367

Economic and Land-Use Implications of Prehistoric Fire-Cracked-Rock Piles, Northern

Alan P. Sullivan, III University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio Robert A. Cook Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan Matthew P. Purtill Gray & Pape, Inc. Cincinnati, Ohio

PatrickM. Uphus University of Wisconsin Madison, Wisconsin

Intensivearchaeological survey of 14.5 sq km of the UpperBasin, an area locatednear the 'seastern South Rim in northernArizona, has discovered126 fire-cracked- rockpiles that are surroundedby artifactscatters of varyingsize and assemblagecomposi- tion. Becausethese phenomena are unprecedentedin upland coniferecosystems of theAmer- ican Southwest,several hypotheses are exploredregarding their formation histories.Analyses of artifact assemblages,botanical remains, pollen, andfaunal remainsrecoveredfrom four excavatedsites indicate that theyresult from flaked-stone artifact production, ground-stone artifact reuseand recycling,ceramic-vessel-fragment recycling, and animal and plant pro- cessing.In addition, radiocarbondates and temporallydiagnostic projectile-points and ceramicsimply that the sitesdiffer in termsoffrequency, intensity, and patternsof use, and with respectto thegroups ofpeoplewho formed them (Anasazi, Cohonina,, or ). Byproductsof a little-known,long-term land-use pattern in Southwesternprehistory (ca. A.D.417-1650), thesesites representa keysource of informationfor understandinghow dijferentsources of variabilitycome to be expressedin archaeologicallandscapes.

Introduction 10 m) was designed to locate archaeological deposits rele- The Upper Basin Archaeological Research Project was vant for determining the degree to which Upper Basin sub- launched in 1989 to investigate patterns of variation in the sistence economies were mixtures of farming and foraging economic prehistory of the Grand Canyon region. Previ- (Sullivan 1987; Whittlesey 1992). ous research had predicted that the Upper Basin, which is Today the Upper Basin, which varies in elevation be- a downfaulted section of the NE Coconino Plateau (Baben- tween 2256 m asl along the South Rim of the Grand roth and Strahler 1945: 135; Barnes 1987: 381; Huntoon Canyon to 1860 m asl at the base of the Coconino Rim 1990: 265), should have evidence of extensive agricultural (FIG. i), is mantled by a pinyon-juniper woodland that is production and hunting and gathering activities (Effland, interspersed with patches of sagebrush and grass (Brewer Jones, and Euler 1981; Rice, Effland, and Blank-Roper et al. 1991; Rand 1965). This pattern (Cole 1990) devel- 1980; Schwartz, Kepp, and Chapman 1981). With these oped well before the earliest traces (ca. 2000 B.C.) of hu- considerations in mind, a survey (inter-surveyorinterval of man occupation in the Grand Canyon region (Emslie, 368 Implicationsof Fire-Cracked-RockPiles, Arizona/Sullivanet al.

Figure 1. The Upper Basin and study area in Kaibab National Forest, northern Arizona.

Euler, and Mead 1987; Euler 1983; McNutt and Euler of their prevalence and evident interpretive potential, it be- 1966). came important to determine whether the fire-cracked- Intensive survey of 14.5 sq km of the Upper Basin rock piles and their assemblages were related to prehistoric found 126 piles of fire-crackedrock (FCR), among other Grand Canyon livelihoods or to non-economic cultural types of sites (Sullivan, Mink, and Uphus 2002), ranging practices. between 1.0 and 8.0 m in length and 0.8 to 6.0 m in width,' invariablysurrounded by scattersof ceramic, flaked Origins Hypotheses stone, and ground-stone artifacts (FIG. 2). These archaeo- One hypothesis is that Upper Basin FCR piles are spoil logical phenomena are unprecedented in the Grand from relatively recent (late 19th or early-mid 20th centu- Canyon area (R. C. Euler, personal communication 1989; ry) Havasupai or Navajo purification rituals involving D. W. Schwartz, personal communication 1997) and, sweat lodges (Smithson and Euler 1994: 17-19; Kluck- more broadly, have no counterparts in upland areas of hohn and Leighton 1962). These activities use heated Western Anasazi country (G. J. Gumerman, personal com- rocks that, after having cooled, are discarded immediately munication 1998). In addition, USDA Forest Service maps outside the sweat lodge. However, six FCR piles directly of our research area revealed no previously reported FCR associated with the remains of known sweat lodges are less piles whatsoever (with the possible exception of a single in- than 1 m in diameter, diffuse, and unaccompanied by ce- stance of a "scatterwith amorphous rubble pile"). In view ramic or ground-stone artifacts. Hence, it is unlikely that the FCR piles in our sample represent the byproducts of 1. Length is the largest measurement [m] of an FCR pile (n = 106, such Native American ceremonies. mean = 4.1 m, standard deviation = 1.3 m, median = 4 m). Width is 3 shows a correlation between second measurement of an taken to Although Figure strong largest [m] FCRpile perpendicularly and width = < "moundedness" the first (n = 106, mean = 2.8 m, standard deviation = 1.2 m, median length (r 0.798, p 0.001), = 2.6 m). of FCR piles varies considerably-some piles are low Journalof FieldArchaeology/Vol. 28, 2001 369

IntermittentDrainage

Figure 2. Locations of 126 FCR piles in the study area. Numbers in boxes refer to excavated sites. humps less than 10 cm high whereas others are heaps near- by high frequencies of sherds (Cook 1995). The piles are ly 50 cm high (FIG. 4). The composition of artifactscatters dissimilar, too, in terms of the colors (black to bluish- surrounding the piles is highly variable, as well, with some white) and sizes (from gravel and pebble to large cobble) piles encircled by dense concentrations of lithic debitage, of the FCR fragments themselves. Variation in the form of others by numerous ground-stone artifacts, and still others FCR piles, moreover, is not affected by their proximity to 370 Implicationsof Fire-Cracked-RockPiles, Arizona/Sullivanet al.

