:241). A few researchers have proposed possible correlations between rock art and the marking of sacred locations (Smith and Blundell 2004:249).

A Critical Analysis of Dominant Rock Art Paradigms. As each of these approaches to rock art analysis have been proposed and developed, they have brought unique insights to the field and highlighted new research topics that can be applied to rock art studies. However, many of these theoretical models have undergone critical analyses that have revealed limitations or flaws in their approach to rock art research.

One of the primary contributions of approaches that contextualize rock art as an aspect of religion is that they were some of the first projects to treat rock art as a valuable source of archaeological information. By associating rock art with ethnographic reports or religious

10 contexts, researchers suggested that rock art had some form of purpose within the larger social structure and emphasized the potential for rock art studies to contribute to the archaeological interpretation of past societies. This approach was especially important during the earliest phase of rock art research, as this was a point in time when many southwestern archaeologists felt that rock art could provide no insight into past societies. Through their research, scholars such as

Fewkes and Mallery challenged this perspective and laid the foundation of rock art studies in the

Southwest today. It can be argued that contemporary research projects which discuss rock art in relation to religious practice continue the initiative begun by these early scholars.

Although these approaches have provided important insights, they have also received a number of critiques throughout the years. The use of ethnography in contextualizing rock art has been criticized as inaccurate because “interpretation varied among the informants” of the ethnographic studies depending on their own cultural backgrounds (Wright 2011:8). Although this issue has been largely avoided by contemporary researchers, it could be argued that a hyper- focus on religion and ritual can still cause analysts to mistakenly limit their perception of rock art at the cost of exploring other roles for which the images may have been used. In addition, many theoretical models that attempt to situate rock art within a specific religious context often have difficulty in justifying their hypotheses because, although they provide support, the credibility of their arguments is often weakened by untested or unexplained variables (e.g., Lewis-Williams

2001; Whitley 1998).

One of the primary contributions that the shamanistic neuropsychological approach has made to the study of rock art is to expand the scope of theory beyond the exclusive reliance on direct historical sources or the limits of purely empirical evidence. Although Lewis-Williams’ theory still contextualized rock art within the domain of religious practice, it diverged from many

11 other rock art models by proposing a hypothesis based on neuropsychology. Rather than making ethnography the basis of his hypothesis, he relegated it to the role of supportive evidence. In doing so, Lewis-Williams suggested that rock art could be studied through more than just basic empiricism, and that there was a potential for more abstract scientific theories to be applied. It could be argued that, in a way, Lewis-Williams was one of the scholars who laid the foundation for the contemporary researchers who have applied complex theoretical models in their own analyses (Munson 2002; Wright 2011).

However, there are flaws in Lewis-Williams’ approach that have been critiqued throughout the years. One aspect of this theoretical model that can be argued against is the implication that all societies only produced rock art when engaged in ritual practices involving psychogenic-induced trances. Similar to the rock art theories that overemphasize a correlation between rock art and religion, this approach restricts the creation of rock art to one specific context and neglects to consider the potential for the other purposes of rock art production. In addition, Lewis-Williams’ contextualization of all rock art production within a shamanistic religious structure has been criticized as inaccurate and misleading because ethnological studies have proven that there are few societies which demonstrate the “shamanistic” religious structure

(McCall 2006). Thus, most cultures cannot be accurately described in this framework.

In general, theoretical models that attempt to discern the meaning of rock art have undergone heavy criticism in academia for their consistent inability to verify their hypotheses.

As stated earlier in this review, a number of the approaches that sought to distinguish the meaning or general function of rock art were often based on arguably untenable conjectures.

Many of these approaches were significantly flawed, not because the researcher did not support

12 their argument, but because the logic behind their approach was difficult to verify or disprove

(e.g., Hernbrode and Boyle 2016; Whitley 1998).

Although many of the critiques toward rock art interpretations are relatively new, it must be noted that this dilemma was recognized by some scholars even during the late twentieth century. In particular, one southwestern researcher who engaged the question of meaning in rock art during this period was M. Jane Young. In 1988, Young published a book that examined how contemporary Zuni people perceived the rock art that had been produced by their ancestors.

Among her many insights, Young found that the question of meaning was significantly problematized because “the very ambiguity of form and meaning of a number of rock art images…allows for the fluidity of meaning” (Young 1988:233). As articulated by Aaron Wright,

“symbols are polysemous and their meanings are embedded in layers of abstraction” (Wright

2011:15). As a result, interpretations proposed by archaeologists and contemporary members of southwestern tribes likely differed from the original intent of the artists (Young 1988:233).

One primary benefit of applying landscape phenomenology in rock art research is that it served to expand the range of these studies by examining a number of research topics that had not been considered under previous theoretical models. In doing so, these approaches provided a method for analyzing rock art that did not rely on the direct interpretation of the images itself, thereby circumnavigating many of the most significant issues found in the interpretive models. In addition, the use of landscape phenomenology proposed a “new dimension of analysis and interpretation” that emphasized a “subject-subject relational ontology” (Wright 2011:14). As with the other theoretical models, however, the landscape phenomenological approach has also received its share of doubts. Some scholars have criticized landscape phenomenology in rock art studies as affording the images their own agency and framing them as having the ability to

“socialize landscapes” (Wright 2011:14). This has been argued to be misleading because rock art is essentially a product of human behavior and cannot have agency independent of human action

(e.g., Wright 2011:14).

Although each theoretical approach used to interpret rock art had to contend with its own discrepancies, they have also contributed a number of invaluable insights that have helped the study of southwestern rock art evolve from an overlooked component of material culture to a diverse sub-discipline of archaeological research. However, the criticisms directed toward the dominant paradigms have demonstrated that theoretical modelling in rock art analysis still requires further development.

A Dynamic Combination. Although the combined use of rock art analysis and practice theory to study identity is still rare in contemporary studies, the number of research projects that have utilized rock art to study identity in past societies have proven that the potential exists to utilize the analysis of rock art in the archaeological study of identity. In relation to identity and practice in the archaeological record, meaningful practices have been described as capable of utilizing the “experience of doing and seeing” to reiterate, and perhaps even transform, the identities those involved in the performance (Inomata and Cohen 2006:19). Correspondingly, other scholars have postulated that “archaeologies of practice are ideally suited to interpretations of identity,” and have proposed that practice theories have the potential to provide a unique perspective on the relationship between identity and material culture (Díaz-Andreu and Lucy

2005:6). Finally, projects such as Aaron Wright’s have demonstrated that the combination of practice theories with rock art analysis can produce insights into both the significance of rock art as well as identity-related processes in past societies (Wright 2011).

Earlier in this literature review, I stated that one goal of this project is to contribute to the gaps in current southwestern rock art research by examining the characteristics of broad typological categories of rock art. In addition, I have further identified the lack of projects that utilize practice theory in rock art analysis to study identity, and I have outlined pre-established connections that have been made between each individual subject. In light of these discussions, this project will explore the possible merits of correlating rock art research and practice theory more directly to contribute to the archaeological study of identity.

Chapter 3: Methodology

My Approach. In her chapter in a book on the archaeology of identity, Díaz-Andreu defined identity as a deeply internalized sense of oneself and others in relation to the social group they belong to (Díaz-Andreu and Lucy 2005:2). In addition, Díaz-Andreu emphasized that identities are articulated within a social structure by one group consciously defining themselves in separation to other social groups (Díaz-Andreu and Lucy 2005:1-3). Established identities maintain their autonomy through actions, practices, and beliefs that reiterate their social distinction from other identity groups (Díaz-Andreu and Lucy 2005:3).

Christopher Chippindale and Paul Taҫon, two well-known archaeologists in the field of rock art research, described rock art as “direct material expressions of human concepts, of human thought” (Chippindale and Taҫon 1998:2). Other researchers have described rock art as operating in “instrumental ways to shape the organizations of behavior and thought in the past” (McCall

2006:8) and as being “arguably the best positioned” to archaeologically study how people in past societies “thought and lived” (Ouzman 1998:30). As such, it follows that rock art could also be used to examine the ontologies of past societies. In general, “ontology” refers to the nature of reality or existence (Alberti 2016:164). In their study of the past, archaeologists examine ontology in relation to how past societies understood the physical, social, and metaphysical world. Incorporated into that is how people in these past cultures understood themselves and their identities within the context of their larger reality (Alberti 2016)

As such, I predict that if the analysis of rock art could be used to examine how people in the past ontologically conceived of their own identities, then it follows that rock art would demonstrate some selectivity in the application of design categories that would indicate meaningful patterning, such as a notable overemphasis of some designs and an under-

16 representation, or absence, of other designs. In addition, I would suggest that, although there should be selective patterning of rock art designs, the nature of this patterning should vary from one community to another. This is because each community, even if they shared similar worldviews, would have had different interpretations of reality and would have possessed diverging sets of cultural norms. If the patterning rock art design categories reiterated a community’s ontologies, then these dissimilarities should have been embodied in their rock art.

Samples. In order to study how the analysis of rock art design categories could provide insights into identity, I chose to focus on the anthropomorphic glyphs found at two different rock art sites. The samples of rock art used in this project were chosen based on two main criteria: they had to be of the same culture and they had to have pre-existing inventories. I limited my samples to rock art sites of the same culture as a means of reducing the amount of variability that would influence my analysis. The second stipulation, pre-existing inventories conducted by rock art researchers, was to ensure that my analysis would be based on properly structured data gathered by scholars experienced in inventorying rock art. As such, I chose two Hohokam rock art sites located in Arizona: a site near Phoenix called South Mountain, and a site near Tucson called Tumamoc Hill. I was given access to the inventory of the South Mountain rock art through the archaeologist who conducted the original research project. I was able to gain access to the inventory of the rock art at Tumamoc Hill through the Arizona State Museum in Tucson, where the inventory was stored.

