Salvage Archaeology in Painted Rocks Reservoir, Western Arizona
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ANTHROPOLOGICAL PAPERS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA NUMBER 9 WILLIAM W. WASLEY and SALVAGE ALFRED E. JOHNSON ARCHAEOLOGY IN PAINTED ROCKS with appendices RESERVOIR by WESTERN Hugh C. Cutler Mary Elizabeth King ARIZONA THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZON A PRESS TUCSON 1965 A Project of the Inter-Agency Archeological Salvage Program Completed under Contract Nos. 14-10-333-352, 14-10-333-554, and 14-10-0333-667 between Arizona State Museum and National Park Service Copyright© 1965 The Board of Regents of the Universities and State College of Arizona. All rights reserved. LC Card Catalog Number 64-63815 PREFACE On the subject of bias in archaeological report- the cultures of the lower Gila River are known ing Jennings (1957: 9) once commented: from surface reconnaissance and from what may It seems desirable to have the bias set forth be learned through ethnohistoric and ethnographic early in the study, not because bias is an im studies. proper attribute in a study-indeed, study of We trust that these biases have not influenced any material seems improbable or impossible if bias is lacking-but in order that the reader to any great extent the gathering and presentation be fully aware, at the outset, of the nature and of basic data. On the other hand, our interpreta extent of the reporter's views. tions have naturally been influenced by the biases, It would appear that perhaps three major biases, and for this reason we have tried to make a clear and probably a number of minor ones, affected separation between the basic data and the inter our archaeological thinking at the very outset of pretive and theoretical sections of this report. work in the Painted Rocks Reservoir. One of the major biases stemmed from the be ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS lief that the original presentation of the Hohokam sequence in the Snaketown report (Gladwin and All phases of the archaeology of the Painted others 1937: 212-29, 247-69) was essentially Rocks Reservoir project, from the initial field correct and that various later attempts to revise work through the analysis of specimens, the prep this sequence were not based on sufficient relevant aration of illustrations, and the writing of the re data. Consequently, the materials collected were ports, were facilitated by the assistance and viewed in this frame of reference, and they were guidance of a number of individuals. We gratefully critically examined from the standpoint of the de acknowledge the help of all of these people. gree to which the evidence supported, or did not Norton Allen, an outstanding amateur archae support, the Snaketown sequence. ologist, has wintered in the Gila Bend area for A second bias derives from a current interest many years and has become thoroughly acquainted in Southwestern archaeology in the problem of with the archaeology of the region. Several state contacts with Mesoamerica. The extent of these ments in the following report are the result of dis contacts may have been greater than had previ cussions with Allen, and we are grateful for his ously been indicated, and an attempt has been comments and descriptions of sites which were made to collect and present data in support of this destroyed in the process of recent agricultural ex idea. pansion before we came on the scene. A particu A third bias assumes more importance than larly welcome addition to this report is a section usually would be accorded it because it is in con illustrating documented pottery and artifact asso flict with one which has influenced the interpre ciations which Mr. and Mrs. Norton Allen and tation of other work in the Gila Bend area. From Allen's father, Mr. Ernest G. Allen, have collected the very beginning we have viewed the archae from the region (Appendix A). ology of the Painted Rocks Reservoir from the Field work in the Gila Bend area was made standpoint of what is known about the Hohokam more pleasant and profitable through association culture in the Gila-Salt basin, and particularly at with and the cooperation of a number of local resi Snaketown. Schroeder's interpretation of the pre dents including H. K. Conrad, Lynn Cool, Robert liminary survey of the area (1961: 1-28), on the W. Crichton, the Cole Gatlins and J. E. Gatlin, other hand, is based to a large extent upon what Ward Gilbert, Edwin Hunt, James Robertson, is known about the cultures of the lower Gila Thearl Tibbetts, and Richard Wright. River. Hohokam archaeology is known from sur Field assistance was provided during the first face reconnaissance and from excavation, while season by Frank W. Eddy and Michael Hoffman, iii iv PREFACE during the second season by J. Anthony Pomeroy, Botanical Garden whose report is