Table 1. Surface properties of five excavated FCR piles in the Upper Basin (MU = Mapping Unit). FCR pile FCR fragment Site number Form FCR density Size Color MU 121 1 Flat Very low Uniform Uniform MU 123.1* 1 Slightlymounded Dense Varied Varied MU 235 5 Slightlymounded Dense Varied Uniform MU 235 6 Flat Low Varied Uniform MU 236 1 Highlymounded Verydense Highlyvaried Highlyvaried *Architecturalremains were within 30 m.

Table 2. Contexts, radiocarbon ages, and calibrated date-ranges (2 sigma) for specimens recovered from Upper Basin FCR-pile sites (MU = Mapping Unit). Site Samplenumber Material Context Age (yearsb.p.) Date range A.D. MU 121 AA-17934 Charcoal Slab-lined pit near FCR pile 1420 ? 50 549-682 MU 123.1 A-8235 Charcoal Beneath FCRpile 660 ? 55 1275-1408 MU 123.1 A-8236 Burned log Beneath FCR pile 820 ? 55 1050-1291 MU 123.1 AA-17935 Charredseeds Pit on edge of FCRpile 325 ? 40 1447-1650 MU 235 Pitt-1060 Charcoal South activity-surface 1580 ? 30 417-559 MU 235 Pitt-1043 Charcoal North activity-surface 1210 ? 45 687-963 MU 236 Pitt-1045 Charcoal FCRpile interior 610 ? 30 1299-1409 MU 236 Pitt-1044 Charcoal Pit 8 m from FCRpile 625 ? 45 1288-1414 architecturalruins or to artifact scatters.2Thus, these sur- (including discarded ground-stone artifacts; see Camilli face archaeological data imply considerable independence and Ebert 1992: 121) were placed on them to absorb heat among the sources of variability that influenced the piles' (cf. Stahl 1989: 182-183). Once heated, the rocks were origins. stirred up and spread about periodically to maintain ther- To unravel their histories, five FCR piles (FIG. 5) were mal radiation (Latas 1992). This interpretation explains selected for excavation because their surface properties the highly fragmented condition of the rocks and the pres- (TABLE I) suggested dissimilar formation patterns. Impor- tantly, the bulk of radiocarbon dates obtained from mater- 9 ial recovered from a variety of contexts (TABLE2) falls be- tween the late 8th and the early 17th centuries A.D. (FIG. 6), a period for which there is ceramic and tree-ring evi- dence of both perennial occupation and seasonal use of the Upper Basin (Sullivan 1995). Excavation revealed that the five piles are neither grave 6 * markersnor doughnut-shaped mounds of FCR from large 0 E roasting pits, such as those documented by Robert C. Euler in the western reaches of Grand aJ (1967) Canyon (cf. .-c * Dering 1999), and that each pile rests directly upon an an- 3: 0.. 0 cient surface. of the FCR at MU 123.1 * 0 0 Disassembly piles ** *. " I 3- and MU in disclosed that the soil under the e 00 236, fact, piles : . 00 ** s s is orange-red and hardened whereas that outside the piles is brown and unconsolidated. These observations support the idea that once wood had been reduced to coals, rocks 8* 0 00

0 2. The mediandistance of a FCRpile fromeither an architecturalsite, . . ,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ an artifactscatter (sherds and lithics),or a lithic scatteris 35.1 m (n = 0 3 6 9 126, mean = 45 m, standard deviation = 35.6 m). No statistically sig- nificantdifferences were found in the medianlengths or widthsof FCR pileslocated within or beyonda 35.1 m radiusof an architecturalsite, an Length (m) artifactscatter, or a lithicscatter (for length, Mann-Whitney U = 1366.5, p = 0.871; for width,Mann-Whitney U = 1212.5, p = 0.254). Figure 3. Scattergramof the lengths and widths of 106 FCR piles. Journalof FieldArchaeology/Vol. 28, 2001 371

Figure 4. Large FCR pile (MU 323) that measures 6.5 m by 4.6 m and is approximately 0.5 m high.

Table3. Attributesof five excavatedFCR piles and four pit featuresin the UpperBasin (MU = MappingUnit). MU 236 has two pits. FCR Length Width Diameter Depth Site Pile (m) (m) Feature Location (cm) (cm) MU 121 1 8 7 None MU 123.1 1 7.3 5.4 Pit Under pile 75 30 MU 235 5 7 4 Pit In pile 60 30 MU 235 6 6.5 5 None MU 236 1 7 6.5 Pit Adjacent to pile 90 20 Pit Adjacent to pile 70 15

ence of ash and charcoal throughout the piles. We suspect, 236 (TABLE 4) leave little doubt that they were used prin- furthermore, that variation in FCR-pile form and feature cipally to process plants (Winter and Hogan 1986). For ex- attributes (TABLE 3) can be ascribed to differences in dura- ample, of the charred remains, which in all likelihood are tion of use (e.g., short at MU 121 vs. long at MU 236) or contemporaneous with the FCR piles and features (Minnis cycles of use (e.g., multiple at MU 123.1 vs. single at MU 1981), 8.9% represent food, such as seeds (cactus, Indian 235). rice-grass, cheno-ams, purslane, buckwheat, and juniper) and pinyon nuts (Sullivan 1992; see also Madsen 1986; of Archaeological Consequences Wandsnider 1997: 26). Another 3.1% are indirect food re- Food Acquisition mains, such as inedible cone-scales (Lanner 1981: 49). Sig- The contents of approximately 3.4 kg of organic mate- nificantly, all of the charred food remains are of wild rial from 11 flotation samples (24.5 kg) recovered from the plants-not a single fragment of a domesticated plant has FCR piles and features at MU 123.1, MU 235, and MU been identified even though this era was a time when maize 372 Implicationsof Fire-Cracked-RockPiles, Arizona/Sullivanet al.