In the introduction of this thesis, I discussed the terminology that rock art researchers have applied in their analyses. In this project, the majority of the terms, such as “panel,”

“feature,” and “style,” will refer to the same aspects of rock art that they have been used to indicate in other research projects (e.g., Munson 2002; Schaafsma 1980; Wright 2011). As the

17 meanings of the terms “element” and “motif” have varied among researchers, the term element will be used in this project in reference to simple, spatially continuous rock art designs, such as lines, circles, and individual representations, and the term of motifs to clusters of elements that are spatially close to one another on the same panel.

Figure 1: Rock Art panel from South Mountain featuring anthropomorphs, quadrupeds, and circles (T.12.102.48)

While my analysis mainly focused on anthropomorphic glyphs, my samples included all of the design categories that occurred at each site and, thus, many different types of images are featured in the batch. The glyphs included in the samples were manually organized into categories based on rock art indices in the published works of Aaron Wright, Henry David

Wallace, and Gayle Hartmann and Peter Boyle (Hartmann and Boyle 2013:104-107; Wallace

1986:65; Wright 2011:557-563). Following these guidelines, a sample of 450 glyphs was taken from each site using the photograph inventory taken from archaeological research on South

Mountain and Tumamoc Hill.

Categorization. The glyphs in the samples from South Mountain and Tumamoc Hill were

organized into two primary categories: “representational,” which includes images that are

demonstrably represent aspects of the physical world such as people and reptiles, and

“geometric,” which includes abstract shapes such as rectangles and circles. These images were

then further organized into numerous subcategories. These subcategories, detailed in Chapter 5,

were based on the guidelines and terminology of the rock art indices from Wright (2011) and

Wallace (1986). The primary difference between the subcategories in the published indices and

my own groupings is that the geometric images were divided into groups of “single” and

“multiple” based on the number of basic shapes incorporated into the glyph. By contrast, the

indices provided by the researchers implemented a more nuanced division of the images. This

divergence in grouping was done to reduce the subjectivity in the categorization process and to

augment the replicability of this project.

Figure 2: Single circlular glyph from South Figure 3: Multiple circlular glyphs from South Mountain (T.12.102.48) Mountain (T.12.240.16)

Analysis Methods. I explored possible ways in which concepts about identity could have

been embodied in rock art by examining how frequently anthropomorphs re-occurred at each

19 site, how often the anthropomorphs co-occurred with other designs on the same panels at the sites, and the physical characteristics of the images. As will be shown in Chapter 5, the re- occurrence of anthropomorphic glyphs was calculated during the categorization process. Next, all of the rock art panels in the South Mountain and Tumamoc samples that exhibited two or more glyphs were re-examined and manually inventoried for patterns of design co-occurrence.

During this process, the number of panels on which all design categories co-occurred with one another were tallied and the patterns of co-occurrence that included anthropomorphs was extracted from the total data set.

Sample Controls. Although I did not exclude glyphs based on design style in this study, certain glyphs were excluded based on temporality. The areas in which the inventories were taken from included both Archaic rock art and Hohokam rock art. My analysis, however, focused solely on Hohokam rock art. As such, images that were identified as Archaic in the original research projects or exhibited multiple characteristics which indicated that they could be Archaic were excluded from the batch. The characteristics of Archaic rock art were identified using the guidelines established by Polly Schaafsma (Schaafsma 1980) and reiterated by Gayle Hartmann and Peter Boyle in their study of Tumamoc Hill (Hartmann and Boyle 2013).

In her book, “Indian Rock Art of the Southwest,” Polly Schaafsma detailed a number of characteristics which can be used to differentiate Archaic rock art from the images produced by later southwestern cultures. Schaafsma described the style of Archaic rock art found the regions of Arizona once occupied by the Hohokam as a form of “Abstract Style” (Schaafsma 1980:36).

According to her, the most salient indicator of Archaic glyphs is that they are more heavily patinated than Hohokam glyphs, meaning that they are often much darker shades of yellow or brown due to the prolonged compiling of desert varnish on the images after they were made

(Schaafsma 1980:42). Schaafsma also stated that the Archaic glyphs differ from Hohokam images in that the lines of the earlier glyphs are much thicker and wider than the later Hohokam rock art (Schaafsma 1980:36-38). In addition, Abstract Style differs from Hohokam petroglyphs in that these earlier images primarily feature large geometric designs with no representations of quadrupeds, and very few anthropomorphs (Schaafsma 1980:41). When Archaic anthropomorphs do occur, they are large motifs consisting of abstract elements arranged in the shape of a human. By contrast, many of the Hohokam anthropomorphs are smaller and exhibit continuous, stick figure-like body structures (Schaafsma 1980:36-38).

My other primary source of information on how to distinguish Archaic rock art was the report on the Tumamoc Hill by Gayle Hartmann and Peter Boyle (2013). In their report of the images found in this area, they dedicated an entire section to examining different characteristics that could be used to distinguish Archaic petroglyphs from Hohokam petroglyphs (Hartmann and

Boyle 2013:58-65). Primarily, Hartmann and Boyle reiterated Schaafsma’s assertion that broad lines, heavy patination, and enlarged proportioning were the foremost characteristics that could be used to distinguish Archaic images from the more recent Hohokam designs (Gayle and Boyle

2013:61-63). As such, any glyphs that exhibited these three aspects in the South Mountain and

Tumamoc inventories were excluded from the samples.

Figure 4: Archaic glyph at Tumamoc Hill, excluded from the sample.

Chapter 4: The Hohokam and their Rock Art

The Hohokam. The Hohokam were a collective group of communities that occupied a substantial portion of what is now the modern state of Arizona from 450 CE to 1450 CE. Mainly focused in the central and southern areas of this state, the Hohokam collectively formed one of the largest and most densely populated societies in the southwestern region of pre-European

North America (e.g., Clark and Abbott 2017; Doyel 1991). Among the other cultures of the prehistoric Southwest, the Hohokam are most recognized for their expertise at building expansive, complex canal systems capable of maintaining large communities. Due to the lack of rainfall in the region occupied by the Hohokam, the communities relied on these large irrigation systems as the primary source of water for their crops (Craig and Woodson 2017). Within the field of archaeology, the Hohokam are recognized for their use of platform mounds, ball courts, red-on-buff ceramics, and their ability to build some of the most elaborate irrigation systems in

North America before European contact (e.g., Craig and Woodson 2017; Howard 1993;

Schlanger and Craig 2012). Although the Hohokam culture did not endure into modernity, there are a number of contemporary southwestern tribes such as the O’odham and the Hopi that are likely descendants of the Hohokam.

The most substantial Hohokam settlements were primarily located in the Phoenix basin with individual communities concentrated near the Salt and Gila Rivers (e.g., Craig and

Woodson 2017; Wallace and Doelle 2001). However, archaeologists have located remnants of

Hohokam communities that, although smaller than some of the settlements in the Phoenix area, were also significantly populated in the Tucson and Tonto basins (e.g., Craig and Woodson

2017; Wallace and Doelle 2001). The chronology of the Hohokam is generally divided into two periods: the Preclassic Period, which spanned from 450 CE-1100 CE (e.g., Craig and Woodson

2017; Doyel 1991), and the Classic Period, which spanned from 1200 CE-1450 CE (e.g., Clark and Abbott 2017; Doyel 1991). Hohokam settlements were primarily arranged into what is known as “courtyard groups,” which consisted of individual household groups that were clustered together with a courtyard situated in the middle of the structures (e.g., Clark and Vint

2000; Craig and Woodson 2017). Many archaeologists have concluded that Preclassic Hohokam society was likely a type of “irrigation society” in which communities were formed on the basis of a shared need to build and maintain canal systems, which then led groups of people to consistently interact and co-operate with one another in the interest of mutual benefit (Craig and

Woodson 2017). The result of this interaction was the merging of individual groups into communities with a more defined social structure (e.g., Craig and Woodson 2017; Howard

1993). In addition to the development and expansion of the Hohokam culture, the Preclassic era is the period in the Hohokam chronology when these communities utilized ball courts (e.g.,

Craig and Woodson 2017; Doyel 1991; Wallace and Doelle 2001).

Similar to the Hohokam in the Preclassic period, Classic period settlements featured plazas in the center of the community that were surrounded by residential structures (e.g., Clark and Vint 2000; Clark and Abbott 2017). However, the courtyard groups of the Preclassic era developed into large, multi-room compounds that were populated by different households.

During this period, the Hohokam society also became more hierarchical with archaeological evidence of increasingly unequal distributions of social power (e.g., Bayman 2001; Clark and

Abbott 2017). In addition, a number of the Hohokam communities began to constructed large raised platforms, known as “platform mounds” (Clark and Abbott 2017). As such, many southwestern archaeologists have concluded that the emergence of these platform mounds indicates a shift in religious ideologies (Bayman 2001; Clark and Abbott 2017).