included as and during the third season by Fred Bohannan. Appendix B of this study. Fragments of charred Laboratory analysis of the artifacts and the basketry, sandals, and fabrics, many of which are preparation of portions of the manuscript were in the Norton Allen collection, are described in facilitated through the work of a number of stu Appendix C by Mary Elizabeth King of the Tex dents in Raymond H. Thompson's class in South tile Museum, Washington, D. C. western Archaeology at the University of Arizona. Calvin Cummings, Ernest E. Leavitt, and As a laboratory exercise for the class, the follow William R. Krueger prepared the line drawings. ing students analyzed the artifacts from several of Leavitt also assisted with the reconstruction of the excavated sites: Jeffrey S. Dean, Philip M. pottery vessels. Photographic illustrations were Hobler, Roger E. Kelly, Leif C. Landberg, and prepared by Gilbert Bartell, Hobler, and Bruce D. Donna Thatcher. Lindsay, staff photographers for the Arizona State Lyndon L. Hargrave of the National Park Ser Museum, and by Norton Allen. Emil W. Haury, vice Southwest Archeological Center in Globe, Edwin N. Ferdon, Jr., and Raymond H. Thomp Arizona, supplied identification of bird bones. son read the manuscript and made numerous sug Marine shells were identified by Johnson working gestions for improvement. from a type collection supplied by Leo G. Hertlein of the California Academy of Science. Hertlein November, 1963 also made identifications of specimens not repre William W. Wasley sented in the type collection. Botanical remains were identified by Hugh C. Cutler of the Missouri Alfred E. Johnson ABSTRACT Under contracts with the National Park Ser sively tested. In addition, four other ball courts of vice, the Arizona State Museum conducted archae the Sacaton phase were tested. Hohokam houses ological salvage excavations in the Painted Rocks of the Gila Butte and Sacaton phases and one built Reservoir area of western Arizona during three during the Classic period were excavated. A pre field seasons beginning late in 1958 and ending historic irrigation canal near the Gatlin site was early in 1961. The results of the first season's tested. At the Citrus site (Arizona T:13:2) there work primarily devoted to the excavation of a plat was evidence of houses grouped around a plaza form mound at the Gatlin site (Arizona Z: 2: 1 ) with a raised caliche floor. New data on burial have been summarized by Wasley (1960b). The practices during the Classic period were obtained. present volume contains additional data collected Some data on petroglyphs are presented. during the first season, as well as reports on infor Following the excavation reports is a series of mation gathered during the second and third sea discussions on specific topics: 1) the Hohokam sons. Most of this salvage work was conducted in phase sequence, 2) settlement patterns, 3) ball sites of the Hohokam culture. Hohokam sites courts, 4) burial practices, 5) pottery and arti ranging from the Gila Butte phase through the Classic period were excavated. Some excavation facts, and 6) Mesoamerican influences. was also undertaken in Lower Colorado buffware Appendices include 1) an illustrated presenta sites. tion of materials from the Gila Bend area in the A rock -ridged ball court assigned to the Gila Norton Allen collection, 2) a description of the Butte phase was completely excavated. One court prehistoric plant remains by Hugh C. Cutler, and originally constructed during the Santa Cruz phase 3) a description of the prehistoric textiles by Mary and rebuilt during the Sacaton phase was exten- Elizabeth King. CONTENTS Page Page INTRODUCTION ........................ 1 Abrading Stones ................ 15 COLONIAL PERIOD ..................... 5 Miscellaneous Ground Stone Gila Butte Phase ........................ 5 Fragments ................... 15 The Rock Ball Court Site. .. 5 Shell Artifacts. .. 15 Structures 5 Plain Glycymeris Bracelets. .. 15 Structure 1 ....................... 6 Carved Glycymeris Bracelets ....... 15 Structure 2 . .. 7 Miscellaneous Fragments ......... , 15 Structure 3 . .. 7 Santa Cruz Phase . .. 15 Structure 4 . .. 7 The Rock Ball Court Site. .. 15 Structure 5 ...................... 8 Gatlin Site. .. 15 Ball Court ......................... 8 Arizona Z:2:2 ......................... 15 Cremations . .. 10 Pottery ............................ 16 Cremation 1 . .. 10 Artifacts . .. 16 Cremation 2 . .. 10 Ceramic Artifacts. .. 16 Pit Oven ........................... 11 Sherd Discs .................... 16 Trash Mounds ...................... 11 Stone Artifacts . ................... 16 Borrow Pits ........................ 11 Chopper ....................... 16 Borrow Pit 1 ..................... 11 Pitted Stone ....... .. 16 Pottery ............................ 11 Shell Artifacts . ................... 16 Gila