0

MU 235 (Pile 6) MU 235 (Pile 5) MU 236

MU 121 MU 123.1

Figure 5. Plan views of excavated FCR piles (dashed line in plan of MU 123.1 indicates extent of an ash stain). Note variation among piles in the frequency of ground-stone artifacts (shown in black). Journalof FieldArchaeology/Vol.28, 2001 373

1800

1700

1600 |

1500

1400

1300

1200

1100

1000

900o

800

700

600

400

300

200 121 123.1 235 236

Figure 6. Ranges of diagnostic-ceramic production dates (black bars) and calibrated (2 sigma) radiocarbon determinations (hatched bars) among four FCR-pile sites.

Table 4. Aggregated macrobotanical data from excavated Upper Basin FCR piles and pits (MU = Mapping Unit). Light-fractionweight Economicremains ing (numberof Totalidentified remains Direct Indirect Site Featuretype samplesprocessed) Charred Uncharred Charred UncharredCharred Uncharred MU 123.1 Pit 406.4 (3) 313 77 36 6 11 - FCRpile 133.9 (2) 118 26 - 2 - - MU 235 FCRpile 1137.8 (2) 49 28 2 6 6 2 MU 236 Pits 1191.8 (3) 74 1 2 - - - FCRpile 496.1 (1) 33 3 12 - 1 - was produced in the region (Cutler and Blake 1980; Huti- in floor-contact ceramic vessels recovered from several ra 1986; Sullivan 1987). That these and other processed perennially and seasonally occupied settlements located wild-plant parts, as well as those of maize, have been found throughout the Upper Basin (Sullivan and Ruter in press), 374 Igplications of Fire-Cracked-RockPiles, Arizona/Sxllivanet al.

Figure7. Obliqueview of the NorthernArray at MU 235 showingdarkened soil with ground-stone artifactsmarked by white tape. supportsthe argumentthat the FCR piles and features and ash into the activitysurface (cf. Weberand Seaman wereintegral components of the region'sfood-production 1985: 205). Becausepollen from cheno-ams, grass, and system. ephedrahas been found at UpperBasin masonry ruins as Additionally,two in situarrays of ground-stone,flaked- well,further support is advancedfor the inference that the stone,and ceramic artifacts were discovered at MU 235 FCRpiles, associated features, and assemblageswere in- (Sullivan1992: 216-221). Aggregates of cheno-am,grass, volvedin wild-plantprocessing, aspects of whichare not andephedra pollen found in sedimentsamples collected reflectedin thematerial record of thesettlements where the underand around ground-stone tools at theNorthern Ar- edibleportions of theplants were ultimately consumed. ray(no aggregateswere found in nearbycontrol samples) Weighingno morethan 32.5 g in total,56 unidentifi- indicatethat those plantswere processedthere (Bohrer ableanimal bones were recovered from the FCRpiles and 1981). Particularlynoteworthy are darkstains that sur- features(Cook 1995). Of theseextremely small, fragmen- roundseveral metates and manos (FIG. 7). Thesesoil dis- taryremains, 40 showtraces of burning,suggesting that colorationsostensibly arose as peoplecarried processed animalcarcasses were likely processed on or in the vicinity plantsfrom the FCRpiles to the artifactarrays for addi- of the thermalfeatures, presumably with the multi-func- tionalhandling, trailing and subsequentlytreading soot tionalground-stone tools thataccompany the FCRpiles Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol.28, 2001 375

20- * Complete flake

mg Proximal fragment 10- 11 _ | | [~WDistal fragment

0 Li -] Non-orientablepiece 121 123.1 235 23

MappingUnit

Figure 8. Bar charts of debitage assemblage variability among four FCR pile sites.

Table 5. Artifacts recovered from FCR-pile sites (MU = Mapping Unit) in the Upper Basin. IRP = Irregularlyretouched pieces. Tools RecoveryTools Site area (sq m)* Debitage IRP Unifaces Bifaces Points Cores(nuclei) MU 121 288 452 1 1 3 0 0 (2) MU 123.1 368 745 4 2 8 4 2 MU235 728 5409 10 28 166 29 23 (15) MU 236 512 1981 2 4 40 17 7 (5) *Maximum area examined by means of systematic surface collection and excavation.

(Euler and Dobyns 1983: 256; Yohe, Newman, and high percentages of complete flakes and proximal flake- Schneider 1991; also Green 1981: 314). In striking con- fragments, indicating that unintensive core reduction and trast to the aforementioned plant-processing patterns, unintensive tool production were the principal objectives however, virtually no faunal remains have been recovered of lithic-artifact manufacture (Sullivan 2001).3 This con- from excavations at coeval perennial or seasonal sites in the clusion is sustained by the comparatively low number of Upper Basin, which raises the intriguing possibility that bifaces and projectile points recovered from MU 121 (n = processed animal carcasses were consumed in close prox- 3, 60% of the tool assemblage) and from MU 123.1 (n = imity to the FCR piles themselves. 12, 61.7% of the tool assemblage). In fact, those tools have thin cross-sections and no cortex, which suggests that they Artifact and Production, Reuse, Recycling had been produced elsewhere and then discarded subse- Distal and proximal flake-fragmentsdominate the deb- quently in the areas that we investigated (Purtill 1995). itage assemblages from MU 235 and MU 236 (FIG. 8), im- MU 123.1, MU 235, and MU 236 yielded 2, 23, and 7 plying that they originated as a consequence of stone-tool artifacts,respectively, that technologically are cores or core manufacture (Sullivan and Rozen 1985). In fact, relatively fragments (Rozen and Sullivan 1989) but functionally high numbers (TABLE5) of bifaces and projectile points in could have served as "scraper planes" (Sails 1985) or the tool assemblages of MU 235 (n = 195, 83.7%) and "choppers" (James 1977). Use-wear for these pieces varies MU 236 (n = 57, 90.5%) support the specific inference that bifacial reduction was intensive at these comparatively 3. Of the unifaces, five (one each from MU 121 and MU 123.1 and two locations. In from MU contrast, debitage assemblages three from MU 235) had deep, denticulate edges that would have been 121 and MU 123.1 are characterized by comparatively effective in processing plant fibers such as yucca (Osborne 1965). 376 Implicationsof Fire-Cracked-RockPiles, Arizona/Sullivan et al.