Although the Hohokam were able to maintain their presence in southern and central

Arizona for almost a millennium, there is evidence of social conflict and environmental variability contributing to a significant population decline among the Hohokam communities around 1300 CE (e.g., Clark and Abbott 2017; Clark et al. 2012; Hill et al. 2004). Coupled with the migration of Kayenta Ancestral Puebloans into the region and the increasing diversification of regional populations, the Hohokam struggled to maintain their settlements. By 1450 CE, the majority of the villages were depopulated and the archaeological culture known as Hohokam had all but dissolved, with remnants of it surviving in descendant societies such as the Tohono

O’odham, the Akimel O’odham, and the Hopi (e.g., Clark and Abbott 2017; Doyel 1991).

Hohokam Rock Art. Hohokam rock art is primarily dominated by petroglyphs and is generally referred to as the “Gila Style” (Schaafsma 1980). Although there is a notable amount of regional variation in the Hohokam Gila Style, this type of rock art demonstrates a number of general characteristics that can be used to identify it. One aspect of Gila Style is that geometric glyphs are significantly present in the rock art that occurs at sites, and many sites feature a larger portion of curvilinear and circular geometric glyphs than what occurs at other types of rock art sites (Schaafsma 1980:88). Spirals are also much more prevalent in the Gila Style of rock art produced by the Hohokam than in rock art produced by other cultures (Schaafsma 1980:90). In addition, Gila Style rock art sites feature a variety of representational glyphs, particularly life- forms such as anthropomorphs, quadrupeds, and reptiles.

Although there are a number of characteristics that are shared by Gila Style rock art sites, there is also significant variation between the Hohokam rock art sites that occur in the Phoenix basin, and those that occur in the Tucson basin. Rock art sites in the Phoenix basin have been known to feature a large range of representational glyphs, such as birds and anthropomorphs

24 with particularly detailed bodies (Schaafsma 1980:86-88). Although geometric glyphs also occur at the rock art sites in the Tucson basin, sites within this region consist predominately of geometric glyphs and exhibit a fewer representational images than at the sites in the Phoenix basin (Schaafsma 1980:89).

Gila Style rock art sites tend to be located in open area settings, rather than being in more restricted access locations such as caves, and the majority of these rock art sites are commonly situated close to habitation settlements and agricultural fields (Schaafsma 1980:97). Although archaeologists are still struggling with methods of dating Hohokam rock art as it primarily consists of petroglyphs, it is generally though that the Hohokam engaged in the production of rock art during both the Preclassic and Classic periods (Hartmann and Boyle 2013; Schaafsma

1980).

Although rock art can be found at many Hohokam sites, there have only been a few archaeological research projects conducted on this specific type of material culture (e.g.,

Hartmann and Boyle 2013; Hernebrode and Boyle 2016; Wright 2011). While these projects have examined Hohokam rock art in relation to topics such as chronology and religious ideology, there has not yet been a project that explores possible patterns in the occurrence and co- occurrence of different images at Hohokam rock art sites. In addition, although Hohokam communities are believed to have been primarily connected through a shared set of ideologies and ontologies (e.g., Craig and Woodson 2017; Doyel 1991; Wallace and Doelle 2001), there has not yet been a project that utilizes the archaeological analysis of Hohokam rock art to explore how ontology and identity could have been embedded in the production of these images. As such, my project sought to fill some of the void in the research on Hohokam rock art by

25 examining the occurrence and co-occurrence of glyph designs at two rock art sites, South

Mountain and Tumamoc Hill, in relation to ontology and identity.

South Mountain Archaeological Site. The South Mountains are a geological land form situated in the southern part of the city of Phoenix. In relation to archaeology, the area within the

South Mountains features a large range of material culture and archaeological sites that have been associated with both Archaic and Hohokam occupations. The presence of San Pedro projectile points indicates that habitation of the South Mountains may have begun as far back as

1200 BCE (Wright 2011:218).

The primary evidence of habitation of this area by the Hohokam comes from the archaeological sites Las Canopas and Los Hornos, which are located near the base of the mountains and have been dated to the Preclassic Period of the Hohokam (Wright 2011:162).

Within the mountain range where the rock art is located, there are a number of agricultural features, such as terraces and agave roasting pits, that have been associated with two Preclassic

Hohokam sites, Los Hornos and Los Capas, that are located close to this region (Wright

2011:162-164). In addition, ritualistic features such as shrines possibly dating to the Preclassic period have been found in these areas. However, far less evidence of Classic period habitation has been found in this region although some evidence of Hohokam presence in this era has been noted (Wright 2011:164). As such, it is believed that the South Mountains were mainly utilized for agricultural and ritualistic purposes during the Preclassic period, but were utilized primarily as a site of ritualistic practice and rock art production during the Classic period (Wright

2011:223).

Currently, around 3,300 prehistoric petroglyphs have been documented at South

Mountain, though it is believed that there is likely over 7,000 glyphs scattered throughout the

26 region (Wright 2011:333) The petroglyphs at South Mountain have been primarily identified as

Hohokam Gila Style images (Wright 2011:89-90). While it is possible that there may be some

Archaic petroglyphs in the South Mountains as well, there have not yet been any glyphs definitively identified as Western Archaic Style images (Wright 2011:156). It has been proposed that the majority of the petroglyphs were made during the Preclassic era, although some of the images have been correlated to Classic period imagery as well (Wright 2011:317-319). The petroglyphs found at South Mountain feature a wide range of geometric and representational imagery including anthropomorphs, quadrupeds, concentric circles, rectilinear images, and spirals.

The South Mountain rock art has been documented as far back as the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century by scholars, such as Frank Hamilton Cushing, and were incorporated into some of the earliest inventories of southwestern rock art produced by J. Walter

Fewkes and Julian Steward (Bostwick 2002). Systematic study of the rock art at the South

Mountains began during the 1960s, when avocational archaeologist Edward Snyder initiated a project to photograph and classify over 2,000 images in the area (Bostwick 2002). However, much of the information on the South Mountain rock art was contributed by Todd Bostwick, who worked as Phoenix’s city archaeologist for a number of years. During the late twentieth century,

Bostwick published a number of articles regarding the rock art found in the South Mountains and presented proposals on how it should be properly cared for (e.g., Bostwick 1998, 1999).

Bostwick’s research eventually culminated into the book, Landscape of the Spirits, in which

Bostwick detailed the types of rock art found in the South Mountains as well as current theories about rock art at the time of the book’s publication (Bostwick 2002).

The most current research on the South Mountain rock art was conducted from 2006 to

2009 through the South Mountains Rock Art Project, also known as SMRAP (Wright 2011). The project was initiated by the city of Phoenix and Arizona State University with the support of the

Arizona State Museum, Arizona Archaeological Society, and Arizona’s State Historic

Preservation Office (Wright 2011:132). The purpose of the South Mountain Rock Art Project was to produce a comprehensive “archaeological landscape,” refine methods of rock art recording current at the time, and develop an effective strategy for preserving the rock art. In addition to this, archaeologist Aaron Wright simultaneously studied the glyphs while they were being inventoried to explore how the study of Hohokam rock art could be applied to provide a greater understanding of the culture, and whether or not rock art could be analyzed as “a product of social practice” (Wright 2011:132). The sample of the South Mountain rock art analyzed in this project was drawn from the SMRAP’s inventory.

Tumamoc Hill Archaeological Site. Tumamoc Hill is an archaeological site that features both the remains of long-term habitation areas as well as hundreds of Gila Style petroglyphs that are situated near the remnants of the settlements. Tumamoc Hill has been described as a pre-

Hohokam settlement whose occupation spanned into the early stages of the Hohokam period

(Fish et al. 2013). Archaeological excavations at the site have found evidence of people establishing semi-sedentary habitational structures in this area as early as the Late Archaic period. Additional evidence of temporary habitation at Tumamoc Hill has been dated to the Early

Agricultural period (Fish et al. 2013:9).

Fully sedentary settlements, however, were not established in this area until the Cienega

Phase, around 500 BCE. During this time period, the occupants of Tumamoc Hill built a number of pit structures that were then surrounded by defensive walls and terraces (Fish et al. 2013:9-

11). After the Cienega settlement on Tumamoc Hill declined, a second phase of occupation began during the Tortolita phase and continued into the Early Ceramic period. During this phase, the occupants constructed their own pit structures and organized them into household groupings that utilized basal walls to connect associated residences. In addition, the Tortolita phase occupants also constructed retaining walls, terraces, storage structures, and ramadas (Fish et al.

2013:11-17). After the depopulation of the Tortolita settlement, habitation of the area by the

Hohokam dwindled. However, the presence of Gila Style Hohokam rock art indicates that later

Hohokam communities likely revisited the site to engage in the production of rock art in that area

(Hartmann and Boyle 2013:90).

The first systematic documentation of Tumamoc Hill was conducted in 1979 by the

Arizona Archaeological and Historical Society, who initiated a survey and mapping project which documented a number of archaeological features of the site (Fish et al. 2013:5-6).

Archaeological investigation of the settlements at Tumamoc Hill began in 1985, when Suzanne and Paul Fish directed an archaeological field school at the site (Fish et al. 2013:6). Since then, much of the research on Tumamoc Hill has been primarily conducted under the direction of the

Fishes, who returned to the site with another field school in 1998, and again with teams of undergraduate students in 2005 and 2007 (Fish et al. 2013:7–8).

In total, 734 prehistoric petroglyphs have been found at Tumamoc Hill. Similar to many other Hohokam rock art sites, the majority of the rock art here consists of Gila Style petroglyphs.

In contrast to the South Mountain rock art, a number of earlier Western Archaic petroglyphs have also been noted (Hartmann and Boyle 2013). However, the early petroglyphs constitute only a small portion of the total number of images. The rock art is primarily situated on the summit and norther slope of the hill, and the images have been pecked into individual

29 granodiorite boulders scattered throughout these areas at the site (Hartmann and Boyle 2013:27).

Inventorying projects conducted at Tumamoc Hill found a large array of geometric designs, including spirals and concentric circles, as well as a number of representational images such as anthropomorphs and quadrupeds (Hartmann and Boyle 2013).

Currently, research on the rock art at Tumamoc Hill primarily consists of two separate inventories of the images. The first inventory of the rock art at Tumamoc Hill was conducted by

Alan Ferg between 1974 and 1975, and was in connection with the Tumamoc survey and mapping project being coordinated at the same time (Hartmann and Boyle 2013:25). During his research, Ferg recorded 460 images, noted the two primary areas where the glyphs were spatially concentrated, and identified a number of Archaic glyphs (Hartmann and Boyle 2013:27). It must be noted that Ferg’s inventory was one of the first rock art studies to be conducted and published southern Arizona (Hartmann and Boyle 2013:26)

The second inventory of the rock art found at this site was conducted by Gayle Hartmann and Peter Boyle with the support of the Arizona Archaeological and Historical Society from

2006 to 2009 (Hartmann and Boyle 2013:27). The main purpose of this study was to produce a comprehensive inventory of the rock art at Tumamoc that confirmed the information produced by Ferg in 1979 and, if needed, to add to the inventory if any new glyphs were found (Hartmann and Boyle 2013:28). During their research, Hartmann and Boyle increased the number of registered glyphs at this location from 460 to 734 images (Hartmann and Boyle 2013). In addition, Hartmann and Boyle emphasized a greater distinction between the Gila Style glyphs at the site and the Western Archaic rock art, as well as providing a comprehensive proposition for properly maintaining and preserving the petroglyphs at Tumamoc Hill in their full report

(Hartmann and Boyle 2013:87-89).

Chapter 5: Data Analysis

In the first stage of analyzing the rock art at both sites, I utilized the photographs of the rock art in each inventory to extract a sample of 450 glyphs for analysis. I did this by manually reviewing the photographs of the rock art in ascending numerical order. Then, I utilized the design categories for southwestern rock art established by scholars such as Henry Wallace,

Aaron Wright, and Gayle Hartmann and Peter Boyle to identify all of the first 450 images that I encountered in the photographs (Hartmann and Boyle 2013:104-107; Wallace 1986:65; Wright

2011:557-563). While most of the terms for different images used in the reports were applied in this project, a few of them were changed during the process of image sorting, such as “H” in the index of Aaron Wright which was changed to “terminated linear” in this project.

After identifying the glyphs from both sites that would be used for analysis, all images in the samples were sorted into two defined categories: geometric and representational. The geometric category included glyphs that exhibited ambiguous or basic shapes such as lines, circles, and spirals. The representational category included images that are representative of a subject or concept, such as anthropomorphs, quadrupeds, and reptiles. Petroglyphs that were too ambiguous in the photograph, either from the angle of the photograph or the weathering of the glyph, and could not be matched to the categories listed in the rock art indices were labelled as ambiguous.

After the glyphs were organized into the general categories, I divided the representational and geometric glyphs from both samples into subcategories based on prominent characteristics that would be easier to identify and utilize for other studies. The representational glyphs were separated into subcategories that illustrated the most prominent subjects being represented, such

31 as anthropomorphs and reptiles. Then, I tallied the number of times each type of glyph occurred in the rock art at the Tumamoc Hill and South Mountain sites.

In categorizing the geometric glyphs from both rock art samples, I found a higher diversity in the types of images that occurred and a greater level of variability in their complexity. As such, the subcategories were primarily divided based on two characteristics: the basic types of geometric shapes that are incorporated into many of the images, such as lines and curves, and the number of basic shapes utilized in the image. Glyphs that were categorized as

“single circular,” for example, feature one circle in the image, and the glyphs categorized as

“multiple circular” were those that featured two or more circles in the image. The exception to this methodology is the “singular image” subcategory. This subcategory consists of geometric images that only occurred once in the samples taken from South Mountain and Tumamoc Hill.

Although the singular images could have been classified under some of the other subcategories, I felt that the lack of the image’s repeated occurrence in the batch made it necessary to separate them.

After examining the number of times these different types of images occurred at the site,

I analyzed how often these images co-occurred with one another on the same panel. However, I did not analyze the numerical frequency of the glyphs as I did with my analysis of general occurrence. Rather, I calculated the number of features on which one type of glyph appeared with another. I began by separating the features in both samples based on those that possessed one glyph, and those that exhibited two or more glyphs. I then manually reviewed all of the photographs of the glyphs in my sample and included all types of glyphs in my initial tally of co- occurrence. The same subcategories used to organize my analysis of numerical occurrence for

both sites was utilized to facilitate my analysis of how many panels contained co-occurring

images at both sites.

In my analysis of total glyph co-occurrence at South Mountain and Tumamoc Hill, I

found a large variety of image designs that appeared together on a feature. As such, I decided to

focus on the co-occurrence of one type of glyph with all others to explore any possible patterns

in the co-occurrence that could indicate a selective use of how the image was associated with

other images. Because the primary focus of this project was to correlate the occurrence of rock

art images to identity, my analysis of co-occurrence was centered on anthropomorphs and how

often anthropomorphic images co-occurred with all other subcategories, including other

anthropomorphs, on the same feature.

South Mountain Batch. The distribution of the South Mountain glyphs into the general

“geometric” and “representational” categories is listed on Table 1. Most notably, my analysis of

the South Mountain sample demonstrated a significant over-representation of geometric glyphs

in comparison to representational images. As shown on the table, the geometric glyphs consisted

of about 67 percent of the batch, while the representational images only constituted roughly 30

percent.

Table 1 South Mountain General Category Frequencies of Occurrence General Categories Category Number of Numerical Category Code Subcategories Occurrence Percentage Representational A 8 137 30.4 Geometric B 11 302 67.1 Ambiguous C 0 11 2.4 Total 19 450 100

Table 2 shows the subtypes of representational glyphs that occurred at South Mountain as

well as their frequency of occurrence. The most prominent pattern that emerged from analyzing

the occurrence of the representational glyphs at South Mountain is the over-representation of

certain categories and the limited presence of other types of images. The majority of the

representational glyphs in the sample are constituted by three subcategories: anthropomorphs,

quadrupeds, and reptiles. Of those three, anthropomorphic images are particularly dominant in

the representational batch and constitute a large portion of the sample. Correspondingly, the

other five representational subcategories are significantly underrepresented and one

representational subcategory, the singular animal, only occurs once.

Table 2 South Mountain Representational Subcategory Occurrence Frequencies

Subcategory Subcategory Typologies Incorporated Numerical Subcategory Code Occurrence Percentage Anthropomorphs A.1 Genderless, Male-gendered, 70 51.1 Pregnant Female-gendered Quadrupeds A.2 Undefined, Horned 33 24.1 Quadruped, Long-tailed, Horns Reptiles A.3 Snakes, Lizards 15 10.9 Insect A.4 Butterfly, Invertebrate 4 2.9 Singular Animal A.5 Bird (Pregnant) 1 0.8 Environmental A.6 Sun, Plant 4 2.9 Tools A.7 Bow & Arrow, Arrow 2 1.5 Pipettes A.8 Complete/Incomplete 8 5.8 Total 137 100

The distribution of the geometric images in the South Mountain sample, along with the

different types of images incorporated into the subcategories, is illustrated in Table 3. Similar to

my analysis of how often representational glyphs occur in the South Mountain sample, the most

prominent pattern I observed in the occurrence of the geometric images was the over-

representation of three particular subcategories and the corresponding limited presence of the

other categories. As demonstrated in Table 3, the geometric glyphs are primarily constituted by

three types: linear, circular, and curvilinear while the other categories, such as spirals and

rectilinear images, occur much less within the geometric batch.

Table 3 South Mountain Geometric Subcategory Occurrence Frequencies

Subcategory Subcatego Typologies Incorporated Numerical Subcategory ry Code Occurrence Percentage Single Linear B.1 Simple Linear, Crossed Lines, 102 33.8 Terminated Linear (H), Chevrons, Distorted Linear (Wavy Line/Zigzag) Single B.2 Simple Curvilinear, Curved Chevron, 17 5.6 Curvilinear Horseshoe, Semi-circle Single Circular B.3 Unfilled Circles, Filled Circles, 78 25.8 Aggregate Circle (Single Tailed Circle, Double Tailed Full Circle, Double Tailed Half Circle) Single B.4 Linear glyphs with angles, simple 10 3.3 Rectilinear squares, simple rectangles, Aggregate Rectilinear (Recticulate) Single Spiral B.5 Simple Spiral, Aggregate Spiral (Tailed 12 4.0 Spiral) Multiple B.6 Meandering Rectilinear, Serrated 8 2.6 Rectilinear Rectilinear, Segmented Rectilinear, Rectilinear Maze Multiple B.7 Branched Linear, Forked Linear, 13 4.3 Linear Bristled Line, Double-sided Bristled Line Multiple B.8 Meandering Curvilinear Aggregate 14 4.6 Curvilinear Curvilinear (Gridiron with Branching Curvilinear) Multiple B.9 Circle Cluster, Paired Circles Concentric 39 12.9 Circular Circles, Aggregate Circle Cluster (Tailed Circle Cluster) Multiple Spiral B.10 Connected Double Spirals 3 1.0 Singular B.11 Quadruple Tailed Diamond, Triangle, 6 2.0 Images Asterisk, Hatching, Birdtrack, Double- ended arrow Total 302 100

After analyzing the frequency of total glyph occurrence at the site, I then examined how

often these different types of geometric and representational glyphs co-occurred with

anthropomorphic images at South Mountain. As shown in Table 4, the distribution of

anthropomorph co-occurrence with representational glyphs appears to coincide with the general

occurrence of representational glyphs in the South Mountain batch. In particular, the three most

commonly occurring types of representational images at this site: anthropomorphs, quadrupeds,

and reptiles, are also the most common representational images that co-occur with

anthropomorphic glyphs.