from extensive edge-crushing and edge-rounding to a well- Table6. Frequenciesof ground-stoneartifacts at FCR- = developed edge-polish (Vaughan 1985), which is consis- pile sites locatedin the Upper Basin(MU Mapping tent with the inference that they were used to score cleav- Unit). age lines in metates that then were deliberately broken Artifact MU 121 MU 123.1 MU 235 MU 236 Mano 2 - 2 1 apart (Wheeler 1965). Mano fragment 1 2 1 1 Metate fragments were dispersed widely throughout the Metate 1 - 2 - Upper Basin and reused or recycled for various purposes Metate fragment 12 9 59 97 (Simms 1983), as several lines of evidence indicate. First, Total 16 11 64 99 the vast majority of metate fragments could not be refitted (TABLE 6). At MU 123.1, for instance, only metate margins were present-the interior sections had been removed For instance, ceramic-period points, such as Rose Springs (Cook 1995; see also Huckell 1986: 55). Second, several Corner-Notched, Cohonina, Nawthis Side-Notched, and metate fragments were re-manufactured,by means of bifa- Bullcreek (FIG. 9; for type definitions, see Holmer 1986; cial marginal retouch, into heavy-duty "chopping" tools. Moore 1994; Thomas 1981), though common at Upper And third, metate fragments not infrequently were incor- Basin masonry ruins, are rare at MU 235 and MU 236 porated into FCR piles (e.g., MU 121 and MU 236). (one and four specimens, respectively) and absent alto- By refitting Tusayan Grayware and Tusayan Whiteware gether from MU 121 and MU 123.1 (Purtill 1995). This sherds into largerfragments and comparing their aggregate pattern suggests that the organization of ceramic-period weights to those of intact vessels from a nearby cata- hunting technology did not involve FCR piles and sup- strophically abandoned settlement (Sullivan 1986: 64, 96, ports the notion that, during this broad period (A.D. 111,1 30), it is clear that FCR-pile ceramic artifactsrepre- 750-1200), thermal features were used principally to sent only fractions (1.2% to 6.9% by weight) of complete process plant resources when the Upper Basin was "home vessels (TABLE 7; Cook 1995: 161). Hence, sherds rather territory" for groups of Grand Canyon Anasazi and Co- than whole vessels were transportedto and deposited at the honina people (Sullivan, Mink, and Uphus 2002). FCR-pile sites (Sullivan, Skibo, and Van Buren 1991). In contrast, late prehistoric or early protohistoric pro- These vessel fragments might have been involved in seed jectile points, representing such types as Sierran Desert parching; in fact, the inside of one jar fragment from MU Side-Notched, General Desert Side-Notched, and Cotton- 235 did bear traces of such use (Sullivan 1992: 216). In- wood Triangular(FIG. 9), were recovered, with four from terestingly, accounts of Havasupai edible-resource process- MU 123.1, eight from MU 235, and seven from MU 236. ing (Weber and Seaman 1985: 64) note that parched seeds Not a single protohistoric period projectile point has been are easier to grind and require fewer specialized ground- recovered from any excavated Upper Basin masonry ruin stone tools, which has obvious logistical advantages when (Becher 1992; Haury 1931; Sullivan 1986: 47-190; plant processing occurs even a short distance from peren- Whittlesey 1992). This complementary distribution of nial settlements (Martin 1985). points strongly implies that after A.D. 1200, when the Up- Because of such extensive artifact recycling and reuse, per Basin was not occupied perennially, prehistoric and original performance or functional attributes of ceramic protohistoric long-distance foragers deliberately avoided vessels and ground-stone metates were obliterated or dis- architectural sites, which occasionally contain human re- regarded once the artifacts were removed from their con- mains and may have been burned, perhaps intentionally sumption contexts and transported to production contexts (Sullivan, Hanson, and Hawkins 1994). (Sullivan 1996). At Upper Basin FCR-pile sites, therefore, Assuming that we have not been misled by spurious pat- jar sherds are unrelated to cooking (Varien 1999: 66-69) terns of diagnostic ceramics (Sullivan, Becher, and or to storage (Plog 1980: 18-19, 96), and slab metates and Downum 1995) and radiocarbon dates, Figure 10 attests slab-metate fragments are unconnected to the processing that MU 236 was used initially by the Grand Canyon of domesticated plants (Vierra 1993: 151). Anasazi between A.D. 775 and 950. Then, during the next two and one-half centuries, all four FCR-pile sites were Land Use and the of a Material Emergence used-MU 121 by the Cohonina and MU 123.1, MU Topography 235, and MU 236 by the Grand Canyon Anasazi. There- The distribution of temporally-diagnostic projectile after, the latter three FCR-pile sites established by the points recovered from artifact scatters associated with the Grand Canyon Anasazi were reused by either ancestral FCR piles provides some tantalizing clues regarding shift- Hopi or their neighbors to the west, ancestralHavasupai, ing patterns of land-use (cf. Schlanger 1992: 107-109). after the Upper Basin had ceased to be a location for peren- Journalof FieldArchaeology/Vol. 28, 2001 377

MU 236 MU 235 MU 235 MU 235

MU235 MU 236 MU236 MU 123.1

MU 235 MU 236 MU 235 MU 236

0 2

Centimeters

Figure 9. Projectile-point stylistic variability.Top row (left to right [all preceramic period]): Large Side-Notched and three Elko Corner-Notched. Middle row (left to right): Nawthis Side-Notched (ceramic period), two Bullcreek (ceramic period), and one Sierran Desert Side- Notched (late prehistoric or protohistoric period). Bottom row (left to right [all late prehis- toric or protohistoric period]): Cottonwood Triangular,General Desert Side-Notched, Sier- ran Desert Side-Notched, and General Desert Side-Notched.

nial settlement (post-A.D. 1200; Euler 1992; Schwartz tions and content variation would have facilitated decision- 1990). It is interesting to note that no FCRpile in our sam- making because people would have had to guess far less ple contains protohistoric ceramics exclusively and only about the nature of the terrainthat they intended to exploit MU 121, with San Francisco Mountain Gray Ware (Co- and about which tools would be needed to accomplish honina ceramics), was not reused by foragers from Cataract their economic objectives (Wandsnider 1992). Hence, a Canyon (the traditional home of the Havasupai) or the group's collective memory of the Upper Basin's archaeo- Hopi Mesas. Parallelingthe projectile-point case discussed logical record and its modifications over time would have above, this pattern is indicative of avoidance behavior that been a vital element in planning the organization of tech- was triggered when certain ceramics were encountered on nology and the allocation of labor. the landscape. and Conclusions The material topography created by FCR-pile-related Summary activities raises some provocative speculation regarding as- When first encountered, the Upper Basin's 126 FCR pects of cultural memory (cf. Anscheutz, Wilshusen, and piles were enigmatic because such archaeological phenom- Scheick 2001). For instance, by virtue of their ubiquity, ena had been unreported in upland conifer ecosystems of FCR-pile sites were readily availablefor reuse or for artifact the American Southwest. Examination of their highly vari- scavenging (Schlanger 1991). Knowledge of their loca- able surface properties indicated that these FCR piles are 378 Implications of Fire-Cracked-Rock Piles, Arizona/Sullivan et al.

MU 236 L'K.R J.; :.: mmmI

MU 235

MU 123.1

Li J

MU 121

I I

I I 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 A.C. [1 Cohonina D GrandCanyon Anasazi I Havasupai/ Hopi

Figure 10. Formation histories for four FCR pile sites. Each tone represents the abundance of a specific ceramic ware: Cohonina by San Francisco Mountain Gray Ware, Grand Canyon Anasazi by Tusayan Gray Ware, ancestralHavasupai by Tizon Brown Ware, and ancestral Hopi by either Jeddito Plain Ware or Awatovi Yellow Ware.

Table 7. Frequencies (f) and weights (wt, in g) of ceramic wares from Upper Basin FCR-pile sites (MU = Mapping Unit). MU 121 MU 123.1 MU 235 MU 236 Ceramics f wt f wt f wt f wt Tusayan Gray Ware 33 96 6 78.5 467 1479.6 130 581.9 TusayanWhite Ware 25 74.7 14 112 37 126 43 130.2 Tsegi Orange Ware 5 12 1 12.4 20 58.1 2 17.1 San Juan Red Ware - - 1 2 - - - Little Colorado White Ware - - - - 21 104 11 47.5 - - Little Colorado Gray Ware - - 2 41.2 San Francisco Mountain 223 750 10 50.1 70 179.4 49 158 Gray Ware Jeddito Plain Ware - - 6 35 - - 2 19.5 Awatovi Yellow Ware - - 6 19.5 7 150.6 42 350.1 Tizon Brown Ware - - - 23 52.7 181 636.4 Unknown Brown Ware 6 5.9- - - -

not attributable to historical-period Native American ritu- ondarily, animal-carcass processing. By every measure, als. Suspecting that they might have been involved in ac- FCR piles and their artifact scatters were anything but tivities related to the livelihoods of the area'sprehistoric oc- "limited activity sites?. cupants, five FCR piles were selected for excavation. It was With the passage of centuries, reuse of abandoned fea- discovered that, instead of being the archaeological conse- tures and recycling of discarded artifactscreated the mate- quences of roasting pits, Upper Basin FCR piles are the re- rial topography that punctuates the Upper Basin today mains of surface thermal features that were used principal- (Sullivan, Mink, and Uphus 2002). This topography en- ly to process wild plants (presumably in bulk quantities). abled groups of local, short-distance foragers (ceramic-pe- Analysis of FCR piles and their associated assemblages in- riod Grand Canyon Anasazi or Cohonina) and non-local, dicates, furthermore, extensive variation in the prevalence long-distance foragers (protohistoric-period Havasupai or of flaked-stone tool manufacture, ground-stone tool reuse Hopi), who planned and acted on the basis of inherited ac- and recycling, ceramic-vessel-fragmentrecycling, and, sec- counts of unseen geographies, to acquire resources with Journalof FieldArchaeology/Vol.28, 2001 379