Table 4 South Mountain General Category Frequencies of Co-occurrence A.1 A.2 A.3 A.4 A.5 A.6 A.7 A.8 B.1 B.2 B.3 B.4 B.5 B.6 B.7 B.8 B.9 B.10 B.11 A.1 14 A.2 7 7 A.3 4 1 2 A.4 3 1 1 0 A.5 1 0 0 0 0 A.6 1 1 0 0 0 0 A.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A.8 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 B.1 17 9 3 1 1 1 0 1 23 B.2 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 7 2 B.3 11 5 1 3 0 0 0 1 12 4 13 B.4 3 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 3 1 B.5 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 1 2 B.6 4 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 1 4 2 3 0 B.7 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 3 1 0 0 2 B.8 4 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 4 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 B.9 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 4 6 3 2 2 2 2 9 B.10 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 B.11 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 3 2 0 0

Correspondingly, as reflected in Table 5, almost all of the representational images that

occur the least in the South Mountain batch also have lower frequencies of co-occurrence with

anthropomorphic glyphs. However, pipette glyphs, which are abstract tiered images believed to

represent the Hohokam’s ontological perception of the cosmos (Wright and Russell 2011),

appear to be an exception to this pattern. This type of representational image occurs eight times

in the South Mountain batch but did not co-occur with the anthropomorphs at all.

Table 5 South Mountain Representational Subcategory Co-occurrence Frequencies with Anthropomorphs

Subcategory Subcategory Typologies Incorporated Number of Features Code Anthropomorphs A.1 Genderless, Male- 14 gendered, Pregnant Female-gendered Quadrupeds A.2 Undefined, Horned 7 Quadruped, Long-tailed, Horns Reptiles A.3 Snakes, Lizards 4 Insect A.4 Butterfly, Invertebrate 3 Singular Animal A.5 Bird (Pregnant) 1 Environmental A.6 Sun, Plant 1 Tools A.7 Bow & Arrow, Arrow 0 Pipettes A.8 Complete/Incomplete 2

Similar to the co-occurrence of anthropomorphs with the representational glyphs, Table 6

demonstrates that most prominent pattern in the co-occurrence of anthropomorphs with

geometric images at South Mountain is that it appears to coincide with the general frequency

with which these images occur at the site. The types of geometric images that co-occur the

most—linear, circular, and curvilinear—collectively co-occur with anthropomorphs on the most

features. Correspondingly, the geometric image types that occur less frequently in the South

Mountain batch also have a lower frequency of co-occurrence with anthropomorphic images.

Table 6 South Mountain Geometric Subcategory Co-occurrence Frequencies with Anthropomorphs

Subcategory Subcategory Typologies Incorporated Number of Code Features Single Linear B.1 Simple Linear, Crossed Lines, Terminated Linear (H), Chevrons, 17 Distorted Linear (Wavy Line/Zigzag) Single B.2 Simple Curvilinear, Curved Chevron, Horseshoe, Semi-circle 4 Curvilinear Single Circular B.3 Unfilled Circles, Filled Circles, Aggregate Circle (Single Tailed 11 Circle, Double Tailed Full Circle, Double Tailed Half Circle) Single B.4 Linear glyphs with angles, simple squares, simple rectangles, 3 Rectilinear Aggregate Rectilinear (Recticulate) Single Spiral B.5 Simple Spiral, Aggregate Spiral (Tailed Spiral) 4 Multiple B.6 Meandering Rectilinear, Serrated Rectilinear, Segmented 4 Rectilinear Rectilinear, Rectilinear Maze Multiple Linear B.7 Branched Linear, Forked Linear, Bristled Line, Double-sided 3 Bristled Line Multiple B.8 Meandering Curvilinear Aggregate Curvilinear (Gridiron with 4 Curvilinear Branching Curvilinear) Multiple B.9 Circle Cluster, Paired Circles Concentric Circles, Aggregate Circle 6 Circular Cluster (Tailed Circle Cluster) Multiple Spiral B.10 Connected Double Spirals 1 Singular Images B.11 Quadruple Tailed Diamond, Triangle, Asterisk, Hatching, Birdtrack, 3 Double-ended arrow

Tumamoc Hill Batch. The distribution of the representational and geometric glyphs at

Tumamoc Hill is listed in Table 7. As with my findings for the distribution of representational

and geometric images in the South Mountain batch, analysis of the Tumamoc Hill sample

demonstrated a significant over-representation of geometric glyphs at the site. As demonstrated

in Table 7, the geometric glyphs consisted of about 78 percent the batch while the

representational images constituted 19 percent of the sample.

Table 7 Tumamoc Hill General Category Frequencies of Occurrence

General Category Number of Numerical Category Categories Code Subcategories Occurrence Percentage

Representational A 6 86 19.1 Geometric B 11 353 78.4 Ambiguous C 11 2.4 Total 19 450 100

Corresponding with how I analyzed the South Mountain batch, I then divided both the

representational and geometric glyphs from the Tumamoc Hill sample into subcategories based

on prominent characteristics that could be universally identified. However, the “insect” and

“tool” representational glyphs that occurred at South Mountain did not occur at Tumamoc Hill.

To reflect the absence of these image types, the subcategory codes “A.4” and “A.7” were

exclude from my analysis of the representational images at Tumamoc Hill. As demonstrated in

Table 8, the representational images are coded at A.1, A.2, A.3, A.5, A.6, and A.8. The

distribution of representational glyphs in the sample from Tumamoc Hill, as well as the types of

images incorporated into each subcategory are illustrated in Table 8.

Table 8 Tumamoc Hill Representational Subcategory Occurrence Frequencies

Subcategory Subcategory Typologies Numerical Subcategory Code Incorporated Occurrence Percentage Anthropomorphs A.1 Genderless, Male- 63 73.3 gendered Quadrupeds A.2 Undefined, Horned 6 7.0 Quadruped, Long-tailed, Horns Reptiles A.3 Snakes, Lizards 10 11.6 Singular Animal A.5 Turtle 1 1.2 Environmental A.6 Sun, Plant (Corn) 4 4.7 Pipettes A.8 Complete/Incomplete 2 2.3 Total 86 100

Similar to the pattern of representational occurrence in the South Mountain batch, the sample from Tumamoc Hill also demonstrated an over-emphasis of certain representational categories, and the limited presence of other types of images. As illustrated in Table 8, the majority of the representational glyphs in the sample are constituted by anthropomorphs, quadrupeds, and reptiles. In particular, anthropomorphic images are particularly dominant in the representational batch.

The distribution of the geometric images in the Tumamoc Hill sample is shown in Table

9. As with my analysis of the geometric images in the South Mountain batch, there was a higher diversity of geometric images that occurred at Tumamoc Hill. Similar to my other findings regarding patterns of occurrence in both the South Mountain and Tumamoc Hill batches, the most prominent pattern I observed in the occurrence of geometric images in this sample was the over-representation of certain categories, and the under-representation of the remaining categories. In particular, the geometric images at Tumamoc Hill primarily feature the same three subcategories that largely constitute the geometric images at South Mountain: simple linear glyphs, single circular glyphs, and multiple circular glyphs. Taken in consideration with the fact that the geometric images are a more dominant portion of the Tumamoc Hill batch than of the sample from South Mountain, the similarities between the patterns of geometric occurrence in the two batches are interesting.

Table 9 Tumamoc Hill Geometric Subcategory Occurrence Frequencies

Subcategory Subcategory Typologies Incorporated Numerical Subcategory Code Occurrence Percentage Single Linear B.1 Simple Linear, Crossed 115 32.6 Lines, Terminated Linear (H), Chevrons, Distorted Linear (Zigzag) Single B.2 Simple Curvilinear, Curved 35 9.9 Curvilinear Chevron, Horseshoe, Semi- circle Single Circular B.3 Unfilled Circles, Filled 85 24.1 Circles, Aggregate Circle (Single Tailed Circle, Double Tailed Full Circle, Double Tailed Half Circle) Single B.4 Linear glyphs with angles, 7 2.0 Rectilinear simple rectangles, Single Spiral B.5 Simple Spiral 11 3.1 Multiple B.6 Double Rectilinear, Double 6 1.7 Rectilinear Serrated Rectilinear Multiple B.7 Branched Linear, Forked 34 9.6 Linear Linear, Bristled Line, Double-sided Bristled Line Multiple B.8 Meandering Curvilinear 3 0.8 Curvilinear Multiple B.9 Circle Chain, Paired Circles 55 15.6 Circular Multiple Spiral B.10 Spiral Chain 1 0.3 Singular Image B.11 Asterisk 1 0.3 Total 353 100

After analyzing the occurrence of the glyphs in the Tumamoc Hill sample, I analyzed the

frequency in which the image types co-occur with anthropomorphic glyphs. Demonstrated in

Table 10, the sample from Tumamoc Hill also appears to exhibit a large variety of co-occurrence

associations.