minimal or negligible artifact-transportcosts. Such region- State University.His currentresearch examines aspects ofMis- al-scale formation processes (Schiffer 1987: 99-114), sissippian/FortAncientsite formation and socialstructure at which involved ever-increasingreduction of previously dis- the Sun Watchsite in sw Ohio.Mailing address:2401 carded artifacts, churning of features, and the smearing of MarkleyPlace, Lansing,MI 48910. spatially discrete occupational debris, contributed to the Matthew P Purtill (MA., Universityof Cincinnati) is a at Inc. His researchin- origination of a high degree of inter-site variation (Wand- PrincipalInvestigator Gray &Pape, terestsinvolve Midwest and GreatLakes and the snider 1998; Zedeino 1997). At some point, however, the prehistory lithic address:1318 Upper Basin's FCR piles were never reused, the material originsof assemblagevariability. Mailing Main Street,Cincinnati, Ohio, 45202. topography became inert, and the forms of lithic, ground PatrickM. is a stone, and ceramic artifacts ceased to be modified further. Uphus (MA., Universityof Cincinnati) doctoralcandidate at the Madison. we never ascertain use of Universityof Wisconsin, Although may conclusively why His research on human the FCR and their artifact scatters was principal focuses investigating effects piles discontinued, on ancient with remote and GIS technolo- an for learn- landscapes sensing today they provide unparalleled opportunity gies. Mailing address: 5240 So- about how different land-use the Departmentof Anthropology, ing patterns, involving cial Science 1180 Drive, same were into the and Building, Observatory Universityof terrain, integrated prehistoric pro- Wisconsin,Madison, WI 53706. tohistoric subsistence economies of the Grand Canyon area. Anscheutz,Kurt E, RichardH. Wilshusen,and CherieL. Scheick Acknowledgments 2001 "AnArchaeology of Landscapes:Perspectives and Direc- tions,"Journal Research9: 157-211. We thank John A. Hanson, Forest Archaeologist, ofArchaeological D. and Arthur Kaibab National Forest, for his continuing support of the Babenroth, L., N. Strahler 1945 and Structureof the East KaibabMon- Basin Research Project and its "Geomorphology Upper Archaeological long- ocline, Arizonaand Utah" Bulletinof the GeologicalSociety of term program. The C. P. Taft Memorial Fund, the America56: 107-150. McMicken College of Arts and Sciences, the University Barnes,C. W. Research Council, and the Office of the Vice President for 1987 "Geology of the Gray Mountain Area, Arizona" in S. S. Research and Advanced Studies, University of Cincinnati, Beus, ed., GeologicalSociety of America Centennial Field additional institutional and financial resources Guide-RockyMountain Section.Boulder: Geological Soci- provided of America,379-384. for which we are most The senior author thanks ety grateful. Becher,Matthew E. LuAnn Wandsnider of and (University Nebraska, Lincoln) 1992 "ArchaeologicalInvestigations at a Pueblo II Kayenta Sissel Schroeder (University of Wisconsin, Madison) for Anasazi Ruin Located in the Tusayan Ranger District, KaibabNational senior the- commenting on earlier drafts of this paper. Forest,Arizona," unpublished sis, Universityof Cincinnati,Cincinnati. Upon viewing the Upper Basin's fire-cracked-rockpiles for the first time in the late Robert C. Euler im- Bohrer,Vorsila L. July 1989, 1981 "Methodsof CulturalActivity from Pollen in their and en- Recognizing mediately recognized interpretive potential ArchaeologicalSites," The Kiva 46: 135-142. us to their This couraged pursue investigation relentlessly. Brewer,D. G., R. K. Jorgensen,L. P. Monk, W. A. Robbie, and J. L. paper is dedicated to Bob, whose uncompromising stan- Travis Terrestrial the dards of professional behavior and commitment to inter- 1991 EcosystemsSurvey of KaibabNational Forest. Al- buquerque:USDA Forest Service. disciplinary research are a model for archaeologists world- wide. Camilli,Eileen L., and JamesI. Ebert 1992 "ArtifactReuse and Recyclingin Continuous SurfaceDis- tributionsand Implicationsfor InterpretingLand Use Pat- terns" in and LuAnn Wandsnider, Alan P. Sullivan, III (Ph.D., Universityof Arizona) is Profes- Jacqueline Rossignol eds., Space,Time, and ArchaeologicalLandscapes. New York: sor ofAnthropologyat the Universityof Cincinnati. Since Plenum Press, 113-136. 1989, he has directedthe UpperBasin ArchaeologicalRe- Cole, KennethL. searchProject in Kaibab National Forest,northern Arizona, 1990 "LateQuaternary Vegetation Gradients through the Grand wherehis team is investigatingancient anthropogenicecosys- Canyon,"in Julio L. Betancourt,Thomas R. VanDevender, tems, landscapeformation histories,and applicationsof GIS and Paul S. Martin,eds., PackratMiddens.Tucson: Univer- of Arizona Press, 240-258. for heritageresource management. Mailing address:Depart- sity ment PO. Box Cook, Robert A. ofAnthropology, 210380, Universityof 1995 Wild-ResourceSubsistence Technolo- Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0380. "Long-TermUpland gy: Evidence from Fire-Cracked-RockPiles in the Upper RobertA. Cook(MA., Universityof Cincinnati) is a doc- Basin, KaibabNational Forest,Northern Arizona," unpub- toral candidatein the DepartmentofAnthropology, Michigan lished M.A. thesis, Universityof Cincinnati,Cincinnati. 380 Implications of Fire-Cracked-Rock Piles, Arizona/Sullivan et al.

Cutler,Hugh C., and LeonardW. Blake ryand Plant ProcessingArea.Research Paper No. 9. Flagstaff: 1980 "PlantMaterials from GrandCanyon Sites,"in Douglas W. Museum of Northern Arizona. RichardC. and Ar- Schwartz, Chapman, Jane Kepp, eds., Kluckhohn,Clyde, and Dorothea Leighton the Grand Unkar Delta. Santa Fe: chaeologyof Canyon: 1962 TheNavaho. New York:Doubleday. School of AmericanResearch Press, 209-212. Lanner,Ronald M. Phil Dering, 1981 ThePinon Pine:A Natural and CulturalHistory. Reno: Uni- 1999 "Earth-Oven Plant in Archaic Processing Period versityof Nevada Press. Economies: An Example from a Semi-Arid Savannahin W. South-Central Latas,Timothy North America,"American Antiquity 64: 1992 "An of Fire-CrackedRock," in K. 659-674. Analysis Julie Stein, ed., Decipheringa ShellMidden. New York:Academic Press, Effland,Richard W., A. TrinkleJones, and Robert C. Euler 211-237. 1981 The PowellPlateau: Interactionat Archaeologyof Regional Madsen, David B. Grand Grand AZ: Grand Natu- Canyon. Canyon, Canyon 1986 "GreatBasin Nuts: A Short Treatiseon the Distribution, ral History Association. Productivity,and PrehistoricUse of Pinyon,' in Carol J. Steven Robert C. and I. Mead Emslie, D., Euler, Jim Condie and Don D. Fowler,eds., Anthropologyof theDesert 1987 "ADesert Culture Shrine in Grand and Canyon, Arizona, West:Essays in Honorof esseD. Jennings.Anthropological Pa- the Role of National Re- Split-TwigFigurines," Geographic pers 110. Salt Lake City: Universityof Utah Press, 21-41. search3: 511-516. Martin,John F. Robert C. Euler, 1985 "The Prehistoryand Ethnohistoryof Havasupai- 1967 "The The American Canyon Dwellers," West 4: 22-27, Relations"Ethnohistory 32: 135-153. 67-71. McNutt, CharlesH., and Robert C. Euler 1983 "ThePinto Basin at Grand Arizona,"The Complex Canyon, 1966 "The Red Butte Lithic Sites near GrandCanyon, Arizona," Kiva 49: 67-73. AmericanAntiquity31: 410-419. 1992 "GrandCanyon Indians,"in Robert C. Euler and Frank Minnis, Paul E. Tikalsky,eds., The GrandCanyon: Intimate Views.Tucson: 1981 "Seeds in ArchaeologicalSites: Sources and Some Inter- of Arizona 43-59. University Press, pretiveProblems" American Antiquity 46: 143-152. Euler,Robert C., and Henry F. Dobyns Moore, Roger A. 1983 "TheEthnoarchaeology ofPai Milling Stones,"in Nancy L. 1994 "ArchaicProjectile Point Typology/Chronologyin North- Fox, ed., CollectedPapers in Honorof CharlieR. Steen,Jr Pa- ern New Mexico and the Four Corners,"in BradleyJ. Vier- pers of the ArchaeologicalSociety of New Mexico 8. Albu- ra, ed.,ArchaicHunter-GathererArchaeology in theAmerican querque: The Archaeological Society of New Mexico, Southwest.Contributions in Anthropology13. Portales:East- 253-267. ern New Mexico University,456-477. Green, Jesse Osborne, CarolynM. 1981 Zuni: Selected Frank Hamilton Lin- Writingsof Cushing. 1965 "The Preparationof YuccaFiber: An ExperimentalStudy," of NebraskaPress. coln: University in Douglas Osborne, assem., Contributionsof the Wetherill Haury,Emil W. MesaArchaeological Project. Memoirs of the SocietyforAmeri- 1931 Kivasof the TusayanRuin, GrandCanyon, Arizona. Medal- can Archaeology19. Salt Lake City: University of Utah lion Papers9. Globe, Arizona:Gila Pueblo. Press,45-50. Holmer, RichardW. Plog, Stephen 1986 "CommonProjectile Points of the IntermountainWest," in 1980 StylisticVariation in PrehistoricCeramics. Cambridge: Cam- Carol J. Condie and Don D. Fowler, eds., Anthropologyof bridge UniversityPress. theDesert West: Essays in Honorof esseD. Jennings.Anthro- Purtill,Matthew P. pologicalPapers No. 110. Salt LakeCity: University of Utah 1995 "Analysisand Interpretationof Chipped-Stone Tool As- Press, 90-115. semblagesfrom the Upper Basin, KaibabNational Forest, Huckell, BruceB. NorthernArizona," unpublished M.A. thesis, Universityof 1986 A Ground-StoneImplement Quarry on the LowerColorado Cincinnati,Cincinnati. River,Northwestern Arizona. Cultural Resources Series Mono- Rand, PatriciaJ. graph No. 3. Phoenix: Bureauof Land Management. 1965 "Factors Related to the Distribution of Ponderosa and Huntoon, PeterW. Pinyon Pines at Grand Canyon, Arizona,"unpublished 1990 "PhanerozoicStructural Geology of the GrandCanyon,; in Ph.D. dissertation,Duke University,Durham. S. S. Beus and M. Morales, eds., Grand CanyonGeology. Rice, Glen, Rick Effland,and LaurieBlank-Roper Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 261-309. 1980 A SampleSurvey of TusayanPlanning Unit 1, KaibabNa- Hutira, Johna tional Forest,Arizona. CulturalResources Report 33. Albu- 1986 "Analysisof Plants, Pollen, and Coprolites" in A. Trinkle querque:USDA Forest Service. Jones, ed.,A CrossSection of GrandCanyon Archaeology: Ex- Rozen, KennethC., and Alan P. Sullivan,III cavationsat FiveSites along the ColoradoRiver Publications in 1989 "TheNature of Lithic Reductionand LithicAnalysis: Stage AnthropologyNo. 28. Tucson: WesternArchaeological and TypologiesRevisited," American Antiquity 54: 179-184. Conservation 269-332. Center, Sails, Roy James,Charles D. 1985 "The ScraperPlane: A FunctionalInterpretation," Journal 1977 TheMule ShoeBend Site: A Studyof a CohoninaLithic Quar- of FieldArchaeology 12: 99-106. Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol.28, 2001 381

Schiffer,Michael B. Sullivan,Alan P., III, Philip B. Mink, and PatrickM. Uphus 1987 Formation Processesof the ArchaeologicalRecord. Albu- 2002 "FromJohn W. Powell to Robert C. Euler:Testing Models querque:University of New Mexico Press. of GrandCanyon's Prehistoric Puebloan Settlement Histo- in David A. Jr.and John A. eds., Culture Schlanger,Sarah H. ry," Phillips, Ware, and Environmentin theAmerican Southwest: in Hon- 1991 "On Manos, Metates, and the History of Site Occupa- Essays or RobertC. Euler SWCA No. 8. tions,"AmericanAntiquity 56: 460-474. of AnthropologicalPapers Phoenix: SWCAAnthropological Papers, 49-68. 1992 "RecognizingPersistent Places in Anasazi Settlement Sys- tems," in Jacqueline Rossignol and LuAnn Wandsnider, Sullivan,Alan P., III, and KennethC. Rozen eds., Space,Time, and ArchaeologicalLandscapes. New York: 1985 "Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation," Plenum Press, 91-112. AmericanAntiquity50: 755-779. Schwartz,Douglas W. Sullivan,Alan P., III, and Anthony H. Ruter 1990 On the Edge of Splendor:Exploring Grand Canyon's Human in press "The Effects of EnvironmentalFluctuations on Ancient Past. SantaFe: School of AmericanResearch Press. Livelihood: Implicationsof PaleoeconomicData from the in David E. and S. Schwartz,Douglas W., JaneKepp, and RichardC. Chapman Upper Basin," Doyel Jeffrey Dean, eds., Environmental and Human in theAn- 1981 Archaeologyof the Grand Canyon:Walhalla Plateau. Santa Change Adaptation Fe: School of AmericanResearch Press. cientSouthwest. Salt Lake City: Universityof Utah Press. Simms, Steven R. Sullivan,Alan P., III, JamesM. Skibo, and Mary E. Van Buren 1983 "The Effects of Grinding Stone Reuse on the Archaeolog- 1991 "Sherdsas Tools: The Roles of Vessel Fragmentsin Succu- ical Record in the EasternGreat Basin,"Journalof Califor- lent Plant Processing,"North AmericanArchaeologist 12: nia and GreatBasin Anthropology 5: 98-102. 243-255. Smithson, CarmaL., and Robert C. Euler Thomas, David H. 1994 HavasupaiLegends: Religion and Mythology of theHavasupai 1981 "How to Classifythe ProjectilePoints from Monitor Val- Indians of the GrandCanyon. Salt Lake City: Universityof ley, Nevada,"Journalof Californiaand GreatBasin Anthro- Utah Press. pology3: 7-43. Stahl,Ann B. Varien,Mark D. 1989 "Plant-FoodProcessing: Implications for Dietary Quality," 1999 Sedentismand Mobilityin a SocialLandscape. Tucson: Uni- in David R. Harrisand Gordon C. Hillman, eds., Foraging versityof ArizonaPress. and TheEvolution Plant Exploitation.London: Farming: of Vaughan,Patrick C. Unwin Hyman, 171-194. 1985 Use-WearAnalysisof FlakedStone Tools. Tucson: University Sullivan,Alan P., III of Arizona Press. 1986 Prehistoryof the UpperBasin, CoconinoCounty, Arizona. Ari- zona StateMuseum Archaeological Series No. 167. Tucson: Vierra,Bradley J. 1993 in Lithic Procurement Universityof Arizona. "ExplainingLong-Term Changes and Reduction Strategies,"in Bradley J. Vierra, Tim W. 1987 "Seedsof Discontent: of a 'Pompeii'Botanical Implications Burchett,Kenneth L. Brown, MarieE. Brown, PaulT. Kay, Assemblagefor Grand Canyon Anasazi SubsistenceMod- and Carl J. Phagan, eds., Acrossthe ColoradoPlateau: An- els,"JournalofEthnobiology 7:137-153. thropologicalStudies for the TranswesternPipeline Expansion 1992 Nuts and Other Wild Resources in Western "Pinyon Project17. Albuquerque:Office of ContractArchaeology AnasaziSubsistence in Dale R. Rebec- Economies," Croes, and MaxwellMuseum of Anthropology, 139-381. ca A. Hawkins and BarryL. Isaac, eds., Long-TermSubsis- tence in PrehistoricNorth America. Greenwich, CT: Wandsnider,LuAnn Change 1992 "The Dimension of Time,"in JAI Press, 195-240. Spatial JacquelineRossignol and LuAnn Wandsnider,eds., Space,Time, and Archaeolog- 1995 "ArtifactScatters and SubsistenceOrganization"Journal of icalLandscapes. New York:Plenum Press, 257-282. FieldArchaeology 22: 49-64. 1997 "TheRoasted and the Boiled: Food and Heat 1996 "Risk, Environments,and WesternAnasazi Composition Anthropogenic Treatmentwith on Pit-HearthCooking," Subsistence"in Joseph A. Tainterand Bonnie B. Tainter, SpecialEmphasis Journal 16: 1-48. eds., EvolvingComplexity and EnvironmentalRisk in thePre- ofAnthropologicalArchaeology historicSouthwest. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 145- 1998 "Regional Scale Processes and ArchaeologicalLandscape 167. Units,"in Ann F. Ramenofskyand AnastasiaSteffen, eds., Unit Issuesin Salt Lake of 2001 "Holmes'sPrinciple and Beyond: The Case for Renewing Archaeology. City: University Utah 87-102. AmericanistDebitage Analysis,"in WilliamAndrefsky, Jr., Press, ed., LithicDebitage Analysis: Studies in Context,Form, and Weber,Steven A., and David Seaman Meaning. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1985 HavasupaiHabitat: Alfred F. Whiting'sEthnography of a 192-206. TraditionalIndian Culture.Tucson: University of Arizona Sullivan,Alan P., III, Matthew E. Becher,and ChristianE. Downum Press. 1995 "TusayanWhiteware Chronology: New Archaeological Wheeler,Richard P. and Evidence"Kiva: The Dendrochronological Journal of 1965 "Edge-AbradedFlakes, Blades, and Cores in the Puebloan Southwestern and 61: 175-188. Anthropology History Tool Assemblage"in Douglas Osborne, assem., Contribu- Sullivan,Alan P., III, John A. Hanson, and RebeccaA. Hawkins tionsof the WetherillMesa Archaeological Project. Memoirs of 1994 "ActiveAnthropological Archaeology,"Cultural Resources the SocietyforAmericanArchaeology 19. Salt LakeCity: Uni- Management17: 30-31. versityof Utah Press, 19-29. 382 Implications of Fire-Cracked-Rock Piles, Arizona/Sullivan et al.

Whittlesey,Stephanie M., editor 1992 ArchaeologicalInvestigations at LeeCanyon: KayentaAnasazi Farmsteadsin the UpperBasin, CoconinoCounty, Arizona. TechnicalSeries No. 38. Tucson: StatisticalResearch, Inc. Winter,Joseph C., and PatrickF. Hogan 1986 "PlantHusbandry in the GreatBasin and AdjacentNorth- ern Colorado Plateau, in Carol J. Condie and Don D. Fowler,eds., Anthropologyof theDesert West: Essays in Hon- or of esseD. Jennings.Anthropological Papers 110. Salt Lake City: Universityof Utah Press, 117-144. Yohe, Robert M., II, MargaretE. Newman, and Joan S. Schneider 1991 "ImmunologicalIdentification of Small-MammalProteins on AboriginalMilling Equipment'American Antiquity 56: 659-666. Zedefio, MariaN. 1997 "Landscapes,Land Use, and the History of TerritoryFor- mation: An Examplefrom the PuebloanSouthwest"Jour- nal ofArchaeologicalTheory and Method4: 67-103.