Table 10 Tumamoc Hill General Category Frequencies of Co-occurrence

A.1 A.2 A.3 A.5 A.6 A.8 B.1 B.2 B.3 B.4 B.5 B.6 B.7 B.8 B.9 B.10 B.11

A.1 9 A.2 2 1 A.3 4 1 0 A.5 0 0 0 0 A.6 1 0 1 0 0 A.8 1 0 0 0 0 0 B.1 13 2 3 1 2 1 25 B.2 6 1 2 0 1 0 12 8 B.3 6 0 2 1 3 0 18 9 17 B.4 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 1 2 1 B.5 2 1 2 0 0 0 3 2 4 2 1 B.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 3 0 0 1 B.7 5 0 2 0 0 0 11 5 7 2 1 0 4 B.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 B.9 4 0 2 0 2 1 17 7 13 0 1 2 5 0 11 B.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 B.11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

As shown in Table 11, the distribution of how anthropomorphs co-occur with representational glyphs corresponds very closely to the pattern of representational occurrence in the overall batch. In the occurrence and co-occurrence patterns, anthropomorphs dominate the batch and are significantly over-emphasized in comparison to the other representational subcategories. The second most prominent subcategory is reptiles, followed by quadrupeds, environmental images, pipettes, and singular animals in that order.

Table 11 South Mountain Representational Subcategory Co-occurrence Frequencies

Subcategory Subcategory Typologies Incorporated Number Code of Features Anthropomorphs A.1 Genderless, Male-gendered 9

Quadrupeds A.2 Undefined, Horned Quadruped, Long-tailed, Horns 2

Reptiles A.3 Snakes, Lizards 4

Singular Animal A.5 Turtle 0

Environmental A.6 Sun, Plant (Corn) 1

Pipettes A.8 Complete/Incomplete 1

After analyzing how frequently the representational images co-occurred with

anthropomorphs at Tumamoc Hill, I examined how often the different types of geometric images

co-occurred with anthropomorphs as with South Mountain. The number of features on which

geometric co-occurred with anthropomorphic glyphs is detailed in Table 12. As with the

occurrence of geometric images in the Tumamoc Hill sample, linear, circular, and curvilinear

glyphs are the most common type of geometric images that co-occur with anthropomorphic

images. In addition, unlike the representational batch, there are a number of geometric

subcategories that occurred at Tumamoc Hill, but did not co-occur with anthropomorphic glyphs.

Table 12 Tumamoc Hill Geometric Subcategory Co-occurrence Frequencies with Anthropomorphs

Subcategory Subcategory Typologies Incorporated Number of Code Features Single Linear B.1 Simple Linear, Crossed Lines, Terminated Linear, Chevrons, 13 Distorted Linear (Zigzag) Single B.2 Simple Curvilinear, Curved Chevron, Horseshoe, Semi-circle 6 Curvilinear Single Circular B.3 Unfilled Circles, Filled Circles, Aggregate Circle (Single Tailed 6 Circle, Double Tailed Full Circle, Double Tailed Half Circle) Single B.4 Linear glyphs with angles, simple rectangles, 1 Rectilinear Single Spiral B.5 Simple Spiral 2

Multiple B.6 Double Rectilinear, Double Serrated Rectilinear 0 Rectilinear Multiple B.7 Branched Linear, Forked Linear, Bristled Line, Double-sided 5 Linear Bristled Line Multiple B.8 Meandering Curvilinear 0 Curvilinear Multiple B.9 Circle Chain, Paired Circles 4 Circular Multiple Spiral B.10 Spiral Chain 0 Singular Image B.11 Asterisk 0

Comparison: Although the Hohokam sites of Tumamoc Hill and South Mountain are

located over 100 miles apart, my findings of how the occurrence and co-occurrence of the glyphs

at each site warranted a comparative examination. As demonstrated in Figure 5, one of the most

prominent similarities in the distribution of geometric and representational glyphs in the two

samples is that geometric glyphs constituted more than half of both batches. Notably, geometric

glyphs were even more prevalent at Tumamoc Hill than they were at South Mountain. A chi-

square analysis of the frequencies of each of these general categories at the two sites confirms

that the occurrences are not independent of each other (chi-square=15.6347, p-value=.000077,

the result is significant at p < .05). There are fewer representational images than expected

overall, and more geometric glyphs than expected in the Tumamoc Hill batch.

Figure 5 Distribution of General Categories 100%

90%

80%

70% 302 60% 353

50%

40%

Percentage of Glyphs of Percentage 30%

20% 137 10% 86

0% South Mountain Tumamoc

Representational Geometric

Due to the dominance of certain types of images in both samples, I then look at the frequencies of subcategories. I condensed the many representational and geometric subcategories into larger categories that emphasize the most prominent types of images at both sites. The representational images have been condensed into anthropomorphs, animals, and representational other. The “animal” category included quadrupeds, reptiles, insects, and singular animals, while the “representational other” category included all other representational images that were neither anthropomorphs nor any type of animal. The geometric subcategories were condensed into linear, circular, curvilinear, and geometric other. The “linear,” “circular,” and

“curvilinear” included both single-type and multiple-type glyphs that fell under these categories.

Geometric images that were not linear, circular, or curvilinear were categorized as “geometric other.”

As demonstrated in Figure 6, the distribution of representational glyphs at both sites appears to be very similar. Between the sites, anthropomorphs constitute the most prevalent type of representational images while animals are the second most prevalent and the ‘other’ images make up the rest of each sample. Although the order of representational frequency at each site is the same, the proportions of each representational category in the samples differ. At South

Mountain, anthropomorphs constitute about 51 percent of the batch, while at Tumamoc Hill anthropomorphs make up a much larger portion of the sample at roughly 73 percent.

Correspondingly, animals and other representational images occur in greater frequencies at South

Mountain than they do at Tumamoc Hill.

Figure 6 Percentages of Petroglyph Subcategories at South Mountain and Tumamoc Hill

100% 8.7 5.8 90% 8.4 6.9 80%

70% 26 31.1

60%

50% 25.6 40% 33.1 30% 3.1 11.8 20% 1.3 3.8 Percentage of Glyph Category Occurrence Category Glyph of Percentage 10% 15.6 14 0% South Mountain Tumamoc Hill

Anthropomorphs Animals Representational Other Linear Circular Curvilinear Geometric Other

Although both South Mountain and Tumamoc Hill had the same types of geometric glyphs that constituted much of their samples, the distribution of the geometric images at both sites exhibits some dissimilarities.

When measured statistically, the simultaneous differences and similarities become even more apparent. Utilizing a chi-square statistic, I compared the numerical frequency of the geometric and representational subcategories of images at South Mountain and Tumamoc Hill to see if the relationships were independent or not (Table 13). Strictly speaking, we cannot reject the null hypothesis that the variables are independent for the geometric categories but we can reject the null hypothesis of independence for the representational images. Thus, while linear glyphs are the most prevalent in the Tumamoc Hill sample and circular glyphs are the most prevalent in the South Mountain batch, these results are not significant. However, within the representational category, there are significant differences. Animals are much less prevalent than expected at Tumamoc Hill compared to South Mountain.

Table 13 Statistical Comparison of Glyph Frequencies at South Mountain and Tumamoc Hill

South Mountain Tumamoc Hill Total Geometric Freq. Expected Chi-Square Freq. Expected Chi-Square Sub-Category Freq. Contribution Freq. Contribution Linear 115 117.68 0.06 149 146.32 0.05 264 Circular 117 114.56 0.05 140 142.44 0.04 257 Curvilinear 31 30.76 0.00 38 38.24 0.00 69 Total 263 327 Chi-square statistic=0.2074, p-value=.901511, the result is not significant at p < .05 South Mountain Tumamoc Hill Total Representational Freq. Expected Chi-Square Freq. Expected Chi-Square Sub-Category Freq. Contribution Freq. Contribution Anthropomorphs 70 80.59 1.39 63 52.41 2.14 133 Animals 53 42.41 2.64 17 27.59 4.06 70 Total 123 80 Chi-square statistic=10.2335, p-value=.001379, the result is significant at p < .05

In terms of the co-occurrence patterns of anthropomorphs with other glyphs, the frequencies mainly coincide with how often the image occurs at each site (Figure 7). There are two exceptions to this pattern where one type of glyph at both sites co-occur with

47 anthropomorphs more frequently than other glyphs, but occur less frequently in the sample overall. At South Mountain, the animal glyphs occur less frequently than the anthropomorphic image, but co-occur more frequently with anthropomorphs than other anthropomorphs. At

Tumamoc Hill, circular images occur slightly more frequently than linear glyphs, but linear images co-occur more frequently than circular glyphs. However, the animal glyphs at South

Mountain co-occur with anthropomorphs on one more feature than other anthropomorphic images do. Additionally, the circular images at Tumamoc Hill occur only 0.6% more frequently than linear glyphs do. As such, these discrepancies do not appear to be statistically significant enough to be theoretically relevant.

Figure 7 Co-Occurrence of Anthropomorphic Glyphs with All Image Categories 25 20 20 18 17 15 15 14 15 10 9 10 8 6 6

Number of Feature of Number 5 3 2 2

0 South Mountain Tumamoc Hill

Anthropomorph:Anthropomorph Anthropomorph:Animal Anthropomorph:Representational Other Anthropomorph:Linear Anthropomorph:Circular Anthropomorph:Curvilinear Anthropomorph:Geometric Other

As with the distribution of glyph occurrence at both sites, the frequency in which the types of images co-occur at South Mountain and Tumamoc Hill exhibit both similarities and differences. At both sites, linear glyphs are the most common geometric glyphs to co-occur with anthropomorphs, while circular glyphs are the second most common. Additionally,

48 representational images that are not anthropomorphs or animals are the least common image to co-occur with anthropomorphs overall. However, there are some differences in the samples taken from the two sites with the distribution of what images co-occur the most with anthropomorphs.

At South Mountain, animals are the most frequent representational glyph to co-occur with anthropomorphs, while at Tumamoc Hill the most common representational image that co-occurs with anthropomorphs is other anthropomorphs. In relation to the geometric glyphs, curvilinear glyphs co-occur less frequently than the miscellaneous geometric images at South Mountain. By contrast, the curvilinear glyphs at Tumamoc Hill co-occurred with anthropomorphs more frequently than the miscellaneous geometric glyphs did.

Chapter 6: Discussion and Conclusions

Discussion. Analysis of how frequently the image types occurred at each site revealed that certain types of glyphs are more prevalent than the other image designs at both South

Mountain and Tumamoc Hill. In addition, both sites exhibit a numerical prominence of the same types of glyphs in that anthropomorphs and animals are the most frequent representational glyphs, and linear glyphs, circular images, and curvilinear glyphs are the most prominent geometric designs in both samples. However, my comparison of these numerical frequencies in

Figure 6 demonstrates that, although both sites were employing the same types of images they were being produced at different frequencies. The most prevalent representational images, as anthropomorphs and animals, are more prominent in the South Mountain sample than they are in the sample from Tumamoc Hill. Correspondingly, the most frequently occurring geometric glyphs such as linear and circular images are more prevalent in the Tumamoc Hill batch than they are in the South Mountain sample.

Although there is some variation, the co-occurrence of anthropomorphs with other types of glyphs at both South Mountain and Tumamoc Hill is very similar. At South Mountain, anthropomorphs co-occur with linear glyphs more frequently than any other type of glyph, and second most frequently with circular glyphs. The next most frequently co-occurring image type at South Mountain is animals and anthropomorphs, and after that is anthropomorphs with other anthropomorphs. The numerically prominent glyphs that co-occur the least with anthropomorphs are curvilinear. In Tumamoc Hill sample, linear and circular images are also the two most frequent types of glyphs to co-occur with anthropomorphs. Also similar to South Mountain, curvilinear images are the least frequent image type to co-occur with anthropomorphs. At

Tumamoc Hill, however, anthropomorphs co-occur more frequently with other anthropomorphs.

Earlier on, I postulated that the occurrence and co-occurrence of different image designs at South Mountain and Tumamoc Hill may demonstrate selectivity and, if this was the case, that these patterns may provide insight into variation in Hohokam ontologies and how these different communities conceptualized their own identity in relation to larger physical and social contexts.

In relation to this, the apparent tendency to use certain images over others demonstrated in the shared occurrence of glyph designs at both sites may be of significance. As explained earlier in this paper, many rock art researchers perceive rock art as physical representations of mental concepts (e.g., Chippendale and Taҫon 1998; De Cuz and De Smedt, 2011; Munson 2002).

Under these postulations, it could be argued that representational images function as a more literal and universal method of depicting ideas, and the use of them could indicate a more direct way of conceptualizing the world. The use of geometric shapes, however, implies a less direct manner of depicting concepts that is almost metaphorical in nature. As such, the simultaneous use of geometric and representational images may indicate that the Hohokam had a very complex ontology which conceptualized the world through both abstract concepts and concrete perceptions of reality.

In archaeology, identity is often defined as a group of people that shares some type of social features or mannerisms, such as geographical origin or ritual practice (Díaz-Andreu and

Lucy 2005:1). Although these two communities were located over 100 miles apart from each other, the Hohokam at South Mountain and Tumamoc Hill seem to have had a tendency to use the same types of imagery in their rock art. Ontologically, particularly in relation to concepts of identity, this could indicate that the Hohokam in these two communities had similar ways of perceiving the world and their place in it (Jones 2017). Additionally, the similar use certain glyph designs by both settlements may be indicative of strong connections between the different

Hohokam communities, and may suggest that the Hohokam ontologically perceived themselves as being part of a larger regional context, rather than isolated in their individual communities.

The results of my analysis of anthropomorph co-occurrence with other glyphs types appear to support this. Because there so few differences between the numerical frequency of the images at both sites and how often they co-occur with anthropomorphs, the association of different glyphs designs on the same feature may exhibit more of a shared participation at the regional scale that crosscuts the Phoenix and Tucson basins, rather than sub-regional differences reflecting community individuality.

However, the varying ratios of the most prevalent image types that occur at South

Mountain and Tumamoc Hill also could indicate notable dissimilarities between the communities that emerged in the patterning of their rock art. Although anthropomorphs and animals were the most commonly occurring representational images at both South Mountain and Tumamoc Hill, the animal glyphs were more prominent in the South Mountain batch than in the sample from

Tumamoc Hill. Correspondingly, South Mountain appeared to have a higher prevalence of miscellaneous geometric glyphs while Tumamoc Hill seemed to have a greater occurrence of linear images than what I found in the South Mountain sample. While this may appear to contradict the insights derived from my analysis of the similarities between the two sites, I would argue that the differences in the rock art may also indicate valuable information about sub- regional Hohokam ontology and identity.

In addition to having the quality of being shared by certain people, an identity group is also defined by having attributes or practices that are different from that of other groups (Díaz-

Andreu and Lucy 2005:3). Through an increased use of animals in their rock art, the Hohokam at

South Mountain may have been distinguishing themselves from other Hohokam communities.

Similarly, the Hohokam at Tumamoc Hill may have distinguished themselves from other

Hohokam settlements through the increased use of anthropomorphs. Arguably, this simultaneous production of media that is both individualized and conforming to a more generalized social structure demonstrates the foundation of how identity functions in all societies (Díaz-Andreu and

Lucy 2005).

Conclusions. As such, based on the current findings of my research, I would propose that the rock art at South Mountain and Tumamoc Hill may indicate that the Hohokam adhered to a complex sense of identity in which the members of different settlements saw themselves as associated with, perhaps even related to, the members of other Hohokam communities within the region while still valuing their individual identities as independent communities. This dichotomous conceptualization of identity is demonstrated through both the similarities and differences in the occurrence of different images at these two sites. The regional connections of one Hohokam community to another was established and reiterated through the use of similar types of images in the rock art of each community, while the individuality of each settlement was incorporated into their rock art through the varied use of the glyph designs.

Additionally, I would propose that the Hohokam identified themselves as both members of their individual communities and as a part of a larger regional identity. Considered in relation to current archaeological perceptions of the Hohokam as a collection of communities that likely shared religious ideologies and ritual practice, along with the connections that individual settlements had through their shared canal systems, the possibility that the Hohokam would have shared certain aspects of their identity is not entirely surprising (e.g., Craig and Woodson 2017;

Howard 1993; Schlanger and Craig 2012).

Although the results of my research could indicate that the Hohokam may have used their rock art as a medium of demonstrating a more regional identity while allowing each community to still incorporate their own identity, my current conclusions are only based on two Hohokam sites. As such, there is not enough evidence to construct a solid theory regarding the production of rock art and regional identities within Hohokam society at this point. In addition, the samples from South Mountain and Tumamoc Hill only constituted a fraction of the total glyphs located at these sites and, although the samples were numerically even, they represented different coverage of each site. As such, it is possible that the findings of my research were biased by small sample sizes and fractions of the total number of glyphs present.

In terms of the image co-occurrences at each rock art site, the findings of my research, particularly the lack of any apparent selective patterning, could be the result of restricting my analysis solely to anthropomorph co-occurrences to other categories. Anthropomorphs were the most common, so this presented the best evidence for initially looking at co-occurrences.

Theoretically, if rock art glyphs are representative of cognitive concepts as many suggest (e.g.,

Chippendale and Taҫon 1998; De Cuz and De Smedt 2011; Munson 2002). In the future, an analysis of how often other image types, such as circular glyphs, co-occurred with all of the glyph designs at a site may show other cognitive relationships in the data.

Future research on this topic should include a number of improvements. A more comprehensive analysis of the patterns indicated in my findings would require much larger samples of the glyphs at a site than what was collected for this project. Ideally, the samples would also be statistically even, rather than numerically even. Thus, if I were to go back and re- analyze South Mountain and Tumamoc Hill again, I would take a sample of 70 percent of the

54 glyphs at South Mountain, which would total to about 2,300 images, and a sample of 70 percent of the glyphs at Tumamoc Hill, which would be about 514 images.

The possibility that Hohokam rock art was used to portray regional identities could be additionally explored through the study of more Hohokam sites. If possible, I would like to examine between four and five different Hohokam rock art sites to provide a comprehensive and diverse representation of different settlements within a region. In doing so, this would produce a detailed comparison that could better indicate whether the preference for using certain glyph designs truly was shared at a regional level.

Finally, a more comprehensive analysis of Hohokam rock art in relation to ontology and identity should incorporate an examination of the glyphs in relation to the landscape. Among rock art researchers, it is universally acknowledged that the landscape on which rock art is situated is just as important as the images themselves (e.g., Schaafsma 1980; Ouzman 1998;

Wright 2011). However, due to time restraints, I did not examine the patterning of the rock art in relation to the landscape at all in this project. As such, further research into this topic would require an examination of where the rock art is situated at the site, how the landscape is incorporated into the production and distribution of the images, and any possible selectivity of where the images were placed on the landscape.

Although my project has provided more questions than answers, the findings of my analysis have indicated that the production rock art was an important aspect of Hohokam culture that could have been involved in the process of reinforcing the Hohokam’s ontological perception of themselves at both the communal and regional level. If given serious consideration,

I feel that the insights provided by an examination of Hohokam rock art could be correlated to broader questions about Hohokam ideology and the distribution of concepts along networks of

55 communication and trade. Although rock art can be frustratingly ambiguous to archaeologists who study it, ongoing rock art research has continuously demonstrated that the study of these images could provide valuable and surprising insights into ancient, complex cultures such as the

Hohokam.

References Cited Alberti, Benjamin 2016 The Archaeology of Ontologies. Annual Review of Anthropology 45: 163–79. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102215-095858.

Bednarik, Robert G. 2002 The Dating of Rock Art: A Critique. Journal of Archaeological Science 29(11):1213– 1233.

Bostwick, Todd 1998 Managing Rock Art in an Urban Setting: The Challenges of South Mountain Park. American Rock Art 22:119-128. 1999 Hourglass Anthropomorph Petroglyphs in the South Mountain. American Indian Rock Art 23:121-132. 2002 Landscape of the Spirits. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

Clark, Jeffery J., and James M. Vint (editors) 2000 Tonto Creek Archaeological Project: Archaeological Investigations along Tonto Creek. Anthropological Papers 22, Vols. 1 and 2. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona.

Clark, Jeffery J., and Patricia A. Gilman 2012 Persistent and Permanent Pithouse Places in the Basin and Range Province of Southeastern Arizona. In Southwestern Pithouse Communities, AD 200–900, edited by Lisa C. Young and Sarah A. Herr, pp. 61–77. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Craig, Douglass B., and Kyle Woodson 2017 Preclassic Hohokam. In The Oxford Handbook of Southwest Archaeology, edited by Barbara J. Mills and Severin Fowles. DOI 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199978427.001.0001.

Chippendale, Christopher, and Paul Taҫon 1998 An Archaeology of Rock Art through Informed Methods and Formal Methods. In The Archaeology of Rock Art, edited by Christopher Chippendale and Paul Taҫon, pp. 30–42, Cambridge University Press, UK.

Clark, Jeffery J., and David R. Abbott 2017 Classic Period Hohokam. In The Oxford Handbook of Southwest Archaeology, edited by Barbara J. Mills and Severin Fowles. DOI 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199978427.001.0001.

De Cruz, Helen and De Smedt, Johan 2011 A Cognitive Approach to the Earliest Art. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 69(4):379–389.

Díaz-Andreu, Margarita, and Sam Lucy

2005 Introduction. In The Archaeology of Identity: Approaches to Gender, Age, Status, Ethnicity and Religion, edited by Margarita Díaz-Andreu, Sam Lucy, Staša Babić, and David N. Edwards. Routledge, New York.

Doyel, David E. 1991 Hohokam Cultural Evolution in the Phoenix Basin. In Exploring the Hohokam: Prehistoric Desert Peoples of the American Southwest, edited by George J. Gumerman, pp. 231–278. Amerind Foundation, Dragoon, Arizona, and University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Ferg, Alan 1979 Petroglyphs of Tumamoc Hill. KIVA 45(1-2):95–118.

Fewkes, Jesse Walter 1892 A Few Tusayan Pictographs. American Anthropologist 5:9–26

Fish, Suzanne K., Paul R. Fish, Todd Pitezel, Gary Christopherson, James T. Watson, and Phillip O. Leckman 2013 Emerging Settlement Differentiation in Preceramic and Early Hohokam Villages on Tumamoc Hill. In New Perspectives on the Rock Art and Prehistoric Settlement Organization of Tumamoc Hill, Tucson, Arizona, edited by Gayle Hartmann and Peter Boyle, pp. 1–22, Arizona State Museum, Tucson, AZ.

Hartmann, Gayle Harrison, and Peter Boyle 2013 Tumamoc Hill Rock Art Revisited: With a Focus on Temporal Affiliation and Management. In New Perspectives on the Rock Art and Prehistoric Settlement Organization of Tumamoc Hill, Tucson, Arizona, edited by Gayle Hartmann and Peter Boyle, pp. 2–95, Arizona State Museum, Tucson, AZ.

Hays-Gilpin, Kelley 2004 Ambiguous Images. Altmira Press, CA.

Hays-Gilpin, Kelley, and Linea Sundstrom 2011 Rock Art as Cultural Resource. In A Companion to Cultural Resource Management, pp. 351–370. 10.1002/9781444396065.ch20.

Heizer, R. and M. Baumhoff 1962 Prehistoric Rock Art of Nevada and Eastern California. University of California Press, CA.

Hill, J. Brett, Jeffery J. Clark, William H. Doelle, and Patrick D. Lyons. 2004 Prehistoric Demography in the Southwest: Migration, Coalescence, and Hohokam Population Decline. American Antiquity 69(4):689–716.

Howard, Jerry B.

1993 A Paleohydraulic Approach to Examining Agricultural Intensification in Hohokam Irrigation Systems. In Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 7, pp. 263–324. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.

Jones, Andrew 2017 Rock Art and Ontology. Annual Review of Anthropology 46:167–81.

Knappett, Carl 2006 Beyond Skin: Layering and Networking in Art and Archaeology. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 16(2):239–251.

Lewis-Williams, J. David 2001 Brainstorming Images: Neuropsychology and Rock Art Research. In Handbook of Rock Art Research, edited by David Whitley, pp. 332–357. AltaMira Press, CA.

Lucy, Sam 2005 Ethnic and Cultural Identities. In The Archaeology of Identity: Approaches to Gender, Age, Status, Ethnicity and Religion, edited by Margarita Díaz-Andreu, Sam Lucy, Staša Babić, and David N. Edwards. Routledge, New York.

Mallery, Garrick 1886 Pictographs of the North American Indians: A Preliminary Paper. Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 4. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 1893 Picture-Writing of the American Indians. Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology 10. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

McCall, Grant 2006 Add Shamans and Stir? A Critical Review of the Shamanism Model of Forager Rock Art. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26(2):224–233.

Munson, Marit K. 2002 On Boundaries and Beliefs: Rock Art and Identity on the Pajarito Plateau. University of New Mexico Press: Albuquerque, NM.

Ouzman, Sven 1998 Towards a Mindscape of Landscape: Rock Art as an Expression of World-Understanding. In The Archaeology of Rock Art, edited by Christopher Chippendale and Paul Taҫon, pp. 30–42, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Pasztory, Esther 2005 Thinking with Things: Toward a New Vision of Art. University of Texas Press: Austin, TX.

Schaafsma, Polly 1980 Indian Rock Art of the Southwest. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM.

1985 Form, Content, and Function: Theory and Method in North American Rock Art Studies. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 8:237–277.

Schaafsma, Polly, and Curtis Schaafsma 1974 Evidence for the Origins of the Pueblo Katsina Cult as Suggested by Southwestern Rock Art. American Antiquity 39(4):535–545.

Schlanger, Sarah H., and Douglas B. Craig 2012 Pithouse Communities and Population. In Southwestern Pithouse Communities, AD 200– 900, edited by Lisa C. Young and Sarah A. Herr, pp. 198–209. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Smith, Benjamin, and Geoffrey Blundell 2004 Dangerous Ground: A Critique of Landscape in Rock Art Studies. In The Figured Landscapes in Rock Art: Looking at Pictures in Place, edited by George Nash and Christopher Chippendale, pp. 239–262, Cambridge University Press, UK.

Steward, Julian H. 1929 Petroglyphs of California and Adjoining States. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 24:52–238.

Throgmorton, Kellam 2017 Rock Art, Architecture, and Social Groups at the Basketmaker III-Pueblo II Transition: Evidence from the Processual Panel, Southeast Utah. KIVA 83 (2):137–161.

Wallace, Henry D., and James P. Holmlund 1986 Petroglyphs of the Picacho Mountains South Central, Arizona. Institute for American Research. Tucson, AZ.

Wallace, Henry D. 2001 Glossary for the Middle Gila Buffware Seriation Study. In Grewe Archaeological Project, Vol. 2: Material Culture, Part 1: Ceramic Studies, edited by David R. Abbott, pp. 399–402, Northland Research, Inc., Tempe, Arizona.

Wallace, Henry D., and William H. Doelle 2001 Classic Period Warfare in Southern Arizona. In Deadly Landscapes: Case Studies in Prehistoric Southwestern Warfare, pp. 239–287, edited by Glen E. Rice and Steven A. LeBlanc. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Whitley, David S. 1998 Cognitive Neuroscience, Shamanism, and Rock Art of Native California. Anthropology of Consciousness 9(1):22–37. 2001 Handbook of Rock Art Research. AltaMira Press, CA.

Wright, Aaron

2011 Hohokam Rock Art, Ritual Practice, and Social Transformation. Washington State University, WA. 2017 Assessing the Stability and Sustainability of Rock Art Sites: Insight from Southwestern Arizona. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 25(174) DOI: 10.1007/s10816- 017-9363-x

Wright, Aaron, and William G. Russell 2011 The Pipette, the Tiered Cosmos, and the Materialization of Transcendence in the Rock Art of the North American Southwest. Journal of Social Archaeology 11(3):361–386.

Young, M. Jane 1988 Signs from the Ancestors: Zuni Cultural Symbolism and Perceptions of Rock Art. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM.