HOHOKAM HABITATION SITES
IN THE NORTHERN SANTA RITA MOUNTAINS
by Alan Ferg Kenneth C. Rozen William L. Deaver Martyn D. Tagg David A. Phillips, Jr. David A. Gregory
Cultural Resource Management Division Arizona State Museum University of Arizona
Archaeological Series No. 147, Vol. 2, Part 2 HOHOKAM HABITATION SITES IN THE NORTHERN SANTA RITA MOUNTAINS
by
Alan Ferg Kenneth C. Rozen William L. Deaver Martyn D. Tagg David A. Phillips, Jr. David A. Gregory
With Contributions by
Margaret Glass Robert S. Thompson Kurt Dongoske Karl J. Reinhard Richard H. Hevly Richard C. Lange Bruce B. Huckell
Submitted by
Cultural Resource Management Division Arizona State Museum University of Arizona
Prepared for
ANAMAX Mining Company
1984
Archaeological Series No. 147, Vol. 2, Part 2 CONTENTS
FIGURES xvii
TABLES xxix
PREFACE xxxxi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xxxxiii
ABSTRACT xxxxvii
1. THE ROSEMONT STUDY AREA AND PREVIOUS RESEARCH IN SURROUNDING AREAS 1 Alan Ferg Study Area Location 1 Study Area Environment 4 Climate and Topography 4 Vegetation 5 Fauna 5 Summary 8 Previous Research in the Land-Exchange Area 8 Regional Culture History 9 Tucson Basin 9 Middle Santa Cruz River Valley 12 Empire Valley 14 San Pedro River Valley 18
2. RESEARCH DESIGN 21 David A. Gregory and Alan Ferg The Derivation and Character of the Present Sample of Ceramic Period Sites 21 Problem Domains and Research Questions 27 Functional Site Types and Intrasite Organization 29 Relevant Data Classes 30 Economy and Subsistence 30 Relevant Data Classes 32 Site Distribution, Population Distribution, and Intersite Organization 32 Relevant Data Classes 33 Areal and Regional Relationships 35 Relevant Data Classes 36 Methods 36 Site Selection 36 Intrasite Sampling 38 General Field Techniques 39 Specialized Sampling 39
iii iv Contents
3. SITE DESCRIPTIONS 41 Alan Ferg Environment 41 Excavation Methods 45 Terms and Procedures Used in Data Presentation 49 Nonhabitation Sites 56 AZ EE:2:49 56 AZ EE:2:52 57 AZ EE:2:136 57 Trenched Habitation Sites 58 AZ EE:2:112 58 AZ EE:2:130 58 Early and Multicomponent Habitation Sites 59 AZ EE:2:76--The Gayler Ranch Ruin. 59 Structures 59 Feature 3 62 Feature 7 62 Feature 8 71 Feature 10 76 Feature 16 76 Feature 25 76 Feature 27 79 Feature 29 79 Slope Trash 79 Extramural Features 79 Pits and Hearths 79 Artifact and Animal Bone Clusters 80 Burials 80 Cremation Deposits 80 Feature 4002 80 Feature 5 81 Feature 46 81 Feature 52 81 Feature 56 81 Feature 57001 82 Inhumations 82 Feature 21 82 Feature 21 82 Feature 46 82 Feature 56 82 Feature 67 82 Ceramics and Dating 83 Nonceramic Artifacts 85 Subsistence 85 Summary 86 AZ EE:2:84 87 Structures 88 Feature 1 89 Features 10, 15, and 25 89 Slope Trash 91 Extramural Features 91 Burials 92 Cremation Deposits 92 Contents
Ceramics and Dating 92 Nonceramic Artifacts 92 Subsistence 92 Summary 93 AZ EE:2:105--the Ballcourt Site 94 Structures 94 Features 6, 7, and 10 108 Features 71200 and 71001 108 Features 30, 60, 90, and 99 108 Ballcourt 110 Slope Trash 114 Extramural Features 114 Pits and Hearths 114 Artifact and Animal Bone Clusters 115 Possible Borrow Pit 115 Caches: Ground Stone and Pottery 115 Burials 117 Cremation Deposits 117 Feature 28 117 Feature 41013 117 Feature 51 117 Feature 80 118 Feature 7022 118 Ceramics and Dating 118 Nonceramic Artifacts 118 Subsistence 118 Summary 119 AZ EE:2:113--Bumblebee Village 120 Structures 120 Features 6100, 6300, 6200, and 7 123 Features 8, 10100, and 154 137 Feature 86 141 Slope Trash 141 Extramural Features 141 Pits and Rock Clusters 143 Artifact and Animal Bone Clusters 143 Stone Platform 145 Borrow Pits 145 Burials 145 Cremation Deposits 146 Feature 1 146 Feature 4 146 Feature 7001 146 Feature 29 146 Feature 62 146 Feature 70 146 Feature 80 146 Feature 81 147 Feature 84 147 Feature 107001 148 Feature 147 148 Features 160 and 164 148 vi Contents
Inhumations 148 Feature 2 148 Feature 3 148 Features 15, 16, and 52 148 Features 25 and 72 149 Feature 53 149 Feature 165 149 Domestic Dog Inhumations 150 Feature 60 150 Feature 159 150 Feature 169 150 Ceramics and Dating 150 Nonceramic Artifacts 152 Subsistence 152 Summary 153 AZ EE:2:129 155 Structures 155 Feature 1 155 Feature 2 157 Slope Trash 160 Extramural Features 162 Burials 163 Ceramics and Dating 163 Nonceramic Artifacts 164 Subsistence 165 Summary 165 Middle Rincon Habitation Sites 166 AZ EE:2:77--Lightning Camp 166 Structures 166 Feature 1 166 Features 2, 3, and 31 169 Feature 56 174 Slope Trash 176 Extramural Features 176 Pits and Hearths 176 Postholes 177 Sherd-Lined Pits 177 Burials 177 Cremation Deposits 178 Features 22, 23001, and 52 178 Feature 40 178 Feature 44003 179 Inhumations 179 Feature 1003 179 Feature 4404 179 Ceramics and Dating 179 Nonceramic Artifacts 180 Subsistence 180 Summary 180 AZ EE:2:107 182 Structures 183 Feature 1 183 Feature 2 183 Contents vii
Feature 3 183 Feature 4 183 Feature 5 185 Slope Trash 185 Extramural Features 185 Burials 187 Cremation Deposits 187 Subfeatures 7001 and 7002 187 Inhumations 189 Feature 9 189 Feature 10 189 Feature 15 189 Ceramics and Dating 189 Nonceramic Artifacts 190 Subsistence 191 Summary 191 AZ EE:2:109 192 Structures 192 Feature 2 192 Feature 3 192 Slope Trash 192 Extramural Features 192 Ceramics and Dating 194 Nonceramic Artifacts 194 Subsistence 195 Summary 196 AZ EE:2:120 197 Structures 197 Slope Trash 199 Extramural Features 200 Pits with Rocks and Roasting Pit-Hearths 200 Artifact Cluster 201 Burials 202 Cremation Deposits 202 Feature 8001 202 Ceramics and Dating 202 Nonceramic Artifacts 203 Subsistence 203 Summary 203 Late Rincon Habitation Sites 203 AZ EE:1:104 204 Structures 204 Feature 1 204 Feature 2 204 Slope Trash 204 Extramural Features 206 Ceramics and Dating 206 Nonceramic Artifacts 207 Subsistence 207 Summary 208 AZ EE:2:106 208 Structures 209 Feature 1 209 viii Contents
Feature 2 211 Feature 3 211 Feature 6 212 Slope Trash 212 Extramural Features 213 Pits 213 Roasting Pit-Hearths 215 Lined Pits 215 Ceramics and Dating 215 Nonceramic Artifacts 216 Subsistence 217 Summary 217 AZ EE:2:116 218 Structures 218 Feature 1 218 Feature 2 218 Ceramics and Dating 220 Nonceramic Artifacts 220 Subsistence 220 Summary 221 AZ EE:2:117 222 Structures 224 Extramural Features 224 Pits 224 Postholes 226 Ground Stone Caches 226 Ceramics and Dating 226 Nonceramic Artifacts 227 Subsistence 228 Summary 228 AZ EE:2:122 231 Structures 231 Feature 1 231 Feature 2 231 Extramural Features 234 Rock Clusters 234 Burials 234 Primary Cremation 234 Ceramics and Dating 235 Subsistence 235 Summary 235
4. POTTERY 237 William L. Deaver Research Objectives 239 Methods 241 Decorative Study: A Stylistic Model 242 Design Structures 245 Banded Designs 246 Horizontal Band 247 Oblique Band 247 Combined Horizontal-Oblique Band 247 Spiral Band 247 Cross Band 250 Contents ix
Sectored Designs 250 Trisected 250 Quartered 250 Offset-Quartered 251 Plaited 251 Simple Plait 252 Diamond 252 Vertical Panel 252 Styles 252 Pioneer Period Style 254 Colonial Period Style 254 Sedentary Period Style 259 Rincon Style A 259 Rincon Style B 262 Rincon Style C 262 Technological Study 265 Temper 267 Surface Mica 269 Polish 269 Vessel Form Study 269 Restorable Vessels 272 Rim Sherds 273 Measuring Orifice and Aperture Diameters 273 Rim Study 273 Painted Pottery 273 Pioneer Period 285 Colonial Period 286 Caffada del Oro Red-on-brown 286 Color 286 Shape 286 Paste 288 Design 289 Surface Finish 289 Rims 293 Varieties 295 Remarks 295 Rillito Red-on-brown 296 Color 296 Shape 296 Paste 297 Design 297 Surface Finish 299 Rims 302 Varieties 303 Remarks 304 Sedentary Period 305 Rincon Red-on-brown 305 Color 306 Shape 306 Paste 306 Design 309 Surface Finish 316 Rims 319 x Contents
Varieties 319 Remarks 321 Rincon Black-on-brown 322 Color 322 Shape 322 Paste 323 Design 324 Surface Finish 324 Rims 324 Varieties 324 Remarks 324 Rincon Polychrome 326 Rio Rico Polychrome 326 Sahuarita Polychrome 328 Color 328 Paste 328 Shape 328 Design 329 Rims 329 Varieties 329 Remarks 329 Miscellaneous Painted Pottery 329 Classic Period 331 Tanque Verde Red-on-brown 331 Plain Pottery 331 Type I 335 Color 335 Shape 335 Paste 339 Surface Finish 339 Rims 339 Remarks 340 Type II 341 Color 342 Shape 342 Paste 342 Surface Finish 344 Rims 346 Remarks 346 Type III 348 Color 348 Shape 348 Paste 350 Surface Finish 353 Rims 353 Remarks 353 Type IV 355 Red Ware 356 Color 356 Shape 358 Paste 358 Surface Finish 359 Rims 359 Remarks 359 Contents xi
Textured Pottery 365 Intrusive Pottery 362 Phoenix Basin Hohokam Types 363 San Simon Mogollon Types 363 Trincheras Types 370 Anasazi Types 372 Miscellaneous Intrusives 372 Discussion 372 Worked Sherds 374 Figurines 376 Pottery Variability 378 Temporal Variation 378 Evaluation of the Stylistic Model 380 Ratios of Plain, Painted, and Red-Slipped Wares 384 Bowl-to-Jar Ratios 386 Changes in Decorated Pottery 386 Changes in Plain Pottery 392 Changes in Red Ware 399 Functional Variation 399 Vessel Shape 399 Bowls 400 Jars 402 Technology 407 Comparisons of Plain Ware Types 407 Vessel Size 407 Vessel Shape 407 Summary of Function 409 Regional Variation 410 Summary and Conclusions 410
5. FLAKED STONE 421 Kenneth C. Rozen Introduction 421 Project Background 421 Research Objectives 421 Previous Research 423 Theoretical Orientation and Analytic Approach 427 Technological Considerations 427 Selective Factors 432 Raw Materials 433 Occupational Factors 435 Tool Function 437 Analysis Terms and Procedures 439 Basic Artifact Category Definitions 439 Provenience Classes 442 Sampling Consideratons 443 Attributes 446 Material Type and Texture 446 Quartzite 446 Metasediment 451 Silicified Limestone 451 Chert 451 Limestone 452
xii Contents
Rhyolite 452 Basalt 452 Chalcedony 452 Other Materials 453 Material Texture 453 Artifact Size 453 Cortex 454 Platform Type 454 Platform Lipping 455 Direction of Flaking 455 Microflaking 455 Abrasion 455 Tool Typology 456 The Approach 456 Tool Type Descriptions 460 Notches 460 Irregularly Retouched Flake Fragments 461 Discontinuously Retouched Flake Fragments 461 Flakes with Continuous, Marginal, Nonextensive Retouch 461 Flakes with Continuous, Marginal, Extensive Retouch 462 Flakes with Continuous Invasive Retouch 462 Continuously Retouched Flake Fragments 470 Flakes with Nonextensive Bifacial Retouch 470 Irregular Bifaces 470 Regular Bifaces 472 Projectile Point Preforms 472 Projectile Points 475 Type 1 475 Type 2 479 Type 3 480 Type 4 480 Type 5 481 Type 6 481 Type 7 482 Type 8 482 Type 9 482 Type 10 483 Type 11 483 Type 12 483 Type 13 484 Drills 484 Projections 486 Large Primary-Flake Tools 486 Hammerstones 489 Battered Flakes 489 Wedges 489 Edge-Altered Flakes 492 Raw Material Variability and Assemblage Characteristics: Project-Wide Relationships 492 Raw Material Type by Texture Class 493 Bivariate Relationships between Material Texture and Assemblage Characteristics 495 Contents xiii
Proportions of Debitage, Retouched Pieces, and Cores, by Texture Class 495 Debitage Category Proportions by Texture Class 498 Complete Flake Size by Texture Class 498 Complete Flake Cortex by Texture Class 501 Proportions of Striking Platform Types by Texture Class 505 Platform Lipping by Texture Class 508 Fragment Size by Texture Class 509 Cortex on Fragments by Texture Class 509 Core Size by Texture Class 510 Core Flaking Direction by Texture Class 512 Cortex on Cores by Texture Class 512 Scraper Size and Retouch Extent by Material Type 512 Summary and Interpretation of Project-Wide Relationships Between Material Texture and Assemblage Characteristics 519 Conclusions 529 Assemblage Variation Among Sites and Major Provenience Classes Within Sites 530 Definition of the Analyzed Collections 531 Data Presentation and Comparative Observations 536 Material Type 536 Material Texture 539 Basic Artifact Categories 543 Complete Flake Size 546 Complete Flake Cortex 553 Striking Platform Type 556 Platform Lipping 556 Edge Alteration Attributes 556 Tool Type Proportions 561 Projectile Point Types 575 Scraper Size 577 Scraper Retouch Extent 579 Summary 579 Interpretation of Observed Variation 582 Interpretation of Variation in Tool Type Proportions 598 Conclusions 601 Discussion 601 Problems and Directions for Future Research 602
6. UTILITARIAN GROUND STONE 605 Martyn D. Tagg Research Objectives 605 Description of the Artifact Classes 609 Manos 609 Manos 611 Handstones 618 Hammer-Rubbing Stones 619 Polishing Stones 622 Discussion 623 Metates 624 Type 1 625 Type 2 630 Type 3 631 xiv Contents
Type 4 632 Discussion 635 Pestles 637 Type 1 637 Type 2 638 Type 3 639 Discussion 639 Mortars 640 Tabular Knives 642 Type 1 643 Type 2 644 Discussion 644 Grooved Axes 646 Tabular Abrading Stones 648 Pitted Stones 649 Stone Disks 651 Subrectangular Ground Stone Objects 652 Ground Stone Artifact Assemblages 653 Floor Assemblages 653 Caches 656 Summary and Discussion 658 Conclusions 664
7. NONUTILITARIAN GROUND STONE, CRYSTALS, AND MINERALS 665 Alan Ferg Palettes 665 673 Finger Rings Slate Rods 676 676 Slate Disks Unidentified Slate Objects 677 677 Unworked Slate Stone Bowls 677 678 "Slab Bowls" Unworked Slabs 678 680 Paint Pestles 680 Paddle or Human Effigy Fragment Jewelry 681 681 Turquoise 681 Unworked Pieces 681 Pendants and Blanks Overlay 681 681 Bead 683 Worked Pieces 683 Steatite Overlay 683 683 Beads 683 Argillite 683 Bird Pendant 684 Phyllite 684 Pendants or Earrings 685 Unidentified Stone Beads 685 Contents xv
Quartz Crystals 685 Mineral Specimens 686 Calcite 686 Gypsum 686 Manganese Oxide 687 Limonite 687 Hematite 687 Azurite, Malachite, Chrysocolla 687 Summary 688
8. SHELL 687 Alan Ferg Artifact Descriptions 687 Bracelets 687 Plain and Carved 687 Reworked Fragments 693 Finger Rings 694 Pendants 694 Irregular Shapes 694 Geometric Shapes 696 Zoomorphic Shapes 696 Whole Shell Pendants 696 Beads 697 Whole Shell and Barrel Beads 697 Disk Beads 697 Perforated Shell 697 Nose Plug 698 "Toggle" 698 Other Worked Shell 698 Distribution Patterns 698 Trade Implications 699
9. CERAMIC PERIOD SETTLEMENT PATTERNS IN THE ROSEMONT AREA: A DISCUSSION 701 David A. Phillips, Jr. Selection of Location Variables 703 Site Categories 703 Site Location and Vegetation Type 705 Site Location and Topographic Setting 707 Site Distribution and Elevation 709 Site Location and Permanent Water 711 Site Location and Soils 712 Initial Discussion 714 Site Location and Stream Profile Gradient 714 Further Discussion 719 Predictive Value of the Stream Profile Gradient Model 720 A Closing Note: Rock Piles and Clusters 722
10. DISCUSSION 725 Alan Ferg Chronological Controls and Constraints 725 Archaeomagnetic Sampling 726 Radiocarbon Sampling 726 xvi Contents
Nonpottery Artifacts 730 Cnramics 731 Summary 732 Functional Site Types and Intrasite Organization 734 The Artifact Assemblages 735 Pottery Analysis 735 Flaked Stone 736 Utilitarian Ground Stone 736 Nonutilitarian Ground Stone, Miscellaneous Stone, Shell, and Bone 737 Artifact Kinds and Proportions 737 Artifact Densities 740 The Settlement Pattern Evidence 742 Intrasite Organization 742 Architectural Attributes 744 Extramural Features 744 Pits 744 Roasting Pit-Hearths and Related Feature Types 744 Extramural Plastered Hearths and Sherd-Lined Pits 746 Artifact and Animal Bone Clusters 746 Stone Platforms 746 Postholes 747 Borrow Pits 747 Caches 747 Ballcourt 747 Discussion 747 Structure Architecture 751 Floor Area 751 Roof Support 756 Entryways 758 Hearths 760 Floor Grooves 760 Floor Pits 761 Functional Structure Types 761 Disposal of the Dead 768 Disposal of Refuse 770 Site Structure 770 Pit House Orientation 771 Distribution of Trash, Burials, and Ballcourts 778 Summary: Functional Site Types and Intrasite Organization 780 Economy and Subsistence 782 Hunting 782 Gathering 784 Agriculture 784 Contrasts with Basin Sites 786 Areal and Regional Relationships 787 Trade Goods 787 Shell 787 Nonlocal Stone 787 Intrusive Ceramics 788 Cultural Influences 791 Architecture and Community Organization 791 Contents xvii
792 Mortuary Practices 792 Cremation Deposits Inhumations 798 Physical Anthropology 802 Summary 802 Site Distribution, Population Distribution, and Intersite Organization 804 Population Estimates 805 Events and Causes Shaping Settlement and Abandonment 810 810 Caflada Del Oro Phase 812 Rillito Phase 815 Early Rincon Phase Middle Rincon to Early Tanque Verde Phase 816 Social Organization 821 Conclusion 822
Appendix A: FAUNAL REMAINS FROM HOHOKAM SITES IN THE 823 ROSEMONT AREA, NORTHERN SANTA RITA MOUNTAINS Margaret Glass Appendix B: PLANT REMAINS FROM THE ANAMAX-ROSEMONT PROJECT 917 Bruce B. Huckell Appendix C: POLLEN ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENTS FROM HOHOKAM 921 SITES IN THE ROSEMONT AREA Robert S. Thompson Appendix D: HUMAN REMAINS FROM THE ANAMAX-ROSEMONT PROJECT 935 Kurt Dongoske
Appendix E: PARASITOLOGICAL AND DIETARY STUDY OF INHUMATIONS 945 FROM BUMBLEBEE VILLAGE, AZ EE:2:113 (ASM) Karl J. Reinhard and Richard H. Hevly
Appendix F: ARCHAEOMAGNETIC DATING OF SAMPLES FROM THE 953 ANAMAX-ROSEMONT PROJECT Richard C. Lange
REFERENCES 957
FIGURES
1.1 Southeastern Arizona, showing the location of the ANAMAX-Rosemont land-exchange area and the archaeological sites discussed in this volume. 2
1.2 Topography and named drainages of the land-exchange area. 3
1.3 Distribution of plant communities within the ANAMAX- Rosemont land-exchange area (after McLaughlin and Van Asdall 1977). 6 xviii Contents
1.4 Looking west at the Gayler (VR) Ranch on the floodplain of upper Barrel Canyon, with the crestline of the Santa Ritas in the background. 7
1.5 Looking northwest down the ridge on which AZ EE:2:106 is located, with the crestline of the Santa Ritas in the background. 7
1.6 Regional culture-historical sequences. 11
2.1 Map of the areas surveyed for the ANAMAX-Rosemont land exchange. 23
2.2 Map of the southeastern portion of the exchange area, showing the relative positions of the sites, by class and proposed geographic group. 34
3.1 Southeastern portion of the land exchange area showing the Hohokam habitation sites by site number, size class, and excavation status. 42
3.2 Excavation methods at the Feature 3 pit house, AZ EE:2:109. 48
3.3 Site life-span chart for the excavated Hohokam sites. 55
3.4 Site map, AZ EE:2:130. 60
3.5 Site map, AZ EE:2:76--the Gayler Ranch Ruin. 61
3.6 Plan view and cross section of the three house floors in the Feature 7 house pit, AZ EE:2:76. 74
3.7 Plan view and cross sections of the four house floors in the Feature 8 house pit, AZ EE:2:76. 75
3.8 Detailed map of excavated area on ridge toe showing concentration of extramural features, cemetery area, and the Feature 3, 16, and 25 structures. 77
3.9 Possible pit house occupation sequence, AZ EE:2:76. 84
3.10 Site map, AZ EE:2:84. 88
3.11 Site map, AZ EE:2:105--the Ballcourt Site. 95
3.12 Western excavation area, AZ EE:2:105. 105
3.13 Eastern excavation area, AZ EE:2:105. 106
3.14 Southern excavation area, AZ EE:2:105. 107
3.15 Plan view and cross sections of the Rillito phase Feature 71200 pit house, and the early Rincon phase Feature 71001 pit house at AZ EE:2:105. 109 Contents xix
3.16 Plan view and cross section of the Colonial period Feature 9 pit house and intrusive postholes and hearths associated with the early Rincon phase limited-use structure, Feature 60, at AZ EE:2:105. 111
3.17 Contour map of the ballcourt (Feature 1) at AZ EE:2:105 prior to excavation. 112
3.18 Map of the ridge on which AZ EE:2:113 and AZ EE:2:129 are located, showing all backhoe trenches, and excavated areas. 121
3.19 Site map, AZ EE:2:113--Bumblee Village. 122
3.20 Plan view of the Feature 6100, 6300, 6200, and 7 structures with the suggested sequence of superposition. 138
3.21 Plan view and cross sections of the Feature 8 pit house, AZ EE:2:113. 142
3.22 Feature 5 roasting pit-hearth, AZ EE:2:113. 144
3.23 Feature 22 roasting pit-hearth, AZ EE:2:113. 144
3.24 Feature 6304 deer mandible cluster, AZ EE:2:113. 144
3.25 Feature 108 stone platform, AZ EE:2:113. 144
3.26 Bone tube and cut-off long bone ends from AZ EE:2:113. 147
3.27 Site map of AZ EE:2:113 showing distributions of certain feature types. 154
3.28 Site map, AZ EE:2:129. 156
3.29 Feature 4 superimposed roasting pits, AZ EE:2:129. 163
3.30 Feature 3 roasting pit, AZ EE:2:129. 163
3.31 Site map, AZ EE:2:77--Lightning Camp. 167
3.32 Site map, AZ EE:2:107. 184
3.33 Plan view and cross section of the Feature 3 pit house, AZ EE:2:107. 188
3.34 Site map, AZ EE:2:109. 193
3.35 Site map, AZ EE:2:120. 198
3.36 Site map, AZ EE:1:104. 205
3.37 Site map, AZ EE:2:106. 210
xx Contents
3.38 Plan view and cross section of the Feature 2 pit house, AZ EE:2:106. 214
3.39 Site map, AZ EE:2:116. 219
3.40 Plan view and cross section of the Feature 2 pit house, AZ EE:2:116. 223
3.41 Site map, AZ EE:2:117. 225
3.42 Plan view and cross section of the Feature 1 pit house, AZ EE:2:117. 229
3.43 Site map, AZ EE:2:122. 232
4.1 Synoptic chart of the decorative structures on Tucson Basin pottery of the Colonial and Sedentary period. 248
4.2 Colonial style exterior designs. 255
4.3 Colonial style exterior designs. 256
4.4 Colonial style bowl interior designs. 257
4.5 Colonial style bowl interior designs. 258
4.6 Rincon Style A exterior designs. 260
4.7 Rincon Style A interior designs: cross banded. 261
4.8 Rincon Style B exterior designs. 263
4.9 Rincon Style B and Style C exterior designs. 264
4.10 Rincon Styles A, B, and C interior designs. 265
4.11 Rincon Style C bowl interior designs: offset-quartered, paneled. 266
4.12 Various parts of vessels used in this study and the characteristic points used to define them. 271
4.13 Rim angles for nondirect rims: (2) slight flare; (3) moderate flare; (4) pronounced flare; (5) slightly everted; (6) moderately everted; (7) pronounced everted; (8) complete upcurve; and (9) incomplete upcurve. 274
4.14 Side wall angles used to infer vessel shape from rim sherds, and the idealized shapes that they may represent. 275
4.15 Variety of side wall treatments identified during this pottery study: straight; thickened; thinned; exterior thinned; interior "bulge;" interior thinned. 276
Contents xxi
4.16 Variety of rim forms identified during this study: tapered; rounded; squared; beveled; and remainder miscellaneous forms. 277
4.17 Exterior designs on the ANAMAX-Rosemont restorable vessels. 280
4.18 Exterior designs on the ANAMAX-Rosemont restorable vessels. 281
4.19 Interior bowl designs on the ANAMAX-Rosemont restorable vessels. 282
4.20 Interior bowl designs on the ANAMAX-Rosemont restorable vessels. 283
4.21 Interior bowl designs on the ANAMAX-Rosemont restorable vessels. 284
4.22 Canada del Oro Red-on-brown sherds showing decorative treatment. 287
4.23 Exterior bowl design patterns noted on Canada del Oro Red- on-brown in the ANAMAX-Rosemont and Hodges collections. 291
4.24 Canada del Oro Red-on-brown life form. 291
4.25 Variety of rim forms noted on Canada del Oro Red-on- brown rim sherds in the ANAMAX-Rosemont collection. 293
4.26 Rillito Red-on-brown vessel forms. 297
4.27 Rillito Red-on-brown rim sherds showing typical decorative treatment. 300
4.28 Rillito Red-on-brown body sherds showing typical decorative treatment. 301
4.29 Rillito Red-on-brown life forms. 302
4.30 Variety of Rillito Red-on-brown rim forms. 303
4.31 Rincon Red-on-brown vessel forms. 308
4.32 Size distribution of Rincon Red-on-brown bowls based on estimated minimum orifice diameter from rim sherds. 310
4.33 Rincon Red-on-brown Style A bowl sherds showing typical decorative treatment and trailing line treatments. 312
4.34 Rincon Red-on-brown Style A jar sherds showing typical decorative treatment. 313
4.35 Rincon Red-on-brown Style B and Style C. 314 xxii Contents
4.36 Rincon Red-on-brown life forms. 315
4.37 Exterior design patterns noted on Rincon Red-on-brown bowls. 316
4.38 Rincon Red-on-brown, white-slipped variant. 317
4.39 Rincon Red-on-brown, smudged variant. 318
4.40 Variety of Rincon Red-on-brown rim forms. 319
4.41 Rincon Black-on-brown vessel shapes. 323
4.42 Rincon Black-on-brown sherds. 325
4.43 Polychromes and unidentified decorated wares. 327
4.44 Variety of crude red-on-brown rim forms. 330
4.45 Size distribution of Type I plain ware bowls based on minimum orifice diameter and the range of jar aperture diameters as estimated from rim sherds. 336
4.46 Type I plain ware vessel shapes. 337
4.47 Type I plain ware minature vessels. 337
4.48 Variety of Type I plain ware rim forms. 340
4.49 Size distribution of Type II plain ware bowls based on minimum orifice diameter and the range of jar aperture diameters as estimated from rim sherds. 343
4.50 Type II plain ware vessel shapes. 344
4.51 Variety of Type II plain ware rim forms. 347
4.52 Type III plain ware vessel shapes. 349
4.53 Size distribution of Type III plain ware bowls based on minimum orifice diameter and range of jar aperture diameters as estimated from rim sherds. 351
4.54 Variety of Type III plain ware rim forms. 354
4.55 Variety of Type IV plain ware rim forms. 356
4.56 Variety of red ware rim forms. 360
4.57 Phoenix Basin intrusives. 365
4.58 Phoenix Basin intrusives: Sacaton Red-on-buff. 366
Contents xxiii
4.59 Restored intrusive vessels from the ANAMAX-Rosemont sites. 367
4.60 San Simon intrusives. 371
4.61 Trincheras and Anasazi intrusives. 373
4.62 Worked sherds: secondary vessels. 375
4.63 Worked sherds: tools. 376
4.64 Worked sherds. 377
4.65 Human torso figurine fragment showing pattern of crescentic punctations. 379
4.66 Relative proportion of plain to decorated to red wares by phase. 385
4.67 Seriation of temper and bowl rim painting showing the decrease in occurrence of schist as a temper component and the increase in the practice of painting bowl rims through time. 388
4.68 Comparison of Colonial and Sedentary period bowl size based on estimates of minimum orifice diameter. 397 4.69 Relative proportion of plain ware types by phase. 398 4.70 Vessel size index plotted against vessel-height-to- breadth ratio for bowls. 403
4.71 Aperture-to-breadth ratio plotted against vessel-height- to-breadth ratio for jars. 404
4.72 Limits of variation in vessel-height-to-breadth ratio and aperture-to-breadth ratio for historic vessels of known use. 405
4.73 Ethnographic data superimposed on ANAMAX-Rosemont data, partitioning vessels into possible use categories. 406
4.74 Comparison of Types I, II, and III plain ware bowls based on minimum orifice, and jars based on aperture diameter for all time periods. 408
4.75 Comparison of Types I, II, and III plain ware bowls based on minimum orifice, and jars based on aperture during the "early" occupation. 409
4.76 Comparison of Types I, II, and III plain ware bowl forms. 412
4.77 Comparison of Types I, II, and III plain ware jar forms. 413 xxiv Contents
5.1 Tool typology outline. 458
5.2 Flakes with continuous, marginal, extensive retouch (CME). 463
5.3 Flakes with continuous, marginal, extensive retouch (CME), resulting in a concave working edge. 464
5.4 Scrapers from the Rosemont Hohokam sites. 466
5.5 Scrapers from the Rosemont Hohokam sites. 467
5.6 Scrapers from the Rosemont Hohokam sites. 468
5.7 Scrapers from the Rosemont Hohokam sites. 469
5.8 Irregular bifaces. 471
5.9 Regular bifaces. 473
5.10 Projectile point preforms. 474
5.11 Hohokam Projectile points. 476
5.12 Projectile points. 477
5.13 Archaic projectile points. 478
5.14 Archaic projectile points. 479
5.15 Drills. 485
5.16 Projections. 487
5.17 Large primary flake tools. 488
5.18 Core hammerstones. 490
5.19 Wedges and batterered flakes. 491
5.20 Frequency distributions for major material types by texture class. 495
5.21 Relative frequency distributions of debitage, retouched pieces, and cores by texture class. 497
5.22 Relative frequency distributions of complete and split flakes, proximal and medial-distal flake fragments, and nonorientable fragments, by texture class. 500
5.23 Mean length and width of complete flakes by texture class. 502
5.24 Histograms of complete flake thichness for each texture class. 503
Contents xxv
5.25 Relative frequency distributions of complete flake cortex classes by texture class. 505
5.26 Relative frequency distributions of cortical, plain, faceted, and intermediate platforms by texture class. 507
5.27 Relative frequency distribution of cortical fragments by texture class. 511
5.28 Percentages of multidirectional, bidirectional, and unidirectional cores by Texture Classes 3 through 6. 514
5.29 Percentages of core cortex classes by Texture Classes 3 through 6. 515
5.30 Relative frequency distributions of chert, metasediment, silicified limestone, and quartzite scrapers by retouch extent percentage class. 518
5.31 Material-type composition bar graphs for all analyzed collections. 538
5.32 Texture class histograms for all analyzed collections. 542
5.33 Dendrogram showing relationships among the analyzed collections with respect to percentages of basic artfact categories. 546
5.34 Mean-flake-length by mean-flake-width scattergram for all analyzed collections. 550
5.35 Triangular coordinate plot of percentages of complete flakes by cortex classes, for all analyzed collections. 555
5.36 Triangular coordinate plot of cortical, plain, and faceted striking platforms. 558
5.37 Cumulative percentage distributions of tool types for the analyzed assemblages. 574
5.38 Map of the Rosemont area showing site locations and the material type composition group. 586
6.1 Division of sites by time. 608
6.2 Length and width relationships for manos, handstones, hammer-rubbing stones, and polishing stones. 610
6.3 Mano shape by time period. 612
6.4 Mano types. 613
6.5 Transverse and longitudinal cross section by time period. 614 xxvi Contents
6.6 Mano material type by time period. 615
6.7 Mano blanks. 616
6.8 Handstone types. 618
6.9 Handstone type by time period. 620
6.10 Hammer-rubbing stones and polishing stones. 621
6.11 Metate types. 626
6.12 Length and width relationships for slab metates and small grinding slabs. 633
6.13 Small grinding slabs. 634
6.14 Pestle types. 638
6.15 Length and width relationships for the three types of pestles. 640
6.16 Mortars, grooved abraders, and subrectangular objects. 641
6.17 Tabular knives. 643
6.18 Three-quarter grooved axes. 647
6.19 Tabular abrading stones and stone disks. 650
6.20 Pitted stones. 650
6.21 Distribution of ground stone artifacts by time periods. 660
6.22 Distribution of ground stone artifacts by site type. 660
6.23 Comparison of ground stone artifact assemblages from the Rosemont sites, the middle Santa Cruz River sites, and Las Colinas. 662
7.1 Technological series for slate palette manufacture in the Rosemont area. 667
7.2 Decorated palettes and unidentified incised slate piece. 669
7.3 Palettes. 671
7.4 Technological series for slate finger ring manufacture in the Rosemont area, slate rods, and unidentified slate object. 674
7.5 Decorated stone bowls, unworked slab, "slab bowl," paint pestles, and a paddle or human effigy fragment. 679 Contents xxvii
7.6 Turquoise, steatite, shell, and bone ornaments found with Feature 44004 at AZ EE:2:77, and Feature 1 at AZ EE:2:52. 682
7.7 Turquoise, phyllite, argillite, and steatite ornaments. 682
8.1 Plain and carved bracelet fragments, noseplug, and other worked shell. 692
8.2 Reworked Glycymeris bracelet fragments. 692
8.3 Cut, ground, and whole shell pendants or bead-pendants. 695
8.4 Cut and ground geometric and zoomorphic pendants. 695
9.1 Site location plotted against stream gradient for drainages in the Rosemont area. 716
9.2 Stream gradients for drainages lacking sites in the Rosemont area. 717
9.3 Distribution of Class 12 through 19 sites with respect to stream gradient. 718
9.4 Site location plotted against stream gradient for three canyons in the Catalina Mountains. 721
10.1 Change in Tucson Basin decorated pottery through time as a basis for chronological assignment of Rosemont area sites. 733
10.2 Artifact assemblage composition for investigated sites. 739
10.3 Average artifact densities within structures at investigated sites. 741
10.4 Ratio of number of extramural features to number of structures at investigated sites. 750
10.5 Types and temporal associations of structures plotted by floor area. 755
10.6 Architectural attributes of structures. 757
10.7 Maps of functional structure types. 762
10.8 Examples of structure types from the Rosemont sites. 763
10.9 Examples of structures with single central posts. 764
10.10 Examples of limited-use structures. 766
10.11 Examples of limited-use structures. 769 xxviii Contents
10.12 Relationship of pit house orientation to maximum ridge width. 774
10.13 Postulated acceptable and unacceptable arrangements of features for Rosemont area habitation sites. 776
10.14 Relationships of pit house entryway orientations and ridge orientations. 777
10.15 Examples of cremation deposits from AZ EE:2:77, AZ EE:2:107, AZ E:2:113, and AZ EE:2:76, and a rock- covered dog inhumation from AZ EE:2:113. 797
10.16 Flexed, seated, and kneeling inhumations from AZ EE:2:76, AZ EE:2:107, and AZ EE:2:113. 800
10.17 Postulated growth and decline of the Rosemont area population using estimated numbers of pit houses by time period. 808
10.18 Distribution of habitation sites by time period in the Rosemont area. 809
A.1 Representation of gray fox elements. 851
A.2 Representation of leporid elements at AZ EE:2:76. 861
A.3 Representation of leporid elements at AZ EE:2:105. 862
A.4 Representation of leporid elements at AZ EE:2:113. 863
A.5 Comparison of Lepus and Sylvilagus element representation at AZ EE:2:105. 865
A.6 Comparison of Lepus and Sylvilagus element representation at AZ EE:2:113. 866
A.7 Comparison of residual variation in Lepus element representation at AZ EE:2:105 and AZ EE:2:113. 868
A.8 Mean representation for all leporid elements at AZ EE:2:105 and AZ EE:2:113. 869
A.9 Mean fragmentation values for leporid elements at AZ EE:2:105 and AZ EE:2:113. 870
A.10 •sion groups and age groups for leporids at AZ EE:2:105. 874
A.11 Fusion groups and age groups for leporids at AZ EE:2:113. 875
A.12 Element representation for artiodactyls at AZ EE:2:76. 880
A.13 Element representation for artiodactyls at AZ EE:2:105. 880
Contents xxix
A.14 Element representation for artiodactyls at AZ EE:2:113. 880
A.15 Comparison of artiodactyl element representation and bone density at AZ EE:2:105. 882
A.16 Comparison of artiodactyl element representation and bone density at AZ EE:2:113. 882
A.17 Fragmentation indices of artiodactyl elements at AZ EE:2:105. 883
A.18 Fragmentation indices of artiodactyl elements at AZ EE:2:113. 883
A.19 Bone awls and hairpins. 904
A.20 Miscellaneous bone and antler artifacts. 905
A.21 Width and thickness measurements for awls and hairpins. 907
TABLES 1.1 Swanson's Empire Valley chronology. 16 2.1 Hohokam sites located outside the final eastern boundary of the land exchange. 24
2.2 Sites in the Barrel Canyon Archaeological District, by class and area. 26
2.3 The sampling universe of Hohokam sites by group, class, age, and area. 28
2.4 Rosemont Hohokam habitation sites selected for excavation, by geographic group and site class. 38
3.1 Site excavation and effort figures, ANAMAX-Rosemont Project. 43
3.2 Artifact density data for all house pits at all sites. 52
3.3 Types and numbers of features, excavated and unexcavated, at AZ EE:2:76. 62
3.4 Artifact totals by class for AZ EE:2:76. 63
3.5 Excavated feature information, AZ EE:2:76. 64
3.6 Structure dating and content summary, AZ EE:2:76. 72
3.7 Decorated pottery types from AZ EE:2:76. 78 xxx Contents
3.8 Types and numbers of features, excavated and unexcavated, at AZ EE:2:84. 89
3.9 Artifact totals by class for AZ EE:2:84. 90
3.10 Structure dating and content summary, AZ EE:2:84. 91
3.11 Decorated pottery types from AZ EE:2:84. 93
3.12 Types and numbers of features, excavated and unexcavated, at AZ EE:2:105. 96
3.13 Artifact totals by class for AZ EE:2:105, the Ballcourt Site. 97
3.14 Excavated feature information, AZ EE:2:105. 98
3.15 Structure dating and content summary, AZ EE:2:105. 103
3.16 Decorated pottery types from AZ EE:2:105. 116
3.17 Types and numbers of features, excavated and unexcavated, at AZ EE:2:113. 123
3.18 Artifact totals by class for AZ EE:2:113. 124
3.19 Excavated feature information, AZ EE:2:113. 125
3.20 Structure dating and content summary, AZ EE:2:113. 136
3.21 Decorated pottery types from AZ EE:2:113. 139
3.22 Suggested temporal seriation of structures at AZ EE:2:113, based on the proportions of Colonial period and early Rincon phase sherds in their fill and floor assemblages. 151
3.23 Types and numbers of features, excavated and unexcavated, at AZ EE:2:129. 157
3.24 Artifact totals by class for AZ EE:2:129. 158
3.25 Excavated feature information, AZ EE:2:129. 159
3.26 Structure dating and content summary, AZ EE:2:129. 161
3.27 Decorated pottery types from AZ EE:2:129. 164
3.28 Types and numbers of features, excavated and unexcavated, at AZ EE:2:77. 168
3.29 Artifact totals by class for AZ EE:2:77. 169
3.30 Excavated feature information, AZ EE:2:77. 170 Contents xxxi
3.31 Structure dating and content summary, AZ EE:2:77. 175
3.32 Decorated pottery types from AZ EE:2:77. 181
3.33 Types and numbers of features, excavated and unexcavated, at AZ EE:2:107. 185
3.34 Artifact totals by class for AZ EE:2:107. 186
3.35 Structure dating and content summary, AZ EE:2:107. 187
3.36 Decorated pottery types from AZ EE:2:107. 190
3.37 Types and numbers of features, excavated and unexcavated, at AZ EE:2:109. 194
3.38 Artifact totals by class for AZ EE:2:109. 195
3.39 Structure dating and content summary, AZ EE:2:109. 196
3.40 Decorated pottery types from AZ EE:2:109. 197
3.41 Types and numbers of features, excavated and unexcavated, at AZ EE:2:120. 199
3.42 Artifact totals by class for AZ EE:2:120. 200
3.43 Structure dating and content summary, AZ EE:2:120. 201
3.44 Decorated pottery types from AZ EE:2:120. 202
3.45 Types and numbers of features, excavated and unexcavated, at AZ EE:1:104. 206
3.46 Artifact totals by class for AZ EE:1:104. 207
3.47 Structure dating and content summary, AZ EE:1:104. 208
3.48 Decorated pottery types from AZ EE:1:104. 209
3.49 Types and numbers of features, excavated and unexcavated, at AZ EE:2:106. 211
3.50 Artifact totals by class for AZ EE:2:106. 212
3.51 Structure dating and content summary, AZ EE:2:106. 213
3.52 Decorated pottery types from AZ EE:2:106. 216
3.53 Types and numbers of features, excavated and unexcavated, at AZ EE:2:116. 220
3.54 Artifact totals by class for AZ EE:2:116. 221
xxxii Contents
3.55 Structure dating and content summary, AZ EE:2:116. 222
3.56 Decorated pottery types from AZ EE:2:116. 224
3.57 Types and numbers of features, excavated and unexcavated, at AZ EE:2:117. 226
3.58 Artifact totals by class for AZ EE:2:117. 227
3.59 Structure dating and content summary, AZ EE:2:117. 228
3.60 Decorated pottery types from AZ EE:2:117. 230
3.61 Types and numbers of features, excavated and unexcavated, at AZ EE:2:122. 233
3.62 Artifact totals by class for AZ EE:2:122. 233
3.63 Structure dating and content summary, AZ EE:2:122. 234
4.1 Tucson Basin decorated pottery types and corresponding decorative styles. 253
4.2 Temper classes used in the technological study of ANAMAX- Rosemont pottery. 268
4.3 Summary of painted pottery from the Rosemont sites. 279
4.4 Inventory of vessel shapes for Cafiada del Oro as determined from rim sherds. 288
4.5 Frequency of temper classes for Caftada del Oro Red-on- brown from the ANAMAX-Rosemont, Hodges Ruin, Hardy Site, and ASM type collections. 290
4.6 Frequency of Caflada del Oro Red-on-brown rims with painted lips from the ANAMAX-Rosemont, Hodges Ruin, Hardy Site, and ASM type collections. 294
4.7 Inventory of Rillito Red-on-brown vessel shapes as determined from rim sherds. 298
4.8 Frequency of temper types for Rillito Red-on-brown. 299
4.9 Frequency of Rillito Red-on-brown rims with painted and unpainted lips. 304
4.10 Synopsis of the Tucson Basin painted pottery sequence showing named pottery types and technological variants. 306
4.11 Inventory of Rincon Red-on-brown vessel shapes as determined from rim sherds. 309
Contents xxxiii
4.12 Frequency of temper types for Rincon Red-on-brown, by style, for the ANAMAX-Rosemont, Hodges Ruin, Hardy Site, and ASM type collections. 311
4.13 Frequency of painted and unpainted lips on Rincon Red-on-brown rims, by style. 320
4.14 Frequency of temper types for Rincon Black-on-brown. 323
4.15 Summary of plain ware from the Rosemont sites. 334
4.16 Inventory of Type I plain ware vessel shapes as determined from rim sherds. 338
4.17 Frequency of temper types for Type I plain ware. 339
4.18 Inventory of Type II plain ware vessel shapes as determined from rim sherds. 345
4.19 Frequency of temper types for Type II plain ware. 346
4.20 Inventory of Type III plain ware vessel shapes as determined from rim sherds. 350
4.21 Frequency of temper types for Type III plain ware, Varieties A and B. 352
4.22 Frequency of temper types for Type IV plain ware. 355
4.23 Distribution of red ware by site. 357
4.24 Frequency of temper types for red ware. 358
4.25 Summary of intrusive pottery from the ANAMAX-Rosemont sites by occupation period. 364
4.26 Association of intrusive types and Tucson Basin red-on- brown types in specific stratified deposits. 368
4.27 Calibrated radiocarbon dates from ceramically dated contexts. 382
4.28 Bowl-to-jar ratio by time. 387
4.29 Distribution of black paint, in bichrome and polychrome color schemes, by time. 390
4.30 Distribution of black paint by decorative style. 390
4.31 Inventory of bowl and jar shapes for Canada del Oro, Rillito, and Rincon Red-on-brown. 391
xxxiv Contents
4.32 Typological, contextual, and metric data on restorable painted, plain, and red ware bowls from the ANAMAX- Rosemont collection. 393
4.33 Typological, contextual, and metric data on restorable painted and plain ware jars from the ANAMAX-Rosemont collection. 395
4.34 Inventory of bowl and jar shapes for Type I, II, and III plain wares. 411
5.1 Basic chipped stone artifact category frequencies for each site. 441
5.2 Numbers of chipped stone artifacts recovered and analyzed, by major provenience class, for each site. 444
5.3 Numbers of artifacts recovered and analyzed, by structure, for each site. 447 5.4 Recorded attributes by basic artifact category. 450 5.5 Frequencies and percentages of material types by texture class. 494
5.6 Frequencies and percentages of debitage, retouched pieces, and cores by texture class. 496
5.7 Frequencies and percentages of complete and split flakes, proximal and medial-distal flake fragments, and nonorientable fragments by texture class. 499
5.8 Mean, standard deviation, and sample size for complete flake length, width, and thickness by texture class. 501
5.9 Frequencies, percentages, and sample sizes for complete flake cortex class, for each texture class. 504
5.10 Frequencies, percentages, and sample size of striking platform types on complete flakes and prozimal flake fragments, combined, for each texture class. 506
5.11 Frequencies and percentages of the presence of platform lipping on complete flakes, split flakes, and proximal flake fragments, and sample size for each texture class. 508
5.12 Mean, standard deviation, and sample size for maximum dimension of fragments, by texture class. 509
5.13 Frequencies, percentages, and sample sizes for the presence and absence of cortex on fragments, by texture class. 510
Contents xxxv
5.14 Mean and standard deviation for maximum dimension for cores by texture class. 511
5.15 Frequencies and percentages of flaking direction and cortex classes for cores, for Texture Classes 3 through 6. 513
5.16 Mean and standard deviation scraper length, width, and thickness and sample size, for each of the four major material types. 516
5.17 Frequencies and percentages of scrapers by retouch extent percentage classes, mean and standard deviation of actual retouch extent percentage, and sample size for each of the four major materials. 517
5.18 Structure fill collections by site and structure number. 532
5.19 Artifact counts by provenience class and site for analyzed collections. 534
5.20 Frequencies and percentages of artifacts by material type for analyzed collections. 537
5.21 Frequencies and percentages of artifacts by texture class, for all analyzed collections. 540
5.22 Frequencies and percentages of artifacts by basic artifact category for analyzed collections. 544
5.23 Mean artifact category percentages by dendrogram groups. 547
5.24 Mean, standard deviation, and sample size for complete flake length, width, and thickness for all analyzed collections. 548
5.25 Comparative flake size statements based on nonoverlapping 95 percent confidence intervals for mean flake thickness. 551
5.26 Frequencies, percentages, and sample sizes of complete flakes by cortex class, for analyzed collections. 554
5.27 Frequencies, percentages, and sample sizes of cortical, noncortical plain, faceted, and indeterminate striking platforms on complete flakes and proximal flake fragments combined, for analyzed collections. 557
5.28 Frequencies, percentages, and sample sizes of the occurence of platform lipping on complete and split flakes and proximal flake fragments combined, for analyzed collections. 559
xxxvi Contents
5.29 Frequencies, percentages, and sample sizes of the occurence of microflaking and abrasion on debitage, for analyzed collections. 560
5.30 Tool type frequencies by provenience class for AZ EE:2:76. 562
5.31 Tool type frequencies by provenience class for AZ EE:2:77. 563
5.32 Tool type frequencies by provenience class for AZ EE:2:84. 563
5.33 Tool type frequencies by provenience class for AZ EE:2:105. 564
5.34 Tool type frequencies by provenience class for AZ EE:2:106. 565
5.35 Tool type frequencies by provenience class for AZ EE:2:107. 565
5.36 Tool type frequencies by provenience class for AZ EE:2:109. 565
5.37 Tool type frequencies by provenience class for AZ EE:2:113. 566
5.38 Tool type frequencies by provenience class for AZ EE:2:116. 567
5.39 Tool type frequencies by provenience class for AZ EE:2:117. 567
5.40 Tool type frequencies by provenience class for AZ EE:2:120. 568
5.41 Tool type frequencies by provenience class for AZ EE:2:122. 568
5.42 Tool type frequencies by provenience class for AZ EE:2:129. 569
5.43 Tool type frequencies by provenience class for AZ EE:1:104. 569
5.44 Summary of collapsed tool types. 571
5.45 Frequencies, percentages, and sample sizes of tools by type for the analyzed assemblages. 573
5.46 Projectile point type frequencies by provenience. 576
Contents xxxvii
5.47 Mean, standard deviation, and sample size for whole scraper length, width, and thickness by texture class for analyzed sites and site groups. 578
5.48 Frequencies and percentages of scrapers by retouch percentage class, mean and standard deviation retouch percentage, and sample size, for analyzed sites and site groups. 580
5.49 Artifact density, numbers of structures, extramural features, and burials, and occupation span for all sites, by occupation class. 584
5.50 Artifact category proportions, complete flake size and cortex, striking platform type, and tool assemblage composition for each site and analyzed collection, by occupation class. 590
5.51 Mean flake thickness, percentage of cortical flakes, and platform type group by artifact category proportion group. 594
6.1 Types and proveniences of ground stone artifacts. 606
6.2 Floor assemblages. 654
6.3 Ground stone caches. 657
6.4 Distribution of ground stone artifacts by time period. 659
7.1 Nonutilitarian ground stone artifacts by site. 666
7.2 Temporal associations of palette types in the Rosemont assemblage. 668
7.3 Worked and unworked crystals and minerals. 686
8.1 Counts of shell items of different species from the Rosemont sites. 690
8.2 Shell artifacts by site. 691
9.1 Distribution of sites by vegetation type. 706
9.2 Distribution of sites by topographic setting. 708
9.3 Distribution of sites by elevation. 710
9.4 Site locations and distance to permanent springs. 712
9.5 Site locations and soils. 713
9.6 Sites and distance from low-gradient streams. 719 xxxviii Contents
10.1 Archaeomagnetic dates from the ANAMAX-Rosemont sites. 727
10.2 Calibrated radiocarbon dates from the ANAMAX-Rosemont sites. 729
10.3 Frequencies of artifact classes at the Rosemont habitation sites. 738
10.4 Numbers of features by type for all habittaion sites. 745
10.5 Ratio of extramural features to structures at each site by time period. 749
10.6 Attributes of excavated structures. 752
10.7 Wood identifications for structural members in pit houses at the Rosemont sites. 759
10.8 Attributes of limited-use structures at all sites. 767
10.9 Pit. house orientation and ridge slope data by site. 773
10.10 Intrasite locational data for cemetery areas and trash slopes. 779
10.11 Intrusive ceramic counts compared with totals of decorated sherds and all sherds. 789
10.12 Percentages of intrusve sherds crouped by region, for the four largest Rosemont assemblages. 790
10.13 Number of inhumations and cremations by time period. 793
10.14 Cremation data. 794
10.15 Inhumation data. 799
10.16 Estimated numbers of pit houses and limited-use structures by time period. 806
10.17 Average pit house floor area by time period. 807
10.18 Comparison of pit house floor area for pit houses at the Ballcourt Site (AZ EE:2:105) and contemporaneous pit houses at other Rosemont sites. 814
A.1 Identified fauna in the ANAMAX-Rosemont Project Hohokam site collections. 829
A.2 AZ EE:2:76, faunal remains: frequencies of taxa and burning within taxa. 831 Contents xxxix
A.3 AZ EE:2:77, faunal remains: frequencies of taxa and burning within taxa. 834
A.4 AZ EE:2:84, faunal remains: frequencies of taxa and burning within taxa. 835
A.5 AZ EE:2:105, faunal remains: frequencies of taxa and burning within taxa. 836
A.6 AZ EE:2:113, faunal remains: frequencies of taxa and burning within taxa. 841
A.7 AZ EE:2:129, faunal remains: frequencies of taxa and burning within taxa. 845
A.8 AZ EE:2:106, faunal remains: frequencies of taxa and burning within taxa. 846
A.9 AZ EE:1:104, AZ EE:2:52, AZ EE:2:79, and AZ EE:2:109 faunal remains: frequencies of taxa and burning within taxa. 847
A.10 Distribution of identified and unidentified bone among sites. 848
A.11 Element representation of rodent taxa from AZ EE:2:76, AZ EE:2:105, and AZ EE:2:113. 855
A.12 Numbers and minimum MNI counts of Lepus sp., Sylvilagus sp. and artiodactyl elements from AZ EE:2:76, AZ EE:2:105, and AZ EE:2:113. 857
A.13 Disgestible energy available from lagomorph and artiodactyl taxa from AZ EE:2:76, AZ EE:2:105, and AZ EE:2:113. 858
A.14 Rank order schemes for taxa based on kilocalorie values. 859
A.15 Fusion groups of lagomorph postcranial skeleton. 872
A.16 Numbers and percentages for bird bones from all sites. 888
A.17 Reptiles identified from ANAMAX-Rosemont Hohokam sites. 891
A.18 Mandible measurement of canis familiaris specimens from AZ EE:2:113. 893
A.19 Cranial measurements of canis familiaris speciman from Feature 169 at AZ EE:2:113. 896
A.20 AZ EE:2:76 bond artifact type frequencies by feature. 897
A.21 Bone artifact frequencies, AZ EE:2:105. 898
xxxx Contents
A.22 Bone artifact frequencies, AZ EE:2:113. 899
A.23 Summary of bone modifications, AZ EE:2:76. 900
A.24 Summary of bone modifications, AZ EE:2:105. 901
A.25 Summary of bone modifications, AZ EE:2:113. 902
A.26 Summary of bone modifications from small sites. 903
A.27 Bone artifact measurements plotted in Figure A.19. 906
A.28 Instances of rodent and carnivore gnawing within taxa and sites. 912
A.29 Frequencies of carnivore gnawing on artiodactyl elements from all sites. 913
B.1 Carbonized plant remains from the ANAMAX-Rosemont project sites. 918
B.2 Wood charcoal and land snails from the ANAMAX-Rosemont project sites. 919
C.1 Relative pollen percentages for samples from Hohokam sites in the ANAMAX-Rosemont Project area. 922 C.2 Relative pollen percentages for taxa which occurred in fewer than four samples. 931
C.3 Summary of samples hwich lacked sufficient pollen for analysis. 932
D.1 Cremation data from the Rosemont Hohokam sites. 937
D.2 Inhumations from the Rosemont Hohokam sites. 939
E.1 Helminth parasites found on the Colorado plateau by locality and taxonomic group. 947
E.2 Pollen counts from samples recovered from Bumblebee Village inhumations. 951
Chapter 6
UTILITARIAN GROUND STONE
Martyn D. Tagg
Ground stone has been defined as a broad category of stone tools that have been intentionally shaped by pecking, abrading, and polishing, and those stones which were shaped by use (Haury 1976: 278). Utilitarian ground stone includes all of the stone implements used by the Hohokam to process both agricultural and nonagricultural plant foods as well as a few tools which were used for construction and other household tasks. Because plant foods probably made up the bulk of their diet, these artifacts were important to the sedentary Hohokam. They were present at all of the investigated settlements of the Rosemont area, spanning approximately 500 years from A.D. 700 to 1200.
A total of 891 ground stone artifacts were collected and analyzed from the 16 sites which were partially or fully excavated during the ANAMAX-Rosemont Mitigation Project. The ground stone implements included manos, handstones, hammer-rubbing stones, metates, pestles, mortars, tabular knives, grooved axes, polishing stones, abrading stones, pecked stones, stone disks, and uncategorized subrectangular objects (Table 6.1). Artifacts that were recovered during the testing phase of this project were included in the analysis only if they were from sites returned to in the mitigation phase. All of the specimens were typed within a framework of traditional classes, and a number of metric and nonmetric attributes were recorded for each. A large amount of ground stone was recovered from this project. However, the total number of objects is somewhat deceptive in terms of the relative quantities of artifacts per site because 75 percent of the material came from the four largest sites (AZ EE:2:76, AZ EE:2:77, AZ EE:2:105, and AZ EE:2:113). For this reason, the assemblage has been treated as a single entity first, with a site-by-site analysis forming a secondary level of investigation.
Research Objectives
Ground stone artifacts are rarely used to determine the cultural or temporal affiliation of an archaeological site, since this class of material seems to have little diagnostic value for either purpose.
605 rn
a) rr
Table 6.1 TYPES AND PROVEISi6t CRS OF GROUND STOMP ARTIFACTS H a) oc cra
Metate Type 1 4 (28.6) 26 (21.)) 9 ( 8.3) 2 ( 8.7) 19 ( 8.0) 2 ( 9.1) 8 (16.3) 1 ( 7.1) 16 ( 7.8) 2 (18.2) 1 ( 5.6) 6 (12.8) 96 Type 2 1 i 0.8) 1 ( 0.9) 4 (17.4) 4 (1.7) 10 ( 4.9) 2 ( 4.3) 22 5 Type 3 4 ( 3.3) 2 ( 1.9) ( 2.1) 1 ( 0.5) 1 ( 9 . 2 ) 1 ( 2.1) 14 Type 4 2 ( 1.7) 3 ( 2.8) 5 ( 2.1) 4 ( 1.9) 1 ( 9.1) 15 Unknown 2(120.0) 5 ( 4.2) 2 ( 1.9) 1 ( 4.3) 20( 84.) 1 ( 4.5) 4 ( 8.2) 1 ( 7.1) 18 ( 8.7) 2 ( 4.3) 56 Mano 3 (21.4) 28 (23.3) 33 (30.6) 3 (13.0) 54 (22.7) 9 (40.9) 9 (18.4) 5 (35.7) 43 (20.9) 1 ( 9.1) 10 (55.6) 1 ( 7.7) 3 (50.0) 15 (31.9) 217 Handstone 2 (14.31 20 (16.7) 21 (19.4) 6 (26.1) 41 (17.2) 3 (13.6) 7 (14.3) 1 ( 7.1) 28 (13.6) 4 (36.4) 3 (16.7) 2 (15.4) 2 (33.3) 8 (17.0) 148 Mano/Handstone 3 (21.4) 12 (10.0) 14 (13.0) 2 ( 8.7) 50 (21.0) 5 (22.7) 14 (28.6) I ( 7.1) 50 (24.3) 1 ( 9 .1) 1 ( 5.6) 5 (38.5) 8 (17.0) 166 Hammer/Rubbing Stone 3 ( 2.5) 4 ( 3.7) 2 ( 8.7) 11 ( 4.6) 9 ( 4.4) 1 (16.7) 2 ( 4.3) 32 1 (7.7) Polishing Stone 2 ( 1.7) 8 ( 7.4) I ( 4.3) 11 ( 4 .6) 2 ( 4.1) 6 ( 2.9) 31 Pestle Type 1 I ( 0.8) 5 ( 4.6) 4 ( 1.7) 1 ( 7.1) 1 ( 0.5) 12 Type 2 1 ( 0.4) 3 (16.7) 4 Type 3 2 ( 1.7) 2 ( 1.9) 2 ( 0.8) 2 ( 4.1) 5 ( 2.4) 13 Unknown 1 ( 0.4) j ( 2.1) 2 Mortar 2 ( 1.0) 1 ( 2.1) 3 1 ( Pitted Stones 1 ( 0.8) 4.3) 1 ( 0.4) 1 ( 2.0) 2 ( 1.0) 1 ( 7.7) 1 ( 2.1) 8 Tabular Knives Type 1 I ( 7.1) 1 ( 0.8) 1 ( 0.9) 1 ( 0.4) 1 ( 4.5) 2 (14.3) 1 ( 7.7) 8 Type 2 3 ( 2.5) 2 (0.8) 1 ( 7.1) 2 ( 1.0) 8 Unknown 4 (3.3) 1 ( 0.4) 1 ( 4.5) 1 ( 0.5) 7 3 Grooved Axe 1 ( 7.1) 2 ( 1.7) 1 ( 0.9) ( 1.3) 1 ( 2.0) 4 ( 1.9) 1 ( 7.7) 13 Abrading Stone I ( 0.8) 1 ( 4.3) 1 ( 7.1) 2 ( 1.0) 1 ( 9.1) 1 ( 7.7) 7 Disk 2 ( 1.7) 2 ( 1.9) 2 ( 0.8) 1 ( 2.0) 7 Subrectangular Object 2 ( 1.0) 2
Total 14 2 120 108 23 238 22 49 206 11 18 13 6 47 891
'( ) percent Utilitarian Ground Stone 607
Utilitarian ground stone is more often used to help determine the types of activities that were being carried out by a given cultural group at a particular site during a specified time period. In an attempt to deal with cultural style and functional type, the following research questions were investigated:
1. What kinds of activities are shown by the Rosemont ground stone assemblage?
2. Do these activities vary by site or by time? The Hohokam were involved in various subsistence tasks, such as farming, gathering wild foods, and hunting, for which they utilized specific tools. If there were special activity sites, the artifact assemblage should reflect it. This would also hold true if activities changed through time. For the purpose of the ground stone collection, the Hohokam occupation of the area was divided into early and late periods. The early period included the Canada Del Oro, Rillito, and early Rincon phases of the Tucson Basin sequence. The late period was represented by the middle Rincon, late Rincon, and early Tanque Verde phases (Fig. 6.1).
3. What cultural traits can be seen in the assemblage? The Rosemont area is nearly as close to the Mogollon cultural area to the east as it is to the Tucson Basin Hohokam "core" area, and a mixture of traits might be expected. Do ground stone artifacts from Hohokam sites in outlying areas differ from those found in the core area? Are they similar to ground stone tool assemblages from other sites elsewhere in southern Arizona? Comparisons are made with Hohokam sites in the Tucson and Phoenix Basin areas, with Mogollon sites to the east, and with other Hohokam sites in outlying areas.
4. Is there any evidence of trade materials? There is no doubt that the Tucson Basin Hohokam traded with cultural groups such as the Mogollon, Trincheras, and other Hohokam groups for objects and materials that were not available locally. Is there evidence of this in the ground stone collection?
5. Does ground stone equipment occurring in situ, or concentrated in specific areas on a site, help define the food processing habits of the Hohokam and their preferred work areas? Ethnographic studies of the Pima and Papago Indians have given insight into the utilization of many types of tools recovered from archaeological sites and the locations in which they were used. Can the working habits of these historic Indians help interpret the prehistoric assemblages?
6. Are there functional or temporal differences between manos and handstones, or the different classes of pestles, tabular knives, grooved axes, and metates? Both temporal and functional differences have been suggested for all of the various artifact types. Do these exist or have validity in the Rosemont area? except except all 1,2,and II Features 2,3,and 4 proveniences except Features AZ EE:2:77, Features land 8 proveniences AZ EE:2:76, all proveniences AZ EE: 2:129,011 and Feature 6, Level 4 Features 10, 71200, Features 10, 71200, proveniences except proveniences except Features I and 2 AZ EE:2: 129, AZ EE:2:105, all II 8, 10100,and 154 Feature proveniences except Features AZ EE:2:84, all except Feature 10 proveniences AZ EE:2:I29, AZ EE:2:1I3, all
a II proveniences all proveniences Features 8, Feature 8, Floor 4 Features 2,3, and 4 Feature 8, Floor 2 Feature 10 Feature 7, Floor 3 Feature 8, Floor 1 10100, and 154 AZ EE:2:106, Feature 2 AZ EE:2:1I3, 2 AZ EE:2:106, all proveniences except Feature AZ EE:2:109, all proveniences AZ EE: 1:104, all proveniences AZ EE:2:116, AZ EE:2 :117, AZ EE:2:105, Feature 71001 AZ EE:2:77, AZ EE:2:120, all proveniences AZ EE:2:76, AZ EE:2:122, all proveniences AZ EE:2:84, AZ EE : 2 :107, all proveniences AZ EE:2:105, Feature 10 AZ EE:2:105, Feature 6, Level 4 AZ EE:2:105, Feature AZ EE:2:105, Feature 71200 AZ EE:2:105, Feature AZ EE:2:76, AZ EE:2:76, AZ EE:2:76, Figure 6.1 Division of sites by time period Middle Rincon Early Rincon Snaketown/Caliada del Oro Snaketown/Caliada Tongue Verde Rillito Late Rincon A i.m 3 api I I I Utilitarian Ground Stone 609
A simple organizational format has been employed to order this chapter. The artifact classes are first defined and described in detail, synonymous terms used in previous reports are listed, and descriptions of the probable uses of each artifact class are provided. This is followed by descriptions of the Rosemont collection, and comparisons to other Hohokam and Mogollon assemblages found in the Southwest. Pit house floor assemblages and ground stone caches are described separately. The summary and conclusions are then presented and final interpretations are made.
Description of the Artifact Classes
Manos
Manos are the hand-held unit in the grinding tool combination (Haury 1976: 281). They were numerous in the Rosemont ground stone collection (66.7% of the total), and complete specimens of manos found far outnumbered whole metates. Manos show only slight formal change throughout Hohokam prehistory, and vary little between the various Southwestern cultural groups. The shape of an individual mano seems to have been dependent on the type of metate in which the mano was utilized and the amount of time it was used. The oblong two-hand mano is typical of the Hohokam in the Phoenix and Tucson Basin; it is usually made of vesicular basalt and very well shaped.
For this analysis, two main types of manos were distinguished: manos and handstones. The classification of these two types were based, somewhat subjectively, on size and shape, not necessarily representing functional differences. However, the two mano types are thought to have been used in different kinds of metates. "Mano" refers to the larger type, which is considered to have been a two-hand tool. "Handstones" are those artifacts that could easily have been held in one hand. Manos are generally associated with use in trough metates, while handstones were probably used with basin metates (Haury 1976: 281). Hammer-rubbing stones were defined as a third type, consisting of natural cobbles of hard, fine-grained stone (usually quartzite). These artifacts exhibit a heavy polish and battering on all edges suggesting their use as hammerstones. Polishing stones, although considered to be potters' tools, were also included in this section since they formed the lower spectrum of the grinding stone group. Variations within these types exist, and some overlap occurs, as is illustrated in Figure 6.2. This scattergram shows that, while there are distinct groupings of artifact types by size, there is still, a relatively unbroken size continuum of hand-held grinding implements, from those small enough to grasp in two fingers to those so large that two hands would be needed. These implements would likely cover every grinding task necessary for the Hohokam. 610 Martyn D. Tagg
300 - d d 290 -
280 - d d 270 - d 260 - d 250 - d d 240- d d
230 - d d 220 - d d
di d 210 - d d
dd d d 200- dd d d d d d d d 190 - d d d di 61
) 180 - cl„, dd d d d dd d ddddd d (mm 170 & d d cru dd d d cfl d 160 - d d GTH c d )d co g d dc 150 - cp od 61 ddd
LEN c c c c c c d 5c cc 140 - cc C c c dcc c c c cc 130 - c cc c c c c
120 - cc C c cc c cce.bcc ..c , cc 110 - c be c c 100 - c cE b c b cce c 90 - bbc c — C b c b cbb c 80 - bcp b b b a- Polishing Stone 70 - b b- Hammer-Rubbing a a Stone 60 - c- Handstone a a o a a a a as d-Mano a 50 - a a a s 40 - a 0 0 0 ° 30 - a oa
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
WIDTH (mm)
Figure 6.2 Length and width relationships for manos, handstones, hammer— rubbing stone, and polishing stones. Utilitarian Ground Stone 611
A total of 594 artifacts was assigned to these categories, making it the largest ground stone artifact class. Of these, 166 were so fragmentary that they could not be identified beyond the classification of "mano-handstone." More than half these fragments were found in features: 62 (37.3%) from pit house fill, 18 (10.8%) from roasting pits, and 6 (3.6%) from various other features. This would suggest that most fragments were discarded in trash deposits rather than reused in secondary features. The remaining 428 specimens were sufficiently complete to be placed in the types previously mentioned for further discussion.
Manos
Generally considered two-hand or trough manos, these artifacts dominated the collection with 217 specimens, including 128 whole and 89 fragmentary manos. Though variable in their general morphology, they were similar in many ways, much dependent on the type and degree of wear. Manos, in most cases, showed shaping by pecking of their entire surface and were loaf-shaped or rectanguloid for use in trough metates. Those that do not exhibit all over shaping have a natural shape comparable to the shaped mano. The length of the manos varied from 13.7 cm to 34.5 cm, with a mean length of 19.3 cm. Their width was apparently governed by the ability to be grasped with the hands, and ranged from 7.0 cm to 14.0 cm with a mean width of 11.0 cm.
In the Phoenix Basin the predominate shape of the two-hand manos changed through time. Haury (1976: 281-282) and Gladwin and others (1937: 116) attributed more of the oval or rounded manos to the Pioneer period, and the rectangular mano to the Colonial period. This seems to be the case in the Rosemont collection also (Fig. 6.3). In the early period collection, the oval mano is most common, constituting 63.5 percent of the sample, and 17.5 percent of the artifacts are rectangular. This ratio shifts in the late period collections, where rectangular manos are dominant (52.8% of the sample); only 23.3 percent are oval. Round manos, which have also been called rubbing stones, are only seen in early period collections, and will be discussed subsequently. Irregularly shaped manos occur in small numbers in both time periods. This shape difference was probably dictated by the metate type in which the mano was used. Gladwin and others (1937: 116-117) described a metate from the early phase which was more rounded than the later, fully rectangular type. Figure 6.4 illustrates a selection of the different mano types.
Designed for use in trough metates, 64 percent of the collected manos exhibited end wear, which was probably caused by use in this type of metate. Some of this wear may have also been partially caused by the use of manos as pestles to break up clumps of material in the metate (Di Peso 1956: 468). Longitudinal cross sections of the manos are usually either biconvex (62.4%) or piano-convex (16.3%). The same was true of transverse cross sections (49.8% piano-convex and 30.1% biconvex). It is possible that this shaping is a product of use, with a convex use surface characterizing unused blanks, manos with light wear, 612 Martyn D. Tagg
1 60 — 1 1 1
50 — 1 — — Early ---- Late 1
1 40—
I-
Cr 30 — W CL
20 —
.0'
.00 00 10—
Unknown Rectangular Oval Round Irregular
PLAN VIEW
Figure 6.3 Mano shape by time period. Utilitarian Ground Stone 613
a
e
Figure 6.4 Mato types. a-b, oval manos; c-d, rectangular manos; e irregular shaped manos; g-h, round manos. Length of d is 26.1 cm. or manos used on trough metates with concave surfaces. Di Peso (1956: 467) suggested that this convex wear was the result of the downward force which was put on the mano in trough metates set at an angle during use. Flat use surfaces would be produced on those manos which were used on incipient trough and slab metates with flat surfaces. Haury (1976: 282) distinguishes between the different cross sections by time. Early oval manos generally exhibit piano convex longitudinal and biconvex transverse cross sections; late manos generally exhibit piano-convex surfaces, both longitudinally and transversely. This is just the opposite of the manos found at Rosemont, as shown in Figure 6.5.
Two-hand manos usually exhibit unifacial use wear (71%) and some (19%) also exhibit battering along the edges or ends suggesting their use as pestles or hammers. This type of end wear may have been produced by initially crushing large corn kernels or whole seeds, using the end of the mano as a pestle, before the grinding process started. Such use of the manos would account for the observed end wear (Di Peso 1956: 468). T9
60 47 — — Early — — Early
— Late — Late aw ca
50 ili •a
/ St ass St 40
I—
U 30 / St
Qr
20
10
I I I Unknown Rectangular BiConvex Plano- Irregular Unknown Rectangular BiConvex Plano- Irregular Convex Convex
TRANSVERSE CROSS SECTION LONGITUDINAL CROSS SECTION
Figure 6.5 Mano transverse and longitudinal cross section plotted by time period. Utilitarian Ground Stone 615
Quartzite is the dominant (79%) material type used to make manos, probably because it was available locally in alluvial deposits. A fair amount of quartz monzonite (15.8%) is also seen in mano collections, with smaller amounts of an unidentified igneous rock, basalt, and limestone. Quartz monzonite is found more in late phase than in the early phase materials, and the predominance of quartzite lessens as is illustrated in Figure 6.6. The presence of a number of large, unused quartz monzonite manos in the Rosemont collection might suggest that this material was brought in from another locality. Nine of these mano blanks found exceeded 25 cm in length. The average width of the trough in a Rosemont trough metate is only 23 cm, which could not accomodate these large manos (Fig. 6.7a-c). The larger manos do not exhibit wear, and resemble manos which are only in the primary or secondary shaping stage of production. Examples of partially completed manos can be seen in the vesicular basalt manos which are found at ground stone quarries in the New River area near Phoenix. These are more or less uniform in shape and have no cortex remaining (Hoffman and
80
60 — — Early 1 — Late
20
Quartzite Quartz Igneous Basalt Limestone Monzonite MATERIAL TYPE
Figure 6.6 Plano material type by time period. 616 Martyn D. Tagg
a
Figure 6.7 Mano blanks. a-c, are of quartz monzonite; d, of vesicular basalt. Length of a is 34.5 cm.
others 1983: 9-11). The New River blanks were roughly shaped at a quarry before being transported to habitation sites, and averaged 29 cm in length. Such blanks were also recovered from the Hodges Ruin (Kelly 1978: 54).
As a rule, the quartz monzonite manos found at Rosemont were larger than those made of quartzite, and no quartzite blanks were recovered. This also suggests that these blanks represent manos that have been quarried or collected at another locality and transported to the sites already shaped. Quartz monzonite is present in the Rosemont area, and while no ground stone quarries were recorded, they may exist outside the project boundaries. One unused mano of vesicular basalt was also recovered (Fig. 6.7d); it is certainly not of local origin.
The smaller Rosemont manos, with lengths less than 23 cm, tend to exhibit signs of heavier use than do the larger manos, and their size seems to be a reflection of this wear. Extended use in a trough metate Utilitarian Ground Stone 617
would make a mano thinner and wear down the ends, making it shorter. A higher percentage of these smaller manos also have bifacial use surfaces, while the larger manos tend to be unifacial. Two of the manos showed a triangular, wedge-shaped longitudinal cross section. This type of cross section is typical of manos that have been used on a slanted metate. On the downward stroke, the back part of the mano received more pressure and wore more rapidly, creating the wedge-shaped cross section exhibited by well used specimens (Woodbury 1954: 69, Fig. 7; Bartlett 1933: 15-16, Fig. 6). The presence of this type of wear implies the limited use of slanted metates, having one end propped up for use. This is confirmed in the Rosemont collection by one such metate found in situ.
One other mano fragment deserves mention because it was made from part of a trough metate wall. The top side of the mano is slightly grooved longitudinally and is smoothed from the wear it received as the inner face of a trough metate wall. The broken edges have been pecked smooth. A similar reused metate wall fragment was seen at the Abused Ridge Site (Tagg 1983: 24) in the Tucson Basin. It is surprising that more such manos have not been found, since many trough metate wall fragments could have been readily modified to the appropriate thickness and shape for a mano.
Further comment is also necessary on a small number of round and oval manos which do not fit comfortably in the traditional two-hand mano category. Round outlines are relatively common among handstones, but these Rosemont examples, ranging in size from 14 cm to 21 cm long and 13 cm to 19 cm wide (Fig. 6.4g-h), are much too large to have been used with one hand. They are also awkward to handle with both hands, since their width exceeds the comfortable grasping range of a hand. Accordingly, it has been suggested that they are not manos. They have been called rubbing stones (Di Peso 1951: 38, 1956: 471-473, 1958: 129; Haury 1945: 129) or circular abraders (Franklin 1980: 157) and are thought to have been handstones or, secondarily, house wall and floor smoothers. Although the Rosemont specimens are larger than the rubbing stones from other sites, they are very similar morphologically. None of the artifacts exhibit the type of end wear that is suggestive of use in trough metates, and the unifacial use surfaces are pecked flat. Two of the specimens have been pecked to shape, while the remaining five are naturally rounded. Slab metates were found at all but one of the sites where this style of mano occurred. Accordingly, it is possible that they were used with this type of metate, and there is no evidence to indicate that they were used for other tasks. Four of the manos were recovered from AZ EE:2:113 and are thus temporally early. One example from AZ EE:2:122 is late, and the remaining two could not be dated. The round manos from the Rosemont sites tend to be early in time, and have been associated with the preceramic cultures in Pimeria Alta (Di Peso 1956: 472; Eddy and Cooley 1983: 19, Figs. 2.10 and 2.11).
Sixteen manos were found on the floors of pit houses and were considered to be in situ. The remaining 202 specimens were found in feature fill (interpreted as trash) or on the surface. Of these artifacts, 47.4 percent were fire-cracked. 618 Martyn D. Tagg
Handstones
The specimens described as handstones in this manuscript have also been called one-hand manos, single-hand manos, and rubbing stones (Haury 1945: 129; Woodbury 1954: 78; Di Peso 1951: 138). Handstones are usually natural cobbles with some intentional shaping to make them fit comfortably in one hand. Generally, they exhibit wear from having been used in a metate. When shaping is evident, it is restricted to the edges to produce a more symmetrical form and a better surface for finger gripping (Haury 1976: 281-282). Some handstones are unshaped, except through use. Handstones are smaller than manos, but are similar in most other attributes. They were the common grinding implement used by preceramic groups in the Southwest and remained relatively unchanged through the entire ceramic period. Figure 6.8 shows the various handstone types.
d
e f h
Figure 6.8 Handstone types. a-b, oval; c-d, rectangular; e-f, irregular; g7h, round. Length of c is 15.0 cm. Utilitarian Ground Stone 619
A total of 148 handstones was recovered at Rosemont, including 46 fragments and 102 complete specimens. Their size makes for easy grasping by the hand. Their length ranged from 8.0 cm to 15.3 cm and their width from 5.6 cm to 13.2 cm, slightly overlapping the lower range of two-hand manos (Fig. 6.2). Other researchers have used slightly different, but equally arbitrary, size differences (for example, Woodbury 1954: 78). Handstones are most commonly paired with slab or basin metates; however, secondary uses, such as the smoothing of walls and floors, may also have been accomplished with them. Probably, they were also occasionally used in trough metates, but the longer two-hand mano would have been more practical.
Handstones were present throughout the Hohokam occupation of Rosemont. As with two-hand manos, oval handstones were the most abundant forms in the early period (43.9%), with smaller numbers of round (18.8%), rectangular (13.2%), and irregularly shaped (9.3%) specimens also being present. This pattern changes in the late period when rectangular handstones became dominant (41.3%), at the expense of the other three groups: oval 27.5 percent, round 7.8 percent, and irregular 3.5 percent (Fig. 6.9). This high percentage of rectangular handstones seems unusual for Hohokam sites, where round and oval types usually predominate. They are more common in Mogollon or later sites in southeastern Arizona such as Babocomari Village (Di Peso 1951: 139, Plate 51E) and Texas Canyon (Fulton 1934a, Plate 16). At Rosemont there was a higher percentage of shaped handstones than unshaped cobbles, in contrast to the trend seen at Snaketown (Haury 1976: 281), but similar to the specimens from the Punta de Agua sites (Greenleaf 1975: 94).
Multiple use of handstones as pestles (34.5%) and hammerstones (24%) is evidenced by end wear and battering. More than half (55.8%) also have bifacial use-surfaces. The longitudinal and transverse cross sections are predominately biconvex (41.0% and 48.2% respectively) and piano-convex (25.0% and 32% respectively), with small amounts of rectangular (19.0% and 22% respectively) and irregular forms (1.0% and 2% respectively). Convex wear surfaces would be expected from use in basin metates. These patterns do not change through time.
Quartzite is the dominant material type (93.9%), with only 9 handstones out of 148 made on other materials such as quartz monzonite, limestone, and an unknown igneous material. This is not unexpected, given the abundance of local cobbles suitable for handstones. This preference shows no change through time.
Fifteen handstones were found on floors of pit houses and were considered in situ, while the remaining 134 were found in feature fill or on the surface. Of the 15 on pit house floors, 12 were in floor assemblages and are discussed later.
Hammer-Rubbing Stones
Hammer-rubbing stones were defined as unshaped small river cobbles exhibiting a polish on one side from use and battering around
620 Martyn D. Tagg
50-
40- — — Early ---- Late
30- / 3
/ a_ 20-
10-
Unknown Rectangular Oval Round Irregular
HANDSTON E TYPE
Figure 6.9 Hammer-rubbing stones and polishing stones. a-f, polishing stones; R-k, hammer-rubbing stones. Length of R is 11.5 cm.
all or part of the edges. They fit within the lower size range of handstones (Fig. 6.2), but differ from that class of artifacts because they are totally unshaped, exhibit a higher polish than the normal wear seen on a handstone, and are battered around the edges. They are also very similar to the preceramic handstones from the Rosemont area, where fine-grained quartzite cobbles were preferred (Huckell 1980: 36-37). Another consistent attribute of the hammer-rubbing stones is the use of fine grained, very dense purplish quartzite. This would suggest that this hard material was preferred for the tasks requiring this tool.
Utilitarian Ground Stone 621
Thirty-two hammer-rubbing stones were recovered, with all but one being quartzite cobbles. They ranged in size from 7,0 cm to 11.5 cm long and 5.5 cm to 9.5 cm wide (Fig. 6.10a-e). Woodbury (1954: 88) refers to this class of artifacts as pounding and rubbing stones, but states that floor polishers found at other sites could fit this classification if they exhibited any evidence of battering. McPherson and Doyel (1980: 306) refer to them as rubbing stones and Di Peso (1958: 108) terms similar artifacts polishing stones, but does not list battering as one of their main characteristics. The degree of polish on the use surface of these artifacts is unlike the wear seen on manos or handstones, and may be the result of their use of a hard, fine-textured cobble against another hard, fine-textured item. None of these artifacts exhibit extreme wear which suggests that they were not heavily used. However, such hard materials may develop wear quite slowly. Teague (1980: 207) describes similar artifacts from Las Colinas in his specialized mano class, and suggests that they were used for a wide spectrum of activities such as food processing, tool polishing, pigment grinding, battering and pecking functions, and as percussion flaking implements. Such variable functions, along with the light wear would suggest that they were used for immediate tasks and then discarded. Greenleaf (1975: 94) suggests that the polish is a result of their use on slab metates. In the Rosemont sites, it is possible that they were used with small grinding slabs, since both artifact types co-occur. Although only 4 of 15 small grinding slabs are of hard quartzite, all of them exhibit light polish such as is present on the hammer-rubbing stones, and 4 have pecking on their surfaces.
e f a
g h k
Figure 6.10 Hammer-rubbing stones and polishing stones. 27k, hammer- rubbing stones; a-f, polishing stones. Length of 2 is 11.5 cm. 622 Martyn D. Tagg
As mentioned above, hammer-rubbing stones were probably used for multiple tasks as indicated by the two types of wear on them. In addition to pecking, pounding, and rubbing tasks, Woodbury (1954: 92-93) has suggested the following uses for these artifacts: (1) manufacturing stone tools such as manos and metates; (2) crushing minerals for paint or pottery temper; (3) pecking, or sharpening the grinding surfaces of metates and manos to roughen them for more effective grinding; (4) crushing seeds and vegetable fibers; (5) preparing hides by pounding and rubbing; (6) smoothing and bonding plaster on walls and floors; and, (7) grinding and polishing axes. Each of these tasks could provide the polish and battering seen on the Rosemont artifacts.
One hammer-rubbing stone deserves special mention since it does not fit well in this category. It is made of a fine grained basalt which, unlike other artifacts of this type, has been shaped by pecking (Fig. 6.10k). Probably this artifact was broken during manufacture, perhaps as a three-quarter grooved axe, or some other well-shaped tool, and this fragment was used as a hammer-rubbing stone. The working surface has heavy use wear. This specimen is similar to the broken axes reused as hammers that are seen at Las Colinas (Teague 1980: 219).
Hammer-rubbing stones generally typify the early time period, with the exception of three from the late period. This is the only class of grinding stones that did not extend through the entire occupational time span of the area. Only 16 were found in features such as pit house fill (12), roasting pits (1), burial fill (1), pit fill (1), and hearths (1). This would suggest that many were discarded whole after limited use.
A similar category of artifacts, described in the chipped stone assemblage from the Rosemont sites (Chapter 5), is called cobble hammerstones. They are distinguished from hammer-rubbing stones by their lack of a polished surface, but were probably used at least partially for the same purposes. It suggested that hammer-rubbing stones are not a specialized tool type, but rather cobbles picked up and used for one or more immediate tasks and then discarded.
Polishing Stones
Polishing stones are defined as small, unmodified, water-worn pebbles which show one or more nearly flat surfaces that are worn artificially (Woodbury 1954: 96). They have also been called pot- polishers (Kidder 1932: 63; Greenleaf 1975: 95), polishing pebbles (Woodbury 1954: 96), rubbing stones (Zahniser 1966: 153-154), and fit into Teague's (1981: 207) specialized manos class (Fig. 6.10f-k). Polishing stones are generally accepted as having been polishing and smoothing tools, although they occasionally exhibit end battering from use as hammerstones. These artifacts are seen in all parts of the Southwest, and in all phases of pottery-making cultures. The present day Pueblo and Pima Indians still use these small, smooth pebbles for finishing the surfaces of pots after they have been slipped, but before they have been decorated and fired (Kidder 1932: 63; Russell 1908: 127). Utilitarian Ground Stone 623
Although pot polishing is considered to have been their primary use, the occurrence of polishing stones in phases with nonpolished ceramics indicates that they were used for other purposes, such as grinding pigments, smoothing and polishing cooking slabs, food processing, and tool polishing. They were also used on altars or in "medicines" for symbolic purposes (Woodbury 1954: 97), and as percussion implements (Teague 1980: 207).
Only 31 polishing stones were recovered from Rosemont sites. It is assumed, however, that more were not collected because they went unrecognized. All but two of the stones were quartzites of various colors and textures. The two exceptions were made of a metamorphosed sediment and an unknown igneous material. This dominance of quartzite for these artifacts is common (Franklin 1980: 159; McPherson and Doyel 1980: 306), and it is assumed that it was the preferred material for the tool. Polishing stones range in size from 1.8 cm to 6.5 cm in length and 1.8 cm to 5.6 cm in width. They are generally oval or round due to their waterworn origin. Occasionally they are rectilinear or irregular in shape (Fig. 6.10f-k) and as a rule are also relatively flat. All of the Rosemont polishing stones have at least one surface which has either been smoothed through use or is naturally flat. Only 12 show a definite use polish or striations, while the remaining 19 show little or no indication of use. The 12 polishing stones with definite wear facets probably saw prolonged use (Fig. 6.10f-g). Guthe (1925: 28) said that modern Pueblo potters individually had many polishing stones which were usually heirlooms or were collected from ruins and apparently had a semisacred significance. It was very seldom that they found their way out of a family group. The relatively lower numbers of well developed wear facets on these polishing stones tend not to support this hypothesis for the Hohokam. Teague (1981: 207) suggested that since most of the polishing stones were unbroken and exhibited light use wear, these tools might have been used for an immediate purpose and then abandoned, possibly at the location of use.
Other than the flattened wear facet, three of the polishing stones exhibited light pecking on the ends and around the edges and one had heavy battering around the entire edge, suggesting their use as percussion implements. These four artifacts were smaller versions of the hammer-rubbing stones and fit Woodbury's (1954: 89) pebble pounder category. Four artifacts also had bifacial wear and very few exhibited striations. Indications of their use appeared as a very smooth surface or a dull sheen not seen on the natural surface of the pebble. Many of the pebbles that did not exhibit definite wear facets may simply have been picked up because of their attractive shapes and colors, and have never been used as polishing stones. Polishing stones were found throughout the ceramic occupation of the area.
Discussion
It has been debated whether the different classes of grinding stones used in traditional ground stone analyses represent functionally different artifacts, or just variations of the same broad artifact 624 Martyn D. Tagg type. Figure 6.2 shows that there is a size continuum from the smallest polishing stone to the largest mano. There is no question that polishing stones and manos were used for different tasks. The major question is the functional difference between the two-hand mano and the one-hand handstone, since wear patterns on both artifact types indicate their use on metates. The extremes of the two artifact types seem to represent functionally different implements, as has been suggested by many people. Large manos appear to have been used in trough metates, and small handstones show evidence of use in basin metates. This concept is supported by studies of preceramic sites in the Southwest and ethnographic evidence exists as well. Since there is an overlap in size between the artifact types, there is presumably also an overlap in functions. It has been concluded that much of the size overlap (for those manos and handstones ranging between 13 cm and 16 cm in length) is a result of wear. Teague (1980: 245) suggested that the small, thin manos represented exhausted examples, since they were found more often in trash deposits than were the larger, thicker manos. This is felt to be the case with the Rosemont collection, with the larger handstones and smaller manos probably representing well-worn manos.
The differences that do exist between handstones and manos are minor, being the result of function as well as wear. There is a higher occurrence of round handstones than manos, which is to be expected since the basin of a metate would restrict the shape of the handstone that can be used in it. There is also a difference in the transverse cross sections of the two artifact types. Manos tend to have a plano convex transverse cross section caused by the upturned ends that have been worn against trough walls. Handstones tend to be biconvex, because of their uniform wear in the less restrictive basin metate. Finally, there are twice as many handstones with bifacial wear. Perhaps this is because they are relatively unshaped cobbles and both sides are similar enough to use in the metate, while trough manos usually have one side pecked flat for grinding and the other modified for grasping. These differences in shape and wear patterns are dictated by use in different metate types, which in turn may indicate different functions. However, the amount of overlap between the two types suggests that, while differences exist between the two types, there is not a clear cut border between them and overlapping exists in both size and in function.
Although Figure 6.2 also shows that hammer-rubbing stones fall within the lower size range of handstones, functional differences are suggested by the type and degree of wear, as well as the fineness of the material used. Whether these artifacts are different than the cobble hammerstones classified in the chipped stone section of this report is not as clear. Both artifacts seem to represent tools used for a range of tasks, including use as a handstone.
Metates
Metates and metate fragments represent the second most abundant artifact class from the Rosemont collection. This is not surprising, Utilitarian Ground Stone 625 considering the importance of this implement in agricultural societies. Haury (1976: 280) has called the metate the most important stone tool the Hohokam had. Shallow, basin metates were used by preagricultural, preceramic groups in the Southwest for grinding seeds and berries. However, the Hohokam were using a well developed, full troughed metate early in the Pioneer period. This style continued in use through the Classic period, with little or no significant change, making it the most stable element in the Hohokam cultural complex (Haury 1976: 281). There does not seem to be a clear cut sequential change in the trough metate through time, although Gladwin and others (1937: 116-117) suggests that the trough metate with rounded sides and ends is earlier than the rectangular, square-cut version.
Trough metates with both ends open were characteristic of the Phoenix and Tucson Basin Hohokam. These metates show varying degrees of shaping by pecking and are generally rectangular with square ends and flat bottoms (Haury 1945: 127, 1976: 280; Gladwin and others 1937: 116). This characteristic Hohokam metate differs from the usual unshaped trough metates of the Mogollon, which had only one end open and exhibited shaping only in the trough area (Haury 1945: 127; Woodbury 1954: 58; Di Peso 1951: 131). It has been suggested that this style of shaped metate was a trait brought up from Mexico and superimposed upon the less formalized local tradition of food processing stones, since they do not seem to have evolved from the basin style metate (Haury 1976: 281). Ethnographic studies of the Pima Indians showed that the metate was a portable implement, to be moved as needed. It was never set in permanent bins as is seen with Pueblo Indians (Russell 1908: 109).
A total of 203 complete and fragmentary metates was recovered from the Rosemont sites, including 42 whole or virtually whole metates and 161 fragments. The metates were divided into four types for further analysis: (1) trough, (2) basin, (3) slab, and (4) small grinding slab. These types of metates are found in most Hohokam sites and are thought to be contemporaneous. Of the 161 fragments recovered, 56 were too small to classify, representing pieces of grinding surface which could fit in any category. However, 145 artifacts were sufficiently complete to classify, and were placed in the following categories.
Type 1
The trough metate is the most common metate form in the Rosemont sites collection with 96 specimens. Of these, 19 were determined to be open at either one or both ends, 1 was a boulder with insufficient use to determine its form, and 76 were classified as indeterminate trough metate fragments. Trough metates occurred throughout the span of the Hohokam occupation of the area.
As is typical of Hohokam assemblages, the trough metate with both ends open is the most numerous. Seventeen of 19, or 90 percent, of the whole metates fall into this category (Fig. 6.11a-c). These open- ended trough metates differ from those of the core area Hohokam in 626 Martyn D. Tagg
b
f d e
N.
g h
Figure 6.11 Metate types. a-c, full trough; d-e, one end open trough; f-a, basin; h-j, slab. Length of j is 51.5 cm. Utilitarian Ground Stone 627
several ways. The most obvious difference is the absence of careful, detailed shaping on the Rosemont metates. While Haury (1976: 280) says that Hohokam metates "represent the highest degree of workmanship lavished on grinding equipment anywhere north of Mexico," the Rosemont metates are either only roughly shaped (8) or totally unshaped (9). Of four metates shaped by pecking, only one is well shaped (Fig. 6.11a); the others retain the natural shape of the boulder from which they were made. Two of the metates were shaped by flaking, which served to round the edges of the implement, or lighten it (Zahniser 1966: 152). Two other metates were shaped by both pecking and flaking. These roughly shaped trough metates are much more characteristic of the preclassic Mogollon (Di Peso 1951: 132), although other preclassic Hohokam sites outside the core area also have these unshaped metates (Doyel 1977a: 15). It is possible that shaped metates are not seen in the Rosemont, Paloparado, and Baca Float sites because they are on the outer perimeter of the Hohokam area and reflect traits from the Mogollon. Alternatively, it may have to do with the shaping characteristics of the material from which the metates were made. While most of the shaped metates in the Hohokam core area were made of vesicular basalt, quartzite was generally used on the peripheries of this area. McPherson and Doyel (1980: 312) suggest that vesicular basalt was shaped because it was a more durable, long-lasting material. Although it may be hard, it is actually easily shaped. Because of the vesicles, vesicular basalt metates may not need to be "sharpened" as often as quartzite metates, which the Hopi may sharpen every five days (Bartlett 1933: 4). This would be a desirable trait since a considerable amount of time would have gone into the shaping of a trough metate. Metates from Classic period sites, such as the Tanque Verde Ruin and the Hardy Site, support this theory with the basalt metates being more evenly surfaced, lighter, and carefully shaped than those made of quartzite, which were shaped primarily by use (Zahniser 1966: 152-153; Gregonis 1983: 63). Hayden (1957: 137) also noted this to be the case at the University Indian Ruin. Finally, it seems possible that vesicular basalt was more evenly shaped because it came from quarries in blank form. Quartzite and other materials were collected from the river beds as boulders, although vesicular basalt may also occur in cobble form.
Nine of the Rosemont metates retain the natural shape of the boulder; shaping occurred on the use surface and, occasionally, on the base. It should be noted that seven of the nine unshaped metates also have only incipient or light wear; they may not have been used long enough to develop clear shaping, since shaping may have occurred with use over time as suggested by Russell (1908: 109-110). One common shaping trait is flattening of the base of the metate by pecking and grinding so that it remains stable on a surface. Twelve of the 17 open- ended trough metates found exhibit base flattening, and the 4 that lack this feature have so little wear that they may not have been completed.
One metate has a base that makes it sit at an angle with the lower end 7 cm above the base and the upper end 26 cm above the base. The intentionally flattened base would indicate that the metate was meant to be used at this angle. Metates tilted at an angle are seen in Pueblo sites in northern Arizona and in Mogollon sites in southern New 628 Martyn D. Tagg
Mexico. These metates were propped up on one end with cobbles, or set in adobe at an angle. A bowl was often set under the low end to catch the ground product (Bartlett 1933: 5, 6, 10; Haury 1936b, Plate 13; Roberts 1940: 139). Archaeological instances of this practice were found at Babocomari Village (Di Peso 1951: 35), the Paloparado Site, and the Reeve Ruin (Di Peso 1958: 58, Plate 37). Di Peso (1956: 465, Fig. 69) stated that the metates were set up at an angle to facilitate the grinding motion. However, another Rosemont full trough metate also had the base flattened at an angle, but it was found with the narrow end propped up with dirt so that the grinding surface was level. Two other Rosemont trough metates with flattened bases and light use, had wear patterns indicative of propped up metates; wear was deeper on one end than on the other (Bartlett 1933: 10, Fig. 5c). While this could also be the result of heavier stress at one end by the mano, this wear pattern, along with the tilted metate, suggests that metates could have been used by the Hohokam in this fashion. The fact that the modern Pima Indians prop their metates up for use also supports this suggestion (Russell 1908: 109, Fig. 28).
The remaining two complete trough metates from the Rosemont sites were of the one-end-open variety (Fig. 6.11d). While this style is more common in the Mogollon or Salado cultures, they are not uncommon in small numbers on Hohokam sites. This style differs from the previous style in that a ridge or shelf remains on one end of the metate. The closed-end varies in thickness; one specimen has a continuation of the side walls around one end (Fig. 6.11d), while the other has a thick shelf on one end that may have been a rest for the mano after use. Both were roughly shaped by pecking and percussion around the edges, display intentionally flattened bases, and display medium to heavy use.
All the trough metates are similar in size and shape. Stream boulders of quartzite, ranging in size from 32.2 cm to 51.0 cm in length, 22.8 cm to 41.7 cm in width and 7.5 cm to 25.0 cm in thickness, were used for metates and were common in the stream gravels of the area. Trough depth ranged from 8 cm to 15 cm. The trough and the base were shaped by pecking, and occasionally the edges were trimmed by pecking or percussion, although usually the original surface of the boulder remained unshaped. An incipient metate found at AZ EE:2:105 provides a good example of the unfinished product. The quartzite boulder, 44.6 cm by 28.8 cm by 18.0 cm, is unshaped except for the beginnings of a flattened base, and the start of a use area. Both worn areas have been pecked. This specimen is similar to those recovered from ground stone quarries in New River (Hoffman and others 1983: 16).
The number of whole trough metates recovered from the Rosemont sites is somewhat deceiving since 9 of 20 metates were broken when recovered, and were reconstructed. These include four fire-cracked and five unburned but fragmented, whole metates. Six of these represent metates with extreme wear which were broken up and used for secondary purposes or discarded: two were used in roasting pits; two were found in the fill of bell-shaped storage pits; and two were recovered from the fill of pit houses. Three of the metates were found burned in place on structure floors. Utilitarian Ground Stone 629
The remaining 11 metates were recovered intact. Eight of these were associated with features and three were from the site surface or stripping units. The most significant aspect of these metates is their lack of use: nine have incipient or very light wear and only two show heavy use. Haury (1976: 280) explained the paucity of whole metates at Snaketown by suggesting that "the metate was highly prized and was generally removed from the house upon abandonment, except in those cases where the domicile was overcome by tragedy, for example a surprise fire." This hypothesis is supported by the Rosemont collection, although it is hard to imagine many of these large, heavy metates being moved very far. Of the 19 whole trough metates recovered, only 2 were abandoned after extensive shaping and were still functional. Nine of the metates had been broken and their fragments reused or represent household items which were destroyed by fire. The remaining eight were new metates with very little wear or shaping. Of the nine metates with very light wear, only one has any shaping of the exterior surface other than base flattening. This would suggest that these were newly acquired boulders, possibly left behind because metates at this stage were easily replaced.
The area in which the metate was used varied among the Rosemont sites. Bartlett (1933: 28) suggested that the metate was used both inside and outside the pit house, and was placed out of the way after use. This seems to be the case with the nine metates that were recovered in what was considered to be their places of use. Four were taken from house floors, two were found outside entryways, and three were in special activity areas.
The placement of metates within the pit houses varied in this small sample. Three metates were found sitting on the pit house floors: one (fire-cracked in place) was positioned midway between the hearth and a side wall near the entry; one was beside the hearth in the front center of the house; and one was between the hearth and the wall, offset a little behind the hearth and closer to the rear wall. This last metate, also fire-cracked in place, was found with one end slightly overlapping a small (50 cm in diameter, 35 cm in depth) floor pit. It seems possible that this represents a small pit designed to hold a bowl for catching the finished product ground on the metate. Roberts (1940: 119) reported that in northern Arizona pit houses, the metate was generally placed midway between the hearth and one wall of the structure. Haury (1936b: 32) stated that Mogollon metates were found in the front portion of the house, placed so that the person grinding could face the entry. Bartlett (1933: 15) reported that the Hopi Indians positioned their metates about 45 cm from a wall so that the women could brace their feet against the wall for added leverage. All of these placements were represented by the Rosemont metates, which were too few to reveal any pattern in their positioning.
Bartlett (1933: 28) reported that since there was not much room in pit houses, metates were used outside if possible. In the Rosemont area, two metates were found outside pit house entryways. In both cases, the use-surface was uppermost. One appeared to be placed where it was used, in the space between the entryway and the body of the 630 Martyn D. Tagg house. The second metate (Fig. 6.11b) was found 1 m from the entryway of a pit house, but it was also placed over a burial. Whether this metate was placed over the burial as a grave good or grave covering, or whether it postdates the grave and was used by the inhabitants of the house could not be determined.
Finally, three of the metates were recovered from activity areas. One (Fig. 6.11d), fire-cracked in place, came from a small, limited-use structure. The recovery of a metate in one of these structures would suggest that it may have been a structure used for mealing. Alternatively, it could represent a patio or partially enclosed area for that same purpose. Haury (1932: 27-30) described a similar type of special-use structure at Roosevelt:9:6 which he termed an outdoor brush kitchen. The fact that the metate from the Rosemont site was fire-cracked would suggest that some sort of structure burned down around it, and the lack of postholes would suggest a less-than- substantial structure. It seems very possible that it was a brush kitchen like those of the historic Pima Indians (Russell 1908: 156-157, Plate 6b).
The second metate was found inverted over a small pit in a cluster of five pits that were part of an extramural use area. The exact function of the pits is unknown, but it may have been storage. The metate was probably inverted over the pit after use, perhaps also serving as a partial cover for the pit.
The third metate was found in a trash area at AZ EE:2:129, inverted over two manos. All three artifacts showed incipient use-wear and were not associated with any feature. Di Peso (1956: 463) noted inverted metates in plaza areas and suggested that they were inverted after use and set over the manos in order to keep their use surfaces clean.
Type 2
This class consisted of the shallow, basin metates present in preceramic cultures in the Southwest. However, similar or identical specimens are associated with ceramic period cultures in small numbers. The basin metates in this collection (Fig. 6.11e-g) are ovoid cobbles and boulders with a round or oval basin on one surface. These are differentiated from the unshaped trough metates by the sloped walls of the basin and the circular patterns of wear, as opposed to straight walls and forward-backward wear restricted by the upright walls. A total of 22 whole or fragmentary basin metates were recovered, representing 10.8 percent of the collection. Of these, six are whole, and the others are fragments. Ten Type 2 metates were recovered from the surface or in stripping units, and six from the fill of roasting pits and pit houses. The whole basin metates are extremely variable in basin size and shape; they range in length from 28 cm to 35 cm, in width from from 22 cm to 25 cm, and in depth from 4.0 cm to 9.7 cm. As with the trough metates, small relatively flat river boulders were used. One metate was made on a slab, probably recovered from a bedrock outcrop. Utilitarian Ground Stone 631
Three of the metates were unshaped, while three others had minimal edge- rounding done by flaking and pecking. The bases on all the cobbles had been intentionally flattened. Cobble size ranged from 45.0 cm to 57.5 cm in length and 32.0 cm to 39.0 cm in width, with the exception of the small slab which was 30.7 cm by 15.7 cm. Quartzite was the dominant material; only one quartz monzonite specimen recovered.
One of the whole basin metates deserves special mention due to its long and narrow basin (Fig. 6.11g). The use-area, instead of being round or oval, is oblong (49.0 cm by 15.0 cm) and seemed to be a cross between a basin and a trough metate. The basin is well worn on both inner walls, suggesting back and forth grinding as seen in trough metates, but the concave grinding surface of the basin is not consistent with trough metates. In short, this metate could have been placed in either the basin or trough category. This Rosemont specimen was found upright and fire-cracked in place in the top of a roasting pit, suggesting that it was whole when discarded.
Four of the remaining whole basin metates were found on the surfaces of various sites, and one was in a limited-use structure. Possibly this structure was another brush kitchen; the metate was found inverted on the floor by what may have been an entry. Two of the metates have light to medium wear, two others show incipient wear and the fifth is heavily worn with a hole in the bottom. Two fragments also reveal bifacial use of the implement: one has basins started on both sides, while the other has three linear grooves worn on the base. These latter grooves could have been used for sharpening the blades of tabular knives, grooved axes, bone awls, or hairpin tips. This specimen apparently represents a metate fragment reused as an abrader. A mano from the Abused Ridge Site was reused in a similar fashion (Tagg 1983: 24).
The basin metate seems to be restricted to the earlier Rosemont Hohokam sites. It has been suggested that it was used primarily for grinding wild seeds and nuts, as opposed to agricultural products such as maize (McPherson and Doyel 1980: 313). This might explain the small numbers found on these agricultural sites. Russell (1908) repeatedly mentioned how the historic Pima Indians picked up tools from earlier ruins for their own use, and it is possible that some of these Rosemont basin metates were recovered from preceramic sites in the area. Six of the fragments came from two sites with preceramic components. However, the ceramic period basin metates in the Rosemont area seem to be stylistically different from the preceramic ones with respect to basin size. The lengths and widths of the ceramic period specimens are closer in measurement, creating an essentially round basin. Thus, not all of the basin metates can be viewed as having been scavenged from preceramic sites.
Type 3
Type 3 or slab metates generally consist of thin, unshaped stone slabs with signs of grinding use on one surface (Fig. 6.11h-j). They 632 Martyn D. Tagg have also been called flat metates (Woodbury 1954: 54; Teague 1981: 210). Slab metates rarely have concavities from wear, but rather the entire surface exhibits wear. Slab metates were found in small numbers at Snaketown (Haury 1976: 280), Babocomari Village (Di Peso 1951: 132), and Las Colinas (Teague 1981: 210) and are not common in most Hohokam or Mogollon sites in the Southwest. In addition, many of these metates are boulders, shaped or unshaped, with flat grinding surfaces instead of the tabular slabs found at Rosemont. Thin, slab metates represent the dominant metate form in the Reserve and Tularosa phase sites in west- central New Mexico and east-central Arizona (McPherson and Doyel 1980: 312). They are also common in later Pueblo sites (Woodbury 1954: 54-65). The thinness of the slabs prevented the formation of deep basins, so the entire surface shows abrasion with a slight central depression (Haury and others 1950: 307-308).
Fourteen slab metates were recovered from Rosemont sites, including six complete specimens. The majority of the slab metates were made on tabular quartzite, which probably came from bedrock outcrops in the area, although a few were made on flat quartzite river cobbles. One igneous cobble was also used. Of the eight fragments, only three were found in features; one was in pit house fill and two were in roasting pits. The six whole slab metates vary in shape, but tend to be subrectangular (Fig. 6.11h-i). They range in size from 31.3 cm to 51.4 cm in length, 17.1 cm to 31.5 cm in width, and 3.2 cm to 9.1 cm in thickness. Three of the whole specimens are made on slabs and three on tabular cobbles. Indications of use are light on all of the specimens, suggesting that this type of metate was used infrequently. Only two specimens exhibit shape modification in the form of minimal pecking on the edges. Three also have had intentional smoothing of the base. McPherson and Doyel (1980: 313) have suggested that slab metates may have seen less use and been more quickly discarded than trough metates.
Five of the six whole metates were found in features: two were recovered from pit house fill, one was on a pit house floor, one was on the floor of a limited-use structure, and one was in an extramural work area. The metate in the limited-use structure was propped against the wall in a shallow pit; possibly, this was its storage place. The metate recovered in the extramual work area was lying flat on sterile, suggesting that this was where it was used. The specimen found on the pit house floor was lying between the hearth and the front wall, just inside the entry.
Type 4
Type 4 metates are small, flat slab metates that have been termed small grinding slabs (Doyel 1978a: 85; Tagg 1983: 25). They are amorphous slabs, usually between 20 cm and 30 cm long that were probably used by a seated person on his lap. Gladwin and others (1937: 105) suggested that they were used for preparation of materials other than foods. Four similar specimens from Las Colinas had red pigment stains on them (Teague 1980: 214). Doyel (1978a: 83) suggested that they were Utilitarian Ground Stone 633
crude palettes for pigment grinding. It has also been suggested that they were used to grind seeds or as anvils in making stone tools (Di Peso 1951: 133, 1956: 499, Fig. 72). These artifacts have been called lapstones, lap-boards (Hayden 1957: 170), milling stones (Gladwin and others 1937, Plate 38), grinding slabs (Teague 1981: 214; Di Peso 1958: 123; Woodbury 1954: 113), grinding stones (Gregonis 1983: 64), small oval-elongated grinders (Di Peso 1951: 133), and small boulder- flat metates (Scantling 1940: 45-46). They are not uncommon in Hohokam and Mogollon sites in the Southwest, and have also been recovered from two late Archaic sites in Natty Canyon (Eddy and Cooley 1983: 11, Fig. 2.1e; 19, Fig. 2.1a).
Fifteen small grinding slabs were recovered from the Rosemont sites (not including three that were reused as pitted stones). These differed from the Type 3 slab metates in their smaller size (Fig. 6.12). These small grinding slabs were made on unshaped river cobbles or tabular pieces of quartzite and ranged from a larger rectilinear form
40
X 30
X
E O O 20 O 0 X 0 O 8 O 0 10 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 LENGTH (cm) x Slab Metate o Small Grinding Slab
Figure 6.12 Length and width relationships for slab metates and small grinding slabs. 634 Martyn D. Tagg
(Fig. 6.13a-b) to a smaller square form (Fig. 6.13c-d). Light wear was observed on one or both surfaces. The 10 complete specimens range in size from 15.3 cm to 26.6 cm in length, 11.2 cm to 22.2 cm in width, and 1.4 cm to 6.3 cm in thickness. Four are heavily pecked on the worn surface that perhaps is a result of sharpening (Fig. 6.13c), or some secondary use of the slab. Only two of the slabs show concavity on the worn surface, and these are only 4 cm to 5 cm in diameter. The areas of wear are unlike those of the larger slab metates, and tend to be in the center of the slab, rarely taking up the entire surface. One slab, found on a house floor near the back wall, closely resembles what Woodbury (1954: 176) referred to as cooking slabs. It is a very thin slab of coarse quartzite, irregularly square (23 cm by 21 cm) in shape, and has fire clouding on one surface (Fig. 6.13e). The surface does not seem to be stained by grease, nor does the base show any effects of fire. These are features which the cooking of wafer bread would have created. Haury (1945: 109) reported stone and clay griddles from the Classic period sites of Los Muertos and Casa Grande.
The majority of small grinding slabs were from early sites; only two were from late sites. All but one of the slabs were recovered from
C d e
Figure 6.13 Small grinding slabs. a-b, large rectangular types; c-d, small square types; e, possible cooking slab. Length of _g r is 25.7 cm. Utilitarian Ground Stone 635 features: 3 from roasting pits and 11 from pit houses. Two of the three from roasting pits were whole, with little wear on them. These represent slabs which were used for a short time and then discarded. Of the 11 slabs which were found in pit houses, 5 were in fill, and the remaining 6 were on floors. Two were found in early pit houses at AZ EE:2:105, one near the hearth and one just inside the entry. Three came from pit houses at AZ EE:2:113 with one near a back wall, one close to a front corner, and one near a back corner. Finally, one came from a house at a late site, AZ EE:2:116, and was located beside the hearth. With the exception of the latter specimen, all of the slabs were found near walls, where they were possibly stored. The slabs found near the hearth may have been in the locations where they were used. The high occurrence of Type 4 metates in pit houses would suggest that these slabs were used as household implements, and were not valuable enough to take when the houses were abandoned. It is suggested that they were used for tasks that did not necessitate use of a larger metate, possibly finer grinding of various materials.
Discussion
Haury (1976: 280) considered metates to be the most important stone tool of the Hohokam. This is not surprising, considering that most Hohokam activities were related to the acquisition, production, and preparation of food (Haury 1976: 113). If they were similar to the Pueblo Indians, Hohokam women might have spent much of their time grinding corn (Bartlett 1933: 3). How much the Hohokam depended on agriculture versus collected natural food and hunting cannot be determined, but studies of the Pima Indians have indicated a 50-50 ratio (Castetter and Bell 1942: 56-57). Unfortunately, the assemblage of metates from the Rosemont sites does little to shed light on the degree of Hohokam dependence upon agriculture. While it has been suggested that trough metates were used specifically for grinding corn and basin metates for grinding nonagricultural products such as wild seeds and nuts, it has not been proven (Roberts 1940: 118; McPherson and Doyel 1980: 313). The recovery of corn from Southwestern preceramic sites where only basin metates were used would suggest that both basin and trough metates were probably used for grinding both types of plant material. However, it is possible that the different types of metates may have been used for different tasks, as suggested by Haury (1976: 281), since they coexist in time, do not represent a manufacturing continuum or technological series, and are found together in houses. Di Peso (1951: 132) has suggested that these different metate types may have been used in various steps of corn kernel reduction, and that the differences in the grinding motions used with them might support this idea. It seems more probable, however, that the metates were used to grind anything that needed grinding in normal day-to-day activities. The fact that the basin metate survived into the ceramic period indicates that trough metates did not entirely replace them functionally.
The number of whole metates from the Rosemont sites may seem low, given the number of houses excavated, but is consistent with the 636 Martyn D. Tagg results of other excavations. This may support the idea that metates were valuable possessions which were removed when the inhabitants left. This seems further evident when looking at the whole metates in this collection. Of 41 whole or virtually whole metates, only 30 were recovered in usable condition. Of these 30, only 4 displayed much evident shaping work; the remaining 26, including all of the slab metates and small grinding slabs, had incipient or very light wear and little or no shaping. This may indicate that only a small percentage of the metates used on the sites were recovered, and that those deemed to be most useful were removed by the inhabitants when they left. It is also possible that metates were community property as suggested by Di Peso (1956: 467), and that a small number of them could be used by four or five households. This too might account for their low numbers in sites.
The number of metate fragments, including 56 that were too small to type, represents another important aspect of this artifact class. Since the metate was by far the largest rock implement on the sites, and these boulders were not native to the ridge tops, it would be expected that the stone from worn out or broken metates could be used for other purposes. While some fragments were found in trash-filled houses, more than 60 percent came from roasting pits, rock-filled pits, burials, and ground stone caches. The 40 percent recovered from trash-filled houses and on the surface is relatively high, and may indicate that the fragments were not as valuable for reuse as they would be in areas where stone was not so abundant, such as Snaketown (Haury 1976: 280).
Metates cannot be thought of as culturally diagnostic artifacts, since similar types are seen throughout the Southwest. However, some types are more commonly seen in one culture than in another. As mentioned earlier, the open-ended, full trough metate was the typical Hohokam metate, while metates with one end closed were characteristic of the Mogollon. It was initially thought that the unshaped metates of the Rosemont area were stylistically more similar to the unshaped metates of the Mogollon than the shaped metates which were characteristic of the Hohokam; however, a closer look at Hohokam sites located outside the core area revealed that unshaped metates were common (Doyel 1977a, 1978a; Franklin 1980; Haury 1932). The metates from these sites are similar in that most of them were made on quartzite or sandstone, while core area metates were usually vesicular basalt. Evidence from the Classic period Tanque Verde Site (Zahniser 1966: 152) suggests that even on sites which produced shaped vesicular basalt metates, those made of quartzite and sandstone were not shaped. As with other material objects from the core areas, the shaping of an artifact beyond what is needed for use is common. This, along with the hardness and ease of shaping of vesicular basalt, may be an explanation for the well-shaped metates. Still, the Hohokam living outside the core area did not shape items beyond their functional needs, perhaps adopting the Mogollon "rough and ready" attitude for artifacts (Wheat 1955: 110). It is possible that the cultural traditions responsible for the cosmetically shaped artifacts were not as strong on the peripheries as they were in the core area. It should also be noted that, while vesicular basalt in the core area was quarried from specific sites or obtained through trade (Hoffman Utilitarian Ground Stone 637 and others 1983), the quartzite cobbles and boulders used for the Rosemont metates were readily available throughout the washes and terraces of the area and were not in short supply.
From the few metates that were recovered in situ, a pattern of use areas could not be developed. Metates were found inside pit houses in various locations, outside houses, in limited-use structures, and in extramural work areas. This would suggest that since the metate was portable, it was used in various places, depending upon the task or the preferences of the individual using it. There does seem to be evidence of brush kitchens in the Rosemont sites like those of the Pima; these could represent special food processing areas for the inhabitants of those sites. There is also evidence that metates were used propped up at an angle.
Pestles
Pestles generally include those implements used for pounding or crushing substances such as food, pigments, clay, dyes, and so forth (Woodbury 1954: 95). They are usually cylindrical and exhibit worn ends from use in stone mortars. Pestles are associated with most Hohokam and Mogollon sites in the Southwest, and vary little in style between the two groups. This tool is also known to have been used by preceramic food gatherers (Haury 1976: 282), and was a common household implement for the Pimas. Pestles ranging in size from small pebbles to large cylindrical cobbles have been found, and are occasionally made of wood (Russell 1908: 100). Pestles may be shaped by pecking, perhaps not done all at once, but rather over a period of time, as was the case among the Pima, whenever the need or time arose (Russell 1908: 109-110). Haury (1945: 127-128) suggested that the unshaped pestles used at both ends were most common for the Hohokam. The 34 pestles in the Rosemont collection were grouped into three categories similar to those in Greenleaf (1975: 93). Two fragments were too small to classify.
Type 1
Small, tapering pestles are the most common type (Fig. 6.14e, f). These were made on naturally tapering stones that, in many cases, did not require much shaping. Half of the pestles found at Rosemont have not been shaped, while the other half show degrees of pecking varying from the rounding of edges to complete surface shaping. They are easily managed with one hand, and range in size from 11.8 cm to 21.7 cm in length by 7.2 cm to 11.7 cm in width. The length is normally twice the width. Wear usually occurs on the wider end of the implement as polishing or smoothing caused by the rocking and crushing motion used with a pestle; however, three of the pestles have wear on both ends. Battering caused by pounding is also seen. Six of the Type 1 pestles were used as manos, suggesting that they are dual purpose tools; up to three surfaces show use. One unusual pestle (Fig. 6.14g) is similar to the "potato masher pestles" seen in Woodbury (1954, Fig. 18). This 638 Martyn D. Tagg
a b
e f h
Figure 6.14 Pestle types. a-b, Type 2; c, unused blank; d, unusual Type 2; e-f, Type 1; g, potato masher type; h, Type 3. Length of c is 40.1 cm. style of pestle is associated with late horizons at Awatovi and is very rare in the Southwest, although similar pestles have been found at Texas Canyon (Fulton 1934a, Plate 18) and at the Hodges Ruin (Kelly 1978: 89). The use of this style of pestle was questioned by Woodbury (1954: 96), but the wear pattern on the Rosemont specimen suggests the same type of use as the other pestles. A second pestle also deserves mention because it was broken in half, and both halves were reused as crushing or hammering implements before being discarded. They are very similar to the paint-grinding stones defined by Woodbury (1954: 94-95, Plate 19).
Type 2
These are long, heavy, two-hand pestles (Fig. 6.14a, b). They also tend to taper, showing wear from use at the narrow end. As with Utilitarian Ground Stone 639 the Type 1 pestles, half of these are shaped by pecking; the other half show no modifications. They range from 23.5 cm to 40.1 cm in length, and from 8.9 cm to 11.9 cm in width. The length is usually two or three times the width. Seven of the Type 2 pestles have wear on one end (six with polish and one with battering); five show no wear, suggesting that they were unused blanks (Fig. 6.14c). None of the Type 2 pestles have wear on both ends, but five have been used as manos. Greenleaf (1975: 93) suggested that these large pestles were not used with a mortar, but served as a general crushing implement. This concept is not supported by the Rosemont pestles, since the used ends fit easily into the few mortars in the sample. Ethnographic studies of the Papago show that these large pestles were used in bedrock mortars (Doelle 1976: 55). The Pima also used these large pestles, sometimes recovering them from Hohokam sites (Russell 1908: 109). One Type 2 pestle deserves special mention due to its unusual shape (Fig. 6.14d). The pestle, found in an undated pit house, has concavities pecked into opposing sides of its center. These concavities may represent an attempt to narrow a portion of the pestle for easier gripping, similar to hand grips occasionally present on manos (Woodbury 1954: 66-67).
Type 3
Type 3 pestles are basically a thicker version of those classified as Type 1. They are represented by five broad, irregularly shaped tools with slightly tapered ends (Fig. 6.14h). All but one of this type are naturally shaped. Two of them were made of coarse grained sandstone, making the identification of shaping striations or pecking impossible. These pestles range in size from 13.1 cm to 19.7 cm in length and from 8.9 cm to 12.6 cm in width. The length is only one-and- one-half times the width of the implement. This creates a short, squat pestle which is unlike the more common oblong type. Four of these pestles show use on the wide end, and the fifth has wear on both ends and one side. Pestles such as these are not seen on other Hohokam sites, and may be wider versions of the Type 1 pestle as suggested by the scattergram in Figure 6.15. Three of the Type 3 pestles came from AZ EE:2:117, including two which were found together in a ground stone cache.
Discussion
There are far more pestles than mortars in the Rosemont assemblage. It is likely, therefore, that many of the pestles were used in wooden mortars, as only one bedrock mortar was recorded in the exchange area. Pestles vary in size and shape, possibly as functions of the form, size, and type of the raw material used. Perhaps the size of the mortar used with them was also a factor. Greenleaf (1975: 93) suggested that the narrow end was the principal use-area on pestles, but the specimens in this collection do not support that contention. Ten (35%) pestles, including all but one of the Type 2 tools, have wear on the narrow end, while 12 (41%; including the majority of the Type 1 and 3 pestles) exhibit wear on the wide end; 2 have wear on both ends. The 640 Martyn D. Tagg
20—
a b c a a c b c a b a a a a a a as
I 1 I I I I I 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 a Type I Length (cm) b Type 2 c Type 3
Figure 6.15 Length and width relationships for the three types of pestles.
"potato masher" pestle suggests that the narrow ends of tapered pestles could have been tapered for easier grasping, since this pestle was specifically shaped in this manner. It is possible that the pestles with use-wear on the narrow end were used in stone mortars which have roughly conical cups, while the pestles with indications of use on the wide end were used in wooden mortars, whose cups could be kept consistently wide with very little effort. Variations in pestle size may also be indicative of functional differences.
Both Type 1 and Type 2 pestles appeared at both early and late sites, while the few Type 3 pestles found were generally from early sites. Pestles were recovered from various features within sites. Fourteen pestles were found in pit houses, 12 were collected from the surface or stripping, 3 were located in a ground stone cache, 2 were in roasting pits, and 1 was in an extramural pit. Quartzite was the predominant material, but a few of the pestles were made of quartz monzonite and an unknown igneous material. The quartz monzonite pestles were large, shaped tools similar to the mano blanks; this is probably also indicative of intentional quarrying of this material.
Mortars
Portable mortars are commonly found in Hohokam sites. They were probably used in the preparation of food and possibly other things such Utilitarian Ground Stone 641
as paint or clay. Doyel (1978a: 85) suggested that their presence documents the local preparation of plant products not processed in metates, such as jojoba nuts, acorns, and possibly mesquite beans. Russell (1908: 75-99) noted that, among the Pima, the mortar was one of the most important household utensils for food preparation, used primarily for the crushing of mesquite pods and seeds.
Only three mortars were found on the Rosemont sites. This is a small sample, but it is consistent with the pattern at most Hohokam sites. Presumably, many of the mortars used by the Rosemont Hohokam were made of wood, as were most mortars used by the historic Pima (Russell 1908: 99).
Two of the mortars were made of quartzite and the other of an unknown igneous material. Each has a distinct concavity varying in diameter from 8.5 cm to 11.7 cm, and in depth from 1.9 cm to 4.8 cm. One of the mortars is a well-shaped bowl (Fig. 6.16b), made on a cobble that has been pecked and ground to shape. The walls of the vessel are 3.4 cm thick, forming a concavity that occupies most of the cobble surface. The base has been intentionally flattened. The other two
a b
d e
Figure 6.16 Mortars, grooved abraders, and subrectangular objects. a and c, mortars; b, grooved abrader; d-e, subrectangular objects. Length Length of b is 24.0 cm. 642 Martyn D. Tagg mortars are irregular in size in shape. Bowl-shaped mortars are not common in the Southwest, but are seen at Snaketown (Gladwin and others 1937, Plate 52). Well-shaped mortars are more common, as seen at Snaketown (Haury 1976: 283) and other Hohokam sites (Doyel 1979, Fig. 16; Dart & Gibb 1982: 124-125). One of the three specimens is a small, irregular cobble that has a very rough concavity with no indication of wear (Fig. 6.16a). The final specimen is fragmentary, though it can be ascertained that it was made on a metate fragment. Mortars pecked into metate surfaces have been found at San Cayentano in Upper Pima context (Di Peso 1956: 464, Plate 126b), as well as other Hohokam sites (Doyel 1977a: 15; Haury 1976: 282).
Only one of the three mortars was found in a feature (a roasting pit), and all of the mortars were temporally early.
Tabular Knives
Tabular knives are tools made of igneous or metamorphic material, including slate or schist, of naturally tabular form, which display blunted backs and ends, and one long edge ground or flaked to produce a working edge. They were presumably hand held, although some have modifications for hafting, such as bilateral notches or holes (Bernard-Shaw 1984: 1; Hayden 1957: 142). Tabular knives have been referred to as saws (Greenleaf 1975: 95; Kelly 1978: 88), hoes (Hayden 1957: 142; Wheat 1955: 124), mescal knives (Steen and others 1962: 25; Franklin 1980: 148), and fleshers or fleshing knives (Scantling 1940; Di Peso 1951: 51). Despite differences of opinion, they are typically thought to have been associated with the processing of plant material, especially agave. Other suggested uses include: animal hide processing (Bernard-Shaw 1984: 3; Di Peso 1951: 151); slate cutting (Haury 1976: 285); the excavation of pit houses, postholes, graves, or other features; the cutting of bunch grass for house construction (Di Peso 1956: 215); cultivation of fields; and digging of canals (Haury 1945: 134). Underhill (1951: 14-15) stated that the Papago used stone blades only for digging pit houses, and used wooden tools in the fields. Experimental use studies of the implements from the Salt-Gila Project concluded that the traditional designation of these implements as plant processing tools is potentially correct (Bernard-Shaw 1984: 1). No typological order or significant temporal differences have been suggested for tabular knives, which show little change through time. They are common in most ceramic period assemblages throughout southern and central Arizona.
A total of 22 whole and fragmentary tabular knives was recovered from the Rosemont sites. A variety of materials are represented including slate, schist, phyllite, an unknown igneous material, quartzite, basalt, siltstone, and limestone. With the exception of one modified cobble, all of the materials used are thin, tabular plates with one or more edges shaped for use. All exhibit edge modifications for either grasping or working; none exhibit modifications for hafting. Utilitarian Ground Stone 643
Traditionally, size differences have been used to separate saws from hoes, with the larger tools being designated as hoes and the smaller implements as saws (Zahniser 1966: 156). Hayden (1957: 144-145) suggested that size was not a good indicator of use; he categorized "shouldered flakes" as hoes, and tools with longitudinal striations or serrations on the cutting edges as saws. The Rosemont tabular knives were divided into two types for further discussion. The main attributes for separation were size, shape, and working edge modifications. Longitudinal striations are probably the result of producing a working edge rather than tool use, and were not recorded. These size and shape differences may be related to different functions or, possibly, a result of stylistic change through time.
Type 1
Eight knives were of the larger variety and would be considered hoes by Hayden and Zahniser (Fig. 6.17a-c). These specimens are made of slate, phyllite, or schist and range in size from 12.6 cm to 15.8 cm in length, 8 cm to 11.5 cm in width, and 0.7 cm to 1.1 cm in thickness.
a b
d e
Figure 6.17 Tabular knives. a-c, Type 1; d-g, Type 2. Length of b is 14.0 cm. 642 Martyn D. Tagg mortars are irregular in size in shape. Bowl-shaped mortars are not common in the Southwest, but are seen at Snaketown (Gladwin and others 1937, Plate 52). Well-shaped mortars are more common, as seen at Snaketown (Haury 1976: 283) and other Hohokam sites (Doyel 1979, Fig. 16; Dart & Gibb 1982: 124-125). One of the three specimens is a small, irregular cobble that has a very rough concavity with no indication of wear (Fig. 6.16a). The final specimen is fragmentary, though it can be ascertained that it was made on a metate fragment. Mortars pecked into metate surfaces have been found at San Cayentano in Upper Pima context (Di Peso 1956: 464, Plate 126b), as well as other Hohokam sites (Doyel 1977a: 15; Haury 1976: 282).
Only one of the three mortars was found in a feature (a roasting pit), and all of the mortars were temporally early.
Tabular Knives
Tabular knives are tools made of igneous or metamorphic material, including slate or schist, of naturally tabular form, which display blunted backs and ends, and one long edge ground or flaked to produce a working edge. They were presumably hand held, although some have modifications for hafting, such as bilateral notches or holes (Bernard-Shaw 1984: 1; Hayden 1957: 142). Tabular knives have been referred to as saws (Greenleaf 1975: 95; Kelly 1978: 88), hoes (Hayden 1957: 142; Wheat 1955: 124), mescal knives (Steen and others 1962: 25; Franklin 1980: 148), and fleshers or fleshing knives (Scantling 1940; Di Peso 1951: 51). Despite differences of opinion, they are typically thought to have been associated with the processing of plant material, especially agave. Other suggested uses include: animal hide processing (Bernard-Shaw 1984: 3; Di Peso 1951: 151); slate cutting (Haury 1976: 285); the excavation of pit houses, postholes, graves, or other features; the cutting of bunch grass for house construction (Di Peso 1956: 215); cultivation of fields; and digging of canals (Haury 1945: 134). Underhill (1951: 14-15) stated that the Papago used stone blades only for digging pit houses, and used wooden tools in the fields. Experimental use studies of the implements from the Salt-Gila Project concluded that the traditional designation of these implements as plant processing tools is potentially correct (Bernard-Shaw 1984: 1). No typological order or significant temporal differences have been suggested for tabular knives, which show little change through time. They are common in most ceramic period assemblages throughout southern and central Arizona.
A total of 22 whole and fragmentary tabular knives was recovered from the Rosemont sites. A variety of materials are represented including slate, schist, phyllite, an unknown igneous material, quartzite, basalt, siltstone, and limestone. With the exception of one modified cobble, all of the materials used are thin, tabular plates with one or more edges shaped for use. All exhibit edge modifications for either grasping or working; none exhibit modifications for hafting. 644 Martyn D. Tagg
Their shapes seem to be dependent upon the form of the raw materials used, but are generally oval to almost round, with the width measurement only slightly less than the length. The five round or oval knives have had their edges rounded and dulled by pecking, while the remaining three retain their natural shape and show evidence of only minimal grinding on the edges. Haury (1976: 285) stated that this unshaped type was the most common at Snaketown. The working edges of all the knives have been produced by grinding both sides to form a sharp edge. Horizontal striations and a smooth polish is visible for a distance of up to 4.4 mm from the working edge. On five of the knives (including the three illustrated) the cutting edge has been incised with notches to form a serrated, sawlike edge generally associated with Type 2 knives. All of the serrations have been worn down to the point where only a smooth edge remains. This wear would indicate heavy or very abrasive work. Unlike the concave blades seen on tabular knives from other sites, the blades on these knives are convex and dulled, with the exception of a single concave blade (Fig. 6.17c). Type 1 knives are found in all phases of the Rosemont occupation, and are similar to knives found at the Baca Float sites to the west of Rosemont (Doyel 1977a: 55).
Type 2
These knives were that type generally considered to be saws, due to their serrated working edges (Fig. 6.17d-g). Eight tabular knives fell into this category, and were made of slate, phyllite, schist, limestone, and an unknown igneous material. They range in size from 8.7 cm to 11.7 cm in length, 4.8 cm to 7.8 cm in width, and 0.4 cm to 0.9 cm in thickness. The Type 2 knives are rectangular in shape with rounded corners; the length is usually twice the width. Only four of these knives remain intact, and all are illustrated. Three of them have had all four edges pecked and ground to shape, while the fourth has unmodified edges (Fig. 6.17d). As with the Type 1 knives, the cutting edges of the Type 2 knives have been ground on both faces to produce a keen edge. Horizontal striations are visible on most of the examples. All of the knives have serrated cutting edges that are little worn and still very distinct. This may have resulted from the working of less abrasive materials with these knives, as compared to the larger Type 1 knives. Alternatively, it may have been simply the result of less use. Two of the complete knives have concave working edges (Fig. 6.17d, f), while two have straight blades. The Type 2 tabular knife is typically illustrated in most site reports (Greenleaf 1975: 96; Hayden 1957: 143), and found throughout the occupation of the Rosemont area.
Discussion
The remaining six tabular knife fragments were not classified into either of the two types. Four of the fragments are too small to classify, not having any indication of shape or edge type. All of the fragments, however, have signs of polishing on one face to indicate that they were from near the working edge. The largest fragment has the remnant of one natural edge, and it was probably a Type 1 knife. Two of Utilitarian Ground Stone 645
the tabular knives were not placed in either category because of their unusual material types. One was made on a siltstone river cobble rather than a tabular piece of material. While the original cobble was relatively flat, its entire surface has been ground extensively and all of its edges pecked; the working edge is ground. It was recovered from an early period pit house, and resembles the Type 1 knives. The working edge is dulled flat from use, and it is possible that this was a handstone that was reworked and reused as a knife. The remaining knife, a piece of tabular volcanic tuff, had a working edge produced by percussion as opposed to grinding. No indications of grinding or polishing are present, and the edges remain unmodified. Hayden (1957: 144-145) illustrated saws such as this with no grinding, and suggested that the manner of shaping (percussion flaking, pecking, grinding) may have been governed by the material used to make the tool. Similar flaked implements were analyzed in the chipped stone section of this report where they were defined as large primary-flake tools (Rozen, Chapter 5). At Las Colinas, they were also termed large primary-flake tools (Huckell 1980: 178).
The determination of the use of the tabular knives was difficult because there was no way to ascertain whether the striations were caused by manufacture or use, although the former is suggested. Bernard-Shaw (1984: 13-18) noticed that many uses of knives, such as cutting agave and wood, tended to obliterate these manufacturing striations. Other tasks left various alterations of knife edges. Corn harvesting left no alterations of the tool, while animal hide scraping created more striations perpendicular to the blade. Digging created blunting, spalling, and flaking of the edge. The working edges of all the Rosemont tabular knives were examined for indications of wear with a 10-power hand lens. Manufacturing striations were still visible on 11 of 15 knives. Three Type 2 fragments were too small for determination. Of those 11, 7 showed heavy polish or flattening of the work edges, including 3 of the Type 1 knives. The dullness of the working edges is suggestive of a sawing motion, such as would be used in plant processing. Haury (1976: 284-285) said that this type of wear suggests use against hard substances like stone, and proposed that unserrated phyllite saws were used for trimming slabs of slate for palettes. Four of the Rosemont knives display no horizontal striations or evidence of use such as polishing or spalling. The Type 1 and Type 2 knives generally have straight working edges blunted from use, although concave edges are also seen. The obliteration of the manufacturing striations and blunting of the edges might suggest that the tools were used for cutting wood or agave. The flaked knife has no indication of wear, and the edge remains relatively sharp.
Finally, one Type 1 knife, which still exhibits manufacturing striations, has heavy spalling and flaking on the use edge. Possibly, this was the result of more abusive work, such as digging. Another possibility is that it was intentionally flaked to thin the edge prior to regrinding.
The wear patterns on the Type 1 and Type 2 tabular knives do not indicate differences in their uses. The only major difference in wear 646 Martyn D. Tagg that is evident are the worn down serrations of the Type 1 knives. It is suggested that the Type 1 knives were used more extensively and possibly on more abrasive types of material to have produced this wear. Both types of artifacts support the concept that such tools functioned mainly as plant processing implements that could have been used for a number of other tasks. Both tabular knife types are found throughout the Hohokam occupation of the Rosemont area.
Grooved Axes
Woodbury (1954: 25) defined grooved axes as tools which were designed and used for chopping and which were hafted by means of a wooden handle fitted into the groove. Hohokam three-quarter grooved axes are thought to have been made primarily for woodcutting, although they were probably used for other purposes as well. Woodbury (1954: 25) suggested that axes in general were used for tasks such as pounding, quarrying and stone pecking. Di Peso (1951: 167) suggested secondary uses as a general household tool for cutting soft substances, and probably, for preparing potters' clay and quarrying rock. The Pima used prehistoric Hohokam axes to sharpen the grinding surfaces of their metates (Russell 1908: 109). Hafted axes found in the Verde salt mines obviously had been used in the prehistoric quarrying of salt (Morris 1928: 86-89). Babocomari and Paloparado produced a number of caches of unused axes from pit house postholes, courtyard pits, and cremation deposits (Di Peso 1951: 167, 1956: 205). Franklin (1980: 144-146) also noted that axes occur frequently in caches, and that more care was taken in making these symmetrical implements than would have been necessary for practical purposes alone. It is possible that they were produced for use in burials, and Di Peso (1951: 167) has suggested that Hohokam axes might have been manufactured as a trade item as well.
Thirteen ground stone axes were found on the Rosemont sites. They were all shaped by pecking and grinding, and varied from highly polished to completely unpolished. They were made from gray or gray- green diorite, which is typical of Hohokam axes. The six that are complete enough for identification are all three-quarter grooved (Fig. 6.18a, b, d-g) and range in size from 8.0 cm to 15.9 cm in length, 4.9 cm to 9.3 cm in width, and 3.9 cm to 6.3 cm in thickness. Seven of the axes are fragmentary, and six of these are very small pieces. Three are highly polished fragments from the cutting edge. It is possible that this polishing resulted from resharpening or wear rather than manufacture. The fragments from higher up on the body are not polished.
Only one fragment shows any temporally diagnostic attributes (Fig. 6.18d). With low ridges above and below the hafting groove, and a short, flattened poll, this axe is stylistically early (Kelly 1978: 92-93, Fig. 6.8). It was, however, found on a late period site, which suggests that it was either scavenged off an earlier site, or that the seriation established in the Phoenix and Tucson Basin areas may not apply in the Rosemont area. Utilitarian Ground Stone 647
a b
e f
Figure 6.18 Three quarter grooved axes. All but d are whole specimens. Length of c is 15.9 cm.
The six whole axes comprise a heterogenous group. Only three (Fig. 6.18a, f, g) have well-defined grooves, with two of these having short, stubby bits not much longer than the polls. The first has a small amount of use-generated spalling and flaking on the cutting edge (Fig. 6.18f), while the second has attrition on the poll from use as a hammer, and a heavily striated, well-polished bit from resharpening or use (Fig. 6.18g).
Two of the remaining axes were found close together in a stripping unit located immediately north of the Feature 71200 pit house at AZ EE:2:105, and may have been together in a cache. These axes are similar in that they are both roughly finished, with little or no polishing. Both have very shallow, poorly defined grooves, and both have battered poll ends with spalling and flaking on their bits. They differ markedly in size, with the larger axe (Fig. 6.18b) possibly being an unfinished or very crude axe. The smaller axe (Fig. 6.18e) resembles the "grooved hammerstones" found at Hodges and Snaketown, which are simply axes worn down from heavy use as hammers, or reuse (unhafted?) as hammerstones. There is no evidence to suggest that they were a manufactured tool type in their own right, as has been implied (Kelly 1978: 93, Fig. 6.8; Gladwin and others 1937, Plate 43). 648 Martyn D. Tagg
The final axe appears to have been broken during manufacture, with a large spall missing on one side of the poll. The groove is unfinished (Fig. 6.18c), and a patch of heavy polishing on the tip of the bit has been isolated by pecking, suggesting that this specimen represents a broken larger axe that was being reworked.
Four of the axes were recovered from pit house fill, and the remainder came from site surface or stripping units. Axes were present in all phases of occupation in those sites which were examined.
The lack of well-made, well-polished axes, like those from the Hohokam core area sites, follows the trend of simple and unembellished artifact manufacture that is typical of the other utilitarian ground stone in the Rosemont area. None of the axes showed any work beyond what was needed to make it functional.
Tabular Abrading Stones
Abrading stones have been defined by Woodbury (1954: 98) as tabular pieces of stone with both faces flat or slightly concave. They are made of sandstone, which is an excellent abrasive, and are generally rectangular. These tools were presumably held in the hand and rubbed against objects that needed shaping by abrasion. They are commonly called whetstones (Kelly 1978: 87; Gladwin and others 1937: 104), rasping and scouring stones (Woodbury 1954: 98), abrading palettes (Haury 1976: 284), and rubbing stones (Zahniser 1966: 153-154). Abraders are common from Hohokam and Mogollon sites in southern Arizona.
Various uses for tabular abrading stones have been suggested. Di Peso (1951: 153, 1956: 500-503, Fig. 73) suggested that they were used to shape hoes and sharpen their cutting edges, and were also part of arrowmaking kits. Gladwin and others (1937: 107) suggested their use for shaping objects of shell and Gregonis (1983: 65) and Haury (1976: 284) maintained that they were used for sharpening bone awls. The Hopi used hand held abrading stones to grind and shape implements such as weaving battens and digging sticks, creating the small tools by grinding larger pieces of wood on sandstone (Hough 1918: 277). At Pueblo Bonito, 26 small sandstone abraders were found in a room with 2 small grinding slabs and 3 wooden ceremonial sticks which had carved ends. From the various grooves and depressions in the abrading stones, they were considered the outfit of a woodworker (Pepper 1920: 86). They would also be suitable for working both utilitarian and nonutilitarian stone objects. It seems that abrading stones could have been used for any task requiring a gritty, abrasive surface.
Seven artifacts from the Rosemont sites were classified as tabular abrading stones. All are made of fine grained sandstone and, although only three are whole, the general shape of all appears to be rectangular, with one end slightly wider than the other (Fig. 6.19a-d). The edges have been squared by minimal pecking and grinding with striations running parallel to the edges. However, the natural fracture Utilitarian Ground Stone 649 planes of the material seem to be rectilinear, producing straight edges. They range in size from 10.8 cm to 13.5 cm in length, 4.6 cm to 7.5 cm in width, and 1.4 cm to 3.5 cm in thickness. Use-wear consists of the smoothing of one or both surfaces from grinding. Five of the abraders have unifacial grinding surfaces while two are bifacial. The only other type of wear present occurs as battering and chipping on the small ends of two whole abraders, possibly from use as hammerstones or small pestles (Fig. 6.19c). No grooves were apparent on any of the artifacts.
All seven were recovered from pit house fill. This suggests that these artifacts were not used extensively, since it is known that unbroken ones were also discarded. The wear on the tools provides no indication of what materials they were used to work. Abraders were present throughout the ceramic phase occupation of the area.
Pitted Stones
This is a broad category, covering a group of seven artifacts having a small concavity pecked into one surface. Included are three small grinding slabs and one mano that have had small concavities pecked in them, probably for a secondary use. Pecked stones are made on sandstone and quartzite cobbles or slabs, varying in size from 6 cm to 35 cm in length, 6 cm to 24 cm in width, and 4 cm to 9.4 cm in thickness. The pecked concavities range in diameter from 3.5 cm to 7.1 cm and usually are placed in the center of the object.
Five of the pitted stones show no indication of wear in their concavities, and are made on angular cobbles or slabs (Fig. 6.20a-c). It is possible that the concavities are the result of the initial pecking in the manufacture of mortar cups, and two of the artifacts may represent small stone bowls in the early stages of manufacture (Fig. 6.20c). The remaining three have been pecked on the use-surfaces of small grinding slabs (Fig. 6.20a, b). Franklin (1980: 157) classified unshaped flat stones with a single shallow depression pecked into a flat face as miniature mortars; Di Peso (1951: 179) called them paint grinders. Forty similar pecked stone pebbles were found at Paloparado and were thought to be stone spindle bases (Di Peso 1956: 402-403, Fig. 57). Based on types of spindle bases seen in Mexico, these artifacts were proposed to have been filled with ash and the spindle stick inserted to facilitate the spinning process. Other stones displayed obvious wear. Finally, one of the pitted stones (Fig. 6.20a) was found on a pit house floor with the concavity up, and in alignment with the wall postholes. It appears that this stone may have been used to seat a post, although why a posthole was not simply dug into the hard earth is unclear. Post supports were reported from both Snaketown and University Indian Ruin (Haury 1976: 274; Hayden 1957: 68, 170), although in both cases the support slabs were in the bottoms of postholes in floors built atop soft soil.
It is interesting that three of the pitted stones were made on small grinding slabs, especially since all are complete. It is possible 650 Martyn D. Tagg
a
e f
Figure 6.19 Tabular abrading stones and stone disks. a-d, tabular abrading stones; e-i, stone disks. Length of c is 13.5 cm.
b
a
d e Figure 6.20 Pitted stones. Length of b is 35.0 cm. Utilitarian Ground Stone 651
that the flat grinding surface made them more practical for the task they were designed for, since the grinding surface and the pecked concavity are not thought to be associated.
The final two artifacts are small sandstone cobbles with small concavities pecked on one of their surfaces (Fig. 6.20d, e). They range in size from 6 cm to 12.4 cm in length, 6 cm to 11 cm in width, and 4 cm to 5 cm in thickness, with concavities from 3.1 cm to 4.8 cm in depth. The larger one (Fig. 6.20d) has the concavity pecked on the unused side of a mano. This dual purpose tool is similar to a "nutting" stone found at the Abused Ridge Site (Tagg 1983: 25). Similar stones were also found at many core area and peripheral Hohokam sites, where they have been called crude stone vessels (Gladwin and others 1937, Plate LIV), anvil stones (Doyel 1977a: 69, Fig. 38), stone dishes (Di Peso 1958: 124), pitted hammerstones (Di Peso 1951: 167, 178), and miniature mortars (Franklin 1980: 157). They are also found in Mogollon sites (Wheat 1955: 120). The concavities of these artifacts were probably useful in nut cracking and pigment grinding. Kidder (1932: 72-74) found pigment stains in similar artifacts from northern Arizona. Di Peso (1951: 180) reported that these paint mortars were usually made on sandstone cobbles, and were known from Mimbres sites as well. Franklin (1980: 151) thought that these artifacts, and similar ones with pecked concavities, were used with small pestles. Haury (1945: 128) thought they were paint mortars for pulverizing pigments.
Five of the pitted stones were found complete in pit house fill, one was found in the fill of a cremation, and two were found in stripping units. The recovery of these whole artifacts from pit house fill would suggest that they were not particularly valuable tools. They range in time from early to late.
Stone Disks
Stone disks, as defined by Woodbury (1954: 179), are stones that have been shaped by grinding, but not completely smoothed. They are found in small numbers in northern Arizona sites and in the Hohokam area, after the Snaketown phase. Wheat (1955: 121) also reported that they occurred in preceramic context at Tularosa Cave. The disks exhibit no wear other than shaping, and have been called jar lids and gaming pieces (Woodbury 1954: 179; Hayden 1957: 142), pot lids for buried pots (Di Peso 1951: 145), and chipped disks (Di Peso 1958: 124). Similar objects have also been called unfinished blanks of perforated disks or spindle whorls (Teague 1981: 219-220; Di Peso 1951: 162).
Seven stone disks were recovered from the Rosemont sites (Fig. 6.19e-i). They have been roughly rounded by pecking, grinding, and occasional flaking of the edges, with the original flat surfaces remaining either unmodified or only slightly ground. They range in size from 4.6 cm to 7.9 cm in length, 4 cm to 7.9 cm in width, and 0.8 cm to 2.7 cm in thickness, and are made of sandstone, quartzite, rhyolitic tuff, or metamorphosed siltstone. Four disks have one side ground flat 652 Martyn D. Tagg and one side unmodified; the fifth has no modifications on either side. Two of the disks have one flat side and one convex side (Fig. 6.19f, h). In both cases, the flat side has been ground, and the convex side of one artifact has also been ground. One of the latter and two of the flat disks have had flakes removed from the edges, presumably for shaping. Similar ceramic disks, made from pot sherds, were also recovered from Rosemont sites in small numbers (see Chapter 4).
The use of the stone disks is unknown, but they do not seem to be blanks for spindle whorls since artifacts of that type are usually made of slate and are of Classic period age. No artifacts interpreted as stone spindle whorls were recovered from the examined sites. Their possible use as jar lids is also debatable due to their small size compared to the average circumference of Rosemont jar openings, which is 10 cm or larger (see Chapter 4). They have also been considered gaming pieces or counters, which seems to be the most reasonable idea. A variety of games using such disks were played by many historic Indian groups (Culin 1907: 381-382, 724-727). Tuthill (1947: 79) found many similar small stone disks in and around the ballcourt at the Tres Alamos Site, and suggested that they may have been used as counters.
The stone disks are thought to be nonutilitarian and probably served as game pieces of some type. Two of the disks were found at the Ballcourt Site (AZ EE:2:105) and may be associated with the ballcourt. The lack of wear would also support a nonutilitarian use. Those stone disks that could be placed in time fell in both the early and late periods of the Rosemont occupation. Two were found in pit house fill, and the remaining five were found either on the surface or in stripping units.
Subrectangular Ground Stone Objects
Two artifacts were recovered that could not be placed in any other ground stone category. They have been classified as subrectan- gular ground stone objects after Franklin (1980: 158), who described similar artifacts of unknown use as large ovoid or "egg-shaped" stones, pecked to shape on all surfaces but showing no wear to indicate use. Similar objects from Babocomari Village have been called anvils (Di Peso 1951: 146) and a subrectangular piece of vesicular basalt was recovered from Las Colinas (Teague 1981: 224). Given their shape, it is also possible that they are unused handstones, but the high degree of shaping present does not support this notion. Apparently, they are not common, but it is possible that more of these objects have been found and classified as handstones or anvils for lack of better terms.
The two objects in the Rosemont collection are both of coarse- grained quartzite, pecked on all surfaces into subrectangular shapes (Fig. 6.16d, e). They were found close together in a stripping unit at AZ EE:2:113. The artifacts are almost identical in size. The smaller one has no grinding or abrading surfaces to indicate its use (Fig. 6.16e). The larger artifact has a concavity pecked into one side, Utilitarian Ground Stone 653 forming a shallow basin (Fig. 6.16d). Around the edges of this concavity are a few spots worn smooth from abrasion, possibly the result of manufacture or use. There is also rough smoothing in the basin, which measures approximately 4 cm in diameter and 0.6 cm deep.
Ground Stone Artifact Assemblages
Floor Assemblages
Individual ground stone artifacts were found on a number of pit house floors on the ANAMAX-Rosemont Project,. These may represent artifacts that had been left in the house after its abandonment or caught in a fire. Alternatively, they may simply be trash thrown into the house. Very little can be said about these artifacts other than that they may represent artifacts in their place of use or storage, as noted in previous sections of this chapter. What is of more interest are those houses which had two or more artifacts on the floor which may represent household food preparation kits.
Eleven assemblages of ground stone artifacts from house floors were recovered from six sites. Seven of the 11 assemblages were from houses that had burned and probably represent artifacts that were still in use, while the other 5 from unburned houses may represent abandoned tools or trash. Several aspects of the assemblages were examined with respect to: (1) what activities the tools represented; (2) whether these activities occurred in the house, or these were tools stored after use; (3) the presence of mano-handstone and metate sets; (4) grades of mano texture from rough to smooth (perhaps indicating multiple steps in food grinding as suggested by Bartlett [1933: 4]); and (5) the presence of differences in the assemblages through time. Table 6.2 presents the floor assemblages by feature (house number), artifact type, artifact texture, and date of the house. It is also noted which houses were only partially excavated, since the artifact assemblages taken from these three may not have been complete. The assemblages span the Hohokam occupation of the area.
Manos and handstones are present in all cases, and constitute all or most of the individual occurrences noted above. It is interesting to note that in all but one of the eight samples containing more than one mano, different textures are present ranging from coarse to fine. In three cases, a mano had been roughened to produce a coarser grinding surface. This would suggest that manos of different textures may have been used in separate steps of the grinding process, such as the manos and metates of different textures used historically by the Hopi and other puebloan groups. The coarser mano would have been used initially to crush the product, and then the finer textured manos used to grind the meal more finely. Bartlett (1933: 4) stated that the Hopi and Zuni ground their corn three times, using a sequence of coarse-, medium-, and fine-grained grinding implements. 654 Martyn D. Tagg
Table 6.2
FLOOR ASSEMBLAGES
Manos/Handstones Metates Pestles
-o w w a , T C H C M .. x u x , X ■ W > ,'3 T, C
C., E L G CI) 7 0 , d o.--■ 9 C./ C.■ F u ..c w •--1 CO 0 0) H 7 .0 CAD 01 9 C C 0. 1- .0 0 0 0 7 0 ( 1.7 , , pi ' i,, .2 K, ,t, . Site Feature ,., E m -. . . V W L 7 0 0 C.1 ,-, 0 0 ,—i CO T. T 0 Number Number Age F1 V 0 E [.. 04 F 0) F H H H
AZ EE:2:76 8 Snaketown/Cailada del Oro X 1 1 1 3
AZ EE:2:105 9 Early X X 1 2 2 6 4 AZ EE:2:105 71200 Rillito X X 1 AZ EE:2:105 81 Early 2 4 AZ EE:2:107 2 middle Rincon X 1 2 AZ EE:2:107 5 middle Rincon X 1 1 2 AZ EE:2:109 3 middle Rincon X 2 1 3 AZ EE:2:113 8 early Rincon X 2 1 2 7 AZ EE:2:113 10100 early Rincon X X 1 1 2 1 1 8 AZ EE:2:113 154 early Rincon X X 1 2 3 AZ EE:2:116 2 late Rincon X 1 2
Total 6 7 13 3 1 2 1 5 2 2 1 44
Two burned and two unburned houses have only manos present, with three manos in each of three houses and two manos in one house. At least two manos with different textures are present in these four cases. It seems possible that two or three manos (at least one fine- and one coarse-grained) were considered the adequate grinding assemblage. Finding manos without metates on some house floors may suggest that in these cases, the metates were in brush kitchens or outside the house, and that the manos themselves were stored in houses when not in use. Di Peso (1956: 467) has suggested that metates may have been community property, and that manos were individually owned. The fact that none of the metates from the Rosemont area which were found outside houses or in brush kitchens had manos associated with them supports this idea. The use of multiple textures of manos and the communal ownership of metates could also explain why more manos than metates are always found on Hohokam sites.
Single metates are present in six houses, and one house has three. Of the seven floor assemblages with metates, four have full- sized metates and three have small grinding slabs. At AZ EE:2:113 Feature 8 and AZ EE:2:105 Feature 9, the manos in the assemblages (four and five respectively) are too large for use on the small grinding slabs, and were apparently used with metates which were not present. In both cases, use in trough metates is suggested by end wear on the manos. Handstones, for use on the small slabs, are also absent. In Feature 2 at AZ EE:2:116, a handstone and small grinding slab were found that would seem to have been used together. Both are fine grained and have flat use surfaces. Feature 8 at AZ EE:2:113 has two pestle fragments and an unmodified elongated object that may have been a pestle blank. One pestle fragment was reused as a handstone and hammerstone, and may Utilitarian Ground Stone 655 have been used on the small grinding slab in the house. The other half of this pestle was found on the surface, approximately 20 m away, and had also been reused as a hammer and handstone.
The remaining four assemblages had either trough or slab metates in them. Feature 2 at AZ EE:2:107 and Feature 71200 at AZ EE:2:105 each have one mano and one metate in them. In both cases the manos could have been used with the metates. Feature 2 has a handstone that fits a small trough metate, and Feature 71200 has a small mano that fits a slab metate. This indicates that manos were not just used in trough metates, and handstones were not just used in basin metates. In both cases, the mano and metate were of the same textured quartzite. A tabular knife and pestle blank were also found in Feature 71200. Feature 81 at AZ EE:2:105 is unusual because a whole trough metate was on the floor, but only two fragmentary manos and a pestle were found. However, only one-quarter of this structure was excavated, so the full composition of the assemblage is unknown. The mano fragments do not seem to have been used with the metate, and may represent later trash deposits in the structure. Feature 10100 at AZ EE:2:113 has the largest assemblage in the sample with eight ground stone artifacts. One trough metate is only a fragment, and was probably being reused for a secondary purpose, such as a post support. The remaining metates, an incipient trough and a small grinding slab, were found with a mano and a handstone in an area near one corner of the structure, possibly representing a work area within the house. The other mano, handstone, and metate fragment were found with a bone and two hammerstones near another corner of the house which possibly represent another work area. All of the manos and handstones could have been used easily on the trough metate present. The two handstones are small enough to have been used with the small grinding slab. A tabular knife was also part of this assemblage.
This small number of ground stone assemblages may be somewhat unusual, considering the number of houses investigated in this project. Two possible explanations for this may be proposed. First, artifacts in functional condition were taken by the inhabitants when they left the site; what remained was either not considered worth taking, or was overlooked. Second, based on the numbers of whole ground stone artifacts found on the surface and in stripping units not associated with features, extramural work areas were most frequently used for grinding activities, and artifacts may have been left in these areas instead of houses.
The majority of ground stone artifacts recovered from house floors were found close to walls in the house, and would seem to have been stored out of the way. Four assemblages and 8 of the 14 individual floor contact artifacts fit this description also. The remaining artifacts were found in what might be their place of use within the central floor space of the houses. Two assemblages and two individual artifacts were found beside the hearth, two assemblages and three individual artifacts were found in various central areas throughout houses, and two houses from AZ EE:2:113 had other areas where ground stone was concentrated. 656 Martyn D. Tagg
No variation through time can be seen in these small assemblages, and activities that occurred within the houses can only be inferred. From the evidence of this study, it would seem that most work done on a metate was done outside a pit house or in special, perhaps communal, brush kitchens; only small tasks were done inside on small grinding slabs.
Caches
Caches of ground stone artifacts were rare and varied in their makeup in the Rosemont sites. These caches are unlike those from Snaketown (Haury 1976: 175-190) which included collections of censers, figurines, pots, jewelry, and tools that had been intentionally broken and interred in pits which were unassociated with pit houses. Utilitarian ground stone was only present in small numbers in Cache 1:10G from that site (Haury 1976: 188-189). The seven caches of ground stone from the Rosemont sites contained complete manos, handstones, or pestles. Only two were in subsurface pits; four were found on the surface of sites. Two grooved axes and two subrectangular objects may also have been from caches, since they were found close together in stripping units.
Table 6.3 presents the attributes of caches of ground stone artifacts. Of the two subsurface caches, one was found in a pit house floor pit, and one in an extramural pit directly in front of a pit house. Both pits contained whole manos with evident use-wear; these may represent storage pits for the artifacts. The cache in Feature 2 at AZ EE:2:129 may actually be a mano assemblage from this house, since no manos were found on the floor surface. At AZ EE:2:105 an extramural pit (Feature 76) with manos was in front of a pit house (Feature 81) which did have a floor assemblage that included two manos. The cache may be part of that assemblage, or it may not be associated with the pit house at all. Also at AZ EE:2:129, and possibly representing a cache, were two manos covered by an inverted trough metate which has already been described. This collection of three artifacts with incipient use-wear is similar to those caches from AZ EE:2:117.
Two other assemblages, found during surface stripping of sites, consisted of two grooved axes and two subrectangular objects of unknown use. Both are considered to be caches because of the proximity of their recovery. Axes are commonly found in caches. Thirteen of the 19 axes from Babocomari Village were found this way, prompting the interpre- tation of axes as possible nonutilitarian tools (Di Peso 1951: 167). The two axes from AZ EE:2:105 are definitely utilitarian, representing the most heavily used axes in the collection. Their heavy wear and close proximity to a pit house (Feature 71) would suggest that they were either left lying in their place of use or stored after use. The two subrectangular objects from AZ EE:2:113 present a mystery. They were found 4 m from the nearest pit house, and their function could not be determined. It is possible that these objects were of ceremonial significance and were cached during a ceremony. Table 6.3
GROUNDSTONE CACHES
Material Type
,E,
.,..,0 ite
a , ... , -m
ite
a a Monzon I a u 77, a C les m -, tz tz a m a a
Site Feature w m t a .e ,-, x
s_, 1.1 1-1 dium ,C m 0 0 Number Number Age C , -, 0 .c c .c Cache dimensions (m) Pes Quar Quar co a E-, Me co 3 co AZ EE:2:105 14 Early X 6 5 1 2 4 4 2 4 2 5 1 1.0 by 0.50 * (1 artifact 5.5m away AZ EE:2:105 57 Early X 2 1 1 2 2 2 0.45 by 0.45
AZ EE:2:105 76 Early X 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 0.45 by 0.15
AZ EE:2:117 b late Rincon X 5 2 1 2 5 3 2 2 3 5 1.0 by 2.0 1
AZ EE:2:117 7 late Rincon X 4 3 1 1 3 1 3 2 2 2 2 2.0 by 3.0 31 T AZ EE:2:117 8 late Rincon X 4 3 1 4 4 4 3 1 1.0 by 2.0
AZ EE:2:129 2001 Late X 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.75 by 0.65 aulTI
Includes a core-hammerstone. uei noiD u p auolS 658 Martyn D. Tagg
The remaining four caches, three from AZ EE:2:117 and one from AZ EE:2:105, were found on the surfaces of sites. The cache at AZ EE:2:105 is interesting in that it was found in a linear configur- ation, like steps in a staircase. It seems unlikely that the artifacts were originally cached in this way, because they were found on a steep bank of a recent drainage. They were probably stacked together at one time on a flat surface. This cache was located within 8 m of a cluster of houses, and was not associated with any features. Four of the six artifacts in the cache were quartz monzonite mano blanks. The other two were a mano and a pestle, both lightly worn.
Three surface caches were recovered from AZ EE:2:117. These were concentrations of ground stone artifacts in 1 m to 3 m areas. One (Feature 8) was located close to a pit house (Feature 2); the other two were more than 10 m from any feature. The Feature 8 assemblage consisted of two unused pestles, one unused mano, and a mano and handstone with apparent use wear. It is possible that this cache represents a grinding tool kit related to the Feature 2 pit house, since no artifacts were found on the floor of that structure, although this does not explain the unused artifacts. The two caches that were located away from the houses consisted of artifacts with use wear and broken artifacts. These seem more likely to represent extramural work areas.
Summary and Discussion
The utilitarian ground stone from the Rosemont area reflects the importance of agriculture and the exploitation of the wild plants common to the area, and the utilization of local lithic materials for the manufacture of these tools. Forms are consistent from the early period of habitation in the area through the late period, as shown in Table 6.4 and Figure 6.21. These document the distribution of artifact types by time. The only artifact types present in the early part of the occupation, that did not extend into the late period, are the basin metate, the round mano, and possibly the subrectangular objects. Round manos are not separated from other forms in the mano class in this table. The subrectangular objects are too few to ascertain whether they are early or late. The basin metates follow the trend seen at other Hohokam sites. Basin metates and round manos are present in preceramic sites in the Southwest. They probably represent types that survived into the early ceramic period, but became obsolete in the later ceramic period. In general, very little variation in artifacts is seen through time, suggesting a relatively stable pattern throughout the ceramic period occupation of the Rosemont area. Minor differences are seen through time in manos and handstones, and are also suggested between the tabular knife types and two of the pestles types, although these changes seem more stylistic than functional. In addition, quartz monzonite is more abundant in the late period; this may represent more quarrying activities occurring in this period than in the early period. Utilitarian Ground Stone 659
Table 6.4
DISTRIBUTION OF GROUND STONE ARTIFACTS BY TIME PERIOD
Artifact Time Period Type Early Late
Manos 103 (31.7) 51 (35.2) Handstones 76 (23.5) 33 (22.8) Hammer-rubbing stones 21 ( 6.5) 3 ( 2.1) Polishing stones 18 ( 5.6) 6 ( 4.1) Metates Trough 36 (11.1) 24 (16.6) Basin 18 ( 5.6) Slab 6 ( 1.9) 1 ( 0.7) Small grinding slab 9 ( 2.8) 2 ( 1.4) Pestles Type 1 5 ( 1.5) 3 ( 2.1) Type 2 7 ( 2.2) 3 ( 2.1) Type 3 1 ( 0.3) 3 ( 2.1) Mortars 2 ( 0.6) 1 ( 0.7) Tabular knives Type 1 1 ( 0.3) 5 ( 3.4) Type 2 4 ( 1.2) 1 ( 0.7) Grooved axes 7 ( 2.2) 3 ( 2.1) Tabular abrading stones 3 ( 0.9) 3 ( 2.1) Pitted Stones 4 ( 1.2) 2 ( 1.4) Stone disks 1 ( 0.3) 1 ( 0.7) Subrectangular objects 2 ( 0.6) 1 ( 0.7)
Total 324 145
( ) = percent
There also seems to be little variation in the ground stone implements among the different size classes of excavated sites. Figure 6.22 illustrates the distribution of artifacts by the various site size classes. These include the small two-house sites of the late period, the small four-to-six-house sites which (with the exception of AZ EE:2:84) are also late, the medium sites with multiple occupations, and the large complex sites of the early period. The only noticeable differences are seen within the small site groups. The small, late, two-house sites totally lack polishing stones, small Type 2 tabular knives, and small Type 3 pestles. However, they have a high percentage of the large, Type 2 pestles. The small four-to-six-house sites totally lack slab metates and small grinding slabs, and have high percentages of large Type 1 tabular knives, tabular abrading stones, and pecked stones.
660 Martyn D. Tagg
4o-
30
a) — Early :2 20 — — Late 0
10
e1,:l . 64 , ti a q' 4(§P e 6o" 4 , ,1/44q° ,A,P\ ... kv6 •2,c) cpe „1/40 I 4r) Metates 4 F Pestles 4 4 Tabular 4 knives
Figure 6.21 Distribution of ground stone artifacts by time period.
- Small 4-6 house sites (84,106,107,109,120) n=86 • Small 2 house sites (104,116,117,122,129) n=80 - Medium sites (76,77) n=221 - Large sites (105,113) n=303
20
\ 043 4e. ,64 \°at .641' sP° (46.,44 c4. to: 4P. 60? 1§, 4:` '84 •c ne 0 s,-q" m .44 wos- 4' 0' 41'4 46' 4,,4* 6cee et' 4) ;,, ,10, x - F Metates F Pestles 4 Tabular 4 knives
Figure 6.22 Distribution of ground stone artifacts by site type. Utilitarian Ground Stone 661
Unfortunately, the presence or absence of these artifact types does not suggest that different types of activity occurred at these sites. The total lack of slab metates and small grinding slabs from the small four- to-six-house sites is not unusual, since these are late period sites and the artifact types are early. The lack of polishing stones at the two- house sites may suggest that pottery was not made there. This would not be surprising if these were single occupation, short term sites. The remaining tools may suggest some minor activity variations, but this cannot be ascertained with the presently scant knowledge of the tool uses. One factor that is clearly illustrated is the larger quantities of artifacts recovered from the medium and large sites, as compared to the smaller sites. This can be explained by the longer or more intensive period of occupation.
The artifact attribute that stands out most in the Rosemont collection is the lack of detailed shaping that is generally associated with Hohokam assemblages. The Rosemont assemblage exhibits roughly shaped or unshaped ground stone implements, much like those of the Mogollon culture. While this might suggest a mixing of cultural traits between the Mogollon and Hohokam cultures, Doyel (1977a: 108) proposed that these were merely Hohokam sites that were represented by a more loosely organized and less complex social system, and which required flexibility to function efficiently in new "frontier" areas. The Rosemont ground stone is very similar to that from other "frontier" sites such as those in the Santa Cruz River Valley (Doyel 1977a), Paloparado (Di Peso 1956), and Miami Wash (Doyel 1978a). These similarities would support Doyel's theory, and I would agree that the Rosemont ground stone represents a more flexible adaptation to an environment unlike that in the river valleys, instead of an intense cultural mixing with the Mogollon. As Figure 6.23 indicates, the composition of the Rosemont assemblage is very similar to that of other southern Arizona Hohokam sites, but somewhat different from core area sites. As shown, the Rosemont assemblage corresponds closely with the collections from the Santa Cruz Valley sites (Doyel 1977a) and less closely with those from Las Colinas, a Classic period site (Teague 1980). The Rosemont and Santa Cruz Valley sites lack the stone balls and rings that are seen in core area sites, and have a much smaller percentage of tabular knives. Otherwise, they are similar. The lack of stone balls and rings may represent functional or organizational differences, or they may be Classic period traits. The difference in relative percentages of tabular knives, as well as the high percentages of pestles seen in the Rosemont area, probably represent functional variations among the sites. Pestles are generally considered to have been nonagricultural plant food grinders which could be better utilized in a more lushly vegetated area at a higher elevation. Tabular knives could have been used for cultivation of crops and the harvesting of various other plants, such as agave. These implements were used by groups in both areas, but possibly more intensively by those in the core area. Las Colinas is also lacking in basin metates, which is to be expected, given that it is a Classic period site. A fact that is not illustrated in this figure, but is worth mentioning, is that in all cases, the full-trough metate is the most dominant metate type for all three areas.
662 Martyn D. Tagg
— Rosemont n = 625 — — Santa Cruz n = 208 ••••• Las Colinas n= 383
a)
g 30- 2 a) ar
20-
10 -
...... .... v.A.e, 86 4 . AP e5 •c.• ,cP e Qe0a 4:0 03'°C o ia e,1' e , 1/49 41be c,.5) ,61. c2 o qb cfs C63- F MWOteS Figure 6.23 Comparison of ground stone artifact assemblages from the Rosemont sites, the middle Santa Cruz River sites (Doyel 1977a), and Las Colinas (Teague 1980). The majority of the Rosemont ground stone was made with locally available material. The only evidence of acquisition techniques, other than the collection of local boulders and cobbles from stream channels or terraces, was seen with the occurrence of shaped mano and pestle blanks of quartz monzonite and vesicular basalt, which is more prevalent in the later period. Quartz monzonite is locally available, but the recovery of a fair number of shaped blanks is suggestive of ground stone quarrying as proposed by Hoffman and others (1983). The vesicular basalt mano more likely represents a trade item since that material was not available in this area. As a whole, the Rosemont area Hohokam used readily available materials for their ground stone implements, but followed the cultural guidelines of using specific materials for grooved axes and tabular knives.
Ethnographic studies of the Pima, Papago, and Pueblo Indians have given much insight on the uses of some of the ground stone arti- Utilitarian Ground Stone 663 facts. However, the uses of many artifacts, such as stone disks, hammer- rubbing stones, and subrectangular objects, can only be suggested. These studies have also given us some insight on work areas, such as the brush kitchens of the Pima, to help in the interpretation of Hohokam food preparation areas. From this, it seems possible that the Hohokam had communal brush kitchens on some of the small sites that served the inhabitants of four or five houses. This may help to explain the many instances of finding manos without metates on house floors and metates without manos in the irregular structures seen in the Rosemont area sites. Prehistoric evidence of mealing rooms is seen at Pueblo Bonito, where Room 17 had multiple grinding slabs (Pepper 1920: 84-86, Fig. 29).
The differences between manos and handstones has long been debated. Researchers have generally divided these artifacts into many subtypes for further analysis. This was avoided in this analysis since it was felt that there was little variation between size or shape that was not dependent on wear or trough size. Handstones carried over from the Archaic period when they were used in basin metates and on small grinding slabs for processing mainly nonagricultural items. Manos were developed or introduced in conjunction with the trough metate, which may have developed as a more efficient implement for grinding corn. With time, the preferred shape in both manos and handstones shifted from the more natural rounded shapes to the more rectangular-shaped artifacts. Mano size seems to have been much dependent on trough size. Overlap is present between the two artifact types, and there is no doubt that these midrange specimens could have been used on basin, slab, or trough metates. Functional differences may be suggested by different metate types, and by the fact that both manos and handstones are found together throughout the ceramic period. It still seems possible that handstones were used for grinding nonagricultural products.
The hammer-rubbing stones and polishing stones represent a class of artifacts best described as disposable. Along with small grinding slabs and slab metates, these artifacts exhibit light wear. They are thought to have been used briefly and then discarded. They were probably task specific tools, rather than a formalized tool type.
Chronological differences seem to be present between the various subtypes of tabular knives, pestles, and grooved axes (Table 6.4). Type 3 pestles and Type 1 tabular knives fall mainly in the late period while Type 2 knives are consistently early. Unfortunately, in all of these cases, the small sample sizes make inferences about time differences difficult to support. It seems possible that overall size, shape, and working edge differences were governed more by functional than by temporal differences. This is suggested by the differences in edge wear that can be seen on the tabular knife types and the use of the different ends of the tool between the different pestle types.
Evidence of reuse or multiple use of artifacts can be seen in the collection. Metates and small grinding slabs, both whole and fragmentary, were used for pitted stones, mortars, and grooved abraders; manos were used for pitted stones. One mano was made from the wall 664 Martyn D. Tagg
fragment of a trough metate. Axes were reused as hammerstones, but the main reuse of ground stone came from the secondary use of artifacts or fragments in roasting pits or other features. One pit, Feature 5 on AZ EE:2:77, had 20 pieces of ground stone lining it, including whole manos, handstones, hammer-rubbing stones, pestles, and metate fragments. This is the usual trend for Hohokam sites, but the Rosemont assemblage varies in the quantity of artifacts used for these secondary purposes. Haury (1976: 280) said that most of the metate fragments at Snaketown were found in secondary contexts because of the lack of native stone in the area. Native stone was abundant in the Rosemont area, and this is reflected in the limited reuse of stone implements. Only approximately 20 percent of the recovered ground stone was found in roasting pits or other types of features where it was considered reused, while about 55 percent was discarded in pit houses, or in the fill of other features. The recovery of whole artifacts with light wear from trash deposits also supports the hypotheses that ground stone raw material was not in short supply, and that unsatisfactory tools did not have to be used until they were in an exhausted state.
Reuse and multiple use of artifacts would suggest that most artifacts could be, and were used for any task for which it was practical, and that very few artifacts were truly task specific even though they may have been manufactured for one specific type of work.
Conclusions
The analysis of the ground stone from the Rosemont area has revealed an assemblage similar to other Hohokam sites, both in the core area and peripheral areas in the Southwest. It has suggested the presence of a cultural group that adapted its ground stone implement assemblage to the local environment. The artifacts also represented a change from the more structured assemblage typical of the core area Hohokam, to allow the inhabitants to function with the material available to them in a different environmental zone. Very little stylistic change occurred among the different site types or through time, suggesting stability. The ground stone assemblage does not indicate any economic changes from the earliest Hohokam settlement to their final abandonment of the Rosemont area. Chapter 7
NONUTILITARIAN GROUND STONE, CRYSTALS, AND MINERALS
Alan Ferg
Included in this chapter are palettes, jewelry, various esoteric stone items, quartz crystals, minerals, and unworked stone thought to have been collected by the Rosemont Hohokam.
Palettes
Thirty-four whole or fragmentary palette blanks and completed palettes were recovered from 8 sites (Table 7.1). These are described below, and a discussion of their manufacture, and temporal distribution, and brief comparisons with other areas are provided.
Figure 7.1 shows a technological series for the local manufacture of slate palettes in the Rosemont area. On occasion, only minimal grinding of the edges of a piece of slate (Fig. 7.1a) produced a relatively symmetric blank, ready for use (Fig. 7.1b). More often, however, the slate was chipped to shape and sometimes even split to thin it. Figure 7.1c shows two pieces which were being hammered on the lower right hand corner apparently in an attempt to split the piece; it did split, but also apparently broke transversely off of a now-missing piece, rendering these fragments useless. Figure 7.1d does not appear fully shaped, but already had seen use of some sort as shown by the scratched face. Figure 7.1e shows a chipped blank that was beginning to take on an oval shape when the left end broke away. Finally, Figure 7.1f shows a completed palette with a well-polished surface. The reverse face has a thick lump which the maker tried to split off with careful edge-pecking; the pecking instead chipped the working face (Fig. 7.1f, arrow). In addition, one other chipped-to-shape blank (not illustrated) was found.
Of the 34 palettes represented, 25 (74%) were of slate, three (9%) of limestone, two (6%) of sandstone, one (3%) of mudstone, one (3%) of a fine-grained phyllite, and two (6%) of a schist or phyllite-schist. Only this last material is interpreted as nonlocal in origin, partly on the basis of the material itself, and partly on the palettes' features. As will be seen, palettes manufactured in the Rosemont area were rather
665 666 AlanFerg Palettes Finger Rings Slate Objects Stone Bowls Turquoise Argillite BirdPendant Steatite Total Unidentified StoneBeads Phyllite pendantsorearrings Paddle orEffigyFragment Paint Pestles Unworked Slabs Slab Bowls Plain Raised borders Blanks Small, Flush, Flush, Rods orBlanks Drilled blanks Blanks Unworked Pieces Unidentified objects Disks Finished Decorated Plain Worked pieces Overlay Unworked pieces Pendants orblanks Beads Overlay Beads one-line borders elaborate borders outlined mixingareas (?) NONUTILITARIAN GROUNDSTONEARTIFACTSBYSITE 2 2 16 4 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1
AZ EE: 2: 76 Table 7.1 38 53 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 AZ EE: 2: 78 N NNNINN CO .1' 0 NNNNNNNNN WWWW{444WWW isiWWr=1WWWWW d <4 2 1 1 27 6 4-- 3 2 3 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 ■ ti 1 1 1 1 cr, 2 1 1 24 3 3 3 ri 2 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 3 c N 1 1 1 , 1 1 0 0 - 1 135 39 16 0 4 1 2 3 6 4 4 4 3 4 1 2 6 6 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 7 5 1 Nonutilitarian Ground Stone 667
a b C
d e f
Figure 7.1 Technological series for slate palette manufacture in the Rosemont area. Width of f is 11.2 cm. crude in both manufacture and design. These two attributes were of course related and were to some degree dependent on the quality of the raw material. Much of the mediocre quality of these palettes could be blamed on the highly variable but generally poor quality of the locally available slate. It would have been virtually impossible to produce a symmetric, elaborately embellished palette out of this rock, which is too hard to be easily ground, too brittle to flake well, and can have multiple cleavage planes. Also, the Rosemont area was peripheral to the Phoenix and Tucson basins, and these simplified designs may be explained to some extent by its marginal location.
The 13 whole or fragmentary decorated palettes were made of local slate (10), limestone (1) and the presumably imported schist (2). For discussion, these palettes are best placed in four groups based on differences in their decoration (Table 7.2).
The two fragments of nonlocal schist have raised borders, and are typical in this respect of specimens from the Phoenix and Tucson basins. These two specimens are considered imports from one or both of these areas. One has a plain raised border and edge, and the second has a plain raised border and deep medial groove with edge-notching above and below the groove. Typologically both are of Rillito phase age, and Figure 7.2f is from the Rillito phase Feature 71200 pit house at AZ EE:2:105.
668 Alan Ferg
Table 7.2
TEMPORAL ASSOCIATIONS OF PALETTE TYPES IN THE ROSEMONT ASSEMBLAGE
1 PLAIN DECORATED
1) .w a) -0 m G C)
ders 0 4 •..1 co M
Bor r--4 GN G< W M 0 M 0
d $.-1 m .t w .. w —1 G ,...-1 u) ,z) in "L" r--I •!--1 M
ise X .1-) -, 0 ,--I O E 'H 0
Age Assignment Ra R. P1 44 O CA z H
Rillito 1 1 2 Rillito or early Rincon 1 3 2 6 Early Rincon 2 2 Early Period Total 4 1 3 2 10 Middle Rincon 3 3 Middle or late Rincon Late Rincon 1 1 Late Period Total 3 1 4 Unplaced 2 1 4 1 1 9 ....._ ...._ ..._ _._ __ Total 9 2 7 3 2 23
1 Counts do not include six small fragments which are probably from plain palettes, but may also be from palette blanks. 2 The palette illustrated in Figure 7.31, plain on one side, one- line border on the other, is tabulated in this column. Nonutilitarian Ground Stone 669
b
a
d e f
Figure 7.2 Decorated palettes (a-b, d_-f) and unidentified incised slate piece (c). Width of e is 6.9 cm.
The second group consists of seven specimens which lack raised borders but have either a border design incised into the plane of the flat mixing surface, or have notched edges (Fig. 7.2a, b, d, and e). On Figure 7.2e an attempt was made to carve down the mixing surface, but the relief between surface and border is less than 1 mm. Lack of a raised border was considered to be a late Sedentary period trait at Snaketown (Gladwin and others 1937: 125). The lack of raised borders on Rosemont area slate palettes, however, is almost certainly attributable to the nature of the local slate rather than any aesthetic consideration. Carving out a lowered mixing surface on the local slate was probably impossible. The carving or grinding would have been tedious and the resulting raised ridges might have cleaved off during manufacture. In effect, this means that the criteria used in the Snaketown palette seriation may be inappropriate for dating palettes in other areas. Presence or absence of effigy palettes, sculpturing, and the relative height of raised borders were undoubtedly dependent, at least in part, on the tractability of the locally available stone. For example, in the Phoenix Basin typology, all of the decorated Rosemont palettes would be considered Sedentary period in age, with the exception of Figure 7.2d, which possesses the Colonial period medial groove. In reality, however, the three found in datable contexts are Rillito or early Rincon phase in age. Furthermore, a single Caftada del Oro phase slate example of this style can be cited from the Tucson Basin at the Hodges Ruin (Kelly 1978: 103, Fig. 7.1b). In sum, typological dating of palettes must also take material type into account. 670 Alan Ferg
The fragment shown in Figure 7.2b was reworked to the extent that both broken edges were partially ground down, and the border groove extended into a notch on one side (arrow). What its secondary use may have been is unknown.
The third group of decorated palettes includes three specimens which have a single line paralleling the palette edge and incised into the flat mixing surface. One (Fig. 7.3a) was reworked into a plain palette, and the other two are shown in Figure 7.3e and f. Figure 7.3e has a double line on the bottom edge which may have been intentional, but was more likely a mistake; the second inner line merges into the outer line at the left center, and simply stops in the lower right hand corner. At Snaketown this type is considered the final late Sedentary stage in a continuum of simplification and degeneration in palette design and workmanship, just before palette production ceased altogether. In the Rosemont sites two examples can confidently be placed in Rillito or early Rincon phase times (Table 7.2), and the third probably dates to this time period as well. Again, it can be suggested that its occurrence at an earlier date in the Rosemont area is at least in part the result of simplification forced on local craftsmen by the uncooperative nature of the local slate. One could argue that these three pieces are merely unfinished examples of the flush-bordered incised design border group previously described; however, none shows any trace of such elaboration. For the present they are considered a group separate from, but contemporaneous with, the fancier group.
Finally, the last group consists of two examples that will be referred to as palettes with "small, outlined mixing areas." The decoration on this group consists of a simple incised border, but unlike the preceding group, the line demarcates a small, rectangular or square mixing area near the center of the palette surface. In one case, all four sides were probably incised (Fig. 7.3h), while in the other (Fig. 7.3g) only the top and bottom line were incised, and both were being erased by use. The one specimen that can be placed temporally (Table 7.2) is probably of late Rincon phase age.
Sixteen whole or fragmentary plain palettes were found; the six smallest fragments could actually have been from palette blanks, but all exhibited some degree of edge grinding. Included among the plain palettes are two of the three limestone specimens (Fig. 7.31), both sandstone specimens (Fig. 7.3i), and the mudstone and phyllite examples (Fig. 7.3k, j). Of the slate examples one (Fig. 7.3a) has a remnant of a single incised border line on the reverse mixing surface, like that shown in Figure 7.3f; however, most of this back surface spalled off, was ground down, and the opposite surface used as a plain specimen. This specimen is listed with the one-line border decorated palettes in Table 7.2. The remainder (Fig. 7.1f and Fig. 7.3b-d) vary in size and shape as dictated by the size and shape of the raw material. Plain palettes are known from the Pioneer through Sedentary periods for both the Phoenix and Tucson basins; the Rosemont specimens were found in Rillito, early Rincon, and middle Rincon phase proveniences (Table 7.2). A large fragment from AZ EE:2:117 would qualify as a late Rincon example, but it was too small to be positively identified.
Nonutilitarian Ground Stone 671
a b d
e f g
k
Figure 7.3 Plain slate palettes (a-d), slate palettes with one-line border (e-f), slate palettes with small outlined mixing areas (g-h), and plain nonslate palettes (i-1). Length of a is 14.3 cm. 672 Alan Ferg
In summary, plain palettes were apparently in use throughout the occupation of the Rosemont area. During Rillito and possibly early Rincon phase times they were contemporaneous with Phoenix or Tucson Basin schist palettes with raised borders, and with local slate specimens with unraised elaborate or one-line borders. These decorated varieties may not have continued into middle and late Rincon times, when palettes of all kinds apparently declined in number, and may have been succeeded by the palettes with small outlined mixing areas (Table 7.2). To some extent stone palettes might also have been replaced by worked sherd palettes (see Deaver, Chapter 4). Finally, none of the stone palettes showed any trace of either vitreous lead crusts or pigment stains, although one of the sherd palettes alluded to above did have hematite stains.
Kelly (1978: 106-107) suggested that the evolution of palette styles in the Tucson Basin followed trends in the Phoenix Basin. She is presumably also implying the diffusion of palettes from the Phoenix area as well, and not just palette development:
. . . the full palette complex seems not to have reached Tucson; sculptured borders are lacking, as are effigy, handled, and circular forms. In workmanship, the palettes from the Hodges site compare favorably with their Gila Basin equivalents, but on richness and variety of form, the local series is distinctly limited. Only on the occasional convex contour and the heavily notched edges...do the Hodges specimens show features not definitely established for the Gila Basin (Kelly 1978: 107).
Essentially the same relationship can be suggested for the Rosemont area and the Tucson Basin. The Hohokam of the Rosemont area are interpreted as being derived from and having maintained strong ties with the Tucson Basin population, and thus would have possessed a similar palette tradition. For the Tucson Basin Kelly says the full complex seems not to have reached the area, even though workmanship was about the same, suggesting that cultural factors were responsible for the simplification. This can also be suggested for the Rosemont palette series, but with the added note that poor quality local stone was at least equally responsible for the continued simplification of design and concomitant mediocre workmanship.
Two final points should be stressed. First, Di Peso (1956: 105) suggested that plain palettes or "proto-palettes" are functionally distinct from decorated palettes, rather than simple antecedents of decorated forms. This appears to be based on what Di Peso seemed to view as inconsistent reasoning on Haury's part at Snaketown, where it was suggested (Gladwin and others 1937: 123) that elaborate ornamentation on palettes was born of a shift to the use of the softer, more workable schist. However, plain palettes continued to be made, and in Sedentary times there was a return to the use of hard crystalline stone and a decline in ornamentation. Given that the variability and general simplification in decoration and form among the Rosemont Nonutilitarian Ground Stone 673
specimens seems to be attributable to the use of hard, uncooperative stone, I am disinclined to view plain and decorated palettes as different in function.
Secondly, it is repeated that caution must be used in dating palettes using the Snaketown seriation that are from non-Phoenix Basin area sites or areas possessing different raw materials. The potential for an erroneously late placement of the Rosemont Rillito phase palettes lacking raised borders has already been discussed. In a similar vein, raw material may effect palette size. For example, Di Peso's (1956: 103-104) "Type 4" palettes at Paloparado were called "miniature", which could be inferred to imply functional differences. Di Peso's Type 4 "miniature" palettes were actually larger than any of the Rosemont specimens, whose size is apparently controlled by available raw material. Also, in terms of function, both large and "miniature" palettes were found in the same types of contexts at Paloparado, suggesting no difference in function. Although "miniature" and "normal" Type 1 palettes are all listed as being made of slate, it would be desirable to know if the larger palettes were simply imports, while the small ones were locally made. The fact that one of the large Paloparado specimens (Di Peso 1956, Fig. 22, upper right) has a sculpted edge supports this idea; sculpted edges (as opposed to sculpted borders; see Gladwin and others 1937 :121-122) were not uncommon on Phoenix Basin palettes, but were very rare elsewhere. The only two from Hodges were interpreted as possible Phoenix Basin trade items (Kelly 1978: 103), and the two from the Punta de Agua sites (Greenleaf 1975, Fig. 5.3a and b) could be similarly ascribed.
Finger Rings
Evidence for the manufacture of slate finger rings was identified in the Rosemont sites and a posited manufacturing sequence is shown in Figure 7.4a-g. Only Figure 7.4g can positively be identified as a finger ring, but the other items shown are better interpreted as rings-in-manufacture than as anything else. The only other perforated circular slate artifacts common in Hohokam sites were spindle whorls which, however, came into vogue only in the Classic period, and all of the Rosemont materials are of preclassic age. It is nevertheless interesting to note that the manufacturing process for spindle whorls as discerned at Las Colinas (Teague 1981: 219-221) was essentially the same as that for finger rings at Rosemont, the steps differing in sequence, but not in kind.
Initially, a piece of slate was chipped to a rounded shape, although not necessarily to a small size (Fig. 7.4a); two such pieces were recovered. In some (possibly all) cases the center of this blank was then roughened for drilling by some rather imprecise pecking, probably with a flake or perhaps a retouched piece (Fig. 7.4b); two such pieces were found. Drilling the central perforation was then begun on one face, on large pieces (Fig. 7.4c) or on smaller blanks (Fig. 7.4d); 674 Alan Ferg
a
b
h d
e
k
Figure 7.4 Technological series for slate finger ring manufacture in the Rosemont area (a .&), slate rods (h-i), and unidentified slate objects (k-1). Width of is 2.1 cm. Nonutilitarian Ground Stone 675
one blank of each size, partly drilled, was found. The central perforation was made by drilling a hole from each side, rather than all the way through from one side. At this point in the manufacturing process there is a gap in the Rosemont series. It is unclear whether the perforation was then worked to its final diameter, or whether external finishing was begun. The former is probable, in that a specimen from the Swarts Ruin (Cosgrove and Cosgrove 1932:67, Plate 75e) shows a large travertine limestone blank with the perforation completed and smoothed, and the faces of the blank smoothed. The next step presumably was reduction of the outside diameter, as apparently shown in Figure 7.4f of the Rosemont series. Breakage probably occurred most often at this stage of manufacture, particularly when a material with pronounced cleavage planes and internal fractures was being worked. The local Rosemont area slates possess all of these undesirable features, and one wonders if any finger rings actually survived to completion, and if so, how long they lasted. Figure 7.4g may be a finished example, but it too apparently broke along a bedding plane.
The stone finger rings in Hohokam sites are most commonly argillite (Gladwin and others 1937, Plate CVIIIb; B. Bradley 1980: 39, Fig. 29c; Teague 1981: 224, Fig. 133b and c), followed in popularity by steatite (Tuthill 1947: 73; Haury 1976: 298). Both argillite and steatite probably originate in more northern source areas, and were obtained either from northern groups in trade, or by Hohokam sent to procure them directly (see discussion of argillite bird pendant below, and Lange 1982: 176). The same is true of nose plugs in the Hohokam area. An examination of the distribution of rings and nose plugs made of presumed local materials shows them to be present at sites located in "peripheral" areas: slate finger rings at Tres Alamos (Tuthill 1947: 73) and the Rosemont area, and calcite and slate nose plugs at Ventana Cave and Babocomari Village (Haury and others 1950: 332; Di Peso 1951: 183). The apparent "cottage-industry" in low quality slate finger rings in the Rosemont area should, therefore, be viewed not just as a local manifestation of a general Hohokam penchant for stone finger rings, but also as a function of the area's marginal location in the Hohokam trade system. Rosemont area residents who desired finger rings may thus have had difficulty in obtaining them through trade. The manufacture of finger rings of slate was perhaps a local response to the difficulty. The same argument is applicable to the palettes from the Rosemont sites, as has already been discussed.
Finally, AZ EE:2:77 appears to have been the main site involved in making finger rings. Five of the nine artifacts believed to be related to ring manufacture came from this site, all five showing some modification beyond chipping the slate to shape. The finished or nearly finished ring fragment (Fig. 7.4g) is from this site as well.
Temporally, all occurrences appear to be from early or middle Rincon times. The blank from AZ EE:2:105 could be earlier, but cannot be accurately placed. 676 Alan Ferg
Slate Rods
Rods of various sizes, materials, and shapes are occasionally present in Hohokam ground stone assemblages. Given the variability present, inclusion of all these specimens under a single category may be inappropriate. Nevertheless, because of their rarity and our current lack of understanding about their function, they are best considered and discussed as a group.
AZ EE:2:113 produced a finished rod fragment from the floor of the Feature 8 pit house (Fig. 7.4i). It is badly fractured along bedding planes, and small fragments of this rod were also found in the upper fill. In outline it is a tapering rectangle, with a transverse cross section ranging from a parallelogram at the large end to an oval near the broken small end. It was apparently made on a naturally rod- shaped piece of slate by simply grinding down one end. In its present condition, it is almost 16 cm long.
A naturally elongated, tapering piece of slate from the fill above the Feature 6200 pit house is tentatively identified as a rod in the process of manufacture (Fig. 7.4h). All four of its edges were being reduced by flaking, and the small end may have accidentally broken off during this reduction.
From Roosevelt:9:6, Haury (1932: 99, Plate XXVIIB-5) reported a "dagger-like blade" about 14 cm long, found with a cremation deposit. Similar rods of slate were subsequently reported from Snaketown (Gladwin and others 1937: 113, Plate LXXXIII). Research has indicated that at least four of the seven came from a single cremation deposit (Block 8G - Cremation 2), and one other came from Cremation 78 in Block 9H. All of the illustrated Snaketown specimens have one end pointed and one end blunted or squared-off; they range in length from 14.7 to 41.1 cm. Other slate rods of slightly different form have been reported from Valshni Village (Withers 1973: 66, Fig. 25e), Los Muertos (Haury 1945: 140, P1. 62e), and Tres Alamos (Tuthill 1947: 78).
Slate Disks
A single chipped-to-shape slate disk was recovered from stripping at AZ EE:2:76 (Fig. 7.4, item 1). While this could have been a finger ring blank, it seems improbable that a blank would have been reduced to this small diameter (3.8 cm) without first having been partially drilled or, at the very least, pecked in preparation for drilling. Nonutilitarian Ground Stone 677
Unidentified Slate Objects
Three worked pieces of slate were found which are not readily identifiable as to artifact type or function. The first was a tabular fragment from the fill of the Feature 8 pit house on AZ EE:2:113 which had simple zig-zag lines and hatchure (forming no pattern) scratched on both faces. The more elaborate side is shown in Figure 7.2c. The only other use of incised design on Rosemont artifacts is an occasional simple border decoration on palettes; this piece may represent a trial- run by someone planning such an embellishment.
The second object was from the surface of AZ EE:2:77, and is a constricted fragment of some presumably larger and complete item. It resembles a handle or stem for hafting, but the true significance of the shape is unknown. It was chipped to shape and shows some pecking on one face (Fig. 7.4k).
The third object is a bifacially flaked subrectangular item of unknown use (Fig. 7.4j). It was found in the Feature 6 extramural work area at AZ EE:2:129. Whether this is a finished item or was in the process of manufacture is unknown. Both faces show some scratches and abrasion, but no edge-wear subsequent to the flaking is visible.
Unworked Slate
Of the 45 pieces of slate recovered, only four showed no modification. The largest piece, from the slope of AZ EE:2:113, is illustrated as the first object in the technological series for palettes (Fig. 7.1a). Two fragments were from the fill of the Feature 8 pit house at AZ EE:2:113, and the last piece was recovered from stripping on AZ EE:2:105.
Stone Bowls
Twelve whole or fragmentary stone bowls (6 plain, 6 carved) were recovered from six sites (Table 7.1). Most were found on the larger, earlier sites, but two were from small sites, one of which (AZ EE:2:109) is mid-Rincon phase in age. Decoration does not help place any of the carved specimens, as geometric incising and phallic motifs can occur throughout the time during which the Rosemont area was occupied (Kelly 1978, Fig. 6.14; Haury 1976: 289).
Materials used included sandstone (5 carved, 1 plain), quartzite (2 plain), tuff (1 carved, 1 plain), basalt (1 plain) and limestone (1 plain). Sandstone was clearly selected for the manufacture of decorated bowls because of its softer nature. Sizes ranged from an estimated 4 cm 678 Alan Ferg diameter for a carved fragment (Fig. 7.5e) up to 16 cm for a plain fragment, assuming the vessels represented were round.
Most fragments were found in stripping or in pit house fill. The small plain limestone example came from the fill of a posthole apparently associated with Floor 2 in the Feature 7 house pit on AZ EE:2:76. The most elaborate carved bowl (Fig. 7.5a) was found on the floor of the Feature 2 pit house on AZ EE:2:109, with an unworked tabular fragment of quartzite nearby (Fig. 7.5d). A pollen sample from the fill of the bowl produced no identifiable pollen (Appendix C).
Both the plain and carved bowls exhibited rounded as well as flattened bases and interiors. This is in contrast to the dichotomy noted at Hodges (Kelly 1978: 98) where decorated bowls had flat bases and plain bowls had rounded bases. The plain fragment from AZ EE:2:76 has a well-smoothed interior, but near the center the bowl had seen hard use with a pestle, or had been intentionally roughened by pecking.
The decoration on the carved specimens varies in complexity from two parallel lines which encircle the bowl's exterior to a more elaborate triangle and dot pattern done on the top of the bowl lip (Fig. 7.5a). The other three carved designs are poorly executed hatchure (Fig. 7.5b), simple parallelograms (Fig. 7.5e), and nested chevrons (Fig 7.5f). No lifeforms or relief carving are present, but one specimen is apparently a phallic representation (Fig. 7.5c) carved in-the-round. The proximal end of the bowl is pecked and unsmoothed, unlike the other surfaces, and there is almost no sidewall to the bowl on this side. It is unclear whether the specimen was intentionally manufactured in this form, or whether it may be a reworked fragment of some other artifact. Though similar in appearance to a reworked phallic ladle handle from Snaketown (Haury 1976, Fig. 14.25g), the Rosemont example is too large to have come from such a ladle. It may originally have been a handstone or mano, although the soft sandstone of which it is made was not favored for groundstone tools by either the preceramic or ceramic period inhabitants of the exchange area.
"Slab Bowls"
A small slab of sandstone with a circular depression pecked in one side (Fig. 7.5g) was found on AZ EE:2:129. Because the wear resembles that from pounding rather than grinding, it is tentatively classed as a stone bowl rather than a palette. This specimen is either early or middle Rincon phase in age.
Unworked Slabs
Two small, tabular pieces of unworked sandstone and quartzite were recovered from pit house floors. One (Fig. 7.5d) was found on the Nonutilitarian Ground Stone 679
d
k
Figure 7.5 Decorated stone bowls (a-c, e-f), unworked slab (d), slab bowl (), paint pestles (h-k), and a paddle or human effigy fragment (1). Width of 1 is 10.0 cm. 680 Alan Ferg
Feature 2 pit house floor at AZ EE:2:109, near a carved stone bowl (Fig. 7.5a). The sandstone example is from the floor of the Feature 8 pit house at AZ EE:2:113, and was one of many stone items in that floor assemblage. These slabs show no modification of any kind, and are noted only because of their proveniences. Though they may be raw material for the manufacture of nonslate palettes, their intended use is unclear.
Paint Pestles
Four finger-sized pestles were found (Fig. 7.5h-k) on three different sites (Table 7.1). Although too few in number to make any strong statements about temporal or geographic distribution, it can be noted that all were recovered from the three largest sites, and at least three date to the early Rincon phase or earlier. The example from AZ EE:2:76 may date to this period, but could also be later.
Produced from small pebbles made more cylindrical by grinding, these pestles range in length from 4.4 cm to 7.2 cm, and in width and thickness from 1.5 cm to 2.3 cm. Three are of quartzite or fine-grained sandstone, while one (Fig. 7.5j) is of metasediment. Two are ground on one end only (Fig. 7.5j and k), and two on both ends (Fig. 7.5h and i).
The extremely smooth and relatively flat ends suggest the processing of some fine substance, and probably with a back-and-forth motion more than a pounding one. As such, use with palettes suggests itself, but at least a few archaeological finds suggest associations with stone bowls (Fulton 1934a: 21, Plate XVIIa and XVIIIc; Fulton 1934b: 20, Plate XIVd; Franklin 1980: 156). The Rosemont specimens do not help resolve this question, as none were found closely associated with any other artifacts.
Paddle or Human Effigy Fragment
The chipped-to-shape quartzite item shown in Figure 7.51 was found on the modern ground surface of AZ EE:2:76, about 3 m west of the Feature 27 house pit. It is only a fragment of some larger object of unknown overall shape and length; its present measurements are 10.0 cm wide, 1.6 cm thick and 6.5 cm long. The sides are bifacially flaked to shape, and the specimen is broken at both its wider and smaller ends. The break at the small end is more heavily patinated than the wide end.
Three possible identifications of this artifact can be suggested, all somewhat esoteric. It could be a midsection of a paddle of the type found associated with the ballcourt at Tres Alamos (Tuthill 1947: 41-42), or it could be a segment of an amorphous human representation of the type Sayles (1945, Plate XLVII) illustrated from San Simon Village. Thirdly, it may be a utilitarian object of some Nonutilitarian Ground Stone 681
sort. Because of the Rosemont specimen's fragmentary condition, none of these can be strongly supported, and other explanations are possible.
The Rosemont specimen is not made of a very durable material, and identification as a functional tool seems unlikely. By the same token, it would not have served well as a paddle. It should be kept in mind, however, that it is broken; whether in manufacture, from use or by accident is unknown. For the moment, tentative identification as a fragment from a human effigy, or from a paddle seems the most reasonable.
Jewelry
Turquoise
Unworked Pieces
Only four tiny fragments of unworked turquoise were found (Table 7.1) It is unknown whether they represent natural inclusions in the soils of the Ballcourt Site and AZ EE:2:113, or whether they are debris from the manufacture of the jewelry described below.
Pendants and Blanks
Six turquoise pendants or pendant blanks were found (Table 7.1), four from stripping or pit house fill on AZ EE:2:76 (Fig. 7.7c) and AZ EE:2:113 (Fig. 7.7a, b, and d), and two from the Feature 44004 infant inhumation on AZ EE:2:77 (Fig. 7.6a). The smallest is 10.8 mm long by 5.5 mm wide, the largest 17.0 mm long by 14.0 mm wide. Two (Fig. 7.6a, and 7.7d) are finished pendants, two (Fig. 7.6a and 7.7a) are shaped blanks, and two (Fig. 7.7b and c) are shaped blanks with drilling for the suspension hole begun on one face only.
Overlay
Three small, rectangular turquoise pieces with ground edges and bevelled ends were probably mosaic overlay pieces for use on wood, bone, or shell. One (Fig. 7.7e) was from the surface of AZ EE:2:105, while the other two (Fig. 7.7f and g) are shown (Fig. 7.6b) as they are believed to have been positioned atop the bone and shell "toggles" found under the hips of the inhumation at AZ EE:2:52. The smallest is 3.7 mm long, while the largest is 5.9 mm long.
Bead
A single turquoise disk bead fragment was found on the surface of the Ballcourt Site (Fig. 7.7k). Its thickness is 1.5 mm, and the
682 Alan Ferg
0 0 0 0
a
Figure 7.6 Turquoise, steatite, shell and bone ornaments found with Feature 44004 at AZ EE:2:77 (a) and Feature 1 at AZ EE:2:52 (b). Pendant in a is 1.24 cm wide.
a b d
11a 1 e f g
h
k I m
Figure 7.7 Turquoise (a-gam, k), phyllite argillite (j), and steatite (1-m) ornaments. Argillite bird (i) is 3.56 cm long. Nonutilitarian Ground Stone 683 exterior and interior diameters are approximately 5.5 mm and 1.9 mm, respectively.
Worked Pieces
In addition to the turquoise pendants and pendant blanks, and steatite and shell items, the Feature 44004 infant inhumation on AZ EE:2:77 produced four small chips of turquoise, worked on one or more faces or edges, but not clearly either pendant or overlay fragments. Three are shown in Figure 7.6a; the fourth was lost in the field to a gust of wind, and was smaller than those illustrated.
Steatite
Overlay
From Feature 44004 at AZ EE:2:77 came what appears to be a rectangular steatite overlay piece, measuring 4.0 mm in maximum dimension.
Beads
Also from Feature 44004 at AZ EE:2:77 came 38 black steatite disk beads (Fig. 7.6a, upper left). Their identification as steatite was confirmed by submitting one for visual and spectrometer analysis by Robert T. O'Haire, Associate State Mineralogist, University of Arizona. All range in outside diameter from 2.7 mm to 3.3 mm, and inside diameter from 1.5 mm to 1.9 mm.
One disk bead from stripping at AZ EE:2:76 also appears to be of steatite (Fig. 7.71), with outside and inside dimensions of 3.8 mm and 1.9 mm, respectively.
Argillite
Bird Pendant
A single red argillite bird pendant (Fig. 7.7j) was recovered from the uppermost fill of the Feature 10 superimposed pit houses on AZ EE:2:113. It is a simple representation 35.6 mm long, showing a squared-off tail and a featureless body and head; the beak is missing. The suspension hole at the center of the body was biconically drilled. The curved lower edge of the head is formed by the upper edge of a biconically drilled hole, the lower portion of which was cut away and smoothed. 684 Alan Ferg
Though lacking the usual elaboration of incised "feathers" on wings and tail, the Rosemont bird is nevertheless carved in-the-round, as opposed to the Phoenix Basin style flat slate depiction (Jernigan 1978: 55, Fig. 15b), and is presumably of non-Hohokam, or at least non- "core" area, manufacture. Haury (1945: 143) looked north for the stylistic source of these pendants, and Nelson (1981: 303-305) did the same, examining specifically those areas of the north country known to be near argillite sources. Jernigan (1978: 55, 111) believes such pendants ultimately derive from early New Mexican Mogollon horizons, but notes a temporal gap in their distribution and then cites numerous late examples from a host of sites, many of which would not be considered "Mogollon" by many researchers (such as Verde Valley and Flagstaff area sites). Semantics aside, it seems relatively clear that the argillite items found in southern Arizona Hohokam sites are derived from central and northern Arizona, either through trade or by the Hohokam obtaining and working the material themselves. Haas (1971) reports a Santa Cruz phase Hohokam site in the upper Tonto Basin whose inhabitants worked argillite from an adjacent source. Finished items found at Ushklish included bird pendants of steatite, and "flying bird" stylized pendants of argillite (Haas 1971).
Various sources are known to have been exploited prehistorically, including: (1) the mines near Del Rio north of Prescott, the source of much of the argillite in the Flagstaff area (Bartlett 1939: 78; McGregor 1941: 195); (2) outcrops near Perkinsville in the Verde Valley (Fish 1974: 17); and (3) the aforementioned source near Jakes Corner in the upper Tonto Basin. Various early analyses were done to distinguish Arizona argillite from Minnesota catlinite (Gladwin and others 1937: 130; Howell 1940) and similar analyses could be done to segregate sources within Arizona. Del Rio argillite can be visually identified by distinctive white flecks in it (Bartlett 1939: 75), and Haury (1976: 227) suggested a Tonto Basin source for some argillite at Snaketown based on color and hardness comparisons. The Rosemont bird appears to be of Del Rio argillite, with clearly visible small white inclusions.
Phyllite
Pendants or Earrings
Two phyllite pendants or earrings (Fig. 7.7h and i) were recovered from the fill of the Feature 25 pit house at AZ EE:2:76. This is a probable Cafiada del Oro phase pit house which had 12 cremations and inhumations intruded into its fill and floor. It is not known whether these two pendants were together, nor what their exact locations were, as both were recovered during screening. Although somewhat different in size, shape, and color, the circumstances under which these pieces were found, their common material, and similar wear in their suspension holes, all indicate that they were in fact a set. One is 2.3 cm long by 2.2 cm wide by 0.5 cm thick, and the other is 2.2 cm long by 1.8 cm wide by 0.3 cm thick. Both are well finished and quite smooth. Nonutilitarian Ground Stone 685
Gregory (1984) has remarked on the possible ritual disposal of various types of unusual artifacts in trash deposits and burned structures at the Siphon Draw Site. These artifacts include such things as "medicine" stones, bone awls, projectile points, tabular knives, obsidian nodules ("Apache tears"), quartz crystals, and mineral specimens, and have commonly been reported from cremation deposits. In that the artifacts themselves are not burned, and may occur at various depths within the trash deposits, it is conceivable that they represent offerings related to the destruction of the house itself, or to deceased individuals who had occupied the house (Gregory 1984). Notable among the artifact types found were pairs of matching shell pendants, or more probably earrings. The pair of phyllite earrings recovered from the Feature 25 pit house lends support to the idea of ritual disposal in that the structure had seen extensive post abandoment use as an area for disposal of the dead.
A second matched pair of earrings or pendants came from the fill or possibly the last floor of the Feature 1 pit house on AZ EE:2:129 (Appendix A, Fig. A.2e and g). These bone "flying bird" earrings are unburned and were found in close proximity to one another. The pit house itself did not appear burned, and although the structure may have been trash filled, no unusual items were recovered from the excavated portion.
Unidentified Stone
Beads
A single thick, burned disk bead was recovered from the fill of the Feature 6 pit house on the Ballcourt Site (Fig. 7.7m). The outside diameter is 7.0 mm, inside diameter is 2.7 mm and it is wedge-shaped in cross section with a maximum thickness of 3.6 mm.
Quartz Crystals
Twenty quartz crystals were recovered from various proveniences on six sites (Table 7.3). No patterns in temporal or intersite distribution are apparent. No crystals were recovered from any of the late Rincon small sites (AZ EE:1:104, AZ EE:2:106, EE:2:116, EE:2:117, and EE:2:122), but this may be a factor of sampling problems with small artifact assemblages. Within sites, the only occurrence of note is the possible association of a crystal with the Feature 62 cremation deposit on AZ EE:2:113. Five of the crystals exhibited limited amounts of edge grinding or small flakes spalled from their tips. Nineteen of the crystals are clear, with one being an opaque, milky white. The largest of them is only 2.9 cm long. Small quartz crystals are locally available. 686 Alan Ferg
Table 7.3
WORKED AND UNWORKED CRYSTALS AND MINERALS
I 0 0 a a
5-, .0 .0 (.7 0 d ...... a a d ke a a N 4-i .1..J ,--■ 0
a 2:1 ide u ^a 1-■ J-J 3 U X a nwor roun 0 cc1 1-■ rt1 a ,-1 0 .--, 0 >1 "0
Ox a 3 0 u g 03 /.4 W C.) • ■-■ "0 X a X (...) se ---.. 0 ---. ,+-1 M a) (I) 0 N •.-1 N •-1 ■ a .1.- ite, ite, E ite, .1_, - , 4--, -0 .1—, ,4, •,—, ane 0 n n t • ■ a •,-.1 a NO s.-■ .,—I J a ,--I N ,--I N ,--■ a a E a -0 --, a ng ma ,—, ,—, 4-,
0 imo 0 o a N 0 N 0 0
0 Limo 0 Ma E L o' 0 o' He U "4 U H
AZ EE:2:76 4 2 1 1 5 2 1 16 AZ EE:2:77 1 1 3 5 AZ EE:2:84 2 1 3 AZ EE;1:104 1 1 AZ EE:2:105 5 2 3 6 16 AZ EE:2:109 1 1 AZ EE:2:113 3 2 1 1 1 1 3 12 AZ EE:2:116 1 1 AZ EE:2:120 1 1 2 4 AZ EE:2:129 1 1 AZ EE:2:136 1 1
Total 15 5 4 1 2 1 1 9 16 7 61
Mineral Specimens
Calcite
Three unmodified calcite crystals and a lump of ground calcite were recovered from four different sites (Table 7.3). The approximately 5-g lump of powdered calcite appears to be a prepared item, presumably intended for use as white paint. Unlike the quartz crystals, these particular calcite crystals are all rather unprepossessing in clarity and shape, and could conceivably be natural inclusions in the gravels of the sites on which they were found. Alternatively, they might have been imported to serve some function.
Gypsum
While gypsum can also occur in striking crystalline form, the specimen from Rosemont (Table 7.3) is a soft amorphous 6.5-g lump. If Nonutilitarian Ground Stone 687
used at all, it probably would have been suitable only for use as white paint.
Manganese Oxide
Two specimens (totaling 18.3 g) of manganese oxide were found (Table 7.3), the larger of which (15.0 g) appears to be part of the floor assemblage of the final, burned pit house in Feature 8 on AZ EE:2:76. Manganese oxide may be a component in the black paint varieties of Rillito, Rincon, and Tanque Verde red-on-browns.
Limonite
Two lumps (totaling 51 g) of this yellowish ochre were found (Table 7.3), one of which was ground. Limonite could be used for yellow paint, or for the red paint on pottery, as it will oxidize to red during firing.
Hematite
Nine pieces of hematite (totaling 170.1 g) were found on four sites (Table 7.3). None appear to be prepared cakes of ochre. Two (from Feature 1 at AZ EE:2:76 and Feature 28 at AZ EE:2:105) may have been associated with cremation deposits, and a chunk from the roasting pit on AZ EE:2:136 appears too large to be an accidental inclusion. Like limonite, this iron oxide turns red in an oxidizing firing atmosphere, and is the source of red paint on pottery. It could also be used unmodified as a body paint or to paint wood, and so forth.
Azurite, Malachite, and Chrysocolla
These copper ores can occur singly or in combination with one another. Dark blue azurite and green malachite and chrysocolla are presumed to have been used as body paint or to paint other items; seven specimens totaling 184.3 g were ground, and 16 specimens totaling 408.7 g were found unmodified (Table 7.3). Though the most numerous of the mineral types found, the distribution of these copper ores shows no patterning; they are present in sites of all time periods and size classes represented at Rosemont. All these copper ores are local to the Rosemont area and are abundantly distributed within it. In terms of specific proveniences, only a large chunk (95.0 g) of malachite on the floor of the burned Feature 2 pit house at AZ EE:1:104 is of note. 688 Alan Ferg
Summary
Evidences of trade, contact, and local production have all been discussed when appropriate under each artifact type above. It can be noted that the diversity of the nonutilitarian ground stone assemblage compares well with that found in both the Tucson Basin and the Phoenix Basin. It is of equal interest, however, that this relatively high level of diversity was achieved not through importation of less common items, but by reproducing them using locally available materials. In that these local materials were often inferior in workability, we have what seems a clear indication of the limited trading resources of the Rosemont area residents, rather than any argument for local, voluntary experimentation or floresence in craftsmanship. The Rosemont area obviously participated in the Hohokam regional system, but rarer (more "expensive") items were either unavailable to them, or unaffordable. It does say something positive about the vitality of the Rosemont craftsmen that local substitutes were fashioned rather than simply going without certain costly or unobtainable objects. Finally, in this regard, two artifact types are conspicuous by their absence: stone rings and "medicine" stones. While both of these items are often made of scoria or highly vesicular basalt, a raw material lacking in the exchange area, one would expect local versions to have been crafted of local materials. Such apparently was not the case, which causes further wonder about the functions of stone rings and "medicine" stones. Does this imply an absence of some ritual or perfunctory activity among the Rosemont Hohokam, and does it have implications for the importance of that activity among Hohokam groups in general? Chapter 8
SHELL
Alan Ferg
A total of 485 pieces of shell was recovered from the testing and mitigation phase work at the habitation sites, and a single shell artifact was found with the inhumation at AZ EE:2:52. At least 12 species of marine shell and one freshwater species (Table 8.1) are represented in the collection. Anodonta californiensis is a freshwater clam that would have been available in any permanent flowing stream or river. The closest source for the specimen found at AZ EE:2:105 would have been the Santa Cruz or San Pedro rivers. Among the marine species, abalone (Haliotis sp.) can be found only on the California coast, while Laevicardium elatum, Pteria sterna, and certain species of Glycymeris can be found on the California coast and in the Gulf of California. The remaining species are available from the Gulf of California.
Artifact Descriptions
Only nine pieces of shell were found which showed no signs of having been worked, and all of these were fragments which could have originally been parts of larger finished items. The bulk of the worked shell pieces found consists of broken finished items and broken items that were being reworked. No shell debitage or shell-working tools were found at any of the sites. These facts suggest that all of the shell items coming into the Rosemont sites arrived as finished artifacts, consisting largely (perhaps solely) of jewelry of various kinds.
Bracelets
Plain and Carved
No complete specimens were recovered from the project, but 119 band and umbo fragments from Glycymeris bracelets were found (Table 8.2), only three of which were embellished by carving. Umbonal treatment was variable on the plain bracelets; some umbos were ground down to a small knob (Fig. 8.1a), while others were perforated
689 690 Alan Ferg
Table 8.1
COUNTS OF SHELL ITEMS OF DIFFERENT SPECIES FROM THE ROSEMONT SITES
Species Count
Marine Shell
Glycymeris sp. 139 Laevicardium elatum 13 Aequipecten circularis 5 Pecten vogdesi 2 cf. Spondylus sp. 6 Olivella dama 4 Turritella leucostoma 2 cf. Oliva sp. 1 Vermicularia sp. 1 Haliotis sp. 2 Pinctada mazatlanica 1 Pteria sterna 1 unidentified marine 308
Freshwater Shell
Anodonta californiensis 1
Total 486 Shell 691
Table 8.2
SHELL ARTIFACTS BY SITE 5 107 10 52 2: 2: 2: EE: Z EE: A AZ EE: Artifact Type by Species AZ 6 6
Glycymeris sp. plain bracelet fragments 41 6 1 39 5 21 3 116
carved bracelet fragments 2 1 3
"needles" 1 3 1 6
"pelican" pendants 2 2 4
reworked pieces 3 3
finger rings 1 2 1 1 5
whole valve pendants 2 2
Laevicardium geometric pendants 3 4
bird pendants
reworked perforated valve
worked
unworked 1 4 1 6 Aequipecten whole valve pendants
pendant 1 1 2
perforated valve
unworked piece
Pec ten pendant
worked cf. Spondylus bead/pendant 2 2
disk bead lots L l 1
"toggle" 1
Olivella whole shell bead 2 2
barrel bead 2 2
Turritella whole shell
unworked cf. Oliva "cap bead" Vermetus nose plug
Unidentified quadruped pendant
pendant 2
disk bead lots 10 2 1 3
worked 1
Haliotis bird pendant
geometric pendant Pinctada lizard pendant
Pteria unworked
Anodonta pendant
Total 1 70 9 6 58 9 35 5 193
1 2 3 3 beads; 288 beads; 14 beads
692 Alan Ferg
d a
f 1 :47.1-1111h1 e
g
Figure 8.1 Plain and carved bracelet fragments (a-e), nose plug (g.), and other worked shell (f, h- i). Height of h is 1.8 cm.
e
m
Figure 8.2 Reworked Glycymeris bracelet fragments. a-e, awls; f, needle; pelican pendants; k-m, other pendants. Length of i is 3.6 cm. Shell 693
(Fig. 8.1b). No attempt was made to segregate old shell from fresh, but two specimens with sand and breccia cemented into the umbo interior (Fig. 8.1c) or muscle scar (specimen in Fig. 8.1d, breccia not visible) show that fossil shell was also being used. Less desirable because of its brittleness, fossil (actually subfossil) shell was used most during the Sedentary period when shell working was at its peak, and fresh shell and beach finds apparently could not fill the demand (Haury 1976: 307; Ferg 1980: 375-376). Fossil material may have been obtained from late Pleistocene deposits near Punta la Cholla (Haury 1976: 307).
Of the carved specimens, one has apparently unpatterned notching along the top of the band; one (Fig. 8.1d) has opposed, nested chevrons apparently going up onto the umbo, but not around the band (compare Haury 1976, Fig. 15.20a, b); and one (Fig. 8.1e) is notched on the top and bottom outer edges of the band in a manner suggestive of a snake motif (compare Haury 1976, Fig. 15.20d-o).
Reworked Fragments
Several items appear to be reworked Glycymeris bracelet band fragments, including what have been called "needles" (Fig. 8.2a-f), "pelican" pendants (Fig. 8.2g-j), two crescent-shaped specimens (Fig. 8.2k and 1), and one irregular specimen (Fig. 8.2m).
The so-called "needles" or "awls" may be utilitarian items, although as Jernigan (1978: 50) points out, many are quite blunt and it is difficult to imagine to what use they may have been put; there is a good possiblity that they may simply have been pendants. Of the six Rosemont specimens, four are broken, one is complete but unperforated (Fig. 8.2e) and one is complete and perforated from one side (Fig. 8.2f). Whether needles or pendants, all appear to have been made from broken bracelet band segments. It is not known whether they arrived at Rosemont already reworked, or were made by the Rosemont residents themselves from their own broken bracelets. The occurrence of this artifact type at the La Playa Site (Johnson 1960: 168) indicates that it could have been manufactured at Trincheras culture sites for the Hohokam trade. However, its simplicity suggests that it is much more likely to have been fabricated locally from broken bracelets, which must always have been available. The extremely wide distribution of these artifacts and the occurrence of partially drilled specimens (Fulton and Tuthill 1940: 37, Plate 25h) support such an inference.
So-called "pelican" pendants are also very widespread in distribution, suggesting that this form too could have been easily fashioned by anyone from a broken bracelet. Two of the Rosemont specimens are complete (Fig. 8.2h and i), one of them having finely detailed feathers, legs, mouth, and eye. Of the other two, one was a "blank" or "preform" in the initial stages of being shaped from a band fragment (Fig. 8.2g), and the other was a fully carved but undrilled specimen (Fig. 8.2j). Although often referred to as a pelican, this bird form might instead be a depiction of a great blue heron (Ardea herodias) or some other long-billed, long-legged species more familiar 694 Alan Ferg to the Hohokam. It should be remembered, however, that pelicans were not unknown to the historic Pima, who referred to them as "heron with a net" in reference to their gular pouch (Rea 1983: 126-127). "Pelican" pendants have been recovered at Snaketown (Haury 1976, Fig. 15.17q, 15.21), Hodges (Kelly 1978, Fig. 8.6d), Paloparado (Di Peso 1956, Plate 25a), the Big Ditch Site, Tres Alamos (Tuthill 1947, Plate 33) and Gleeson (Fulton and Tuthill 1940, Plate 25n and o).
On the floor of the Feature 12 pit house at AZ EE:2:113 were found a finished crescent-shaped pendant, made from a bracelet band (Fig. 8.2k), and an unmodified bracelet band segment, presumably awaiting a similar modification (Fig. 8.21). The finished specimen has the ends of the arms ground to points and each arm has two notches. Like the other reworked pieces, this seems to be a case of conserving an uncommon, possibly expensive commodity by the Rosemont Hohokam.
Finally, a short bracelet segment was notched, presumably partly for suspension and partly for decoration (Fig. 8.2m). Although not very distinctive, the occurrence of a very similar specimen at Tres Alamos (Tuthill 1947, Plate 33) makes one wonder if this is a vaguely standardized representation of some creature. Another possiblity is that these items were being made into pelican or snake pendants, but broke during manufacture and were, by necessity, left in a somewhat amorphous form.
Finger Rings
Fragments of five Glycymeris finger rings were found, none embellished in any way.
Pendants
Irregular Shapes
Shells from a variety of species were used in the manufacture of pendants by cutting and grinding. Some were apparently intentionally shaped to their present form (Fig. 8.3a, b, g), and others appear to be reused fragments of other objects (Fig. 8.3c, i, j). Figure 8.3a is the only piece of Anodonta recovered. Figure 8.3b was notched on both sides, and Figure 8.3g appears to have had eight small pits drilled on its inner face.
Sometimes called "bead-pendants", heavy amorphous pendants made from Spondylus or Chama shells (Fig. 8.3f and h) appear occasionally to have been part of necklaces with unusual, complex stringing arrangements (Haury 1976: 310). If Figure 8.3f is this type of artifact, its occurrence in the Ca1ada del Oro Feature 56 inhumation at AZ EE:2:76 is slightly earlier than those found at Snaketown (Haury 1976: 310-311).
Shell 695
a
f
T
AO
Figure 8.3 Cut, ground, and whole shell pendants or bead-pendants. Length of k is 2.9 cm.
f
Figure 8.4 Cut and ground geometric and zoomorphic pendants. Width of e is 3.8 cm. 696 Alan Ferg
Although "cap beads" of the type shown in Figure 8.3e have been repeatedly described as being cut and ground from the upper body of Conus and Oliva shells (Di Peso 1951: 188-189; Johnson 1960: 170; Ferg 1977: 160), they actually appear to have resulted from the natural erosion of beach shells of these species which were picked up and used without any human modification (Carpenter 1977). As such they would have been a logical trade item from the Trincheras area.
Geometric Shapes
Regular geometric shapes are common among Hohokam pendants, particularly rings with a suspension hole (Figs. 8.4g-i). Figure 8.4i is one of the only two pieces of abalone shell found at Rosemont. Suspended hollow diamonds or squares (Fig. 8.4f) are rarer, but have been found at Hodges (Kelly 1978, Fig. 8.6e) and Snaketown (Gladwin and others 1937, Plate CXVIb). A stone example has also been found at a late Rincon phase site in the Tucson Basin (Huntington 1982: 126). An unusual star-shaped pendant with an incised, dotted circle at its center is illustrated in Figure 8.4e. The only similar form that could be found in the literature is from the Salt River Valley (Jernigan 1978, Fig. 11). The technique used for producing incised, dotted circles seems to appear in the Santa Cruz phase (Haury 1976: 313); the Rosemont specimen is from AZ EE:2:84 and is of similar age.
Zoomorphic Shapes
In addition to the four "pelican" pendants already described, four other pendants depicting animal forms were found. Figure 8.4a is an unidentified quadruped made of a heavy, unidentified shell, possibly a univalve. There is a drilled pit for the eye and one in the tail, with legs and ears divided by incised lines. Found near the floor of the Feature 71200 pit house on the Ballcourt Site, it was probably burned when that house was destroyed by fire, and is presumably Rillito phase in age. Figure 8.4b apparently represents a tiny bird. Cut from abalone shell and perforated for suspension through one wing, it is only 9.3 mm from "wingtip" to "wingtip." It was found in the fill of the Feature 1 pit house on AZ EE:2:77, and is thus early or middle Rincon phase in age. Figure 8.4c is a Laevicardium bird pendant from the Colonial period Feature 35 borrow pit on the Ballcourt Site. Both wingtips are broken, and their original configuration is unknown. The suspension hole intrudes the eye pit and incised beak line, possibly indicating this was a secondary suspension technique employed after the wings broke. Figure 8.4d appears to be the tail and hind legs of a lizard rendered in Pinctada shell. Found in the fill of the Feature 10 pit house on AZ EE:2:76, its age is unknown.
Whole Shell Pendants
Four whole shell pendants, or beads, were found. Figure 8.3d is a complete Aequipecten valve with two suspension holes drilled through Shell 697
the beak. It was found under the sherds of the Galiuro Red-on-brown bowl in the western pit of the early Rincon phase Feature 160/164 cremation deposit at AZ EE:2:113, and had obviously passed through the cremation fires. Figure 8.3k is a whole Turritella shell from AZ EE:2:113. Figure 8.31 and m are small Glycymeris valves with their umbos perforated, found in the lap area of the middle Rincon phase Feature 10 inhumation at AZ EE:2:107.
Beads
Whole Shell and Barrel Beads
Two whole shell beads of Olivella dama were found, as well as two "barrel" beads of the same species. Barrel beads consist of the mid-body of the shell with the spire and base cut away, leaving a roughly cylindrical bead.
Disk Beads
Three hundred and five disk beads were found in 12 proveniences (Table 8.2). Fourteen were found with the Feature 44004 infant inhumation on AZ EE:2:77; all are unidentified "white" shell, and range from 2.7 mm to 3.3 mm in exterior diameter. The remaining 288 "white" and three red (Spondylus ?) disk beads came from AZ EE:2:76, all but one from mortuary-related contexts. Three were found in the fill of the Feature 25 pit house and are probably mortuary-related. One bead was found in stripping above the Feature 8 house pit. The remainder are from burials and cremation deposits. These beads ranged from 2.9 mm to 6.7 mm in exterior diamter.
Perforated Shell
A single reworked fragment of a Laevicardium perforated shell (Fig. 8.1f) was found in the upper fill of the Feature 2 pit house on AZ EE:2:129. The exact function of perforated shells is not clear (Haury 1976: 316), although Di Peso and others (1974: 494) report a Laevicardium perforated shell that was found as an armlet on the upper left arm of an inhumation at the Westfall Site, near Texas Canyon (Di Peso 1956: 213, fn 139).
The secondary use for which the Rosemont specimen was intended is even less certain. One broken edge is unmodified, while the other has been ground down into a rounded spatulate end; however,it shows no use-wear. 698 Alan Ferg
Nose Plug
Perhaps the most interesting shell item is Figure 8.1g, identified as a nose plug. Cut from a slightly curving segment of Vermicularia worm shell, the concave side has been notched. In overall shape, it clearly duplicates nose plugs of stone and clay from northern Arizona (McGregor 1945). Argillite nose plugs were imported into southern Arizona. With local copies made of calcite and slate known, the occurrence of this shell specimen is not too surprising. The only other shell specimens known are three from the La Playa Site, all being solid or flattened cylinders of unidentified shell (Johnson 1960: 178). The Rosemont specimen shows no evidence of having had end buttons of the type many northern specimens possess (McGregor 1945), although this treatment would have been possible. That end buttons were known in southern Arizona is probable, but none have yet been recovered. Some of both the imported and local specimens in southern Arizona have the hollowed ends necessary for button mounting in the northern style (Di Peso 1951: 183, Franklin 1980: 181; Gregonis 1983: 74-75).
"Toggle"
An essentially rectangular piece of what is probably Spondylus shell, notched at the sides and one end (Fig. 8.1h), was found with a somewhat similar object of bone at the hips of the Feature 1 inhumation at AZ EE:2:52. Both are thought to have been in association with small rectangular turquoise pieces which possibly served as overlay (Fig. 7.6b).
Other Worked Shell
A single ground fragment from near the hinge teeth of a Laevicardium valve was found on AZ EE:2:113 (Fig. 8.1i). Neither its original form nor its intended use are known.
Distribution Patterns
In general, the shell assemblage from the Rosemont sites is too small to discuss any temporal or distributional trends for individual artifact types, with the exception of three observations. First, although no shell was recovered from most of the small, middle and late Rincon phase sites, this does not necessarily distinguish them from the larger sites with shell. The proportion of shell artifacts to the entire artifact assemblage is very small even at the large sites; at small sites, based simply on probability, one would not expect to recover any shell. This is discussed further in Chapter 10. Shell 699
Second, one pattern which is fairly clear is the presence of beads, pendants, or "toggles" at the hips of female inhumations; these ornaments were presumably worn as jewelry, or possibly attached to loincloths or skirts as decoration. The shell and bone toggles with the burial of an adult female at AZ EE:2:52 and the two Glycymeris whole valve pendants with the burial of another adult female at AZ EE:2:107 have already been noted. At AZ EE:2:76, both the Feature 56 and 67 inhumations had shell disk beads at their hips, the latter with 10 beads in their original stringing arrangement under the left innominate. The Feature 56 burial was an adult, probably female, and the Feature 67 burial was a child of 5 or 6 years whose sex could not be determined.
Finally, although disk beads and bone hairpins were found in both inhumations and cremation deposits, shell bracelets were recovered only in cremation deposits. Also, at AZ EE:2:113, where inhumations are most common and Mogollon influence seems the strongest, only 14 percent (2 of 14) of the cremation deposits had bracelets with them. At AZ EE:2:76, EE:2:105, and EE:2:107, 24 percent (7 of 29) of the cremation deposits yielded bracelets, while at all sites investigated other than AZ EE:2:113, 18 percent (7 of 38) of all deposits produced bracelets. Thus, shell bracelets may have functioned as a symbol of Hohokam cultural identity for those Rosemont residents who felt more closely affiliated with the Tucson Basin than with the San Simon Mogollon.
Trade Implications
The abalone shell for the two pendants found at AZ EE:2:77 must ultimately have come from the California coast, while the remainder of the marine shell probably originated in the Gulf of California. Vokes (1984) has summarized reconstructions of shell trade in the Hohokam area, and this will not be reviewed here. Suffice it to say that virtually all of the shell in the Rosemont sites probably arrived from the Tucson Basin as finished pieces. These items could have been crafted in the Tucson Basin, but more probably were received as finished items from Gila Bend or Phoenix Basin manufacturing areas. Obviously the Rosemont sites participated to some extent in the Hohokam regional system and may even have passed shell objects east into the Mogollon area. There is also the possibility that some finished items could have been traded into Rosemont from the Trincheras culture area to the south, along with Trincheras Purple-on-red and Nogales Polychrome pottery. The number of such shell items would presumably have been quite limited, however, judging from the small amount of Trincheras pottery present.
Chapter 9
CERAMIC PERIOD SETTLEMENT PATTERNS IN THE ROSEMONT AREA: A DISCUSSION
David A. Phillips, Jr.
In the closing months of the ANAMAX-Rosemont Project, the author was asked to carry out a brief analysis of ceramic period settlement patterns for the area. While this is not the place for an extended theoretical statement, some of the ideas behind the study will be explained.
The first assumption was that settlement pattern analysis should have predictive value. In other words, the distribution of sites should be explained in such a way that other archaeologists, working in similar areas, can anticipate where sites are likely to be found. There are two reasons for this. First, the degree to which site locations can be predicted is a measure of how well one understands prehistoric settlement strategies. Second, a knowledge of probable site distributions has a clear value for cultural resource management.
For the present study, the most basic question is, why are there so many Hohokam sites in the ANAMAX-Rosemont study areas? Although archaeologists have tended to underestimate the importance of mountain areas in southeastern Arizona, the great density of sites in the present study area does seem to be unusual. It would be extremely useful and informative if there was a predictive model explaining both the high frequency of ceramic sites in the Rosemont area and their relative absence in other mountain areas.
The second assumption was that the analysis should be simple. Prehistoric use of montane areas in southern Arizona is very poorly understood (Phillips and others 1984), and ANAMAX-Rosemont is the first substantial project in such a context. While powerful statistical analyses of site location factors are sometimes called for, the present study was a preliminary--almost blind--sorting of variables. Analysis was therefore kept simple. Perhaps future workers will be able to build on these initial results, using more rigorous statistical tools.
The analysis was also influenced by the nature of the data obtained by the project. At various times between 1975 and 1981, project members surveyed roughly 74.5 square kilometers of contiguous area and discovered over 750 discrete loci of prehistoric or historic
701 702 David A. Phillips, Jr. human behavior (Debowski 1980; Huckell 1981; Ferg 1981). Although the project area was subsequently reduced in size, this data base is one of the largest and best from southern Arizona. In order to tap the full potential of the data, site information from all of the survey areas was used. It was hoped that the large sample size would minimize such problems as sampling error, inconsistencies in survey coverage and recording techniques, and so on.
As with any survey project, however, the analysis was limited to what could be observed (or at least what was recorded) about the site surface. Although the subsequent testing and excavation programs formed the basis for understanding site structure and function in the Rosemont area, the great majority of sites were represented only by survey data. The analysis was therefore restricted to data types obtained during survey.
Actual analysis was carried out in several parts. The first task was to compile basic survey data from the more than 750 loci. Although survey reports (Debowski 1980; Huckell 1981; Ferg 1981) and forms were available, compilation of the data in a consistent format and correction of minor errors consumed a great deal of time.
Data base management software was used on a microcomputer to compile and update the survey information. The resulting data base has been described and printed out in a document prepared for the project archives (Phillips 1984). Persons wishing to make further use of the ANAMAX-Rosemont survey data, or who wish to reevaluate the following analysis, are urged to review that document at the Arizona State Museum.
One complicating factor was the site numbering system used during the survey. Usually, a site is defined as a spatially discrete locus of human activity; even if several temporal or spatial components are present, all contiguous areas are considered part of the same site. For the ANAMAX-Rosemont survey, however, such loci were divided into multiple "sites" if more than one temporal component was present. Also, if the site extended over more than one vegetation zone, the portion in each plant community was recorded separately. The segregation of temporal components was useful in the analysis, but the breaking up of sites according to type of plant cover only caused confusion. In the end, it was simpler to accept the distortions caused by occasional double recording of sites than it was to rework the data base to eliminate this problem. Due to the size of the site sample, and to the rarity of such duplications, the distortions involved are unimportant.
As the basic survey data were being compiled, a somewhat different form of computer study was being completed. Using the equipment at the Graphics Studios Company of Tucson, the author prepared a series of computer map images of the ANAMAX-Rosemont area. The resulting computer images were used in area estimates and in visual evaluation of site location factors.
In contrast, the final stages of analysis were fairly simple, being based on pencil, pad, and pocket calculator. Settlement Patterns 703
Selection of Locational Variables
When evaluating settlement patterns, it is useful to select locational variables that can be defined from such readily available sources as topographic sheets, soil maps, and aerial photos. If the resulting variables are simple ones, they also have an important virtue: any future studies in the general area can use the same variables with a minimum of effort. Variables which can only be documented through exhaustive field study are less valuable. A factor which tells you where sites are located is fairly useless if you have to survey the entire area to establish the distribution of the factor.
Consistent with this philosophy, the locational variables selected were kept simple: vegetation, topographic setting, elevation, soils, distance to nearest permanent water, and stream profile gradients.
Site Categories
Analysis of ceramic period settlement patterns recognized two broad site categories: those assigned to the ceramic period, based on the presence of pottery; and those described as "Unknown Aboriginal," based on the presence of aboriginal artifacts or features which could not be assigned to any specific period of occupation. The decision to include the Unknown Aboriginal sites in the analysis was based on the fact that most of the sites in question were probably created during the ceramic period (or owe most of their content to that period), despite the absence of pottery. The potential distortion produced by including some earlier and later material would seem to be less than the distortion produced by excluding these sites. Persons disagreeing with this judgement will have no problem separating ceramic from nonceramic sites in the tables that follow.
Within each of these broad categories, certain site classes were defined and used for sorting. These classes are admittedly simple ones, but are consistent with the information available from the survey and the format used in data compilation. The site classes for Unknown Aboriginal loci were as follows:
Class 1: Isolated Occurrences of Flaked Stone. These included (a) single unmodified flakes, or (b) occurrences of modified flakes or formal tools (including points) without associated "waste" (unmodified) flakes.
Class 2: Small Flaked Stone Scatters. These were loci with two to eight unmodified flakes, with or without associated modified flakes or formal tools. 704 David A. Phillips, Jr.
Class 3: Larger Flaked Stone Scatters. These were loci with nine or more unmodified flakes, with or without associated modified flakes or formal tools.
Class 4: Flaked and Ground Stone Scatters.
Class 5: Ground Stone Scatters.
Class 6: Isolated Features. Features were defined as rock piles and alignments, cleared areas, hearths, and other structural remains, and excluded artifact concentrations. Use of this term indicates that no other type of remain was found with these; two or more features can be present.
Class 7: Features with Associated Flaked Stone.
Class 8. Features with Associated Flaked and Ground Stone.
For the ceramic period, the following site classes were defined:
Class 10: Isolated Occurrences of Pottery.
Class 12: Small Sherd and Flaked Stone Scatters. These included pottery and two to eight unmodified flakes. Formal flaked stone tools and modified flakes may or may not be present.
Class 13: Larger Sherd and Flaked Stone Scatters. These are like Class 12 but contain nine or more unmodified flakes.
Class 14: Sherd, Flaked Stone, and Ground Stone Scatters.
Class 17: Features with Associated Sherds and Flaked Stone.
Class 18: Features with Associated Sherds, Flaked Stone, and Ground Stone.
Class 19: Features with Associated Sherds and Ground Stone.
It is worth pointing out that known or likely habitation sites (as identified on the basis of excavation findings) crosscut Classes 12 through 19. For example, Class 14 sites--as defined from survey data-- include AZ EE:2:106, EE:2:107, and EE:2:109 (ASM), while Class 18 sites include AZ EE:2:76 and EE:2:105.
In addition, several site classes were defined for which no examples were found. These were Class 9 (Features with Associated Ground Stone), Class 11 (Sherds and Isolated Occurrences of Chipped Stone), Class 15 (Sherd and Ground Stone Scatters), Class 16 (Features and Associated Sherds and Ground Stone), and Class 20 (Isolated Projectile Points). Settlement Patterns 705
Site Location and Vegetation Type
The first locational variable to be studied was vegetation, for which two maps existed. The first vegetation map was created during the initial archaeological survey, and was intended to be highly sophisticated and detailed. Only three basic community types were recognized (grassland, woodland, and riparian); these were subdivided into over 230 specific vegetation types. Unfortunately, the map was simply too complex to use in analysis. With so many vegetation types involved, the results would be uninterpretable. Instead, the vegetation types listed on the site forms were collapsed back into the basic divisions between grassland (or xeric and mixed xeric), woodland (mesic), and riparian (hydric) vegetation. The distribution of site types relative to these basic plant community types is presented in Table 9.1.
In order to gain some understanding of the relative local frequency of each community type, a vegetation map of the area was digitized. Unfortunately, the survey map was simply too complex to use, so an earlier map by McLaughlin and Van Asdall (1977) was digitized instead. This map did not cover the areas that were on the northern and western edges of the study area surveyed in 1981 (Huckell 1981; Ferg 1981). Accordingly, some information was missing. Nonetheless, the results are still useful for understanding the site data, especially because most of the site locations fall within the McLaughlin-Van Asdall map.
Based on this map, 44.6 percent (33.2 square kilometers) of the study area could be classified as predominantly grassland; and 27.7 percent (20.6 square kilometers) could be termed woodland. Only 3.2 percent (2.4 square kilometers) could be classified as riparian. The remainder included 4.1 percent (3.1 square kilometers) of limestone scrub community and 20.5 percent (15.3 square kilometers) that, due to lack of map coverage, could not be classified. If the limstone scrub and unclassified areas are excluded from consideration, the resulting relative frequencies would be roughly.59 percent grassland, 37 percent woodland, and 4 percent riparian.
These frequencies are, of course, for modern distributions. Hastings and Turner (1965) have demonstrated that some vegetation changes have taken place within the last century, and Bruce Huckell has indicated to me that woodland is currently being replaced by desert grassland at lower elevations. It is probably safe to assume, however, that the environment of 1000 years ago was broadly similar to that today.
When plant community frequencies are compared to the distribution data in Table 9.1, one fact becomes apparent. Even allowing for variation in mapping techniques and problems of map coverage, sites are about four times more common in xeric or grassland settings than would be expected by chance alone. The ratio of grassland to woodland (in terms of area) is about 1.6 to 1. In contrast, the 706 David A. Phillips, Jr.
Table 9.1
DISTRIBUTION OF SITES BY VEGETATION TYPE
Site Vegetation Type Category Xeric Mesic Riparian Unknown Total
Unknown Aboriginal 1 1 129 (74.1) 29 (16.7) 16 ( 9.2) 6 180
2 95 (81.2) 15 (12.8) 7 ( 6.0) 2 119
3 128 (85.3) 17 (11.3) 5 ( 3.3) 0 150
4, 5, 8 19 (76.0) 2 ( 8.0) 4 ( 4.0) 1 26
6 32 (84.2) 1 (2.6) 5 (13.2) 0 38
7 57 (98.3) 0 1 ( 1.7) 0 58
Total 460 64 38 9 571
Ceramic Period
10 2 2 1 0 5
12, 13 15 (78.9) 5 (26.3) 2 (10.5) 0 22
14 32 (82.1) 5 (12.8) 2 ( 5.1) 0 39
17 6 0 1 1 8
18 22 (81.5) 3 (11.1) 2 (7.4) 0 27
19 0 0 _0 -1 1 Total 77 (77.0) 15 (15.0) 8 ( 8.0) 2 102
Grand Total 537 (81.1) 79 (11.9) 46 ( 6.9) 11 673
Rock Pile or Cl2ster Sites 87 (96.7) 2 ( 2.2) 1 ( 1.1) 0 90
( ) = percent of known vegetation types 21overlaps with other categories Settlement Patterns 707 ratio of grassland-setting sites to woodland-setting sites is about 6.8 to 1. In contrast, the frequency of riparian-setting sites (6% of the total) more or less corresponds to the ratio of riparian to woodland and grassland types (about 4%).
The striking preference for grassland over woodland settings can be explained in terms of the nature of plant distribution in the Rosemont area, relative to topography. The woodland community type is largely restricted to north- or northeast-facing slopes, while grassland or xeric vegetation is found both on southerly slopes and on the tops of ridges and hills. As will be demonstrated presently, most of the sites are located on ridgetops or similar settings, so a preponderance of xeric (grassland) settings is only to be expected.
Because of the close relationship between topography and vegetation type, discussion of specific site categories will be postponed until the next section. It is worth noting at this point, though, that one composite site category (all sites with rock piles or clusters) has an especially strong correlation with grassland settings.
Site Location and Topographic Setting
This was the second category reviewed. Based on site survey forms, topography was divided into four basic categories: (1) ridgetops; (2) other level and elevated areas (saddles, benches, or terraces); (3) slopes; and (4) drainage bottoms or floodplains. These terms are not highly precise, as they are based on field descriptions. For example, a site found high on a ridge but not quite on the ridgeline may have been classified as being on a slope. Also, it was common for sites on tops of ridges to have some artifacts washing down the adjacent slopes; in such cases, the entire site was classified as being in a ridgetop setting.
Despite these ambiguities, strong patterns can be seen in the data as a whole (Table 9.2). Moreover, the trends explain much of the preference shown in Table 9.1 for xeric or grassland settings. When all sites are considered together, some 72 percent are located on ridgetops or on saddles, benches, or terraces. Considering how much of the study area is sloping terrain (no numbers exist, but more than half the area can probably be classed as such), this represents a definite selection for ridgetop and other raised areas. Not surprisingly, this pattern was recognized early on by people working in the project area.
Table 9.2 also indicates that choice of topographic setting varied according to the nature of the site. Class 1, 2, and 3 sites represent a continuum from isolated occurrences of flaked stone to "small" flaked stone scatters to "larger" flaked stone scatters; functionally, this represents a trend from lesser to greater degrees of activity. It is interesting, then, that there is a corresponding trend 708 David A. Phillips, Jr.
Table 9.2
DISTRIBUTION OF SITES BY TOPOGRAPHIC SETTING
Topographic Setting
Saddle, Site Bench, Category Ridgetop Terrace Slope Drainage Unknown Total
Unknown Aboriginal 1 1 74 (41.1) 25 (13.9) 63 (35.0) 18 (10.0) 0 180
2 62 (52.1) 16 (13.4) 33 (27.7) 8 (6.7) 0 119
3 105 (70.0) 14 ( 9.3) 26 (17.3) 5 ( 3.3) 0 150
4, 5, 8 18 (69.2) 3 (11.5) 3 (11.5) 2 ( 7.7) 0 26
6 26 (89.7) 5 (13.2) 5 (13.2) 2 ( 5.3) 0 38
7 52 (89.7) 3 ( 5.2) 2 3.4) 1 ( 1.7) 0 58
Total 337 (59.0) 66 (11.6) 132 (23.1) 36 ( 6.3) 0 571
Ceramic Period
10 0 4 0 1 0 5
12, 13 10 (55.6) 2 (11.1) 6 (33.3) 3 (16.7) 1 22
14 27 (69.2) 5 (12.8) 6 (15.4) 1 ( 2.6) 0 39
17 6 10 1 1 0 8
18 20 (74.1) 6 (22.2) 0 1 ( 3.7) 0 27
19 1 0 0 0 0 1
64 (63.4) 17 (16.8) 13 (12.9) 7 ( 6.9) 1 102
Grand Total 401 (59.7) 83 (12.4) 145 (21.6) 43 (6.4) 1 673
Rock Pile or Cluster Sites 2 81 (90.0) 5 ( 5.6) 4 ( 4.4) 0 0 90
percent of known topographic settings 2 overlaps with other site categories Settlement Patterns 709 to more and more selective location of such sites. Ridgetop settings account for 55 percent of the isolated chipped stone loci, but for 66 percent of the small scatters and 79 percent of the larger scatters. There is a concomitant reduction in slope settings (35% to 28% to 17%), and also in drainage bottom settings (10% to 7% to 3%).
Classes 4, 5, and 8 are Unknown Aboriginal ground stone loci (with or without other types of remains), and therefore can be considered moderately intensive use loci. It is not surprising then, that 21 of 26 such sites were found on ridgetops or similar locations. Classes 6 and 7 both represent sites with features visible during survey; most of these are rock pile or cluster sites and will be discussed later.
Class 10 represents isolated occurrences of pottery; four finds were made at the bases of slopes and one in a drainage bottom. All of these probably represent slope wash of sherds from other locations.
Classes 12 through 19 include a high proportion of known or likely habitation sites, and the exceptions can generally be thought of as moderately intensive use sites. While the categories are presented separately in Table 9.2, they will be discussed together here. Ridgetop settings account for 76 percent of such sites (77 sites, out of 101 known settings), while slopes account for only 13 percent of the loci; drainages or floodplains account for another 7 percent.
In summary, sites are generally located in fairly level, elevated settings such as ridgetops. However, the strength of this tendency depends on the nature of sites: as locations show greater frequency and variety of remains, they also show a greater tendency to be located on ridgetops and other level but elevated settings. As local vegetation is also strongly influenced by topography, the same cultural selection process is reflected in the data on biotic setting presented earlier.
Site Distribution and Elevation
Elevation was the next variable to be considered. In south- central Arizona, elevation is clearly related to site density, although the nature of the relationship is not understood. In the Catalina- Rincon mountain mass, for example, most sites seem to occur below 3000 feet. Based on very limited information, there is a secondary zone of minor ceramic period aboriginal use between 3000 and 7000 feet, but above that level preceramic or ceramic sites are almost absent (Phillips and others 1984: 27). The situation in the Santa Ritas is radically different: the entire study area is located above 3000 feet, yet hundreds of sites were found. The fact that some highland areas were used only lightly, while others were used so heavily, is a basic puzzle in southern Arizona's "mountain archaeology." 710 David A. Phillips, Jr.
In order to evaluate the role of elevation in site distribution, distributions (Table 9.3) were compared to the proportions of land within given 400-foot contour intervals. The latter data were obtained by digitizing contour maps. As it turned out, only 4.7 percent of the survey area (3.6 square kilometers) was located below 4400 feet (1340 m); 29.3 percent (21.8 square kilometers) was located between 4401 and 4800 feet (1340 m to 1585 m); 18.3 percent (13.6 square kilometers) was located between 5201 and 5600 feet (1585 m to 1705 m); and 5.5 percent (4.1 square kilometers) was located above 5600 feet.
When these data were compared to the distribution in Table 9.3, it was clear that either elevation was a factor in site selection, or
Table 9.3
DISTRIBUTION OF SITES BY ELEVATION
1 Elevation
Site Up to 4401- 4801- 5201- 5601 Category 4400 4800 5200 5600 And up Unknown Total
Unknown Aboriginal
1 2 ( 1.3) 61 (38.6) 89 (56.3) 15 ( 9.5) 1 ( 0.6) 12 180
2 1 ( 0.9) 40 (36.4) 65 (59.1) 3 ( 2.7) 1 ( 0.9) 9 119
3 0 88 (60.7) 56 (38.6) 1 ( 0.7) 0 5 150
4, 5, 8 0 11 (47.8) 12 (52.1) 0 0 3 26
6 1 ( 2.8) 11 (30.6) 12 (33.3) 12 (33.3) 0 2 38
7 0 15 (25.9) 34 (58.6) 9 (15.5) 0 0 58
Total 4 ( 0.7) 226 (41.9) 268 (49.6) 40 ( 7.4) 2 ( 0.4) 31 571
Ceramic Period
10 0 1 4 0 0 0 5
12, 13 1 ( 5.0) 5 (25.0) 13 (65.0) 1 ( 5.0) 0 2 22
14 0 16 (42.1) 19 (50.0) 3 ( 7.9) 0 1 39
17 0 3 4 0 0 1 8
18 1 ( 3.7) 16 (59.3) 9 (33.3) 1 ( 3.7) 0 0 27
19 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Total 2 ( 2.1) 41 (42.3) 49 (50.5) 5 ( 5.2) 0 5 102
Grand Total 6 ( 0.9) 267 (42.9) 317 (49.8) 48 ( 7.0) 2 ( 0.3) 36 673
Rock Pile or Cluster 2 Sites I ( 1.1) 21 (23.6) 46 (51.7) 21 (23.6) 0 1 90
1 in feet 2 overlaps with other site categories
( ) = percent Settlement Patterns 711 that elevation covaries with some other significant selective variable. The interval between 4400 and 5200 feet incorporates about 71.6 percent of the study area, yet 91.7 percent of all sites (with known elevations) fall within this interval. Areas above 5200 feet make up roughly one- quarter of the total survey area yet include only 1 in every 13 sites. The lowest interval (below 4400 feet) includes about one-twentieth of the total survey area, but less than 1 in 100 of the sites.
Given this clustering of sites between 4400 and 5200 feet, it is interesting to look at some specific site categories. Lithic scatters, for example, show the same tendency towards increased locational selectivity relative to size as was noted earlier for topographic setting. For isolated occurrences of chipped stone, 11.4 percent of the loci are either below or above the 4400 to 5200-foot interval. For the small scatters, however, only 4.5 percent are outside this interval, and only one larger lithic scatter (0.7% of known elevations) is outside.
None of the Unknown Aboriginal sites with ground stone occurs at less than 4400 or more than 5200 feet. Almost all ceramic sites (91.7 percent) occur within the favored interval.
Site Location and Permanent Water
The ANAMAX-Rosemont area is (by desert standards) well endowed with sources of water. For part of the year, many of the streams carry water or have spots where seep wells could have been dug in the sand. In addition, however, no part of the study area is more than 4 km (about 2.5 miles) from a permanent spring. Therefore, the effects of water availability could be studied only in terms of minor differences of access. Nonetheless, with permanent water being defined as currently active permanent springs, this was the next variable studied. Most (but not all) of the springs were shown on topographic maps.
As habitation and other intensive-use sites should be most sensitive to minor differences in access to water, only site Classes 12 through 19 were used in this portion of the analysis. In this case, separate vegetational components of sites were collapsed. A total of 84 ceramic sites was thus defined. The distance from each site to the nearest permanent water was digitized in terms of a series of concentric zones around springs. Springs outside the actual study area were also included.
In Table 9.4, the size of each distance zone is provided along with the number of ceramic sites within each zone. The relative frequency of sites in each zone corresponds closely with the relative size of the zone, indicating that the distribution of sites, relative to permanent springs, is entirely random.
Two interpretations of this result are possible. The first is that water was an important local variable in choosing site locations, 712 David A. Phillips, Jr.
Table 9.4
SITE LOCATIONS AND DISTANCE TO PERMANENT SPRINGS
Distance to Nearest Permanent Spring 0 - 1 km 1 - 2 km 2 - 3 km 3 - 4 km
2 Area in km 31.3 30.7 10.7 2.1
Percent of Project Area 41.7 41.2 14.3 2.8
Number of Sites* 35 34 13 2
Percent of Sites 41.7 40.5 15.5 2.4
* Class 12 - 19 sites of known location; components have been combined. but that seasonal sources were more important than permanent ones during the selection process. Alternatively, and more likely, water sources were relatively unimportant locational factors over distances of 4 km or less.
Site Location and Soils
The distribution of soil types was the next factor to be examined. Soils data were taken from Richardson and others (1979), and digitized in order to provide area estimates. In order to simplify the analysis, the associations were combined into seven groups. These are:
Group I: Comoro and Pima soils (deep alluvial soils which are generally well adapted for farming).
Group II: Bernardino-Hathaway association, and Hathaway, White House, and Casto soils.
Group III: Marbray-Chiricahua-Rock Outcrop association.
Group IV: Chiricahua soils.
Group V: Lampshire-Chiricahua and Lampshire-Graham-Rock Outcrop associations. Settlement Patterns 713
Group VI: Graham soils.
Group VII: Tortuga-Rock Outcrop, Faraway-Rock Outcrop, and Barkerville-Gaddes associations (steep, rocky areas almost lacking in soil).
Given the large number of apparent lithic procurement and initial reduction loci (most of the Class 1 through 3 sites), one might expect a positive correlation between sites and cobbly soils (or soils with gravelly and cobbly surfaces). In fact, though, cobbly soils are found almost anywhere, so this is more of a constant than an independent variable. In the Rosemont area, then, any effect of soils on site distribution would probably be in terms of habitation and other intensive-use sites, from which farming may have been carried out.
When this possibility was explored (Table 9.5), the results were interesting but not very easy to interpret. Group 1 soils are the best for farming, but do not contain an unusually high percentage of Class 12 through 19 sites. However, many such sites do occur either near the Group 1 soils or along drainages leading into those areas. Group 7 soils, the worst in the study area (according to Richardson and others [1979], these areas are not even suitable for grazing), are understand- ably lacking in possible ceramic period habitation sites.
The real puzzle was the Group 2 through 6 sites; Groups 2 and 3 have more sites than might be expected by chance alone, while Group 5 soils are underrepresented in terms of sites. It was not at all clear why these soil types would have a notable effect on site distribution. The author suspected that the soil distributions were largely coincidental with some other, more relevant factor. As will be seen, this proved to be the case.
Table 9.5
SITE LOCATIONS AND SOILS
Soil Groups I II III IV V VI VII 2 Area in km 1.3 21.3 18.2 4.8 20.5 0.9 7.5
Percent of Project 1.7 8.6 24.4 6.5 27.5 1.2 10.1 Area
Number of Sites* 2 45 29 4 4 0 0
Percent of Sites 2.4 53.6 34.5 4.8 4.8
* Class 12 - 19 sites of known location; components of sites have been combined. 714 David A. Phillips, Jr.
Initial Discussion
The locational variables just reviewed (vegetation, topography, elevation, distance to water, and soils) yielded some interesting site distributions, but none of them was entirely satisfactory. Vegetation and topography were, in essence, "micro" locational variables. They indicated how a site was placed within a specific location but not why some parts of the study area were densely populated while others were hardly used. Grassy ridgetops occur throughout the area, but only part of them display a high site density.
While elevation-related patterns could be discerned, they were not without problems. Although the sites were apparently clustered between 4400 and 5200 feet, other mountain ranges in southeastern Arizona attain the same elevations without achieving similar site densities. This suggests that elevation alone is not the answer. Also, sites are known to occur below 4400 feet in south-central Arizona (in fact, they are most common below that elevation), so again, other factors must be invoked to explain the lack of low elevation sites in the ANAMAX-Rosemont area. The role of elevation in determining the upper range of site location is more plausible, but it is also true that the highest elevations in the study area are among the most rugged. On the whole, then, elevation provided some interesting clues but no definite answers.
Distance to water proved utterly useless as a locational factor, perhaps due to its relative abundance in the study area. The final variable used, soils, was a long shot which actually proved to correlate in some ways with sites. Nonetheless, no obvious causal relationship was found between the two.
Of course, it is always likely that no single factor was involved in site location, and that only a weighting and combining of factors would allow accurate prediction of settlement patterns. Indeed, definition of such a weighted combination of factors was one of the original intentions of the project. In practice, however, combinations of locational factors did not really explain ceramic period site locations any better than did individual factors. The author therefore decided to evaluate additional factors, and the first one defined proved to be quite informative. This variable was stream profile gradient, which is discussed in the next section.
Site Location and Stream Profile Gradient
Although the choice of this variable may seem a little bizarre, there was a specific reason for trying it. The author concurred with Gary Nabhan's belief (expressed in survey field notes) that the most likely form of agriculture in the study area was de temporal (floodwater) farming, which would have taken place along the intermittent streams crossing the study area. Many of the Class 12 Settlement Patterns 715
through 19 sites are located on the ends of ridgetops, overlooking these intermittent streams, and it would be reasonable to assume that one of the things the sites overlooked was the residents' farm plots.
If this were the case, however, the limited distribution of Class 12 through 19 sites would indicate that only some of the drainages were being farmed. Moreover, these drainages were all located in the southeastern and eastern portions of the study area. It followed that these particular drainages must have some characteristic which made them more attractive as farm sites than other stream bottoms in the study area.
With de temporal farming, one important characteristic would be gradient. In a valley with a steep drainage gradient, runoff is rapid and easily destructive, and these valleys are narrow; soil formation is therefore limited and runoff water has little chance to soak in. As stream gradient becomes less pronounced, however, the possibilities for farming improve; valley bottoms are wider, erosion is less of a hazard, soils are deeper, and water tends to spread and soak in. Even if runoff in the main stream were not tapped, the terraces along the stream would be likely to receive and absorb runoff from adjacent slopes and minor tributary drainages.
With this in mind, gradients were plotted for the three streams having high densities of adjacent Class 12 through 19 sites: Barrel, South, and Davidson canyons. The plotting was done by measuring the distance traversed by a stream between contour intervals, as shown on topographic maps of the study area.
When plotting was completed (Fig. 9.1, top), the three canyons proved to be consistent in one basic respect; each had a fairly gentle gradient for a stream in a mountain area. As meausured, the gradients did not exceed 3.2 percent except at the very heads of the drainages.
Next, three streams with lower densities of adjacent Class 12 through 19 sites were plotted (Fig. 9.1, bottom): Oak Tree Canyon, a northern fork of Oak Tree Canyon, and McCleary Canyon. For Oak Tree and North Oak Tree, gradients were again in the 0 to 3.2 percent range, except at the very heads of the drainages. In McCleary Canyon, the gradient droped below 3.2 percent only in the lowermost section; sites were present only in the section with the gentler grade.
If a gentle gradient was necessary for farming in valley bottoms, it follows that sites spatially related to farming areas would be absent along drainages with steep gradients. We have already seen this to be the case for the lower and upper portions of McCleary Canyon. To further test this idea, the gradients of four streams lacking associated Class 12 through 19 sites were plotted (Figure 9.2): Sycamore Canyon (the one draining northwest), an unnamed west fork of Sycamore Canyon, the canyon containing Hanna Dam, and Mulberry Canyon. It was immediately apparent from this exercise that these streams have much steeper gradients than those with associated sites. Sections with a 0 to 3.2 gradient range were rare or absent.
716 David A. Phillips, Jr.
5200 DRAINAGES WITH MANY SITES
4.5% 5000 130, 77, 5.9% 105 • 4.2% i SOUTH CANYON 4800 3.0% 2.7% * • 2.5% DAVIDSON . 4600 CANYON 3.2% 79 Mouth * H End of Study Area 5200 y 3.4 *
109 2.6% 5000— 107 106 120 • 2.0% • 76 2.3% 4800— 2.3% BARREL CANYON 116
1.3% 4600- 129 84 a) 122 113 1.5% *End of z Study Area 0 DRAINAGES WITH SOME SITES 2.3% OAK TREE CANYON 5200— H .9 % * 4.5% A • 2.5°/n .i NORTH OAK TREE CANYON End of Study Area 5000— 1.9% End of Study Area
5200 4.2%
5000 3.4% McCLEARY CANYON
3.6% 480 2.5% * Sites ore between stors 1.7%* • Change in grode 4600 H Head of drainage Junction with Barrel Canyon • Sites . I I I I I 2 3 4 MILES
Figure 9.1 Site location plotted against stream gradient for drainages in the Rosemont area.
Settlement Patterns 717
5600 Head DRAINAGES WITH NO SITES
5400
5600 H
5400—
5200— — — 5600 Head z 0 .1 5400
_J
5200
Mouth of West Side Fork, Sycamore Canyon -North Start of 5000— Study Area Gentlest gradient along stream within study area Hanna Dam Canyon 3.4% 4800— (End of Study Area)
(End of Study Area) 4600— 4. 5% Sycamore Canyon-North 3.4% 2.5% 4400— Mulberry Canyon (End of Study Area I I ' I 0 2 3 MILES
Figure 9.2 Stream gradients for drainages lacking sites in the Rosemont area.
718 David A. Phillips, Jr.
The striking correlation between stream gradient and the locations of the larger ceramic sites may be seen in Figure 9.3, which shows a number of the larger drainages within the study area. Solid lines represent gradients of less than 3.5 percent, while dashed lines are gradients of 3.5 percent or more. It can be seen that the Class 12 through 19 sites are present near low-gradient streams and absent near high-gradient ones.
To provide quantitative verification of this correlation, a digitized version of Figure 9.3 was produced and analyzed. As can be seen from Table 9.6, less than half of the study area lies within half a kilometer of a low-gradient stream, but almost all the Class 12 through 19 sites occur within the same interval.
We may note that most of the undated lithic sites occur in the same general area as the ceramic ones. As a whole, they seem to represent satellite activity areas for ceramic sites. Thus, directly or
— s
TN I
( S< I \C. ‘..- — ..". ■ • ' ... / • .1.- --' s' N...... ' '1 • / ' • ' ♦ • t 012 ‘.. ' ' :.s 0 I % • ...... t , t i ♦ \ O' (11 '. N. Mt i ..... Drainages with I o q ,( I o <3.5% gradient l oiti ) (1. i \ \.., .4. _ __ Drainages with '6:c,3 j 11 3.5`)/0 gradient •
• Sites / .."...... N I ...• •• I 1 k ,4 .00,6I71 \6 , nY 0 %,...... • .., • I holV .0 • ...° 1 %, SO •" *".4 oc % ..... ,.• • • ♦ t '...t‘ CN • 0 • CN • t • • • Cony°0 0 Si q on • 0 6no Dom 6 ° • oa on • • .65 -6 • • /6 • 0/ • • • • • • ConYon • • , Noah • oc% No r 0 •
ei\ 'Oak Tree • Co co_ Kilometers • 0 Study Area Boundary
Figure 9.3 Distribution of Class 12 through 1.9 sites with respect to stream gradient. Settlement Patterns 719
Table 9.6
SITES AND DISTANCE FROM LOW-GRADIENT STREAMS
Distance from Low-Gradient Streams 0 - 0.5 km 0.5 - 1.0 km > 1.0 km
2 Area in km 31.7 14.2 28.5 Percent of Project Area 42.6 19.1 38.3 Number of Sites 78 4 2 Percent of Sites 92.9 4.8 2.4
* Class 12 - 19 sites of known location; components have been combined. indirectly, the distribution of low-gradient drainages explains the location of the vast majority of sites recorded during the ANAMAX- Rosemont survey.
Further Discussion
With the results of the stream profile gradient analysis, it is possible to describe a model of site location strategy for the ceramic period. Surprisingly, this is based on a single factor: the distribution of stream gradient profiles of 3.2 percent or less. It is worth noting that when the author weighted this variable positively (using a computer graphics technique) and then added vegetation, elevation, soils, and water, the visual correlation between the combined locational factors and Class 12 through 19 sites was only slightly improved (relative to stream gradients alone). It was also noted that this improvement occurred only if the added variables were weighted lightly. This result indicates that stream gradient is by far the most important variable involved in gross site location. The combined images also indicate that most (or all) of the site clustering, in terms of elevation and soils (as discussed earlier), is due to the coincidence of these factors with areas of low stream gradients.
In plainer terms, the Hohokam of the Rosemont area settled along streams with fairly gentle gradients. While the Hohokam may not have had engineers' levels, they certainly could recognize a number of attributes of such gentle gradients: flat-looking, fairly wide drainage bottoms, deep soils, and moisture-loving vegetation. Drainages lacking gentle gradients, and hence these attributes, were avoided. 720 David A. Phillips, Jr.
While farm plots were apparently in the valley bottoms, the habitation areas themselves were almost always located on tops of ridges or on other fairly level but elevated locations. In many cases, the sites were on the ends of the ridgetops, so that the Hohokam could look down from their living areas to the fields. In general, the living sites consisted of small hamlets dispersed along the streams. This was probably a response to the scattered distribution of farm plots along those same streams. (It is interesting that the author detected a similar pattern for early sites of the Black Mesa Anasazi [Phillips 1972], There, early occupation consisted of small sites strung out along the major washes, apparently also in response to the linear scattering of floodwater farming plots.)
The research design for excavation of ceramic period sites (Gregory and Ferg 1982: 32-33, 36-37) suggested that a clustering of ceramic period habitation sites might be present in the study area, and that this clustering represented some form of social grouping within the study area. On the whole, however, Figure 9.3 suggests that the primary factor behind site spacing was the distribution of low-gradient drainages within the study area. Moreover, if clustering along certain drainage segments was established, it could just as easily be due to variations in the amount of arable land as any social phenomenon. This is not to say that intensive social groupings were absent from the Rosemont area; but if they were present, they must be detected by some means other than simple spatial distribution of sites.
Predictive Value of the Stream Profile Gradient Model
While the relationship between stream gradient and ceramic site location is a clear one, it is always possible that some coincidence is at work here, and that another undefined locational factor happens to overlap closely with areas of low stream gradient. The author decided to test this possibility, by applying the stream profile gradient approach to another mountain area in southeastern Arizona.
Unfortunately, no good intensive survey data are available for such areas, other than the ANAMAX-Rosemont Project. However, a recent survey report (Phillips and others 1984) included a brief overview of the Santa Catalina Mountains which can be used for comparative purposes. While our data from the Catalinas are very sketchy, it appears that site density drops off rapidly above 3000 feet. Such sites as are present above that elevation appear to be special-activity or limited-use loci. In other words, an explanation of site location strategies for the upper Catalinas must actually explain why habitation sites are not located in those mountains, while they are known to be common in the Rosemont area.
Applying the stream gradient "model" to the Catalinas, we could anticipate that (since habitation sites are rare or absent) stream gradients suitable for de temporal farming would also be absent. In fact, this is the case. Figure 9.4 illustrates the gradients of three Cold Spring,Head 8000
7600
7200
6800
6400 Head
6000—
SABINO CANYON 5600—
0 17— 5200— BB , 9 , 32 =Sabina Canyon Ruin BB , 9 , 1 Romero Site
4800—
4400— PIMA CANYON
4000— as
44% l 3600— 3.4% rp a 4.8% aw
3200— 3 30% u 4.9%
38/ q ' 1.9% Junction with 3D% • 3.4 % Bear Canyon ud
2800— l
Continues 1.6% al
2400 1 suJ 0 2 3 4 5 6 MILES Figure 9.4 Site location plotted against stream gradient for three canyons in the Catalina Mountains. 722 David A. Phillips, Jr.
Catalina streams; in each case, the gradient exceeds the 3.2 percent value defined in the Rosemont area until the 3000 foot level is reached. From roughly that point onward, however, at least some streams have suitable gradients, and that is where the habitation sites begin.
A similar trend appears to occur along Tanque Verde Ridge in the Rincons (Zahniser 1970). As in the Catalinas, sites are common below 3000 feet and almost absent above that elevation. Also, as in the Catalinas, map-based stream gradient data indicate that low stream gradients are found only at the lower elevations. We may finally note that for the Torolita Mountains, Hewitt and Stephen's (1981) sample surveys indicate that the eastern flank of the mountains (their "pediment zone") contains the highest density of habitation sites. This same zone corresponds to an area in which streams coming off the Tortolitas show a drop in gradient to less than 3.5 percent.
This result indicates that the stream gradient model of ceramic period site location is a valid one. Moreover, it suggests that the model is generally applicable to mountain areas in southeastern Arizona. One can hope that future workers in such mountain areas will carry out further, more rigorous tests of the model. Meanwhile, the stream gradient approach provides a tentative explanation of why some mountain areas of southern Arizona were heavily inhabited, while others were used only sporadically if at all.
A Closing Note: Rock Piles and Clusters
The aboriginal habit of scraping desert pavements into grids, lines, clusters, or piles or rock has proved to be a source of endless speculation (serious or otherwise) for Arizona archaeologists. In many cases the alterations were undoubtedly agricultural. Land was being cleared of rocks, or the rocks were being used for runoff control, mulch, or other purposes (for examples, see Masse 1974, 1979). Still, the function of many such features is unknown. This is especially true of the clusters or low piles of rocks, usually a meter or so in diameter, which occur in many parts of southern Arizona.
In the Rosemont area, these piles and clusters are sometimes associated with other types of remains. However, the other remains are often low-density artifact scatters and the association of the features with artifacts is problematic. During the testing phase (Huckell 1980), several rock piles were excavated but yielded little specific infor- mation (except that some of the piles recorded on the survey may be of natural origin).
The ANAMAX-Rosemont area was richly endowed with rock piles and clusters, and the survey data do shed a little light on them. As part of the analysis, all sites having problematic rock piles or clusters were sorted out into a group which crosscut many of the defined site classes. Class 6 and 7 sites did make up the bulk of the loci thus Settlement Patterns 723
selected. Any feature with a known probable function (such as a cluster of fire-cracked rock, indicating an earth oven) or of linear rather than an ovoid pile or cluster form was excluded from the analysis. The resulting group included 90 separate rock pile or cluster loci.
In Table 9.1, it can be seen that rock pile or cluster sites have an extreme positive correlation with xeric or grassy biotic settings; 87 out of 90 are so located. The correlation with elevated topography (Table 9.2) is equally good: 81 out of 90 loci are on ridgetops, and the remaining 9 loci are on saddles, benches, terraces, or slopes; none are found in drainage bottoms or floodplains. It seems safe to say that whatever the role played by rock piles and clusters in the study area, a location in a grassy (as opposed to wooded) and elevated (as opposed to valley or drainage bottom) area was critical.
Absolute (as opposed to relative) elevation also provides some hints (Table 9.3). While sites in general tend to be clustered strongly in the 4400- to 5200-foot (1340 m to 1585 m) range, the distribution of rock pile or cluster sites is quite different. They are less common between 4400 and 4800 feet than other site types, and are much more common between 5200 and 5600 feet. A more detailed breakdown of elevations for rock pile or cluster loci yielded the following figures: 1 locus below 4400 feet, 7 loci between 4401 and 4600 feet, 14 loci between 4601 and 4800 feet, 15 loci between 4801 and 5000 feet, 31 loci between 5001 and 5200 feet, 21 loci between 5201 and 5400 feet, and no loci above 5400 feet. One location was of unknown elevation. In other words, three-quarters of all rock pile loci sites are clustered between 5000 and 5400 feet. The frequency drops gradually below 5000 feet, but quite abruptly above 5400 feet. Rock pile or cluster sites, in other words, tend to be located at higher elevations than other site types.
The distribution of rock pile or cluster sites does not by itself indicate their function. The fact that they are correlated with topographically elevated areas which have open (grassy) vegetation is intriguing, however. The fact that they tend to be at higher absolute elevations than most sites may undermine the hypothesis that they are related to agriculture. If one assumes that habitation sites are located in the general vicinity of good farming areas, then the rock piles and clusters, if agricultural in nature, should be in the same areas.
Chapter 10
DISCUSSION
Alan Ferg
. . . I think that this is probably a good time for me to insert the alibi which the bankers use when they have bonds to sell: "Nothing is guaranteed, but this prospectus is based on information which we believe to be reliable" (Gladwin 1957: 346).
The purpose of this chapter is to integrate the various specialized studies presented in the preceding chapters, and then place the Hohokam occupation of the Rosemont area within the larger context of ceramic period prehistory in southern Arizona. This chapter also presents additional data on architectural variablility and mortuary practices as they relate to site structure and regional relationships.
The first section reviews the nature of the chronological controls used in the analyses, and the limitations they imposed on those analyses and interpretations, and on the subsequent discussions of the research questions.
The remainder of the chapter is organized in four sections, structured after the research domains outlined in Chapter 2: (1) functional site types and intrasite organization; (2) economy and subsistence; (3) areal and regional relationships, and (4) site and population distribution and intersite organization.
Chronological Controls and Constraints
As Deaver (Chapter 4) has noted, analysis of ceramics, particularly decorated ceramics, is the most commonly used technique for dating or seriating ceramic period features and sites. Other items of material culture, as well as architecture and mortuary customs, also change through time, but generally do so much more slowly, providing a much less sensitive temporal framework. They are often seriated or dated with reference to ceramic sequences. Samples for absolute chronological dating by radiocarbon assay, archaeomagnetism, and tree- ring specimens, are consistently more difficult to obtain and more costly to process than pottery, and are sometimes less accurate. Hence
725 726 Alan Ferg those techniques are used sparingly, often only to calibrate the local ceramic typology. Occasionally, in the virtual absence of other temporally diagnostic materials, they may be used alone to date features or sites.
For the Rosemont sites a variety of absolute and relative dating techniques were used or attempted with variable success. However, the several chronological frameworks eventually used in the various analyses ultimately relied upon the seriation and dating of the intrusive and local decorated ceramics. These will be discussed later in this section. Specific applications or failures of various approaches have already been noted in the site descriptions. Following are brief reviews of the chronological controls derived from the archaeomagnetic and radiocarbon sampling, and from the analysis of the ceramic and nonceramic artifacts.
Archaeomagnetic Sampling
Archaeomagnetic samples were collected from all features which were plastered, sufficiently burned, and which were disturbed minimally or not at all. This resulted in the sampling of 14 pit house hearths and an extramural plastered hearth. Of the first nine samples analyzed, only four produced dates. Because of the low percentage of datable samples and the poor correlation of these with the dates inferred from the decorated ceramic assemblages, it was deemed uneconomical to analyze the remaining six samples (Table 10.1).
Of the four pit houses that yielded archaeomagnetic dates, none had floor assemblages of artifacts and none were cross-dated by radiocarbon or tree-ring techniques. Age assignments were made instead on the basis of decorated ceramics from their fills and the lifespans of their respective sites, as inferred from all available data. Only the Feature 2 pit house at AZ EE:2:109 showed good correspondence between its decorated ceramics and the results of archaeomagnetic dating (Table 10.1). The other three archaeomagnetic dates all appeared to be approximately 75 to 275 years too recent in relation to the ceramics.
The source of error in the Rosemont samples cannot be pinpointed at this time; Lange (Appendix F) discusses a number of factors which may be involved. It should be noted, however, that archaeomagnetic dating has produced and continues to produce dates at other sites which are in full accordance with chronological inferences derived from stratigraphic and ceramic studies. Nevertheless, for the present, the Rosemont archaeomagnetic dates must be rejected as inaccurate. None of the four was used in the construction of chronological frameworks for any of the analyses.
Radiocarbon Sampling
Extensive collections were made of wood and charcoal; of these, 142 were known to be structural wood from pit houses. One case involved
Table 10.1
ARCHAEOMAGNETIC DATES FROM THE ANAMAX-ROSEMONT SITES
Date at 95% Date at 63% AE-Mag Site Number and Associated Pottery Confidence Confidence Best Fit Lab # Feature Descri tion and Estimated Date Level ( A.D.) Level ( A.D.) Interval
AR001 AZ EE:2:76; hearth (008001) mid-Rincon, NO DATE POSSIBLE in Feature 8 pit house A.D. 1000-1100 AR002 AZ EE:2:77; hearth (001001) mid-Rincon, 700-1340 1130-1180 in Feature 1 pit house A.D. 1000-1100 AR004 AZ EE:2:105; hearth (081001) early-mid Rincon, 820-1450 1000-1330 1120-1170 in Feature 81 pit house circa A.D. 1000
AR003 AZ EE:2:105; hearth (081009) early-mid Rincon, NO DATE POSSIBLE in Feature 81 pit house circa A.D. 1000
AR005 AZ EE:2:106; hearth (002001) late Rincon/early NO DATE POSSIBLE in Feature 2 pit house Tanque Verde, A.D. 1175-1225
AR006 AZ EE:2:106; hearth (006002) late Rincon, NO DATE POSSIBLE in Feature 6 pit house A.D. 1100-1200
AR007 AZ EE:2:109; hearth (002001) mid-Rincon, 1000-1180 1040-1140 1040-1090 in Feature 2 pit house A.D. 1000-1100
1 AZ EE:2:116; hearth (001001) late Rincon/early NO DATE POSSIBLE AR008 ST( in Feature 1 pit house Tanque Verde, IID A.D. 1175-1225 S S
AR009 AZ EE:2:129; hearth (002005) early Rincon, 940-1410 1000-1340 1200-1250 UOT in Feature 2 pit house A.D. 900-1000 728 Alan Ferg four samples from AZ EE:2:122, which were possibly wood from a cremation pyre. These 142 samples came from 27 structures at 11 sites and represented a variety of species in unburned, partially burned, and completely carbonized states. Two samples were submitted for radiocarbon dating in order to date events which had no associated diagnostic ceramics: the primary cremation at AZ EE:2:122, and the lowest cultural levels at AZ EE:2:129 which were thought to be Archaic in origin. With the failure of the archaeomagnetic dating attempts, four more samples from four burned pit houses were selected in order to absolutely date their four associated ceramic assemblages: (1) the Floor 1 - Feature 8 pit house at AZ EE:2:76, believed to be Rillito phase or earlier, and the earliest house excavated with associated wood; (2) the Feature 71200 pit house at AZ EE:2:105, whose fill contained the purest Rillito phase assemblage from the project; (3) the Floor 4 - Feature 8 pit house at AZ EE:2:76 with a middle Rincon phase floor assemblage; and (4) the Feature 2 pit house at AZ EE:2:106 with a partial Tanque Verde Red-on-brown bowl on the floor. The dates for all these samples are presented in Table 10.2.
It can be noted at the outset (with the exception of the anomalous dates from the Floor 4 - Feature 8 pit house at AZ EE:2:76), that the relative ordering of all of the radiocarbon dates obtained corresponded fully with the sequence predicted on the basis of stratigraphy, ceramic and chipped stone analyses, and the general patterns of site size observed for the Hohokam habitation sites. The correspondence of the radiocarbon dates with the Christian calendric dates currently associated with the Tucson Basin sequence, as derived primarily from ceramic cross-dating (Fig. 1.6), was not so uniform. However, it is consistently acceptable as long as the radiocarbon dates are viewed as ranges of years one or more standard deviations in length. With these two points in mind, let us briefly discuss each date.
The anomalous dates from AZ EE:2:76 (A-3560 and A-3891) have already been discussed in some detail (Chapter 3). If the dates are accurate, then the wood involved must have been dead several hundred years when the Floor 4 - Feature 8 pit house burned down in middle Rincon phase times. As noted, dating one of the smaller wall or roof members from this house could still resolve whether this is truly an "old wood" problem, as well as fill in the middle Rincon gap in the series of dates run from the Rosemont area. These two dates are not considered further.
The date from AZ EE:2:122 (A-3300) was difficult to evaluate in that no temporally diagnostic ceramics or other artifacts were present. By merit of having only two pit houses and few extramural features, it would logically be placed as a late Rincon-early Tanque Verde phase site, based on its similarity to AZ EE:2:116, AZ EE:2:117, and AZ EE:1:104. The early thirteenth century radiocarbon date is therefore acceptable, although the later end of its range may be considered to be too recent.
Similarly, at the other extreme of the dates obtained, the sample from AZ EE:2:129 (A-3558) was taken from a deposit dominated by a
Discussion 729
Table 10.2
CALIBRATED RADIOCARBON DATES FROM THE ANAMAX-ROSEMONT SITES
Site Number and Associated Pottery Date Date Calibrated* Lab # Feature Description and Estimated Date (B.P.) (A.D.) Date (A.D.)
A-3300 AZ EE:2:122, Feature 2001 no temporally 720 + 50 1230 + 50 1225 - 1340 primary cremation on floor of diagnostic Feature 2 pit house; carbonized associations, pyre member(?); Juglans major A.D. 500-1225
A-3561 AZ EE:2:106, Feature 2 pit late Rincon/early 870 + 50 1080 + 50 1035 - 1255 house; carbonized wall or roof Tanque Verde, member found on floor; A.D. 1175-1225 Quercus sp.
A-3562 AZ EE:2:105, Feature 71200 pit Rillito, 1070 + 50 880 + 50 870 - 1050 house; carbonized unidentified A. D. 700-900 structural member found on floor; Juniperus sp.
A-3559 AZ EE:2:76, pit house Floor 1 Rillito or 1070 + 70 880 + 70 770 - 1190 of Feature 8; carbonized wall(?) earlier, post fragment in place in A. D. 900 or posthole; wood genus unknown
A-3891 AZ EE:2:76, pit house Floor 4 of mid-Rincon, 1250 + 60 700 + 60** 600 - 910 Feature 8; outermost preserved A. D. 1000-1100 rings (immediately below those submitted as A-3560) of the in situ uncarbonized butt of the middle main roof support post; Juniperus sp.
A-3560 AZ EE:2:76, pit house Floor 4 of mid-Rincon, 1360 + 60 590 + 60** 465 - 870 Feature 8; outermost preserved A. D. 1000-1100 rings of the in situ uncarbon- ized butt of the middle main roof support post; Juniperus sp.
A-3558 AZ EE:2:129, basal levels of no clear ceramic 1550 + 190 400 + 190 55 - 795 cultural material on west side associations; of north end of Trench 13; char- probably associated coal fragment; wood genus unknown with Archaic chipped stone pre-A.D. 500
* from Klein and others 1982 ** anomalous dates with respect to stratigraphic and ceramic information 730 Alan Ferg chipped stone assemblage with a strong Archaic period appearance. However, it had no clearly associated temporally diagnostic artifacts. As such, it was believed to possibly antedate the earliest Hohokam presence in the area, which appears to be in the Caftada del Oro phase, beginning at approximately A.D. 500. The results obtained from this sample tend to support an Archaic age for this deposit, although it is quite late in the Archaic period. Still, a number of nearby Archaic sites have produced radiocarbon dates in the early centuries A.D., and the date from AZ EE:2:129 is perfectly acceptable as evidence of a late Archaic occupation, covered and contaminated by the later Hohokam deposits.
Finally, three of the samples analyzed did have temporally diagnostic ceramic associations, and correlated in various degrees with these associated ceramics. The Rillito phase (A.D. 700-900) or earlier sample from Floor 1 - Feature 8 at AZ EE:2:76 (A-3559) dated A.D. 880 + 70. This was somewhat more recent than had been expected, but was still acceptable. Significantly, this date is nearly identical to that from the solidly Rillito phase Feature 71200 pit house on AZ EE:2:105 (A-3562), which dated A.D. 880 + 50. Of all the ceramic period radiocarbon dates, this one corresponded most closely with the phase designations currently in use in the Tucson Basin (Fig. 1.6). Finally, the sample from the Feature 2 pit house at AZ EE:2:106 (A-3561) was presumed to date to late Rincon-early Tanque Verde times (A.D. 1175- 1225), but it actually dated A.D. 1080 + 50. This date is too early both in terms of the traditional phase boundaries of the Tucson Basin chronology, and a number of recent archaeomagnetic dates which place the late Rincon-early Tanque Verde transition at approximately A.D. 1150- 1200 (Wallace and Holmlund 1982). This radiocarbon date is acceptable only if one assumes that the actual age of the sample falls somewhere in the more recent portion of the range presented in Table 10.2.
In summary, with the exception of the anomalous dates from AZ EE:2:76, the ordering of the radiocarbon dates was in agreement with the stratigraphic and ceramic evidence, but the actual calendric correlations with the Tucson Basin phase system were variable in quality. As many more radiocarbon dates become available, it may be possible to calibrate the Tucson Basin ceramic sequence with them, but for the moment they are too few and relatively inconsistent. Ceramic associations have been given more credence here than the radiocarbon dates, and the latter were not used to construct any chronological frameworks. Although clearly limited, the primary value of the Rosemont Hohokam radiocarbon dates lies simply in their qualified corroboration of the ceramic sequence.
Nonpottery Artifacts
Chronological control for the analyses of chipped stone, utilitarian and nonutilitarian ground stone, shell, and bone artifacts, was ultimately derived from the seriation and dating of the painted pottery. Although superimposed features were encountered, these Discussion 731 deposits were never of sufficient numbers, size, artifact density or complexity such that developmental sequences of nonpottery artifacts could be developed independently of the ceramic sequence.
Essentially then, the extent and nature of the archaeological deposits did not allow the construction of chronological frameworks based solely on nonpottery artifacts. These artifacts were themselves interpreted and seriated with respect to the decorated ceramic sequence. Much like the radiocarbon samples, the nonpottery artifacts provided only limited corroboration for the ceramic sequence.
Ceramics
The basic sequence of ceramic types for the Tucson Basin has been established since Isabel Kelly's work at the Hodges Ruin in the late 1930's (Kelly 1978). The basis for the ordering was stratigraphic relationships at Hodges itself, comparisons with the established sequence from Snaketown in the Phoenix Basin, and intrusive pottery from that area. Correlations with the Christian calendar followed that suggested for Snaketown, which was itself calibrated on the basis of stratigraphic ordering correlated with intrusive, tree-ring-dated ceramics from the Anasazi and Mogollon areas (Gladwin and others 1937: 169-220).
Since then, various modifications have been made to the type definitions and their dating, and further changes can be expected as more data becomes available. Deaver's analyses (Chapter 4) of the Tucson Basin ceramics from the Rosemont sites contain a number of suggested revisions and refinements. Two are critical here. First, an effort was made to more specifically define Rillito Red-on-brown and Rincon Red-on-brown, and to develop criteria by which they might be more consistently separated. These two types have repeatedly defied such efforts (Doyel 1977a: 30-32). This objective has been accomplished to some extent, although many sherds still cannot be typed beyond "indeterminate Rillito or Rincon Red-on-brown," for one reason or another. Second, within Rincon Red-on-brown, finer divisions were discernible based on stylistic attributes. Deaver has defined these as Rincon Red-on-brown Styles A, B, and C.
Virtually all of the analyses which dealt with change through time were built upon the existing Tucson Basin ceramic chronology, with finer divisions as recognized and interpreted by Deaver. As such, all calendric dates used in this volume are the best approximations that can currently be suggested, but remain poorly supported and subject to change. Neither Deaver nor any other contributor to this volume is suggesting, or should be cited as implying, that the "early," "middle" and "late" styles of Rincon Red-on-brown correspond to precise 100-year intervals between A.D. 900 and 1200. These styles overlap in time, to some degree evolved from one another, and must be viewed as a continuum. Nevertheless, points can be recognized along these lineages, and do have some temporal significance. To be able to assign features and sites to 732 Alan Ferg finer periods of time within the Rincon phase would allow for more specific reconstructions of site development, settlement patterns, and greater control in any diachronic analyses of artifacts or biological samples. At this time, the 100-year lifespans are purely an arbitrary construct, to be used only with all due recognition of that fact. Figure 10.1 gives a generalized presentation of the lifespans and temporal significance of the various ceramic types and styles that were distinguished for the Tucson Basin series.
In general, the presence of one style of Rincon Red-on-brown, in the complete or virtual absence of the other two, was considered a sound basis for assignment to early, middle, or late Rincon times. The presence of two styles usually indicated assignment to the later of the two time periods represented. For example, if both Style A and B sherds were present, presumably the assemblage was produced in middle Rincon times, since the sherds were probably contemporaneous. This is a simplification of course, and consideration was given in each case to the relative proportions of the styles present, the presence of whole or partial vessels of one or the other styles, and the possibility of accidental admixture of earlier or later sherds.
Finally, a caution must be added to the qualifiers about the distinctions between Rillito and Rincon Red-on-brown, and to the temporal significance of the Rincon styles. That caution is related to sample size. Sherds were abundant at the large and medium sites examined, but at the smaller sites and in individual features, identi- fiable decorated sherds could be incredibly scarce. Only eight sherds from the whole site of AZ EE:2:120 could be identified to type. It is the poor sample size from this site which makes the assignment of its structures to mid-Rincon times a tentative matter, and not any questions related to the ceramic typology employed. Even the best ceramic chronological framework is limited by the amount of recovered pottery.
Summary
Of the various chronological controls available, only the analysis of the decorated ceramic assemblage proved to be of practical use. Refinements in the chronology by Deaver were often offset by the necessity of applying them to small assemblages. It was small sample size, rather than any inability to make fine distinctions, which repeatedly lead to the use of broad temporal groupings of features or sites in the artifact and sample analyses, or else forced the complete abandonment of diachronic studies.
As noted in Chapter 2, good chronological control was considered prerequisite to the evaluation of many of the research questions. These constraints in the use of the ceramic chronology have affected the extent to which arguments may be developed before they become so tentative as to be pointless. Solid chronological control is still the foundation upon which most higher order archaeological reconstructions must be built. Sample size and dating problems will be encountered Discussion 733
Period Phase Ceramic Styles Ceramic 1 ypes I Caiiada Cafada del Oro 3 del Oro -- 0 Red-on-Brown ID oc 5,.._
I -6 cn U (..) 010 0 Rillito Rillito Red-on-Brown
Early c < "Early" Rincon Rincon o c.) CP Red-on-Brown C -5+ CC. &-)
tary Middle "Middle" Rincon a3 Red -on-Brown
den Rincon a) 5,
Se (45 c 0 0 c "Late" Rincon ii o Late Rincon Red-on- Brown
Tanque Verde Tanque Verde a: Red-on-Brown
ic s ._0 0 Clas 0) c) Tanque Verde r..) Tucson Red-on-Brown
?
Figure 10.1 Change in Tucson Basin decorated pottery through time as a basis for chronological assignment of Rosemont area sites. 734 Alan Ferg repeatedly in the following discussions as the limiting factors in examining the research problem domains.
Functional Site Types and Intrasite Organization
The question of whether different functional types of sites occur among those examined in the the Rosemont area can be approached on three levels. First, the artifact assemblages from the sites can be compared with one another in various ways. Second, whole sites may be compared as elements within an overall settlement pattern of the area. Third, the types, proportions, and arrangements of features to be found within sites (intrasite organization) can be examined as clues to functional differentiation. While all three approaches are obviously interrelated to some degree, the kinds of data used in each have proved to be surprisingly independent and often mutually exclusive. Before pursuing these comparisons, however, three important points must be made.
First, it must be remembered that a certain amount of selection has already occurred with regard to the types of sites (primarily habitations) examined during the course of the project. As discussed in Chapter 2, extremely low artifact density, ceramic period sites were examined during the testing phase, but were not felt to merit additional work. Isolated artifacts and extremely small artifact scatters were only investigated during the survey and testing phases. Phillips' study (Chapter 9) of overall settlement patterns within the Rosemont area did, however, deal with these remains. Nevertheless, various classes of habitation sites can be said to exist within the sites investigated during the mitigation phase. The site classification criteria used by the Salt-Gila Aqueduct Project (Crown 1983) proved to be quite useful in discussing the variability seen in the Rosemont habitation sites. The variability within this class of sites will be discussed below.
The second point to be kept in mind is the difference between a site's function and a site's intensity and duration of occupation. While these appear to be clearly distinct, a substantial difference in quantity of materials at two sites may give a false impression of differences in function. In reality, this may only be a reflection of differences in the length of occupation of the two sites, or the intensity with which the same activities were pursued. Rozen (Chapter 5) has explored this and related problems in the greatest detail with regard to the lithic assemblages and functional interpreta- tions of the sites, but this distinction is relevant to all classes of the Rosemont Hohokam data.
Thirdly, as Deaver (Chapter 4) noted, sites that function in the same manner are likely to produce similar artifact assemblages. It is also possible for sites of differing function to produce similar assemblages. However, it is not likely that sites serving the same function will have divergent assemblages. The same remarks are Discussion 735 applicable as well to architecture, intrasite organization, and so forth.
Various artifact assemblages or other attributes can be compared between and among sites, and some assessment can be made as to their similarity. In and of itself, this does not constitute a demonstration of similar function among sites, nor is it the same as actually identifying the specific activities and pursuits engaged in at those sites. So, for example, while Rozen (Chapter 5) finds substantial similarity in the lithic assemblages from the Rosemont sites, he is commendably cautious about concluding that the sites are all function- ally the same. This is an inference which cannot legitimately be made on the basis of only one class of material evidence from these sites.
Given these constraints, it is still possible to reach some tentative conclusions regarding functional site types in the Rosemont area by considering all of the available data together.
The Artifact Assemblages
In the analyses of the various artifact assemblages, at least some consideration was given to (1) the variety of artifacts present, (2) their frequency of occurrence relative to one another (proportions); and (3) their absolute frequency (densities). When possible this was done both within and between sites as well as through time. Larger samples of pottery, chipped stone, and utilitarian ground stone permitted more complete study of these topics than did the small samples of nonutilitarian ground stone, shell, or bone artifacts. Even so, numerous compromises had to be made to accomodate small site assemblages and limited chronological control.
The conclusions to be drawn from the various studies, as they relate specifically to the interpretation of site function, are briefly summarized in the following paragraphs.
Pottery Analysis
The pottery analysis (Chapter 4) assumed that the sites examined were all functionally similar, based on Phillips' (Chapter 9) analyses of settlement pattern. The extremely small assemblages of rim sherds from all sites precluded any strong inferences about variation in proportions of vessel forms on a site-by-site basis. However, it could be said that the kinds of pottery vessel forms represented at all sites were the same, indicating a functional similarity in a very broad sense. In order to examine temporal variation, it was necessary to combine small site assemblages to achieve usable sample sizes. This dictated the use of "early" (Cartada del Oro through early Rincon phase) and "late" (middle and late Rincon phase) time periods. At least for these two divisions, the ratio of jars to bowls remained constant at about 1:1. There was an apparent increase in the proportion of decorated to 736 Alan Ferg plain ware jars through time. This could be interpreted either as a purely aesthetic trend, unrelated to any functional concerns, or as functionally significant, if painted pottery was used in ways distinct from plain ware. There were similarities in both vessel shapes and sizes for the early and late plain and painted jars, and there was no obvious preferential use of one or the other in a specific context. It can therefore be inferred for the moment that the increase in painted jars at the expense of plain was a cultural preference, and was probably unrelated to possible differences in site function.
Flaked Stone
It was also necessary to combine small site assemblages to obtain usable sample sizes of flaked stone artifacts, and no site-by- site comparisons were possible (Chapter 5). Temporal variation could not be evaluated for that reason. Various recombinations of the data were carried out, based both on attributes of the flaked stone assemblages themselves, and on nonassemblage characteristics of the sites from which they came (site size, span of occupation, and others). It was concluded that little variation existed among sites in the kinds of chipped stone artifacts present, their relative frequencies of occurrence, or the technologies used to produce them. The greatest variation among sites occurred in the number of material types used and the frequencies of whole flakes to flake fragments. Neither appears significant in terms of site functions. The former was apparently directly related to the range of material types immediately available around a site, and the latter, to patterns of artifact discard. In short, no evidence exists for any functional differentiation among the sites, based on the chipped stone assemblage. The assemblages are presumed to be related simply to the day-to-day activities necessary for the maintenance of a habitation site, large or small.
Utilitarian Ground Stone
The analysis of the utilitarian ground stone (Chapter 6) also necessitated the combination of assemblages from the smaller sites in order to work with samples of a reasonable size. Temporal variation was examined using the same groupings as the pottery vessel form analysis: "early" (Cafiada del Oro through early Rincon phases) and "late" (middle and late Rincon phases). Variation among the sites was examined in terms of four size groupings: (1) sites with two house pits; (2) sites with four to six house pits; (3) sites with seven to eight house pits; and (4) extremely large or intensively occupied sites. It should be noted that these categories were devised prior to the completion of the ceramic analysis, at which point it became clear that even the sites with four to eight house pits may never have had more than two or three structures occupied at any one time. Hence, Tagg's first three categories could probably be combined. As it turns out, this is moot. Although there were some stylistic changes from early to late in some artifact types, both the categories of ground stone present, and the relative proportions of these categories to one another showed very Discussion 737
little variation either through time or among the four classes of sites. The utilitarian ground stone artifacts thus indicate that the sites were functionally similar to the extent that all used the same technology to presumably process the same or similar plant foods. They also used the same types of ground stone tools for other tasks.
Nonutilitarian Ground Stone, Miscellaneous Stone, Shell, and Bone
The analyses of the nonutilitarian ground stone, crystals, minerals (Chapter 7), shell (Chapter 8), and worked animal bone (Appendix A) can all be treated together, for none of these artifact classes were sufficiently large to allow any firm inferences to be drawn from them individually. However, these classes showed no significant variation in kind or relative numbers, either among sites or through time. Certainly no functional differences could be postulated between sites from these data. In a broad sense, the data showed all of the sites to be similar.
Artifact Kinds and Proportions
Essentially, all of the artifact categories in each major artifact class were found to be present in the same relative frequencies in all temporal components at all of the sites (Table 10.3). However, examination of Table 10.3 will show that two of the middle Rincon sites and all but one of the late Rincon sites lack worked bone and shell artifacts entirely. This absence, however, is most readily attributed to sample size. The proportions of shell and worked bone are generally small, even in large assemblages (Table 10.3). Recovery of these artifact types from small site assemblages would not be predicted. For example, using the averages from the large sites, there was only a single item of shell for every 334 artifacts, and an average of 1 worked bone item for every 500 artifacts. AZ EE:2:109, EE:2:117, EE:2:122 and AZ EE:1:104 all had fewer than 300 artifacts each. With smaller total artifact assemblages, the vagaries of sampling may also more stongly affect the recovery of the rarer artifact types. Again, using the averages from the large sites, two bone artifacts could have been expected from AZ EE:2:120, but none were recovered; none would have been predicted from AZ EE:2:106, but one was found. There is thus no reason to view the small sites as having more restricted ranges of artifacts than do the large sites.
Finally, there are two cultural factors which appear unrelated to any functional concern, but which probably further exacerbated this underrepresentation of certain artifact types at the small sites. The abundance of shell and bone artifacts at a site was partially related to the number of burials recovered, particularly cremation deposits. The recovery of cremation deposits at AZ EE:2:84 and EE:2:120 showed that small sites could be expected to have burials, but the chances of finding them are again susceptible to sampling errors. Also, as Kenneth Rozen suggested, small, easily transported items that were costly to acquire or make, or that were of ceremonial importance, were all 738 Alan Ferg
Table 10.3
FREQUENCIES OF ARTIFACT CLASSES AT THE ROSEMONT HABITATION SITES
a
ne (I) •1 a s-, a o cc o ,--I .6J 1-1 4-1 7-1 CID •,-■ cn ■ d Sto a •-
a e .6.J -0 .,-i -0 .7) .,-1 0 4-1 0 -, -1 -1 a a s -1 0 a ci) -,-1 0 0 0 a G 4.) Site Number 4 1.1 5-t 0 s .0 0 0
Chipp 0 Z Q.) CA I:0 H
Early AZ EE:2:76 68.2 29.8 1.0 0.3 0.6 0.1 12,390 AZ EE:2:84 45.7 51.7 1.7 0.4 0.4 0.1 1,354 AZ EE:2:105 61.6 36.8 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.3 25,463 AZ EE:2:113 54.0 43.8 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 15,138 AZ EE:2:129* 41.3 56.3 1.8 0.2 0.2 0.2 2,590 Middle AZ EE:2:77 72.2 22.7 3.1 1.6 0.3 0.1 3,504 AZ EE:2:107 85.4 11.6 2.3 0.1 0.4 0.2 2,120 AZ EE:2:109 59.4 33.5 5.9 1.2 0 0 239 AZ EE:2:120 75.8 22.5 1.3 0.4 0 0 1,022 Late AZ EE:1:104 76.4 18.2 5.0 0.4 0 0 280 AZ EE:2:106 77.6 17.2 4.8 0.2 0 0.2 459 AZ EE:2:116 86.6 11.8 1.5 0.1 0 0 747 AZ LE:2:117* 62.3 30.4 7.0 0.3 0 0 257 AZ EE:2:122 49.6 45.3 5.1 0 0 0 117
Note: * indicates sites with earlier or nonhabitation components. increasingly less likely to either be lost, broken, or abandoned on sites with short durations or intensities of occupation. Hence, cultural factors probably exaggerated the differences seen in the quantities of small, often exotic goods recovered from large and small sites, independent of site function.
A second observation could be made concerning the data in Table 10.3. When the relative proportions of sherds, chipped stone, and utilitarian ground stone from each site are presented graphically (Fig. 10.2), a substantial range of variability can be seen in the proportion of chipped stone to sherds. However, no obvious breaks exist in the distributional range, and all of the sites could be interpreted as forming a single cluster. It has already been argued (Chapter 3) that admixture of Archaic materials at AZ EE:2:129 was partly responsible for that site's substantial lithic assemblage. However, the four sites with 100 0 Figure 10.2Artifact assemblagecompositionforinvestigated sites. 10 20 30 30 20 40 Ground Stone(Percent) 10 50 60 80 70 70 • • 80 More Than10,000Artifacts Less Than1,000Artifacts From 1,000to3,500Artifacts 90 100
UOT SSWO sTa 740 Alan Ferg the highest proportions of chipped stone were all neighbors at the confluence of Barrel and McCleary Canyons (AZ EE:2:84, EE:2:113, EE:2:122, EE:2:129). This suggests that the immediate availability of a wide choice of raw materials in this specific area was a factor. There may be partial correlation of the abundance of chipped stone and the abundance of extramural features and plant food processing since AZ EE:2:84, EE:2:113, and EE:2:129 all possessed large numbers of pits and roasting pit-hearths. Sites on the SGA Project with high surface proportions of chipped stone were most reasonably interpreted as nonhabitation plant procurement and processing sites (Teague 1982a: 87-93, Fig. 3.7). The higher chipped stone proportions are interpreted here not as segregating functionally distinct sites, but simply as indicators of greater emphasis on one kind of activity that was nevertheless present at all of the sites.
In summary, the analyses of each major artifact class documented a substantial degree of homogeneity in the kinds and proportions of artifact categories present at each site. No evidence was found for any functional differences among the sites, either from analyzing a single class of artifacts, or from viewing all these analyses together. Particularly in combination with one another, they constitute strong evidence that all of the sites examined were functionally similar. At this point, the third aspect of the artifact assemblages needs to be integrated into the argument; that is, the absolute frequency of occurrence of artifacts among the sites.
Artifact Densities
The number of artifacts found per cubic meter of house pit fill was used with other evidence to identify trash-filled structures (Chapter 3), and was one of the nonassemblage characteristics used to group sites in the flaked stone analysis (Chapter 5). The density of artifacts in pit houses thought to be trash filled ranged from 41 to 1030 per cubic meter. The average house pit artifact density also varied greatly at the site level, from 18 artifacts per cubic meter at AZ EE:2:122 to 341 per cubic meter at AZ EE:2:105 (Fig. 10.3). Taken alone, the great disparities in artifact densities could be construed as indicating that different sorts of activities were taking place at the large and small, early and late sites. However, considered in conjunction with the conclusion that the kinds and proportions of artifacts are the same on all the sites, the artifact density differences are interpreted here as simply indicating that the same kinds of activities were taking place at all the sites, either at a different frequency or over a different length of time. Further, a crude indicator of intensity of site occupation could be made by plotting the average house pit artifact density against the number of pit houses present (Fig. 10.3). This would suggest a geometric rather than arithmetic increase in site activities, after sites either achieved a degree of stability or had increased in size beyond the most basic cooperative economic unit or "primary group" (Wilcox and others 1981: 154-155). Both AZ EE:2:105 and EE:2:113 may have had numerous 30—
105*
• 76
113•
• 77 •I20 109 106 • • 4007 84• •I29 •116 122 ,•104 117 I 11 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Average Artifact Density / m 3
Figure 10.3 Average artifact densities within structures at investigated a sites. IDST I SS UOT 742 Alan Ferg contemporary houses, and, although its population may have declined over the years, AZ EE:2:76 was certainly the most stable of the sites found in the area.
It is conceivable that once a certain settlement size or stability was reached a greater intensification of effort and production was necessary or possible. This might have involved changes in task structure at the intrasite level in order to benefit from increased participation in a wider, intersite, or regional economic system.
The Settlement Pattern Evidence
Using all available Rosemont survey data, Phillips (Chapter 9), examined the distribution of all types of Hohokam sites with respect to six locational variables: vegetation, topographic setting, elevation, soils, distance to permanent water, and stream profile gradient. Several interesting correlations were found, and all will be noted at various points in this chapter. However, the most relevant was site distribution with respect to the stream profile gradient.
Essentially, Phillips found that site distribution appeared to be largely dictated by a single consideration: location near land which could be flood-water farmed. The location of Hohokam sites is strongly correlated to the gently sloping segments of drainages (Figs. 9.1 to 9.3, Table 9.6), despite differences in sites by time, size, or artifact assemblage characteristics. It seems clear that the vast majority of the Hohokam sites in the Rosemont area were related in some way to farming endeavors. Certainly all of the ridgetop sites discussed here must be considered functionally identical in terms of their subsistence orientation.
The settlement pattern data support the inference (made on the basis of the artifact assemblages) that the small late sites appear to have been engaged in the same kinds of activities as were the earlier sites. A reconstruction of the Hohokam occupation in the Rosemont area would argue that all of the sites under consideration here were habitation sites with a similar range of activities, and that they were located overlooking associated farm plots. The last factors to be considered in constructing functional site types are the seasonality and permanence of these sites. These can best be examined through a combined consideration of feature types and intrasite organization.
Intrasite Organization
On the SGA Project, sites with structures could be classified under one of several labels, each of which has certain functional and organizational implications. The following definitions are drawn from Teague (1982a), Crown (1983), and Sires (1984). Discussion 743
Temporary Habitation Sites:
Field House Sites: usually a single, seasonally occupied, specialized, small structure; related to agricultural pursuits and located within or near farm plots; assumed to be occupied by only part of a family, extended family, or primary group.
Permanent Habitation Sites:
Farmsteads: permanently occupied groups of from one to four standard, contemporaneous pit houses forming one house cluster; related to agricultural pursuits and located in or near farm plots; assumed to be occupied by a single family, extended family or primary group.
Hamlets: permanently occupied sites with two or three contemporaneous house clusters; the purpose or function of the settlement may vary; assumed to be occupied by two or three families, extended families, or primary groups; specialized structures may also be present.
Villages: permanently occupied sites composed of two to five hamletlike subunits, some or all of which are inferred to have been contempo- raneous and occupied by multiple groups of families, extended families or primary groups; the purpose or function of the settlement may vary; specialized structures may also be present.
The function, type, and social structure of the Rosemont sites are all being simultaneously examined on several levels at once. All of the sites under consideration are functionally alike at one level: they were all habitation sites. The field house, farmstead, hamlet and village categorizations could be viewed as functional distinctions on a more specific level. While field houses and farmsteads were, by definition, farming related, hamlets and villages could be viewed at a still more specific level of function: they may have been ceremonial or trade or administrative centers, and so forth.
Within the "permanent habitation sites" group, placement of a given site could be somewhat flexible without seriously affecting the overall reconstruction of an area's culture history. However, it is of critical importance to distinguish between permanent and temporary habitation sites. Misclassification of field house sites as farmsteads or the reverse, would make substantial changes in assessing population sizes and settlement and subsistence patterns. Crown (1983) has set 744 Alan Ferg forth and assessed several criteria by which to judge the permanency of Hohokam sites, based on ethnographic data and archaeological material from the SGA Project sites. She also addresses site function as an interrelated problem. Crown (1983: 11-15) suggests that "four categories of data may prove useful in determining the duration of a Hohokam structure. Architectural attributes, disposal of the dead, disposal of refuse, and site structure may provide clues as to the length of time a site was occupied on a yearly basis." Quantity and variety of artifactual material were also considered but discounted as useful indices of the permanence of occupation (Crown 1983: 12-13). Crown's four data categories are all considered here as facets of intrasite organization, and will now be examined with regard to discovering and defining functional site types among the Rosemont sites.
Architectural Attributes
Architecture refers primarily to pit houses, but an examination and summary of extramural feature types also seems pertinent here. Table 10.4 lists all of the features found at each site. It should be kept in mind that these numbers include unexcavated features, and may be somewhat biased in favor of "pits." Discussions of the extramural features are largely drawn from the site descriptions in Chapter 3.
Extramural Features
Pits. This is undoubtedly a catch-all category. Although it probably includes a variety of functionally distinct features, it cannot be usefully subdivided at this time. Storage pits, cleaned-out roasting pits and hearths, unused burial pits, small borrow pits, and so forth are all possible identifications for this morphologically diverse group. Analysis of artifacts, animal bone, flotation, and pollen samples gave no good indications of specific functions. More often than not, the last use of a pit was for trash disposal. Pits were present in all site size classes. They appear to be of no use in determining functional site types. Like all other types of extramural features, pits were rare or absent on the late sites. Possible reasons for this are discussed below, after each extramural type is summarized. These pits and other types of extramural features that were found on the late sites were not outside the variety of morphology and content seen at the other sites. Also, the 10 pits at AZ EE:2:117 were probably earlier than the pit houses at the site.
Roasting Pit-Hearths and Related Feature Types. This category has members which were clearly deep roasting pits, others which were clearly shallow hearths, and a large number which fell in between morphologically, or which did, in fact, serve in both capacities. Since various types of foods can be prepared by various cooking techniques in a single feature, there can clearly be interpretational problems (Greenhouse and others 1981; Gasser 1982). This is one reason why Table 10.4
NUMBERS OF FEATURES BY TYPE FOR ALL HABITATION SITES
hs
t its Stone
3.4 ions d t Hear os
rs Pits
forms 0 Dep
te t ts Pit- d d Pits
Crema
la ions
Groun : lus t ine ine les ion uses our Pits ing t L L P t a ho Co t b- hes k C k- Ho ll c imary u huma
la ro In Pit Roas Roc S Stone Roc Pos Borrow Cac Ba Crem Pr
AZ EE:2:76 16 1 53 14 5 1 1 23 5 AZ EE:2'84 3 1 9 2 6 2 1 1 1 AZ EE 2:105 28 4 53 25 11 7 1 1 1 4 4 1 4 2 AZ EE:2:113 12 2 105 43 24 28 4 1 6 14 9 3 AZ EE:2:129* 4 2 10 1 1 AZ EE:2:77 8 1 21 13 2 1 1 10 6 2 AZ EE:2:107 5 2 1 3 2 3 AZ EE:2:109 4 5 AZ EE:2:120 3 4 1 2 1 2 AZ EE:1:104 2 1 1 AZ EE:2:106 4 1 2 2 1 1 AZ EE:1:116 3 AZ EE:2:117* 2 10 2 3 AZ EE:2:122 2 3
G Total 96 15 262 112 51 40 2 2 2 1 7 1 12 11 7 5 1 52 1 22 3
*Some of the extramural features tabulated are probably not part of the habitation site. IOST ST S UOT 746 Alan Ferg roasting pits and hearths were combined into a single category. Flotation samples consistently produced corn and chenopod remains, with much more limited representation of a variety of other plant foods. Burned bone was relatively common in trash deposits, but bone was apparently no more abundant in roasting pit-hearth contexts than elsewhere. Roasting pit-hearths were ubiquitous through time and across site size classes, and do not serve to distinguish functional site types within the habitation sites.
Pits with rocks probably represent nothing more than pits filled with trash which included some rocks, and roasting pit hearths which were only partially cleaned out. They were always few in number, relative to pits and roasting pit-hearths, and their contents did not differ from these other features. No importance was attached to their presence or absence with regard to establishing functional site types.
There were only four rock-lined and slab-lined pits. The two at AZ EE:2:84 were shallow, and could conceivably have been cleaned-out hearths similar to that shown in Figure 3.22. The two at AZ EE:2:106 were deeper and could conceivably have been cleaned-out roasting pits. Lined roasting pits were also found, including that in Figure 3.30. Since lined pits may not even have constituted a feature type distinct from roasting pit-hearths, they were not considered further in functional site type formulation.
Extramural Plastered Hearths and Sherd-Lined Pits. Extramural plastered hearths were clearly a discrete feature type, but they were so rare that they were of little help in isolating functional site types. Both examples were burned, but flotation samples could not be taken, decreasing their value even more. The proximity of the extramural plastered hearth to the sherd-lined pit at AZ EE:2:77 may indicate some hearth-related function for the latter. This possibility is strengthened slightly by a sherd-lined pit (Subfeature 154002) occurring where one would predict a hearth in the Feature 154 pit house on AZ EE:2:113, with an ash-filled pit (Subfeature 15400) behind it. Sherd-lined pits were also too rare and generalized in their construction to assist in designating functional site types at this time.
Artifact and Animal Bone Clusters. It is not at all clear whether the deposits classified as artifact and animal bone clusters were merely trash or were intentional deposits of some kind. The occurrence of five of the seven examples in the fill of pit houses or borrow pits suggests the former. Nevertheless, their variability and uncertain function make them of little, if any, value in segregating functional site types.
Stone Platforms. Since only one example of this feature type was found (Feature 108 at AZ EE:2:113), and its function is unknown, it is of no use in establishing functional site types. Discussion 747
Postholes. Extramural postholes were rarely encountered. They are not considered particularly helpful in proposing functional site types, at least partially because the features represented by the postholes are not clearly identifiable.
Borrow Pits. All features classified as borrow pits were relatively large pits. They are presumed to have been excavated as either a source for earth for building or for clay to be used in pottery making. As noted earlier, some features classified as "pits" could have been small borrow pits; therefore, more sites in Table 10.4 probably had borrow pits than are so indicated. The numerous borrow pits on AZ EE:2:113 were more probably the result of the fortuitous on-site presence of desirable clay deposits, than an indicator of functional or cultural distinctions for this site. The distribution of borrow pits appears fairly uniform across site size classes and through time, and of no use in proposing functional site types.
Caches. Of the caches of ground stone artifacts and pottery listed in Table 10.4, the three from AZ EE:2:117 are inferred not to be associated with the habitation site, and that on AZ EE:2:76 is believed to be mortuary related. The remaining eight caches were from the Ballcourt Site. Functionally, it is not clear whether these "caches" were simply temporarily stored items or whether they were actually deposited with no intention of being retrieved. Regardless of why they were deposited, their abundance at, and apparent restriction to the Ballcourt Site argues that they may be a reflection of differential site type.
Ballcourt. Of all the sites recorded in the exchange area surveys, apparently only AZ EE:2:105, the Ballcourt Site, possessed a ballcourt. The exact function or functions served by ballcourts is unclear, in either "core" or "peripheral" areas, but they usually occur on large sites. Even if there were no idea of the number of structures on AZ EE:2:105, the presence of the ballcourt would lend substantial weight to a suggestion that the site may have been functionally different from all the other sites.
Discussion. Of the various types of extramural features recognized here, only pits, roasting pit-hearths, borrow pits, ballcourts, and possibly caches appear suitable for making comparisons among sites. Of these, only ballcourts and caches appear significantly restricted in their distributions. The co-occurrence of both at AZ EE:2:105 suggests that it may be distinct in some manner from all the other sites examined. The other sites were similar to one another in the kinds and proportions of other extramural features present. The same caution concerning sample size which was noted in the discussion of the kinds and proportions of artifacts also applies to the extramural feature types at the late, small sites. Is the absence or paucity of these features due to actual functional differences, or just sampling problems? A clear answer is not forthcoming. 748 Alan Ferg
Having examined the kinds and proportions of extramural features, it is appropriate to examine their relative densities at different sites. Table 10.5 presents data on the proportions of extramural features to structures. The sites are grouped roughly by time period, and in order by the density of extramural features within those time periods. A graphic display is given in Figure 10.4. The artifact assemblage analyses and settlement pattern evidence seem to indicate, that the late, small sites were host to the same kinds of activities as the earlier, larger sites. Therefore, this should be reflected in similar proportions of feature types, including the ratio of extramural features to structures. However this does not appear to be the case. The earlier sites, both large and small, had substantially higher proportions of extramural features than do the middle and late Rincon phase sites. Two opposing factors may affect this situation. One is that, if anything, the proportions should be biased toward lower numbers of extramural features on the earlier, large sites. Refurbishing and reuse of existing extramurals would presumably become increasingly common on these sites as the available ridgetop space was occupied. Such reuses might not always be discernible in the archaeological record. Set against this is the problem of sampling at the small sites, where missing even one or two extramural features would substantially alter the ratio of structures to extramural features. AZ EE:2:77 and EE:2:113 were essentially fully stripped, and additional excavation would not be expected to appreciably change their ratios. Extramural stripping at most of the late sites, and to a lesser degree on the middle Rincon sites, was generally not extensive. Assuming that these two factors offset each other to some extent, there still remain substantial differences in the ratio of extramural features to structures between the earlier and later sites. Three explanations seem plausible:
1. The small, late sites were functionally distinct, possibly temporary habitation, field house sites; the larger sites were permanent habitation sites.
2. All of the sites were permanent habitation sites, but through time, extramural activities are increasingly carried out on ridges other than those used for habitation sites, or in nonridgetop locations.
3. All of the sites were permanent habitation sites, engaged in similar activites, but the occupational duration or intensity at the late sites was simply much reduced.
The first explanation seems the least likely, based upon data from outside the Rosemont area, combined with data on the architectural attributes of the Rosemont structures. Specifically, the field house sites defined from the SGA Project usually consisted of only one structure at each site (Dart 1983a; Deaver 1983; Abbott and Huntington 1983). That one structure was what Crown (1983, in press) has referred to as a "small structure," typified by small floor area and asymmetrical placement of postholes, hearths, and entryways (if they are present at all). All of the late Rincon phase sites at Rosemont had at least two structures. Although "small structures" did occur, of the 14 Discussion 749
Table 10.5
RATIO OF EXTRAMURAL FEATURES TO STRUCTURES AT EACH SITE BY TIME PERIOD
Number of Site Ratio of Extramural Number of Extramural Number Features to Structures Structures Features
Early
AZ EE:2:113 15.4 14 215
AZ EE:2:84 5.3 4 21
AZ EE:2:105 4.2 26 108
Mixed
AZ EE:2:76 4.4 17 74 1 AZ EE:2:77 4.4 9 40
AZ EE:2:129 1.0 4 42
Middle
AZ EE:2:107 1.2 5 6
AZ EE:2:109 1.0 5 5
AZ EE:2:120 0.6 7 4
Late
AZ EE:2:122 1.5 2 3
AZ EE:2:106 1.2 5 6
AZ EE:1:104 1.0 2 2 2 AZ EE:2:117 2 0
AZ EE:2:116 3 0
a group of 10 postholes was counted as 1 extramural feature 2 excludes noncontemporaneous extramural features
750 Alan Ferg
o Early Rincon and Earlier • Middle Rincon • Late Rincon /Early Tongue Verde
104 109 116 129 1 106 76 117 • rr 120 •,b 122 1050 84 113 • • •• • O• 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Average Number of Extramural Features per Structure
Figure 10.4 Ratio of number of extramural features to number of structures at investigated sites.
at these sites, only 1 was a "small structure." The others exhibited "standard" pit house architecture, comparable to that found in large, permanent sites throughout the Hohokam area. The same may be said of the middle Rincon phase sites, each of which had five or seven structures. Of the 17 structures present, at most 5 were "small structures."
The second possible explanation cannot be altogether dismissed, but several things suggest it is unlikely. Extramural features of the type found on the early habitation sites were found away from structures both on ridges (the early component of AZ EE:2:117, the west area of AZ EE:2:129) and off ridges (AZ EE:2:49, EE:2:52, and EE:2:136). However, it seems probable that the removal of a whole suite of activities from a habitation site would alter the makeup of its artifact assemblage. Yet, as noted, there were no significant differences between the artifact assemblages from the earlier and later sites, and a good many similarities.
The third possible explanation is that all of the sites were permanent habitation sites, and the late sites saw the same sorts of activities as the earlier, but in lesser quantity. This is considered to be the most plausible explanation. The middle and late Rincon sites were previously discussed as permanent sites, and the artifact assemblages and settlement pattern data both point to common functions at a basic level as well. Two additional points can be noted about the data in Table 10.5 and Figure 10.4. The ratios of extramural features to structures for the sites cluster into three discrete groups. The values of the ratios at AZ EE:2:76 and EE:2:84 would certainly increase with more excavation. They would also increase probably for middle and late Rincon sites and AZ EE:2:105. Still, the relative ranges of the clusters appear significant: the second cluster contains sites with about three times the proportion of extramural features as those in the first cluster (ranges 4.2 to 5.3 versus 0 to 1.5 respectively), and the third cluster (consisting only of AZ EE:2:113) has approximately three times the proportion of extramural features as the second cluster (15.4 against 4.2 to 5.3, respectively). This suggests that a rather precipitous decline in activity levels may have occurred through time. Starting in early or middle Rincon times, the duration or intensity of occupation at the sites appears to have begun to decline geometrically Discussion 751 rather than arithmetically. Again, it is possible that there may be a threshold factor related to site size or stability, that produces marked differences in total quantity of features, artifacts, and trash at a site.
Also noteworthy in Table 10.5 and Figure 10.4 are the high ratio values for AZ EE:2:113 and EE:2:84. Coupled with the presence of the nonhabitation west area of AZ EE:2:129, the relatively great abundance of extramural features at these sites suggests that the confluence of McCleary and Barrel canyons may have been one of the richest areas in natural resources, or that it was in close proximity to such areas. The same might be said, to a slightly lesser degree, of AZ EE:2:76; its ratio of extramural features to structures is not as high as the sites at the confluence, but it survived longer. That brings up a final point. The fact that AZ EE:2:113, EE:2:84, EE:2:105 and the west area of AZ EE:2:129 were all essentially abandoned at the beginning of middle Rincon times hints that the wealth of natural resources may have declined significantly by this time. The rapid change in the availability of these resources, indicates that they were probably biological. Whether these changes were the result of natural forces, overexploitation by the Hohokam, or both, will be explored more fully in subsequent sections.
Structure Architecture
It is useful to examine the attributes of the structures found at the Rosemont sites. This should help to assess their permanence and function, and the significance of these inferences in regard to the identification of functional site types within the class of habitation sites. As Crown (1983: 11-12) points out, "Studies of yearly duration of occupation have concentrated on three aspects of architecture: size or permanency of structure, presence or absence of hearths, and presence or absence of storage facilities." Six architectural attributes will be discussed here to cover the three aspects mentioned by Crown. They are discussed in the order in which they proved to be useful in segregating groups of structures: floor areas, roof support systems, entryways, hearths, presence or absence of floor grooves, and floor pits. Of 114 structures found, 105 were excavated to some degree. Architectural attributes for excavated structures are listed in Table 10.6, organized first by structure age, and then by site, feature, and floor number.
Floor Area. Of the 105 structures dug, floor areas could be calculated for 79. To keep the temporal breakdown as specific as possible, the eight structures listed in Table 10.6 as early-middle Rincon phase in age have been eliminated. The remaining 71 plotted in Figure 10.5 are classed as early Rincon or earlier, middle Rincon, or late Rincon-early Tanque Verde phase in age. Based solely on floor areas, one could tentatively suggest that four structure size classes exist, with breaks at about 6 square meters, 15 square meters, and 21 square meters. Each temporal group is represented in each of the size classes. Somewhat similar size classes, which also had continuity through time, were noted for Snaketown (Wilcox and others 1981: 158-159). If temporarily or seasonally occupied structures were smaller ** F=fragmentary;W=whole 752 AlanFerg Rillito Canada delOro Colonial Rillito/early Rincon 0=outer sill I=inner sill limited-use structure AZ EE:2:76 AZ EE:2:10571200 AZ EE:2:76 AZ EE:2:105 AZ EE:2:105 AZ EE:2:76 AZ EE:2:1136100 AZ EE:2:105 AZ EE:2:76 AZ EE:2:84 Site Numbe r 113 6300 10300 10200 6200 25 30 29 27 1 10 1 50 1 38 72 10 1 88 41 10 2 16 91 25 10 15 8 2b 8 2a 8 1 3 9 6 1 5
7 1 7 1 Fe a ture
1 Numbe r * * * W W W W F F W W W W W W 14 F W F F W W W F F W W W W W W F F F F a a 14 +
ATTRIBUTES OFEXCAVATEDSTRUCTURES + Floo r Groove Floor 22.4 20.4 23.8 20.4 24.6 25.2 18.7 12.5 18.7 10.9 12.8 11.8 12.4 13.2 16.3 8.9 3.4 7.8 3.4 6.7 rg 3 4 0 3+ 3 0+ 2 0 0+ 0+ 2+ 2+ 0 1+ 0 1 2+ 1 1+ 2 1 1
Numbe r o f F loor P its Table 10.6
Plas tere d Hearth • + + + + + + + z 0 C + + + + + + + + ------+ + + + + + + + + + Excava te d
Above—Ground . Entryway 0 . . 0 ., .... . + E + + + + + + I 3 1 Number o f Step s ------+ En tryway P it 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 3 4 2 o f Ma in Pos ts 271 340 293 145 20 29 71 80 70 26 33 22 24 78 1 1 Discussion 753
Table 10.6, continued
ATTRIBUTES OF EXCAVATED STRUCTURES
Floor Hearth Entryway
ts
s
Pos
r 0 z
0 in
be d
Step Ma
ber 0 un 0 Num f f ber d -0 Pit 0 ,
io
, - te 0 o o C 0 0 Num way
W V 3 Gro it O .
va 0 Num C 0
ture dit -0 . ber ber . , C V ve <11 G M c -- try loor
, -F' 0 G bo o C Fea F Con Site En Num Num Exca i1, a Z A z o cm 0 "0 Rillito/early Rincon, continued AZ EE:2:113 10400 F U 11 W 17.6 5 - + 55 12 W 18.1 4, - + 2 25
83 W 18.5 2+ + + - 2 5 86* W 4.5 1 0 AZ EE:2:129 1 1 F U AZ EE:2:105 11 W 9.6 0 + - + - 0 116 13 F U 74 W 16.5 0+ 2 29 AZ EE:2:76 8 3 F U 69 10 2 F U AZ EE:2:77 1 1 F U 1 2 F + U 356- AZ EE:2:105 6 2 F U 7 2 W 17.3 5, 2? 93 12 W + + 13.5 1+
50 2 W 14 4
60 W 3.4 0 - 0
71001 W + 10.0 I - + 2 95 87 W 18.7 3+ - + 2 9 90 W 3.5 U AZ 5E:2:113 7 W 7.0 0 - 0 8 W 16.1 0 + 4 28 10100 W 13.9 1 + 3 110
154 W 13.5 2 -F + - 2 110 AZ EE:2:129 2 W 16.3 2+ + - 70 Early/middle Rincon AZ EE:2:76 7 2 W a 26.3 2+ - + 21 AZ EE:2:77 1 3 W + 9.1 1 - - 2 356 2 W 8.0 U 3 W 10.4 1 1 1 17
4 W 8.1 0 + - 0 342 31 W 13.9 0 - + + 2 4 44 W 2+ 56 ' W 4.3 1? 0
105 81 24.6 7+ 8
limited-use structure — F=fragmentary; W ,whole Iinner sill 0=outer sill.
754 Alan Ferg
Table 10.6
ATTRIBUTES OF EXCAVATED STRUCTURES
Floor Hearth Entryway
ts Pits
s Pos
in
loor d ber
F C o Pit 0 f Step f Ma f d d oove ber W 0 Num te Groun o o z o m r r re r way
Gr 3 tere • va 0 tn Num tu be be -o ti be ve— W O try W 0 las 0 C . Floor P Exca Num En Num Site Fea P. Num Abo Z = to 0 -0
Canada del Oro AZ EE:2:76 25 w 8.9 4 0 1 AZ EE:2:105 10 1 F 20.4 3 20 Rillito AZ EE:2:76 8 2a F 29 8 2b F 10 1 F AZ EE:2:105 71200 W 22.4 3 - 2 71 72 271 Colonial AZ EE:2:76 3 la + + 8 1 w 3+ +
16 14 3.4 0 - - 0 27 1 F 23.8 + 26
29 14 7.8 2 - + - 1 70
AZ EE:2:105 5 W 25.2 2+ - + 145 6 1 W 0+ + 7 1 F 24.6 2+ + + 340 9 W + 18.7 3 - + I - 2 80 10 2 W 20.4 + 0 293 30 W 3.4 1 - - 0 38 14 10.9 0+ - + 1 1
41 14 18.7 0+ + + 33 50 1 F 1+ + AZ EE:2:113 6100 14 12.5 0 - - 10200 F + 10300 F 1+ + + 24 Rillito/early Rincon AZ EE:2:76 7 1 F AZ EE:2:84 1 W 6.7 1 - 0 10 W 12.8 0 - 78 15 W 16.3 0 + - 4 25 F + AZ EE:2:105 88 W 2+ - 91 W 13.2 1 + + 3 22 113 6300 W 12.4 1 - 2 6200 14 11.8 2 2
* limited-use structure F=fragmentary; W=whole 1=inner sill 0=outer sill
4
nnin El q 1 rn p n q 1n , q i I 1 4 o I 2 m 1111 14 115 16 FLOOR AREA IN M 2
4 ,n nn in n n 1-1 11 , EH n n p 1 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 FLOOR AREA IN M 2
late Rincon /early Tongue Verde
middle Rincon
0 early Rincon and earlier
proposed boundaries between structure types a 3ST T1 SS UOT Figure 10.5 Types and temporal associations of structures plotted by floor area. 756 Alan Ferg and less substantial than permanently occupied ones (Crown 1983: 11; Adams 1978; Doyel 1978b; Pilles 1978; Rodgers 1978), the 3.4 to 5.9 square meter Rosemont structures could be interpreted as functionally distinct from the larger classes. The three larger classes could be viewed as types of permanent structures.
Roof Support. At least four, and possibly six types of roof support systems were present among the Rosemont structures. There were structures with no major roof support posts, one central major post, two major posts along the structure's long axis, and three major posts along the structure's long axis. The Feature 15 pit house at AZ EE:2:84 may have had a four post roof support system (Fig. 3.10), but the floor was too badly rodent disturbed to permit confirmation of this pattern. The Feature 8 pit house at AZ EE:2:113 (Fig. 3.21) appeared to have four major uprights along the structure's long axis. No other examples of this arrangement were found in the Rosemont area, and Feature 8 may simply have been a remodeled house of the two central posts type. Both of these types involving four major uprights are equivocal, and accordingly, figure in only a minor way in the definition of structure types.
When plotting structures by size and by number of major roof support posts (Fig. 10.6), three possible structure types stand out: (1) all of the 3.4 to 5.9 square meter structures with no major uprights; (2) all single central post structures; and (3) all structures with three major posts. The remaining structures with no major posts or two major posts crosscut several of the size classes.
Temporally, there are no clear patterns. Three-post structures occured in early and middle Rincon times. Single-post structures might have been more common in middle and late Rincon times, but because 32 of 59 early Rincon or earlier structures were too poorly preserved to determine roof support pattern, this is not certain. Two-post structures appeared to be slightly more common than structures with no major posts in middle and late Rincon times. For earlier times, the situation is again made vague by the high percentage of damaged structures.
The squared, four-post roof support pattern is often thought of as typically Mogollon (Wheat 1955: 56; Bullard 1962: 128-130), but it occurs commonly in Anasazi pit houses and is not uncommon in Hohokam sites (Greenleaf 1975: 36; Haury 1976, Fig. 3.28; Kelly 1978: 12). With only a single possible example among the Rosemont structures, this form is of more interest in terms of cultural contacts than in house typology construction.
On the other hand, structures with three main roof support posts along the long axis do appear to be more common among the Mogollon (Bullard 1962, Fig. 28d-f; Sayles 1945, Fig. 21). No clear Hohokam examples could be found. Some of Di Peso's Type 3 and 4 pit houses at Paloparado might qualify (1956: 236, Fig. 32); however, it appears more likely that these are varieties of two post pattern houses. Since only Structure with 0 C) entryway 4- O Structure lacking entryway 0 Structure locking conclusive 4-6 entryway data ei) Structure with "=--'1 floor groove 3- PIT HOUSES (2) Structure with plastered hearth cn Structure with i-- (': unplastered u) 0 `-' hearth a_ 4-6 6-7 7 Structure 1--- 0 lacking hearth cc O o , 0 2_ Structure locking a_ OCDOO OC)C1 001 0 conclusive a. hearth data cn o 000 os 00000ki5 oe i _ 7 Estimated u_ occupancy 0 0 3-5 ct oo 0 1 PIT HOUSES
MAIN c 0 06 00) F 1-3 R O 4-6 6-7 7 BE r ol 1 0 o oi,/ 0 NUM 0- 1 io 0 0 i 0 0 0 00 () C): 1 o o c.Dol _
1 LIMITED USE a
STRUCTURES sT 00
UNKNOWN- sno 0 0 O o 00 0 O00 00 s
1 uoT 2 4 6 4 10 12 14 16 IB 20 22 24 26 28 FLOOR AREA (m2)
Figure 10.6 Architectural attributes of structures. 758 Alan Ferg three examples of three-post houses were found at Rosemont (Feature 8 - Floor 4 at AZ EE:2:76, Feature 10100 at AZ EE:2:113, and Feature 91 at AZ EE:2:105), this is proposed as a rare but typologically distinct house type.
Finally, single central roof support posts were thought to be solely a Mogollon form (Bullard 1962: 130-131). However, a single late Snaketown-early Gila Butte phase structure from the Phoenix Basin (Cable and Allen 1982: 43-46; Cable and Doyel 1983, Fig. 9) and possibly three Rincon phase structures from the Tucson Basin (Greenleaf 1975, Figs. 2.8, 2.9, and 2.19) appear to be examples of this form. It is interesting that Greenleaf (1975: 27) remarks on the absence of local prototypes for his structures, although it was their shape and storage pits which he noted as unusual rather than their roof support system. The intermediate location of the Rosemont area between the Tucson Basin and Mogollon area to the east, and the relative abundance (8) of these structures at Rosemont, suggest that both the Rosemont and Tucson Basin examples were ultimately Mogollon inspired.
Although their restricted size range was partly dictated by their roof construction, single central post houses also appear to have integrity as a structure type, based on the consistent presence of hearths and entryways. This will be discussed later.
A summary of the species of wood used for structural members in 27 structures at 11 Rosemont sites is given in Table 10.7. Structures with no major central posts and those with one-, two-, and three-post roof support systems are represented, covering all time periods. All of the tentative size classes are also represented, except for the 3.4 to 5.9 square meter group. Juniper accounted for the bulk of the wood used in all the time periods and structure types. Oak and pinyon are also represented, but insofar as the sample size allows, they show no patterns with regard to time period, structure size, or roof type. Rather, a certain idiosyncratic or opportunistic behavior is suggested with regard to wood selection, with most structures containing mostly juniper, but with a few containing mixtures of wood types.
Entryways. The presence or absence of entryways is plotted in Figure 10.6. Essentially, all structure size and roof support classes exhibit such entryways, except very small structures with no major roof supports. It was determined that a distinction could be drawn between temporary and permanent habitation structures. Limited-use or temporary structures are defined as those lacking entryways and having a floor area of less than 7.5 square meters. This includes structures not originally members of the small class of structures tentatively defined earlier as floor area in Figure 10.5. For both isolated field houses and small structures within permanent habitation sites, Crown (in press) found that excavated entryways on the SGA Project small structures were usually absent, or, if present, they were aberrant in position or orientation. A similar situation appears to be present in the Phoenix Townsite field house data (Cable and Allen 1982; Cable 1984). Discussion 759
Table 10.7
WOOD IDENTIFICATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL MEMBERS IN PIT HOUSES AT THE ROSEMONT SITES
flora
li or
" u aj a a us A j rp la m a is u 00. u 0 Total lans a known Structural Member 0 "Un
ti Jug Prosop Cercoca N
Main Post, 1 of 1 2 1 3
1 of 2 10 2 1 13
1 of 3 1 1
Wall Post 20 13 5 2 1 1 42 29.6
Entryway Post 2 2 1.4
Inner Sill 3 3 2.1
Outer Sill 3 3 2.1
Sill Post 7 7 4.9
Possible Cremation Pyre (inside house) 1 3 4 2.8
Unknown 22 27 11 1 1 1 1 64 45.1
N 70 44 17 3 Total 3 2 2 1 142 % 49.3 31.0 12.0 2.1 2.1 1.4 1.4 0.7 100.0
The integrity of the single central upright structures as a distinct type was also strengthened by the entryway data; all possessed excavated or extended entryways.
A number of variations in entryway construction occurred, but none were numerous enough or significant enough to figure in defining structure types. Two pit houses had aboveground entryways; that is, the entryways were not excavated into the ground. When leaving these houses, a person would step up onto the prehistoric ground surface where the entryway joins the body of the structure, rather than at the outer end.
Two pit houses had preserved wood sills at the outer end of the entryway, two had them at the inner end, and one house had both (Fig. 3.42). Feature 2 - Floor 2 at AZ EE:2:116 (Fig. 3.40) and Feature 7 - Floor 2 at AZ EE:2:76 (Fig. 3.6) had floor grooves which went out into the entryway and then cut across it. Whether or not these portions of the groove served to seat wood sills is unknown. 760 Alan Ferg
Other kinds of variability were also present in entryway construction, but were infrequent. Six structures had from one to three steps in their entryways. Four structures, all at AZ EE:2:105, displayed entryways placed asymmetrically in the wall. Ten structures had floor pits located at the juncture of the entryway and pit house body, or immediately behind the entryway. These may have been intrusive pits, or perhaps water traps, as Haury (1976: 56) suggested for such a feature at Snaketown. One pit house at AZ EE:2:84 had a low clay ridge across the base of the entryway which could also have served to keep water out of the house interior.
Hearths. Plastered hearths and unlined pit hearths were found in structures of all time periods, size classes, and roof support types except the limited-use structures. None of the limited-use structures had plastered hearths, and about half had no hearth at all, again differentiating them from pit houses.
Ash pits were associated with both plastered and unlined hearths in six pit houses. These were behind the hearth in three cases, and between the hearth and the entryway in three cases.
Floor Grooves. It is not clear whether using a floor groove in construction of a pit house was related to the structure's size or to the building materials being used, or whether it was more a matter of individual preference. Regardless of the purpose, the presence of floor grooves (which serve to anchor wall poles, matting and so forth) can probably be viewed as an indicator of the intended permanence of the structure and possibly of the amount of planning and preparation that preceded its construction. Twenty floor grooves were found (Table 10.6), and 17 are plotted in Figure 10.6.
Floor grooves were present throughout the Hohokam occupation of the Rosemont area. They occurred in one-, two-, and three-post pit houses of all sizes, but not in structures without a main post, whether they were small or large. This may have been more a matter of local choice than construction constraints, since both small and standard size structures lacking major uprights could still possess floor grooves (Haury 1932: 17, 32; Greenleaf 1975, Figs. 2.3, 2.5; Cable and Allen 1982, Fig. 20). The frequency of floor grooves in houses with plastered hearths is noteworthy. It suggests that floor grooves may have been part of more permanent houses. Of the 13 pit houses with floor grooves, for which hearth type could be ascertained, all had a hearth, and 46 percent (6) had plastered hearths. This was a considerably higher proportion than the frequency of plastered hearths for all Rosemont structures (15 of 105, or 14%).
Finally, floor grooves occurred in 19 percent of all Rosemont structures (20 of 105), and in 30 percent of all Rosemont structures with major posts (12 of 40). AZ EE:2:113 had a total of 14 structures, of which at least 7 had major roof support systems. It was surprising to find that none of these structures had floor grooves. However, this Discussion 761
would have been in keeping with the strong Mogollon influence at the site, which was clearly visible in the presence of San Simon series trade pottery, inhumations, and possibly in the projectile points. Peripheral floor grooves have never, to the author's knowledge, been reported in Mogollon structures.
Floor Pits. There was no evidence for any change in the rela- tive number or size of floor pits in structures through time, or within the various size and roof support classes (Table 10.6). Floor pit data indicated that limited-use structures may have had only one floor pit or none at all, and that all of the pit house types may have had from none to several, in no apparent pattern. Thus, floor pits are of no value in separating functionally discrete types of structures or sites.
Another type of floor pit can be noted here. There are sets of very small pits in the Feature 8 pit house at AZ EE:2:113 (Fig. 3.21) and the Feature 3 pit house at AZ EE:2:107 (Fig. 3.33). In both houses, the sets of five small pits are located near the structure's hearth. In Feature 8 at AZ EE:2:113 there are at least 15 small pits. Twelve of these form a patterned grouping of six sets of two in one corner of the structure. What manner of interior activities or constructions these represent is unclear.
Functional Structure Types. Five structure types are proposed for the Rosemont area. These are based on the analyses of floor area, roof support systems, the presence or absence of excavated or extended entryways and floor grooves, and the presence or absence and type of hearth. Four of these were permanent habitation structures (pit houses), and one was a temporary habitation or nonhabitation (limited- use) structure (Figs. 10.7, 10.8, 10.9).
The four pit house types are morphologically distinct from one another, primarily in terms of their roof support systems, and secondarily, in their size ranges and elaboration of construction. The actual functional significance of these different forms is not clear in that they all appear to have been used for permanent habitation. With the possible exception of three-post houses, all appear to be present throughout the Hohokam occupation. For two-post and no-post pit houses, the size classes tentatively proposed in Figure 10.5 may reflect structures of a particular size, built specifically to house families or pirmary groups of different sizes. Following Wilcox's use (Wilcox and others 1981: 158-150) of Cook's (1972) formula, which allows 2.3 square meters for each of the first six persons in a structure and 9.3 square meters for each additional individual, household sizes for the various Rosemont structure types and subtypes can be suggested (Fig. 10.6). The object here is not to attempt precise population estimates, but rather to present a possible explanation for the variation seen in pit house sizes.
An interesting benefit of the definition of house types here is that a number of incomplete structures can be more fully reconstructed. •
762 Alan Ferg
AZ EE 1.104 AZ EE 2 77 Feature -1 Feature -4
• AZ EE 2 77 Feature-56 • a
O Hearth C • Posthole O Other feature Meters 0 I 2 • • • • I• • •• • . 0 ••
AZ EE 2 77 AZ EE 2 76 Feature -31 d Feature -7 AZ EE 2 105 e Feature -91
•
• 1-- - "
f Figure 10.7 Maps of functional structure types. a, Limited-use structure; b, pit house with no central post; c, pit house with one central post; d, pit house with two central posts; e, pit house with three central posts; f, largest pit house found, probably with two central posts. See Figure 10.8 for photographs of the same structures. Discussion 763
a
g - 1100."
•
en' "'" -
e f Figure 10.8 Photographs of functional structure types. a, Limited-use structure; b, pit house with no central post; c, pit house with one central post; d, pit house with two central posts; e, pit house with three central posts; f, largest pit house found, probably with two central posts. See Figure 10.7 for maps of the same structures. 764 Alan Ferg
°Entryway Step
3001 • • • 0• • •3002 •
Rillito (?) phase early/middle Rincon phase
AZ EE 2:76 • Feature - 29 AZ EE•2:77 • Feature - 3
middle Rincon phose late Rincon phose AZ EE . 2 . 107 • Feature-5 AZ EE 1 . 104 Feature -1 0 Hearth cf Complete flake • Posthole Flake 0 Pit Hommerstone • Wood beam m Mono Ca Rock 5 Sherd Meters 3002 Feature number 0 2 wb Wood beam
Figure 10.9 Examples of structures with single central posts. Discussion 765
In particular, the five pit houses with floor grooves but for which the roof support system is unknown (bottom of Fig. 10.6) can all be inferred with some certainty to have had a two- or (less probably) three-post roof support system, and entryways. This is based on their size, the absence of floor grooves in structures without posts, and the co- occurrence of attributes such as entryways, floor grooves and, to a lesser extent, plastered hearths, floor plaster, and entryway pits in pit houses of more substantial or elaborate construction.
Limited-use structures were relatively distinct from the pit house types. Even within the limited-use structure "type" there was noticeable variation in floor area, long axis orientation, and the presence and number of hearths, postholes, and other floor features (Fig. 10.10). The Rosemont limited-use structure type may well be a category made up of several smaller groups of functionally dissimilar structure types.
In discussing small structures in Phoenix Basin sites, Crown (in press) has thoroughly examined the attributes of ethnographically known structures from southern Arizona and northern Mexico, and compared them with the Hohokam data. While noting that the uses and attributes of prehistoric small structures may well have differed from the ethnographic examples, she then indicates four types of information that are the most useful in assessing the possible functions of small structures. In order of importance, these are: structure location relative to permanent habitations; presence of interior features; floral and faunal data, and floor artifacts. Crown notes that structures involving ritual avoidance (menstrual, puberty, childbirth huts) would be more often encountered on the edges of a settlement, whereas huts housing the elderly and nonhabitation structures (sweat lodges, basket-making huts, storage structures) would be close to permanent habitation structures. She notes that identifying the settlement "core" and "fringes" may be complicated by the difficulty in dating individual structures, combined with the tendency of Hohokam settlements to "drift" through time. In the Rosemont sites, it was impossible to make a distinction between location in the heart of the site or on its edges, because of dating constraints and the compact nature of these ridgetop sites. Some structures seemed to be in the midst of permanent pit houses, while others seemed relatively isolated on the extreme up or downslope ends of the ridges. Neither did the degree of isolation covary with other limited-use structure attributes. Therefore, intrasite location did not aid in separating types of limited use structures. Nevertheless, because of the restricted nature of ridgetop settings, it seems probable that the Rosemont Hohokam may well have had conceptions which were very different from those of their flatland cousins as to what constituted an isolated structure. Floral and faunal remains from the Rosemont limited-use structures were either absent or no different from those out of pit houses and trash. The variation seen in limited-use structure size and shape seemed unpatterened with respect to each other, or to other attributes. This leaves only floor features and floor artifacts on which to base functional inferences for the Rosemont limited-use structures. Data on the Rosemont limited-use structures is presented in Table 10.8. It is organized first by presence, type, and number of
766 Alan Ferg
AZ EE:2:109 • Feature-4 AZ EE:2:120 Feature -3
1 0010
0 • 1002 •
AZ EE:2:84 Feature -1 AZ EE:2:113 Feature -86
Unexcavated • Posthole Hearth G .0 CA Rock 0 2 1001 Feature number U c Core c 0 Metate 0 Meters rp Retouched piece 0 I 2 s Sherd
Figure 10.10 Examples of limited-use structures. Table 10.8
ATTRIBUTES OF LIMITED-USE STRUCTURES AT ALL SITES
Possible Functions
ion t
ion nce
ing bita n e
les
les lus ber e he ho fer c h Ha t ho t dg t king t itc a Hous ir Num Re l Se ly tm e a P. Lo Pos t h K L anen
YJ $4 ldb ke ure
tur $.4 0 rm us ll Pos 50 ■ lder loor •- Bas E Chi Br Swea Ritua Fig
a Pe F Wa Shape Age Site Number Fea = a. Floor Artifacts
early Rincon 3.16 - + + AZ EE:2:105 60 3 1(?) - - 15 0 3.4 round ? ? - ? ? AZ EE:2:113 7 1 3 bone awl, 2 bones, - 13 8 7.0 round early Rincon 3.20 1 sherd 2 flakes Rillito or early Rincon 10.12 + + AZ EE:2:8 1 1 1 metate(?) - 5 1 6.7 round late Rincon 10.13 + + AZ EE:2:10 1 1 0 metate, sherds, + 0 0 4.4 subrectangular hammerstones middle Rincon 3 . 35 7 7 7 ? AZ EE:2:120 8-2 1 0(?) - - 0(?) 1(+) 5.4 oval Rillito or early Rincon 10.12 - ? ? ? ? - AZ EE:2:113 86 0 3 - - 0 0 4.5 round middle Rincon 10.12 - - - + ? ? - - AZ EE:2:120 3 0(?) 1(+) 2 sherds, 2 lithics - 9(+) 0(?) 7.4 oval middle Rincon 10.12 - ? ? ? ? AZ EE:2:109 4 0 1 - - 0 0 7.0 subrectangular early or middle Rincon 10.9 - - - + ? ? - AZ EE:2:77 56 0 1(?) hammerstone - 2 - 4.3 round - - 7 9 9 7 AZ EE:2:76 16 0 0 - 0(?) 0 3.4 subrectangular Ca8ada del Oro 3.8 3.35 - - - ? 7 7 7 '7 AZ EE:2:120 7 0 0 - - 0 0 5.9 round middle Rincon Colonial 7 10.13 AZ EE:2:105 30 1 3 1 sherd (?) - 23 15 3.4 oval ** AZ EE:2:105 90 2 ? na - 6(+) 0 3.5 oval early Rincon 10.13 na na na na na round? early Rincon or earlier 3.11 AZ EE:2:105 99 na na (I AZ EE:2:120 8-1 na na na na 6 0(?) na unknown middle Rincon 3.3 OST
roasting pit-hearths, possibly intrusive
not applicable SSTI OT U 768 Alan Ferg hearths, and second, by number of floor pits. It is evident that these structures tended to be impoverished in terms of associated artifacts and floor features. Some of the recovered artifacts even lacked good contextual relationships with the structures.
An inventory of the "possible function" correlations is included in Table 10.8. This is based on the ethnographic data compiled by Crown (in press) with some modifications. Lack of floor asemblages and unclear spatial relationships repeatedly leave structures open to multiple functional interpretations. Because of the many options available, no detailed discussion of individual structures is justified here, but two general comments are in order.
First, the nature of Features 30 and 90 at AZ EE:2:105 was not at all clear. Feature 90 may well originally have been a flat-floored structure with wall postholes which was later intruded by two roasting pit-hearths (Fig. 10.11). This could also be interpreted as some form of construction made in conjunction with the hearths. Feature 30 (Fig. 10.11), with its mass of postholes, is also confusing. There is no clear indication of whether the roasting pit-hearth was intrusive, or an integral part of the feature. "Shallow post hole-hearth clusters" which were vaguely similar have been reported from the Phoenix Townsite excavations (Cable and Allen 1982: 55, Fig. 31; Cable 1984: 247), and a ramadalike function has been suggested for them. All things considered, the possibility should at least be left open for consideration that Features 30 and 90 on the Ballcourt Site (particularly the former) might have been an elaborated form of extramural feature rather than a limited-use structure.
The second comment recalls the first 11 structures in Table 10.8. It is not possible to objectively separate what may have been considered an isolated location from an integrated location on these ridgetop sites. Even taking this into account, all of these structures were relatively close to permanent pit houses. Some of these structures could possibly have been tiny permanent habitations themselves. The most common limited-use structures one would expect to find on a habitation site would be related to storage and food preparation, as most extramural features appeared to be. It seems highly probable that among the five limited-use structures with hearths, some would have been brush kitchens of the sort Russell (1908: 156-157, Plates 6b and 36) described for the Pima; and that among the six without hearths, some would have been storage structures. Tagg (Chapter 6) suggested a brush kitchen identification for a few of these structures, based on the presence of ground stone and the simple nature of their contruction. Haury (1932: 27-28, Fig. 8) also proposed this identification for a small, amorphous structure with a hearth and metate at Roosevelt:9:6 (Fig. 10.11).
Disposal of the Dead
Crown's (1983) second data category to be used in assessing the permanence of site occupations is disposal of the dead. The presence of Discussion 769
AZ EE . 2:105 • Feature -30 AZ EE:2:105 • Feature-90
AZ EE:2:106 • Feature -1 Roosevelt:9:6 Brush Kitchen Unexcavated • Posthole ED Hearth
Metate 0 2 0 Rock Meters 1001 Feature number 0 1 2 h Flammerstone 0 s Sherd 2
Figure 10.11 Examples of limited-use structures. 770 Alan Ferg
burials is often considered to be an attribute of permanently occupied sites (Crown 1983; Doyel 1978b; Pilles 1978). As Crown pointed out, however, the reverse is not necessarily true: the absence of burials is not a positive indication of temporary site occupation. Using this criterion, AZ EE:2:76, EE:2:77, EE:2:84, EE:2:105, EE:2:107, EE:2:113, EE:2:120, and EE:2:122 would all be considered permanent sites, with the status of AZ EE:1:104, and AZ EE:2:106, EE:2:109, EE:2:116, EE:2:117, and EE:2:129 left open (Table 10.4).
Disposal of Refuse
Crown's (1983) third data category for assessing site permanence concerns the quantity and method of trash disposal. On the SGA Project sites, permanent sites had confined, substantial trash disposal areas, while temporarily occupied sites had less dense, more dispersed sheet trash. For the Rosemont sites, this criterion must be modified somewhat to suit the topographic settings. Well defined concentrations of trash were found, but they were in the forms of trash-filled pit houses or borrow pits, or trash on ridge slopes. Also, it is suggested here that while abundant trash may indicate a permanent site, the reverse is not necessarily true. The absence of substantial deposits does not necessarily indicate a temporarily occupied site. For permanent sites with low activity levels, or sites intended for permanent habitation but which did not survive long, trash would be sparse. However, the trash present would presumably be deposited in the same way as on larger, more intensely occupied sites. For AZ EE:1:104 and AZ EE:2:76, EE:2:77, EE:2:105, EE:2:106, EE:2:107, EE:2:109, EE:2:113, EE:2:116, and EE:2:120, the trash-filled houses and borrow pits served as indicators of permanency. For AZ EE:2:84, EE:2:117, EE:2:122, and EE:2:129, other data categories must be considered for information.
Site Structure
Crown's fourth data category for assessing site permanence consists of examining site structure. She suggests that
. . . sites intended for permanent occupation were planned in some fashion when first constructed, with the plan upheld during the tenure of occupation, and . . . in some sense the Hohokam cultural system dictated a blueprint for such site construction, regardless of size. In contrast, temporary habitation structures do not appear to have followed the strictures in this rigid way . . . (Crown 1983: 13).
She proposes examining structure orientations and the locations of trash deposits and burials relative to structures. These could be used as indicators of the complexity or consistency of a site's layout and the concomitant likelihood of its having been a planned settlement for permanent habitation. Discussion 771
Pit House Orientation. Initial examinations of the Rosemont site maps produced the impression that most orientable pit houses had their entryways facing in northerly or northeasterly directions. This was not surprising, because within the Barrel Canyon drainage network most of the ridges are aligned more or less south to north, sloping down towards the north. Howard (1982: 7) has argued that
Residential structures may be located in respect to slope, drainage, sunlight or available building materials. In the initial stage of village development, it is the physical environment which will exert the primary influence . . . . Once village growth has begun, a new factor, that of the cultural environment, begins to exert limiting parameters on facility placement.
It was hoped that the physical factors affecting pit house orientation could be readily identified, making segregation of the cultural factors involved easier and their explication that much clearer and convincing. Unfortunately, all of the sites except AZ EE:1:104 were on northerly oriented ridges. The physical environment was so consistently limiting that no variation of consequence remained by which to judge the respective importance of on-site drainage and slope, orientation towards or away from the sun and wind, and the role of any cultural proscrip- tions in the orientation of pit houses. Nevertheless, the topographic settings of the Rosemont sites were radically different compared to the essentially flatland sites of the Phoenix and Tucson basins. It is important to attempt to isolate the environmental factors, so as to be able to assess their impact on the Hohokam "blueprint" as exhibited in basin sites.
Wilcox and others (1981: 162) suggest that the predominance of eastward and southward entryway orientations at Snaketown may reflect efforts to maximize exposure to the warmth and light of the sun. One possible interpretation of the northern and eastern preferences seen in the Rosemont sites would be that the Rosemont houses were occupied only in the summer, and were oriented to avoid the real or perceived heat of a southern exposure. This was suggested in reference to the small sites (Ferg and Huckell 1983: 22). However, pit houses on the large sites exhibit the same avoidance of southern orientations, and it seems unlikely that AZ EE:2:76, EE:2:105, and EE:2:113 were seasonally occupied. This situation simply indicates that either there was no concern with orientation towards or away from the sun, or that it was secondary to other considerations.
A more likely, but still probably secondary explanation is orientation of entrys away from the prevailing winds at all times of the year. Due at least in part to the local drainage patterns and the proximity of the ridgeline, winds tend to flow northward along the eastern face of the northern Santa Rita Mountains. Southeasterly winds during the summer also bring thunderstorms. Some of these are funneled off to the west through Box Canyon Pass immediately to the south of the exchange area, but the majority blow down the canyons, with Barrel and South canyons running in a northeasterly direction. 772 Alan Ferg
Thunderstorms bring up the subject of water and drainage. Practicality would generally dictate that entryways should not face upslope, which would allow water, mud, and dirt easier entry. Drainage has been cited as a factor which may have influenced pit house orienta- tion at Snaketown, based on correlations between pit house long axis orientations and the strike of the low ridge upon which the site was located (Wilcox and others 1981: 160). To examine how important drainage was in influencing entryway orientation at Rosemont, the size of the range of variation for pit house orientations was determined (individual pit house orientations are in Table 10.6) and compared to the steepness of the slope across the habitation area for each site (Table 10.9). Some sites, such as AZ EE:2:122, were essentially flat, while AZ EE:2:76 was built on the steepest slope. It was expected that if drainage were the primary determinant of pit house orientation, that the steeper the slope, the more restricted would be the range of pit house orientation. The three sites with the greatest number of orientable structures (AZ EE:2:76, EE:2:105, and EE:2:113) did show this kind of trend, but the pattern broke down among the smaller sites. Such variability is probably not solely attributable to the smaller number of orientable houses from the sites, as suggested by AZ EE:2:77. This was on a negligible slope, comparable to that of AZ EE:2:105, and had five orientable houses, but it had an extremely restricted range of house orientation. Slope and drainage were clearly contributing factors to pit house orientation, but not the only factors.
The most obvious difference between AZ EE:2:76, EE:2:105 and EE:2:113, and the remainder of the sites, was the absolute sizes of the ridges on which they were located, in particular the width of the ridges. Comparison of the range of pit house orientations for a site in relation to ridge width (Table 10.9) also showed a limited correlation, with the range of orientation decreasing as ridge width decreased, up to a point. A visual display of the data (Fig. 10.12) makes obvious a second point: except for AZ EE:2:105 and EE:2:113, all of the sites showed a range of 90 degrees difference or less in their range of orientations. At flatland sites, orientational preferences have been shown to have modes which differ by approximately 90 degrees. Sedentary period houses at Snaketown have four such modes, with houses facing east, west, south, and north-northeast (Wilcox and others 1981: 160- 162), creating house clusters with their common focus structures being arranged at right angles to one another. Figure 3.32 (AZ EE:2:107) shows that a steep slope and narrow ridge (Table 10.9) does not necessarily prevent pit houses from being oriented essentially at right angles to the long axis of the ridge. So why are there no examples of houses facing each other across a ridge, producing two modes of orientation 180 degrees apart? All sites on ridges narrower than about 30 m exhibit a range in orientation that does not exceed 90 degrees. This suggests that the Hohokam "blueprint" for habitation site layout may have dictated that houses less than about 20 m apart and directly facing one another were unacceptable. Since such arrangements are known from flatland sites (Wilcox and others 1981, Fig. 40, Cluster 4, Houses 6 and 9; Huntington 1982: 93), this suggests that either the "blueprint" was modified for use on the narrow ridges of the Rosemont area, or that it was acceptable at Rosemont as well, but the resultant facing into the AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ EE:1:104 AZ EE:2:120 AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ EE:2:107 Site Number EE:2:122 EE:2:117 EE:2:109 EE:2:129 EE:2:116 EE:2:106 EE:2:77 EE:2:113 EE:2:105 EE:2:84 EE:2:76 PIT HOUSEORIENTATIONANDRIDGE A )4-4 0 16 4 3 8 2 3 4 5 1 2 4 7 1 1 Or ie n tab le Houses 30 25 20 20 25 25 50 20 25 18 20 20 25 60 Ri dge Widt h (m ) Table 10.9 234 105 35 69 84 86 24 57 17 78 SLOPE 1 DATA BY 3.0 0 0 0 6.5 6.3 2.1 8.0 5.0 2.2 2.9 9.0 2.1 1.7 R i dge S lop e SITE Discussion 773 271-145 341-38 352-70 342-17 307-33 • U c(S (1) 42-59 ▪ 24-48 13-14 5-110
Or ien ta t ion 8-92 1-70 (24 (C) ...... , - z 0 0 oD w w 0
60^ 1050
50^ • 113
40- c
• rc•° 30 — • 76 E 106 77 3 116•• • •129 E 0 20 120 104 .• N. No of House Pits • • — 7-16 109 • — 4 -5 • — 2-3
10—
1 1 1 1 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240
No of Degrees in Range of Pit House Orientation Figure 10.12 Relationship of pit house orientation to maximum ridge width, Discussion 775 wind of the westerly or southwesterly-facing member of such a pair was not (Fig. 10.13a). Similarly, houses at right angles to the ridge's long axis, facing westerly or southwesterly, would be unacceptable because of wind (Fig. 10.13c). Other facing houses, even if they were well separated by placement at either end of a ridge, would place the downslope house in an unacceptable position with respect to drainage, and the possibility of intruding existing or planned cemetery areas (Fig. 10.13b).
Two final points can be made about pit house orientations in the Rosemont sites. Wilcox, McGuire, and Sternberg (1981: 162), drawing on Bullard's (1962) data, noted that in Anasazi and Mogollon house clusters, "the difference in doorway orientation between the houses in each cluster is closer to 45 degrees than to the 90 degrees at Snaketown." The display of pit house entryway orientations for the Rosemont sites in Figure 10.14 showed several instances of house orientations divided by approximately 90 degrees. This was true for both those sites least affected by slope and ridge width constraints (AZ EE:2:105 and EE:2:113, particularly the late houses), as well as some of the narrower or more steeply sloping sites (AZ EE:1:104, AZ EE:2:107, EE:2:129, and the Caffada del Oro phase houses on AZ EE:2:76). These graphs are somewhat deceiving in that on AZ EE:2:105 and EE:2:76 the houses with right angle orientations were not in close proximity to one another. It has been argued that the houses on AZ EE:2:76 were, in fact, laid out in arcs. At least on AZ EE:2:105, however, other nearby perpendicularly oriented houses may not have been found or may have been among those found but not excavated. Regardless, common focus house clusters do appear to be present, with houses arranged at right angles.
Side-by-side, "parallel focus" house pairs (such as at AZ EE:2:116, probably at AZ EE:2:117, and Features 81 and 87 at AZ EE:2:105) might also represent a type of house cluster (Wilcox and others 1981, Fig. 39, Santa Cruz phase Houses 2 and 7; Di Peso 1956; Doelle 1983: 14). Those house clusters with differences of entryway orientation of less than 90 degrees appeared to be Hohokam style, right- angle clusters that had been "compressed," possibly in deference to drainage considerations, rather than Mogollon style, 45 degree angle clusters that had been "expanded."
The second relationship visible in the Figure 10.14 charts also suggests that a common "blueprint" was in use at large and small, early and late Rosemont sites. This again indicates preplanning and permanence of all the sites in question. Not only did houses tend to be oriented at right angles or parallel to one another, but they showed a marked tendency to be oriented at right angles or parallel to the ridge on which they were located. At Snaketown (Wilcox and others 1981: 162), what appeared to be isolated houses were pointing east or south, as were their neighbors in house clusters. This apparently indicated adherence to certain building prescriptions. It is suggested that at Rosemont, the first house or houses built on a ridge were oriented either parallel to or at right angles to the ridge long axis, with drainage efficiency given secondary consideration. Which aspects of the natural environment 776 Alan Ferg
Orientation to slope acceptable; Seperation of facing entryways Close, facing entryways unacceptable; acceptable; Pit house 2 facing winds unacceptable Pit house 2 facing upslope and possibly intruding cemetery area unacceptable.
•d Orientation to slope acceptable; Orientation to slope acceptable; Entryway orientations acceptable; Entryway orientations acceptable; Pit houses 2 and 3 facing winds Orientation to winds acceptable. unacceptable.
Figure 10.13 Postulated acceptable and unacceptable arrangements of features for Rosemont area habitation sites. Letters in d indicate pits (p), roasting pit-hearths (rp), cremation deposits (c), human inhumations (b), and dog inhumations (d).
Discussion 777
EE 276 EE 2.113 EE 2107 EE 2109
270° .0° 270° —190°
MO° ISO°
EE 2.105 EE2 , 77 EE,2106 EE 2 120
270° 90° M*
100 °
EE 1 104 EE 2.116 EE•264
270°i- 0° 270 ° 90° 0°
EE2 117 EE.2.122 --> D ∎ rectJon of ridge long axis
EOrber hOuSe
LOter houSe
--- Both earl. Ond toter houSee
2 Two house ,some direction
0° Magnet, north 270° 90° 0°
Figure 10.14 Relationships of pit house entryway orientations and ridge orientations. Sites are grouped roughly by time. 778 Alan Ferg had priority over which aspects of the cultural environment is unclear. Another weak point in this speculation is the postulated "arc" arrange- ments of pit houses on AZ EE:2:76. Nevertheless, although somewhat less than completely satisfying, this assessment does seem to be more consistent with the data than do any correlations with the strike of a given ridge or with any particular compass point. AZ EE:2:105 in particular, showed more house orientations clustered in close alignment with, or at right angles to, the ridge long axis, than seemed attribut- able to chance. At the very least, it is something to be considered when more ridgetop sites are excavated in upland settings. It should be noted, however, that at the only other excavated Hohokam site in an analogous topographic setting (the Potrero Creek Site), house orientations were primarily parallel and at an oblique angle to the ridge long axis (Greginger 1971b, Fig. 1).
Distribution of Trash, Burials, and Ballcourts. Table 10.10 shows the relative locations of burials and major extramural trash deposits for those sites which had them. Although there was a certain amount of variation in burial placement, location of both burials and trash was highly patterned and consistent among both large and small sites. These aspects of site structure also indicated a common site layout "blueprint" for large and small sites, implying that all were, or were intended to be, permanent habitation sites.
Trash deposits tended to be most concentrated on the east facing ridge slopes. Even if the prevailing wind direction is discounted as a factor in pit house orientation, it might be expected to influence trash disposal. Conceivably, the extreme consistency among the Rosemont sites in the disposal of trash may have been related to the winds coming mainly from the southwest. The trash disposal at AZ EE:1:104, the only site on a predominantly east-west oriented ridge, was concentrated on the north slope, which may lend some credence to this.
The location of burials was fairly consistently outside the permanent habitation area, as defined by pit houses, and generally downslope and to the north of pit houses. The few exceptions to the general location pattern of burials are worth describing. At AZ EE:2:77, the dilapidated state of the Feature 44 pit house may suggest its abandonment early in the life of the site, possibly before many of the cremation deposits were in place. This would have left only a limited-use structure (Feature 56) located north of the cremation area (Fig. 3.31). Similarly, at AZ EE:2:120, only a limited-use structure (Feature 3) was located north of the two known cremation deposits (Fig. 3.35). These site plans could be inferred as doing two things. (1) They support the identification of "limited-use structures" as structures which were in fact limited in use. (2) They suggest that ridge extremities may in fact constitute "isolated" locations on settlement "outskirts;" being able to make such distinctions may allow closer functional identification of limited-use structures. In the case of Feature 56 at AZ EE:2:77 and Feature 3 at AZ EE:2:120, their attributes (Table 10.8) combined now with their peripheral, but not too distant, location suggests their identification as some form of Table 10.10
INTRASITE LOCATIONAL DATA FOR CEMETERY AREAS AND TRASH SLOPES
Cemetery Location Relative to Ridge Alignment Trash Slope Site Number Permanent Habitation Area (upslope-downslope) Location"
AZ EE:2:76 cremations: downslope, NE edge SW - NE inhumations: downslope, NE edge AZ EE:2:84 cremations: downslope, N edge S - N E, N, W AZ EE:2:105 cremations: downslope, N edge SW - NE E, E, W AZ EE:2:113 cremations: downslope, NE edge S - N E, N, W inhumations: downslope, NW edge AZ EE:2:77 cremations: downslope, N edge S - N E, N, W AZ EE:2:107 cremations: downslope, N edge SSE - NNW E, E, W inhumations: inside at E edge AZ EE:2:109 S - N E, E, W AZ EE:2:120 cremations: downslope, N edge S - N AZ EE:1:104 W - E N, S
AZ EE:2:106 SE - NW NE a T1D ST S
* Slope listed first has highest concentration of trash. UOT 780 Alan Ferg
structure for the ritual seclusion of a person temporarily "dangerous" to the community (Crown, in press), possibly menstrual huts.
Finally, burial location and ballcourt location at AZ EE:2:105 have several implications. Three of the four cremation deposits found at the Ballcourt Site were "correctly" located downslope and north of all but one of the known pit houses. However, they were south of the ballcourt and a probable limited-use structure (Feature 99; Fig. 3.11). The apparent isolation of the ballcourt suggests it was also a type of "limited-use structure." It has previously been noted that ballcourts tended to occur on the edge of a site. In some instances, they occurred apparently in association with plazas, or at least areas devoid of houses (Haury 1956: 8; Kelly 1963: 67; Wilcox 1979a: 111-112). However, Wilcox (Wilcox and Sternberg 1983: 186-188) has more recently suggested that ballcourts in districts that were strongly Hohokam (Phoenix Basin, Tucson Basin, and others) were often part of a complex of mounds and plazas centrally located within villages. However, in sites on the periphery of ballcourt distribution (such as Rosemont), the ballcourt was often on the outskirts of the site area and may well have functioned differently in the community than did courts in "core" area sites. It is unclear whether the apparent isolation of the ballcourt at AZ EE:2:105 was a reflection of the purposeful isolation of a ritually or socially important area. It may have been just the opposite, an indication that the ballcourt and its function were of little importance, and were better relegated to an unimportant area outside the confines of daily work. The court was small and showed no indication of excessive amounts of labor having been put into it. However, that a ballcourt was built at all suggests that it was of some community importance. In most aspects of material culture and site organization the Ballcourt Site was in no way different from the other Rosemont sites. However, the fact remains that it was from two to six times as large as any contemporaneous site, depending on how the temporal sequence is divided and how the poorly dated pit houses are placed in time.
Finally, the reason is unclear for the low number of burials on the Ballcourt Site, the largest site in the exchange area. It is unlikely that a major cemetery area was missed on this ridge. The discovery of an inhumation in a roasting pit below a ridge (AZ EE:2:52) suggests, however, that some burials may have been interred away from the ridgetop habitation areas, and that some burials from the Ballcourt Site may have been placed in the washes below the site. The presence of a ballcourt may somehow have proscribed the presence of a cemetery on this site, although there is no evidence of this kind of behavior at other excavated sites with ballcourts. Nevertheless, of the four cremation deposits found, the only datable one was Canada del Oro phase in age, and along with the others, may have predated the ballcourt's construction.
Summary: Functional Site Types and Intrasite Organization
It has been argued that all of the sites under consideration here were habitation sites, based on the presence of pit structures on Discussion 781
each. All of the sites are also argued to have been permanent because all possessed substantial, architecturally standardized pit houses. These were arranged in a consistently structured layout, often integrated in consistent ways with burial and trash deposits and certain kinds of extramural features and limited-use structures. Similar kinds and proportions of artifact types and major artifact classes were present at all sites. Settlement location data suggested that all sites were located primarily with respect to drainage segments that could be floodwater farmed. From this largely subsistence-oriented viewpoint, all of the Rosemont sites could be considered functionally the same.
From the vantage point of settlement size, and following the definitions of the SGA Project, three site types can be said to be present: farmsteads, hamlets, and villages. These are useful categories for organizational purposes, but it should be remembered that settlements could be dynamic and one type could be transformed into another through growth or decline. Rephrased in terms of the Rosemont Hohokam data, they might be something like "new farmsteads" (two contemporaneous pit houses), "stable or growing farmsteads," and "sites with ballcourts."
It is suggested that for "new farmsteads" (probably budding off from established farmsteads), two pit houses was the minimum settlement size. AZ EE:1:104, AZ EE:2:116, EE:2:117, EE:2:122, and EE:2:129 all possessed two house pits. In no case could absolute contemporaneity be demonstrated between two pit houses, but the pattern was so consistent that it was a reasonable inference, and no examples were found of sites consisting of only a single permanent structure. Using the population estimate formula noted previously, and assuming two houses were built upon arrival, the founding size for these sites would have been from 7 to 12 people, presumably two families. This should not be confused with the size of the first groups to arrive at AZ EE:2:76 and EE:2:105 in Caftada del Oro times. These initial colonies appear to have consisted of perhaps four or five families each. One final aspect of "new farmsteads" was that of the two pit houses on each site, one was large or substantial in construction or both, and the other was smaller or lacking in formal attributes or both. The reason for these disparities is unknown. Wallace (1983: 4, 6) reports similar paired late Rincon phase structures in four Tucson Basin sites, noting that, in two cases, the more amorphous structure appeared to have been a storage structure. The significance of these analogues for the interpretation of either the pairs at Rosemont or those in the Basin is unclear at this time. This was also the only evidence of patterned distribution of house types in the Rosemont sites.
The distribution and significance of farmsteads, hamlets, and villages (or new farmsteads, stable or growing farmsteads, and sites with ballcourts) will be addressed in the fourth research domain section. 782 Alan Ferg
Economy and Subsistence
Flat land for site locations, arable land, lithic materials, water, and faunal and floral resources appear to have been available throughout the exchange area below the 5400 foot contour (see Chapters 3 and 9). Glass (Appendix A) has detailed faunal exploitation in the habitation sites, and Miksicek (1984a) and Thompson (Appendix C) have reported the floral data from flotation and pollen samples, respectively. Perhaps most important, however, is Phillips' (Chapter 9) argument that the overriding factor in site location selection was proximity to floodplain land in drainages that could be floodwater farmed. In the absence of good methods by which to evaluate the relative importance of hunting, gathering, and agriculture at a site, this is the best indication that farming may well have been the core of the Rosemont Hohokam subsistance strategy, as it was in the basin and flatland sites.
Essentially all the resources available in the Rosemont area were probably accessible to all the sites in question. In spite of this, localized concentrations of some of the resources may nevertheless have influenced settlement patterns and been in turn influenced by subsistence activities. Patterns of resource use may well be part of the explanation for the ultimate abandonment of the Rosemont area. This aspect of subsistence will be examined in the last research domain section. It should be borne in mind that efficiently exploiting an environment was not necessarily the same as being well adapted to it, and it is possible that the Hohokam essentially exhausted the Rosemont area. The following discussions of hunting, gathering, and agriculture will be more narrowly focused on characterizing Rosemont Hohokam subsistence in general, and contrasting it with information from the Tucson Basin and other lowland areas. Since the Rosemont sites are at present the only group of upland sites to be thoroughly excavated, this is the first time such comparisons have been possible.
A final note concerns the nature of the Rosemont paleoecological data. As with the artifact assemblages and extramural features, the quantity of subsistence data shrinks dramatically at the later, smaller sites. However, the subsistence data indicate that the same kinds and proportions of subsistence activities are occurring at both the larger, early sites and smaller, later sites. This line of evidence thus also hints that, for whatever reason, the late sites were unable to achieve the same levels of occupation intensity as the earlier sites. This issue too will be addressed more fully in the last research domain section.
Hunting
Twelve of the 14 excavated habitation sites yielded faunal remains, including a wide range of mammals, reptiles, and birds (Appendix A). Certain of the results will be mentioned briefly here, Discussion 783 because they contrast with what have come to be regarded as "typical" Hohokam animal use patterns, based on the assemblages from basin or flatland sites.
Rabbits were most consistently represented at these sites, occuring at all but two of those sites that produced bone. Three taxa were represented: Sylvilagus sp. (cottontail), Lepus californicus (black-tailed jack rabbit), and Lepus alleni (antelope jack rabbit). Jack rabbits outnumbered cottontails by as much as a two-to-one margin. The presence of antelope jackrabbit in the archaeological fauna is interesting, for this grassland species is not present in the modern fauna of the exchange area (Roth 1977), and was presumably not present there prehistorically.
Deer are the next best represented animal in the assemblages, with both white-tailed (Odocoileus virginianus) and mule deer (0. hemionus) having been identified. Positive identification of deer was made at 7 of the 12 sites yielding bone, and 2 additional sites yielded unidentifiable large mammal bone fragments that could represent deer. White-tailed deer bones were found to outnumber mule deer bones by a significant margin. This would be expected from the distributions of the two species within the exchange area. At some sites, deer remains were as abundant as those of rabbits, although at other sites, rabbit bones were clearly the more numerous. However, when evaluated in terms of meat yield per individual, deer were probably more important than rabbits to the Rosemont Hohokam as a source of meat.
Two other large artiodactyls were also present: pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana) and bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis). Four of the 12 sites produced pronghorn (AZ EE:2:76, EE:2:105, EE:2:109, and EE:2:113). Until recently, the antelope was a common animal in the grasslands of the Cienega Valley south and east of Rosemont. While never abundant at any one site, their presence suggests that Rosemont Hohokam may well have ranged into the Cienega Valley on hunting expeditions. The presence of the antelope jackrabbit remains already noted may provide further support for this idea. Three of the 12 sites with faunal remains contained a small number of bighorn sheep bones (AZ EE:2:76, EE:2:105, and EE:2:113). The nearest population of these animals today is in the Catalina Mountains, although it is suspected that they must have formerly occurred in the Santa Rita, Empire, or Whetstone mountains nearer Rosemont (Hungerford 1977). Although they do not appear to have formed a very important game species for the Hohokam in this area, the venturing of hunting parties outside the Rosemont vicinity may again be implied. As Glass (Appendix A) notes, artiodactyl procurement patterns appear based on a species' availability in the immediate vicinity of a site. As such, white-tailed deer outnumbered mule deer, which in turn outnumbered pronghorn, with bighorn sheep being taken least often.
The paucity of rodent remains was notable; rodents were identified at only four of the 12 sites producing bone (AZ EE:2:76, EE:2:105, EE:2:113, and EE:2:129), and only in small numbers. Although abundant in the Rosemont area today (and presumably so prehistorically), 784 Alan Ferg it seems clear that the Hohokam did not consider them a preferred food item when other, larger mammals were available.
The faunal assemblage also included rare examples of large cats, bobcats, foxes, larger wild canids, domestic dogs, hawks, turtles and tortoises, lizards, and snakes. Taken in its entirety, the assemblage suggests that the Hohokam thoroughly exploited the rich local animal life, concentrating primarily on the abundant rabbits and deer.
Gathering
As it does today, the Rosemont area presumably also offered the Hohokam a rich assortment of edible plant foods, most of which were probably already familiar to them. Flotation samples from all the excavated sites yielded carbonized seeds, shells, or other parts of edible or useful plants.
It is difficult to gauge the relative importance or degree of reliance the Hohokam placed on these plants. Differences in the processing technology associated with each of the seeds and fruits, their differential susceptibility to weathering, and their physical characteristics all had an effect on whether or not the plant was likely to be represented in the archaeological record, and in what quantities. However, as documented by the flotation analysis, it seems probable that wild chenopods, pigweed, walnuts, and agave saw widespread use. Acorns, juniper berries, mesquite beans, squawberries, and prickly pear were probably also exploited with some regularity. Again, caution must be used in the interpretation of these results. Logic would dictate, for example, that acorns must have been exploited to a great degree, given their local abundance. However, acorns were recovered from only six of the sites. Nonetheless, it is clear that the Hohokam occupants of the Rosemont region took advantage of the rich upland flora.
Agriculture
Unfortunately, only a sketchy understanding exists of the kind of agriculture and the intensity with which it was practiced in the Rosemont area. As noted earlier, the area afforded situations that would appear to have served admirably for floodwater farming, and the sites were apparently purposely located near these areas (Chapter 9). Flotation samples from all of the sites produced carbonized corn remains in the form of cupules, kernels, and stalk or tassel fragments. Curiously, corn was the only well-represented cultigen in these samples. Only one common bean, one tepary bean, and two bean cotyledon fragments were identified at four sites. Cucurbit remains were also found at four sites. Panicum seeds were also recovered at three sites, but probably were not from a domesticated species. Three sites also yielded what may have been a domesticated chenopod, Chenopodium berlandieri, subspecies Discussion 785
nuttalliae (Miksicek 1984a). Only at one of these sites was it present in any numbers, and these may simply have been large seeds from wild plants.
While it is conceivable that the Rosemont Hohokam were specializing in the production of corn, it is known that beans and squash preserve poorly when compared with corn. Differential preservation probably accounts for some of the discrepancies in their representation. Another line of evidence, suggesting a less narrow agricultural focus, comes from the pollen analysis (Appendix C), where samples from features and mano and metate washes showed extremely high frequencies of Cheno-Am pollen. These archaeological samples may reach 95 percent Cheno-Am pollen. Modern surface samples yield 20 to 30 percent Cheno-Am pollen. It seems quite likely, therefore, that chenopods, amaranths, or both were being grown as crops by the Rosemont area Hohokam. Present-day Tarahumara farmers encourage Cheno-Ams in their corn fields (Bye 1979), as do the Papago farmers still involved in traditional agriculture (Teiwes and Nabhan 1983:28). It is possible that more than one species from these two families may have been grown, either as encouraged wild plants or deliberately sown domesticates. Corn and Cheno-Ams were thus probably prominent in the agricultural efforts of the Hohokam in the Rosemont area, but it is difficult to ascertain their importance relative to beans and cucurbits. Pollen analysis provides no evidence to suggest that either of the latter crops was any more common than was indicated by the flotation analysis. Interestingly, even if beans were a very minor crop, corn and amaranths (seeds and leaves) nutritionally complement each other in such a way that a diet of only amaranth seeds and corn, although perhaps bland, would have been complete in all essential amino acids and contained a good deal of protein as well (Miksicek 1982: 136-139). Essentially, the same would have been true of a combination of corn and chenopods (seeds and leaves) (Weber 1978), and Gasser (1981: 333) feels that the abundance of Chenopodium found in Hohokam sites allow one to legitimately refer to it as a staple.
Virtually no direct evidence about the nature of fields and farming techniques was found. Examinations of the canyon bottoms and wash floodplains throughout the survey, testing, and mitigation phases failed to produce evidence of either fields or water control devices. Neither rock piles, linear borders, grid gardens, nor runoff control features could be detected on the surface of the wash bottoms nor could they be found in the banks of the minor arroyos that dissect the canyons today. While it is possible that such features simply did not exist, it is likely that water control features were used, but that they were constructed of wood and brush. Examples of such features are illustrated by Teiwes and Nabhan (1983: 16, 19) for Papago floodwater farming. Some sort of water control features would be essential for farming in the area, both for channeling water to crops and also for protecting fields from occasionally heavy, potentially dangerous runoff. 786 Alan Ferg
Contrasts with Basin Sites
Assessing the relative importance of hunting, gathering of wild plant foods, and agriculture has proven largely impossible for any particular time period in the Hohokam occupation of the Rosemont area. The same can probably be said for Hohokam populations in the Tucson Basin as well. Estimates for the historic riverine Pima suggest that 30 to 40 percent of their diet was derived from gathered wild plant foods; 50 to 60 percent, from agriculture; and 10 percent, from hunting. Estimates for the Papago are 65 percent gathered plant foods, 20 percent cultivated foods, and 15 percent hunted foods (Castetter and Bell 1942: 56-59; Crosswhite 1981: 62). It is difficult to compare these with the Rosemont data. On the one hand, given the upland wealth of plant and animal foods unavailable or rare in basin settings, there could have been greater emphasis on gathering and hunting with less reliance on agriculture. Conversely, that staple of the lowlands, mesquite, appears to have been little used and was perhaps unavailable in the exchange area. At the Valencia Site along the Santa Cruz River in the Tucson Basin, either corn or mesquite could be considered the most important plant taxa, depending on how the data are interpreted. However, Doelle (1983: 4) points out that it has been argued that charred wild plant remains are more likely to be present in the archaeological record than are domesticates (Bohrer 1976: 249), and concludes that corn was probably the principal staple at the Valencia Site. Using Doelle's line of reasoning, corn may also have been preeminent in the Rosemont diet, since it was recovered from all 14 sites. Chenopods were recovered from 12 sites, but at only 3 sites were chenopods found in as many or more flotation samples than was corn. Also, if some or all chenopods were being purposely grown or encouraged in corn fields, agriculture would have to be viewed as the primary focus of Rosemont Hohokam subsistence.
The only other important point to be made concerning the subsistence strategies of the Rosemont area Hohokam, concerns permanence or seasonality. As researchers have explored more and more of the Hohokam area, it has become clear that a variety of farming techniques were used under various circumstances both within and outside of areas capable of being canal irrigated (Masse 1979b, 1980b; Dart 1983b; Crown 1984b; Doelle 1976; Raab 1974). Frick's (1954) survey along both sides of the Santa Cruz Valley from Tubac to Sahuarita has long tantalized basin archaeologists because of the sites he recorded in the upland areas away from the river. Doyel noted that it was "tempting to state that . . . such sites represent temporary camps for exploiting localized or seasonally available resources . . ." (Doyel 1977a: 97-98). Although these sites remain uninvestigated, it is now clear that upland areas in southern Arizona were host to a variety of Hohokam sites including substantial settlements engaged in agriculture. The Rosemont sites and many of those recorded in the Tortolita Mountains (Hewitt and Stephan 1981) clearly show that these areas were also home to the Hohokam, over substantial periods of time. These residents were doubtless participating actively in the Hohokam regional system, along with their lowland relations. Discussion 787
Areal and Regional Relationships
The physical evidence of trade contacts in the Rosemont sites consists of marine shell, nonlocal stone materials and nonlocal ceramics. Other kinds of data have perhaps greater implications for cultural contacts, but are not so easily sourced and quantified as those mentioned. These latter data categories include social organization, mortuary customs, and human biology. Each of these topics will be discussed below.
Trade Goods
Shell
With no evidence for the reduction of whole shells, it would appear that most, if not all, shell arrived in the Rosemont area as finished pieces. In all likelihood, shell items were probably being obtained from the Tucson Basin. The only other source for Rosemont residents would have been through their limited contacts with Trincheras Culture folk. These contacts, like those with the Phoenix Basin, were probably indirect. From the fairly limited quantity of Trincheras pottery in the Rosemont sites, the Tucson Basin seems the more likely source for the shell at Rosemont. A number of broken Rosemont specimens were apparently reworked, suggesting that the supply from the Tucson Basin was limited or expensive. What may have been traded into the Tucson Basin in return for shell goods is unknown.
Nonlocal Stone
Exotic stone items were quite rare in the Rosemont assemblages. A few pieces of flaked obsidian, a single bird pendant of Del Rio argillite, and 39 steatite disk beads were the only certain nonlocal stone items found. All were presumably coming into the Rosemont area from source regions to the north, with Del Rio argillite from near Prescott, steatite probably from near Young (Lange 1982), and obsidian from the Superior-Globe area. The little exotic stone that was found in the Rosemont area seems, like the shell, to have arrived via the Tucson Basin. An alternative source might have been through settlements on the San Pedro, but excavations at some of these (Franklin 1980; Tuthill 1947), while producing perhaps more obsidian, were equally poor in carved exotic stone.
It seems probable that at least some of the turquoise found in the Rosemont sites may have been available from local, copper-bearing rocks in the Rosemont area, but trade from the aboriginal turquoise mine near Gleeson (Fulton and Tuthill 1940: 36) is also a strong possibility. Turquoise, either local or obtained from the east, may have been a commodity that Rosemont residents could have traded into the Tucson Basin. A number of pieces of worked turquoise and pendant blanks were 788 Alan Ferg found, indicating that the Rosemont Hohokam were working turquoise. Whether this was solely for personal use, export, or both cannot be determined without knowing the geologic source of the stones.
Intrusive Ceramics
There were essentially three possible sources for the intrusive ceramics at Rosemont: Hohokam buff wares from the Phoenix Basin, the San Simon series Mogollon red-on-browns from further east in Arizona, and Trincheras Purple-on-red and Nogales Polychrome from somewhere to the south, possibly beyond the international border. Two unidentifiable black-on-white sherds from the same jar were the sole representatives of Anasazi groups. No Mimbres branch Mogollon ceramics were found, even though Mimbres Classic Black-on-white has been found in Rincon phase deposits (Greenleaf 1975: 76-77; Kelly 1978: 77; Huntington 1982: 114; Simpson and Wells 1983: 54, 80). The remainder of the red-on-browns and the Rio Rico Polychrome are considered to be of local manufacture, although some of the former could have been imports from the Tucson Basin proper. Table 10.11 lists the intrusives by area of origin, site and time period.
Trade with the Phoenix Basin was the most consistent, with Hohokam buff wares occurring at nine sites in three of the major temporal groups (Table 10.11). San Simon series Mogollon pottery occured in six sites in three temporal groups, and Trincheras series pottery, in three sites, but only in the early Rincon or earlier time period. It was suggested (Ferg and Huckell 1983: 34) that the complete absence of Trincheras ceramics at middle and late Rincon sites indicated an early Rincon end-date for the manufacture of this pottery. However, Johnson's (1963: 182-183) review of the dating for Trincheras Purple-on- red suggests dates of manufacture from A.D. 800-1100 and possibly later. Bowen (1976, cited in Phillips 1984b: 31) believes that Trincheras decorated pottery continued to be made until just after A.D. 1300. Hence, the absence of Trincheras culture ceramics in middle and late Rincon phase contexts at Rosemont can be attributed to one or more of three factors: (1) sampling vagaries due to small sample sizes and rarity of Trincheras pottery; (2) reduction or cessation of Trincheras pottery export during this period; (3) decreased contacts with the Trincheras area starting in early or middle Rincon times. Unfortunately, knowledge of the Rosemont sites and the Trincheras culture is not detailed enough at present to permit assessment of which factors might be more likely. Trincheras ceramics were apparently either less desirable or more difficult to obtain than the Hohokam buff wares and Mogollon pottery, for they constituted only four to five percent of all intrusives at AZ EE:2:76 and 105, and 17 percent at AZ EE:2:113 (Table 10.12).
The relative popularity of San Simon series Mogollon pottery and core area Hohokam buff wares, and the relative strength of contact with these areas, is difficult to assess. Except at AZ EE:2:113, all sites in the project area clearly showed Hohokam buff wares as the dominant intrusive (Table 10.11). At AZ EE:2:113, however, San Simon series
Discussion 789
Table 10.11
INTRUSIVE CERAMIC COUNTS COMPARED WITH TOTALS OF DECORATED SHERDS AND ALL SHERDS
Intrusives ds r
he
;..1 ds co w o d S
E —1 > o w her S 4.., .,--1 E m E O co te z o o .--1-1 0 l l w 0 .._ C.r) ■-1 0 l co o $4 o 4-4 o ta ta cora ta $.4 00 •-I W O 0 CO
x To To De (n P-1 1-4 Ps1 cn Z H To
Late Rincon AZ EE:2:122 0.0 — — — 0 1 58 AZ EE:2:117 0.0 — — — 0 105 160 AZ EE:2:116 1.7 — 2 — 2 115 646 AZ EE:2:106 0.0 — — — 0 91 356 2 2 2 AZ EE:1:104 26.8 26 — — 26 97 214 Middle Rincon AZ EE:2:120 5.6 6 — — 6 107 775 AZ EE:2:109 0.0 — — — 0 50 142 AZ EE:2:107 4.6 14 2 — 16 345 1,811 Early/middle Rincon AZ EE:2:77 4.9 533 73 — 60 1,218 2,557 Early Rincon or earlier AZ EE:2:84 8.5 26 — 26 305 619 3 3 3 AZ EE:2:113 8.8 144 68 44 256 2,921 8,167 AZ EE:2:105 8.2 186 27 9 222 2,694 15,667
Mixed 3 3 AZ EE:2:76 8.8 186 28 11 225 2,573 8,452 AZ EE:2:129 2.0 8 — — 8 408 1,069
1 Percentage of decorated sherds composed of intrusive types 2 Representing a single jar 3 Additional sherds from whole vessels were not used in percent computation 790 Alan Ferg
Table 10.12
PERCENTAGES OF INTRUSIVE SHERDS GROUPED BY REGION, FOR THE FOUR LARGEST ROSEMONT ASSEMBLAGES
Region AZ EE:2:76 AZ EE:2:105 AZ EE:2:113 AZ EE:2:77
Hohokam Buff Wares 82.7 83.0 56.3 88.3
San Simon Mogollon 12.4 12.1 26.6 11.7
Trincheras 4.9 4.0 17.2
Total 100.0 99.1* 100.0 100.0
N = 225 N = 224* N = 256 N = 60
* Two northern Arizona black-on-white sherds make up the remainder of the intrusive sherds from this site.
Mogollon pottery made up a substantially greater part of the intrusives and might be considered dominant in light of the two whole bowls from cremation deposits. Two possible explanations seem plausible, and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. First, if the assignment of six structures at the Ballcourt Site and five at AZ EE:2:76 to the Canada del Oro phase is tenable, then some 20 percent of the Ballcourt Site occupation and 30 percent of the occupation of AZ EE:2:76 occurred before the settlement of AZ EE:2:113. One could posit that with the initial colonization of the area from the Tucson Basin, trade other than that already established with the Phoenix Basin did not exist. As the population of the Rosemont sites increased, so did their contacts and trade relationships with Mogollon areas to the south and to the east. Hence, the discrepancy in quantity of San Simon pottery between the earlier Ballcourt Site and AZ EE:2:76, and a slightly later AZ EE:2:113 could be explained in this manner. However, even if this explanation is correct, it could not by itself account for the abundance of Mogollon sherds at AZ EE:2:113. Thus, a second hypothesis is that whatever the nature of the Mogollon culture influence or contact in the Rosemont area, its major impact was upon the inhabitants of AZ EE:2:113. This is suggested on the basis of two facts. First, Mogollon San Simon series sherds were more than twice as abundant at AZ EE:2:113 than at the Ballcourt Site (in absolute numbers), in relation to the total number of sherds recovered at each site. However, San Simon sherds were propor- tionately almost five times more abundant at AZ EE:2:113. Second, of the 23 inhumations from the project, 10 came from AZ EE:2:113. Excluding subadult inhumations, eight of the 14 adult inhumations from the project Discussion 791 came from AZ EE:2:113. At Texas Canyon (Fulton 1938: 12), cremation deposits were found with both Hohokam and Mogollon ceramics, while inhumations were accompanied by only Mogollon pottery. The association of San Simon series Mogollon pottery and the practice of inhumation seems clear.
AZ EE:2:113 also exhibits a substantially greater proportion of Trinceras culture ceramics than do either AZ EE:2:76 or EE:2:105 (Table 10.12), and it could be argued that AZ EE:2:113 was the main recipient not only of Mogollon influence, but of Trincheras culture influence as well. Alternatively, this may indicate that Trincheras ceramics were coming to the Rosemont area through Mogollon middlemen. The Gleeson (Fulton and Tuthill 1940) and Tres Alamos (Tuthill 1947) sites both produced Trincheras Purple-on-red, but in quantities smaller than Rosemont. This suggests a third interpretation of the inordinately high proportions of San Simon series and Trincheras series ceramics at AZ EE:2:113: the inhabitants of AZ EE:2:113 were obtaining pottery "directly" from Trincheras sources and trading it eastward into the Mogollon area, possibly in exchange for ceramics from that area. Based on these possible interpretations, it might be further speculated that AZ EE:2:113 was rife with entrepreneurs. Any number of combinations of incoming and outgoing commodities can be imagined, as has been discussed with preceding sections of this chapter.
Cultural Influences
Architecture and Community Organization
At the level of architecture and intrasite organization, Mogollon influences seem to be minimal. One-post and three-post pit houses may have derived from San Simon branch architecture, but other Mogollon features such as long entryways, or deeply excavated houses with squared corners, did not appear. The absence of floor grooves in all the houses on AZ EE:2:113 and the presence of a stone platform may be reflections of the substantial Mogollon influence seen at that particular site. Although house clusters occur in both the Hohokam and Mogollon areas, the arrangements at Rosemont more closely approximated the right-angle pit house orientations seen in core area Hohokam sites than they do the 45 degree angle orientations postulated for structures in Mogollon house clusters (Wilcox and others 1981: 162).
In terms of religious or community architecture, Rosemont again showed the strongest ties with the Hohokam area in that one site possessed a ballcourt. Interestingly, this is also an aspect of Hohokam influence that can be seen clearly in San Simon branch sites. San Simon Village and two other sites in the area (Wilcox and Sternberg 1983, Fig. 6.1, Courts 132-134) also have ballcourts. Hohokam influence may also have been the explanation for a court at a Trincheras culture site on the upper Santa Cruz River in northern Sonora (Wilcox and Sternberg 1983: 127). What the presence of courts in the San Simon and Trincheras areas implies about regional relationships is quite unclear at this 792 Alan Ferg time, although Wilcox and Sternberg (1983: 189-217) have postulated a series of linked, interacting "local systems," each made up of a ballcourt community and neighboring sites which lack ballcourts.
Mortuary Practices
The burial assemblages from the Rosemont sites included a wide variety of types of both cremation deposits and inhumations. Counting individuals provided slightly different numbers than did counting burial deposits. However, for present purposes, the Rosemont sites can be said to have produced a total of 75 burials, approximately 70 percent (53) of which were cremation deposits and 30 percent (22) of which were inhumations (Table 10.13). Both inhumation and cremation apparently took place from Cafiada del Oro phase times through the middle of the Rincon phase, although a number of burials of each kind could not be dated precisely. Burial practices in late Rincon phase times are uncertain, since only one primary cremation could be assigned to this time period on the basis of a radiocarbon date. Dongoske summarizes the physical anthropolgy of the Rosemont burials in Appendix D.
Cremation Deposits
The 52 secondary cremation deposits were found on seven sites, with the one primary cremation found on an eighth (Table 10.14). They were often clustered together near the northern, downslope edge of the permanent habitation area of sites, apparently indicating use of discrete, consistently placed cemetery areas. These areas occasionally superimposed abandoned extramural work areas and structures. They were less often intruded themselves by later prehistoric features. In three instances, cremation deposits were disturbed by extramural features, and in two instances they were disturbed during the interment of an inhumation. The rarity with which cremation deposits were disturbed, even in large cemeteries, has lead various researchers to suggest that knowledge of the locations of cemetery areas and even individual deposits were maintained by oral tradition (Di Peso 1956: 545; Greenleaf 1975: 101) or by grave markers (Greenleaf 1975: 101; Ferg 1983b: 212- 213; Doyel 1977a: 20). Gregory (1983) has suggested the sherd piles capping some deposits may have been visible on the prehistoric ground surface, and Sires (1983: 572-580) has argued that earth mounded over deposits would have indicated their locations. Several of the Rosemont deposits (Features 1, 44, and 47 at AZ EE:2:76, Feature 147 at AZ EE:2:113) may well have had pots protruding above the prehistoric ground surface, covered by dirt mounds.
Attempts to discern patterns in the distribution of grave goods were largely thwarted by the usual problem of not being able to determine the age or sex of many of the cremated individuals. It appears, however, that some adults and subadults were interred with no accompanying grave goods while others were interred with several plain or decorated ceramic vessels, pieces of shell jewelry, and, less often, bone artifacts, minerals, crystals, chipped stone items, and palettes. Table 10.13 NUMBER OF INHUMATIONS AND CREMATIONS BY TIME PERIOD
1 2 INHU TIONS CREMATIONS
adults/adolescents fetuses/infants secondary deposits primary
- h
it d- no d Urn
c C ion c t de -o -o -,--1 te 3 w 3 ,--4 d a n a a o .--1 o r —4 x JJ a 0 a
a a a ..- .1.1 te 4-1
0 0 o ixe 0 Ex Crem Inve 4., cn P M E4
late Rincon 1 middle Rincon 2 1 2 2 2 3 4 7 early Rincon 4 2 2 1 9 early Rincon or earlier 1 4 2 3 10 1 1 5 1 1 3 10
Rillito 2 3 2 1 8
Canada del Oro 2 2 2 2 3 3
unknown 1 1 2 11 2 13 a osT
Total 6 6 2 3 17 2 1 2 1 6 25 13 5 7 50 sn Ts
1 uo N=23 (22 interments), or approximately 30 percent of all burials 2 N=51 (53 deposits), or approximately 70 percent of all burials
794 Alan Ferg
Table 10.14
CREMATION DATA
0 0 Pu* 0 W u A E W Other Associated Age of Weight 5 1, >, Site Number wz OF Associated Vessels Artifacts Individual (grams)
AZ EE:2:76 1 IU Rillito red-on-brown unworked hematite ? adult 531 4001 U Rillito red-on-brown jar subadult 60 4002 P plain ware jar sandstone slab cover adult 127 5 Rincon red-on-brown, Style A bowl ? Rincon red-on-brown, Style A jar ? subadult 3 plain ware miniature jar ?
16003 P Rillito red-on-brown bowl shell bracelet fragment 158 shell pendant fragment
22 p 64
32 U Caffada del Oro red-on-brown bowl 492 35 P 1 red-on-brown bowl sherd 131 5 plain ware jar sherds
44 U Rincon red-on-brown jar shell bead/pendant infant (1-2 yr.) 50 Rincon red-on-brown, Style B bowl shell bracelet fragment
45 P Rillito red-on-brown jar 17 46 - 2 plain ware vessels ? shell bracelet fragment, 48
47 U plain ware jar shell bracelet fragment 271 Santa Cruz red-on-buff bowl
49 P 30 51 U Rincon red-on-brown, Style A jar 382 52 P 122 shell disk beads 2 53 P 11 plain ware sherds 6
54 P 1 shell disk bead adult 299 55 e 1 shell disk bead adult 177 1 retouched piece
56 U Cafiada del Oro red-on-brown jar shell bracelet fragment infant (1-3 yr.) 45 plain ware miniature jar 4 shell disk beads plain ware miniature bowl
57001 P Rillito red-on-brown jar L. elatum fragment 139
64 P 2 red ware bowl sherds adult 151 65 P plain ware jar subadult 4 68 P 2 plain ware jar sherds subadult ? 4 3 core-hammerstones 10 rocks
AZ EE:2:77 22 P 1
23001/ P Rincon red-on-brown, Style A jar 7 52 Sacaton red-on-buff bowl
40 U Rincon red-on-brown, Style B bowl adult ? 879 Sacaton red-on-buff bowl 44003 P Galiuro (?) red-on-brown bowl 34 54 3 • -
Discussion 795
Table 10.14, continued
CREMATION DATA
0 0
1. 1+ a, M .1.J C ME S Other Associated Age of Weight W 0 1. ›. Site Number 5. Z U E Associated Vessels Artifacts Individual (grams)
AZ EE:2:84 7 U plain ware jar neonate 7 Rincon red-on-brown, Style A bowl AZ SE:2:105 28 unworked hematite ? subadult 154 41013 - adult 59 51 U Ca8ada del Oro red-on-brown jar shell bracelet fragment adult 830 4 rocks around pit lip 80 subadult 49 7001 U Rincon red-on-brown, Style B jar plain ware jar adult 1378 red-on-brown bowl red-on-brown bowl bowl awl/hairpin 7002 U Rincon red-on-brown, Style B jar bone awl/hairpin adult 869 5 shell bracelets Glycymeris pendant 1 or 2 shell pendants AZ EE:2:113 1 plain ware bowl local slate palette
4 63 7001 P adult 112 29 unworked gypsum ? 10 1 Sacaton red-on-buff sherd ? mixed with rocks 62 IU Sacaton red-on-buff quartz crystal ? adult 290 Rincon red-on-brown, Style A 2 bowls ?
70 Rillito red-on-brown jar plain ware bowl ? 80 IU plain ware seed jar bighorn humerus (proximal fragment) Galiuro red-on-brown bowl shell bracelet fragment adult 472 plain ware jar flake ? infant 22 81 U Trincheras Purple-on-red adult 154 Rillito red-on-brown bowl partial plain ware jar whole (?) plain ware jar 83015 - plain ware bowl ? adult 377 84 IU Rincon red-on-brown, Style A jar shell bracelet fragment child (6-7 yr.) 107 107001 P red-on-brown bowl ? child 4 147 IU plain ware jar 160/ 164 P Galiuro red-on-brown bowl Pecten valve pendant adult 185 Rincon red-on-brown, Style A bowl projectile point ? AZ EE:2:120 8001 P core 298 5 red-on-brown sherds ? 5 plain ware sherds ? 9 child (2-6 yr.) 11 AZ EE:2:122 2001 PC adult 859
P = pit; U = urn (bowl or jar); IU = inverted urn 796 Alan Ferg
The only pattern which could tentatively be identified was that only the adults seemed to receive intrusive decorated vessels.
Since artifacts could not be positively associated with the bone deposits in a number of cases, the incidence of different types of grave goods is not precisely known. However, 50 to 75 percent of the deposits were accompanied by pottery vessels or sherds, 10 percent or fewer had only nonpottery grave goods, and between 20 and 40 percent had no artifacts at all.
Of all the ceramic materials recovered, only one appears to have passed through the crematory fires. One or more shell artifacts were present in 14 deposits and were burned in 11 cases. In all three occurrences, the bone artifacts had also passed through the fire. Apparently, personal jewelry was cremated with the Rosemont Hohokam, but not their ceramic grave goods or the urns intended to hold their remains. Doyel (1977a: 23) notes a similar pattern in the Baca Float cremation deposits, and this is the norm in other areas as well.
Also, like the cremation deposits at the Baca Float sites, the ritual "killing" of the ceramic offerings or urns took two forms: the perforation of whole vessels, and the breakage of vessels or sherds to be placed in the grave. Two or possibly three occurrences of perforated urns were found, all at AZ EE:2:76. One jar had a hole in the lower body, which may have been intentional or could have predated its use as an urn (Feature 4001). Two jars had holes clearly punched through their bases, one from the outside (Feature 47) and one from the inside (Feature 44). The vessels in at least 8, and possibly 10 deposits were broken and then placed in the grave, and Feature 81 at AZ EE:2:113 may have had the vessels placed whole in the pit and then smashed.
Doyel (1977a: 23) also notes the apparent intentional breakage of vessel rims as a "killing" method. This was not observed in the Rosemont deposits.
Doyel (1977a: 21) used a typology of cremation deposits based primarily on the type and position of urn used. Although useful because of the detail it provides, lacking sex identifications for most of the Rosemont deposits, this encoding was somewhat too detailed for trying to interpret patterns within the Rosemont assemblage. It was better replaced by a system of grosser categories for comparisons with other assemblages, some of which have been reported in less detail. So, Table 10.14 lists the Rosemont deposits as bone placed with or without offerings in a pit ("pit") (Fig. 10.15c, and d), placed inside a ceramic vessel and buried upright ("urn") (Fig. 10.15a, b, and e), or placed in an urn and inverted in a pit, or placed on the ground and covered with an inverted bowl ("inverted urn"). Comparisons with other sites are discussed later. Discussion 797
a b
f.
i95-"4 • e f Figure 10.15 Examples of cremation deposits from AZ EE:2:77 (a and c), AZ EE:2:107 (b), AZ EE:2:113 (d), and AZ EE:2:76 (e), and a rock- covered dog inhumation (f) from AZ EE:2:113. 798 Alan Ferg
Inhumations
The 22 interments found (representing 23 individuals) were from the five largest habitation sites, with the one from AZ EE:2:52 possibly associated with AZ EE:2:76 (Table 10.15). Three instances of fetuses or infants buried in pits under pit house floors were found, but the remainder of the inhumations were clustered in extramural locations which were coincident with, or in situations similar to, the cremation cemetery areas. Only Feature 16 at AZ EE:2:113 appears to have been disturbed prehistorically, probably by the placement of either the Feature 15 or 52 inhumations. Most of the adult inhumations had rocks placed over the body, but it is unlikely that any of these were visible as markers on the prehistoric ground surface. The only possible grave marker noted for an inhumation may have been a complete metate positioned directly atop the skull of the Feature 10 burial at AZ EE:2:107.
Adult inhumations were found flexed on their sides or back (Fig. 10.16a, c, and d), seated (Fig. 10.16b, and e), or kneeling (Fig. 10.16f). Most of the burial pits, for both males and females, had been capped with rocks. Many had rocks packed around the body as well. As noted, these rocks were probably not visible after the interment was completed, but may, nevertheless, have served as buried grave markers to prevent disturbance by any subsequent excavations. The stones atop the Feature 56 inhumation at AZ EE:2:76 probably saved it from being cut into when the Feature 56 cremation urn was buried (Fig. 10.15e).
Fetuses or neonates and infants were found in extended supine and prone positions, as well as mixed in with cremated individuals in urn-type deposits. Whether the latter associations are real or the result of rodent action cannot be determined; only a few unburned elements were present in each cremation deposit. The floor pit in which one fetus or neonate was buried appeared to have been intentionally capped with stones and a clay plug. Two others had partial plain ware vessels placed over them. Whether these sherds were grave goods or were analogous to rock coverings is unknown.
None of the inhumations had any associated temporally diagnostic grave goods, and in fact, yielded few artifacts of any kind. The richest inhumation was that of a fetus or newborn, with shell and steatite disk beads, a piece of stone overlay (?), a turquoise pendant, a turquoise pendant blank, and four other pieces of worked turquoise. Whether these materials reflected inherited status or simply "personal esteem" offerings is uncertain. In light of the uniform poverty of all the other inhumations, the latter seems more likely. Three adult (probably female) and one unsexed child were buried with shell jewelry apparently around their hips or attached to loincloths or skirts. Finally, an adult male at AZ EE:2:107 was buried with a large bone hairpin and a handstone (Fig. 10.16c).
Burial position and compass orientation were not strongly patterned, but the sample was small. Burials of both adult males and females were either flexed or seated. Infants may have been the only Table 10.15
INHUMANTION DATA
Site Feature Age of Rocks Number Number Individual Sex Age Position Orientation Grave Goods Temporal Placement Cover Fill
AZ EE:2:52 1 adult F? flexed SW*-NE 2 "toggles"
AZ EE:2:76 21 fetus/neonate ? S-N partial jar, plain ware cover AZ EE:2:76 46 adult F 40-50 seated S-N -
AZ EE:2:76 56 adult F? 50+ flexed NE-SW 1 shell pendant Canada del Oro 35 shell disk beads
AZ EE:2:76 56 infant 1-2 (see F.56 cremation) Canada del Oro -
AZ EE:2:76 67 child 5-6 flexed NW-SE 124 shell disk beads Canada del Oro -
AZ EE:2:77 1003 fetus/neonate extended? ENE-WSW early/middle Rincon -
AZ EE:2:77 44004 fetus/neonate extended? S-N see text early/middle Rincon +
AZ EE:2:105 7022 infant 0-6 mo. extended? N-S partial bowl, plain ware cover early Rincon or earlier
AZ EE:2:105 51 fetus/neonate (see F.51 cremation) Canada del Oro
AZ EE:2:107 9 adult M 35-50 flexed E-W bone hairpin, handstone middle Rincon +
AZ EE:2:107 10 adult F? 25-35 seated SW-NE 2 shell pendants middle Rincon metate - AZ EE:2:107 15 young adult F 16-19 flexed NNW-SSW middle Rincon
AZ EE:2:113 2 adult M 50-60 seated SE-NW early Rincon or earlier AZ EE:2:113 3 adult M? 40+ early Rincon or earlier ? AZ EE:2:113 15 adult F 40-50 seated SW-NE early Rincon or earlier
AZ EE:2:113 16 adult M 40-50 seated W-E early Rincon or earlier
AZ EE:2:113 25 adult M 35-45 kneeling W-E early Rincon or earlier
AZ EE:2:113 52 adult M 50+ seated SW-NE early Rincon or earlier AZ EE:2:113 53 adolescent 13-16 flexed S-N early Rincon or earlier + AZ EE:2:113 72 adult kneeling? early Rincon or earlier ? + AZ EE:2:113 165 child 5 early Rincon or earlier + AZ EE:2:113 165 adult F? early Rincon or earlier + 1OSTQ * head to this direction for left entries in this column + = present SST - = absent UOT 800 Alan Ferg
b
•
14, 113 URI AL = FS2
e Figure 10.16 Flexed, seated, and kneeling inhumations from AZ EE:2:76 (a and b), AZ EE:2:107 (c and d), and AZ EE:2:113 (e and f). Discussion 801 extended burials simply because they would not require a large pit, as would an extended adult. The few compass orientations for infants were scattered, although there seemed to be some preference for adults of both sexes to be buried with the head at a southerly or westerly edge of the pit.
In terms of identifying the cultural affiliations of the Rosemont sites with regard to disposal of the dead, the predominance of cremation deposits, accompanied by Tucson Basin red-on-brown pottery, points clearly to the strongest ties being with the Tucson Basin. The regional significances of pit, urn, and inverted urn secondary cremation deposits have recently been discussed by Reinhard and Shipman (1978) and Reinhard and Fink (1982). They suggest that pit deposits were the basic Hohokam pattern in the Phoenix Basin, that urn deposits along the upper Santa Cruz were a possible reflection of Trincheras culture influence, and that inverted urn deposits (often inverted bowls covering pits) were intermediate in form and geograpical distribution between these two areas. These propositions would suggest a mixed Hohokam and Trincheras heritage for the Rosemont cremation series with its 58 percent pit, 30 percent urn, and 12 percent inverted-urn, secondary deposits. Even ignoring the possible significance of inverted urn deposits, and the fact that almost nothing is known of Trincheras culture burial practices as exhibited at a Trincheras culture site (Johnson 1963: 177-178), a southern Santa Cruz drainage preference for urn deposits over pit deposits is clear (Di Peso 1956: 540-552; Greenleaf 1975: 101; Doyel 1977: 20-24; Kelly 1978: 123-125).
Finally, the Rosemont area mixture of cremation deposits with inhumations has obvious parallels with sites to the east such as Tres Alamos (Tuthill 1947), the Texas Canyon sites (Fulton 1934a, 1934b, 1938), San Simon Village (Sayles 1945), the Gleeson Site (Fulton and Tuthill 1940) and sites near Bisbee (Trischka 1933). These could either be considered San Simon branch Mogollon sites in their own right, or heavily influenced by Mogollon culture. The term "Dragoon culture" will not be used here, since it is felt that the designation is only appropriate for Encinas phase and later materials. This point will be returned to later. Nevertheless, the practice of inhumation at all of the sites noted, and probably the Rosemont sites as well, can ultimately be traced to the Mogollon. At AZ EE:2:113 in particular, the large numbers of inhumations and the high proportion of those which were seated are strongly reminiscent of burial patterns at San Simon branch Mogollon sites. In terms of intrasite organization, the complementary distribution of inhumations and cremation deposits on AZ EE:2:113 and AZ EE:2:107 is also like the discrete clusterings of inhumations and cremation deposits seen at Site 1 in Texas Canyon (Fulton 1934b: 8) and somewhat less clearly at Tres Alamos (Tuthill 1947).
There is also the possibility that Trincheras culture influence was partly responsible for some of the willingness to inhume at the Rosemont sites. Intrusive Trincheras sherds in the Rosemont sites attest to some limited contact with that group, and both flexed and extended inhumations occur at the La Playa Site (Johnson 1963: 177-178). Inhumations far outnumber cremation deposits at the Potrero Creek Site 802 Alan Ferg
(Grebinger 1971b, Fig. 1), a site just north of the international border with substantial numbers of intrusive Trincheras ceramics.
At this time, mortuary practices for the Rosemont sites can be characterized as an amalgam of Phoenix Basin and Tucson Basin Hohokam cremation practices with Mogollon inhumation customs. Furthermore, it is possible that both the cremations and inhumations may be a reflection of Trincheras culture influence as well. Also, AZ EE:2:113 must be singled out as possessing a considerably stronger suite of Mogollon burial traits than any of the other sites examined.
Physical Anthropology
Comparisons of metric and nonmetric biological traits have not been feasible among Hohokam site burial populations because of the usually fragmented and incomplete condition of individuals recovered from cremation deposits. However, a nonmetric comparison of the inhumations from the Rosemont sites (23 individuals), Potrero Creek (37), Tres Alamos (20), the Texas Canyon sites (26), Gleeson (102), and Mimbres branch Mogollon sites further east might shed some interesting light on speculations based only on material culture and intrasite organization. How similar are the inhumations at AZ EE:2:113 to those at San Simon branch and Mimbres branch Mogollon sites? Were these individuals at AZ EE:2:113 Hohokam who chose to be inhumed, or San Simon Mogollon (or even Trincherans) who opted not to be cremated?
Summary
The questions concerning the existence and nature of boundaries between the Tucson Basin and areas to the east and south can now be considered. Approaching the same question from the opposite direction, Wheat (1955), made the following comments in his discussion of the San Simon branch of the Mogollon:
It has already been pointed out that in architecture, and in some other traits, there was no sharp boundary dividing Mogollon and Hohokam. Between the Santa Cruz and San Pedro rivers, and to some distance east of the latter, there is an area where the culture is a distinct blend of traits . . . . a culture area that is neither specifically Mogollon or Hohokam, but rather a blend of the two. . . . Architecturally, there does not seem to have been a blend so much as the application of two traditions side by side. . . . The question remains as to whether the basic group was Mogollon or Hohokam, or was from the first a blended group (1955: 202-203).
In addition to blend sites, occasional pure Hohokam sites and even a few Mimbres Branch Mogollon sites occur . . . [in the San Simon Branch area, east of the San Pedro River] (1955: 28). Discussion 803
Note that while Wheat did not use the term "Dragoon culture," he obviously espoused some sort of "blended" culture along either side of the San Pedro. He apparently did so, however, on the strength of the supposed hybrid pottery described from the Texas Canyon sites, Gleeson, and Tres Alamos (Wheat 1955: 28, 202-203). As for architecture, disposal of the dead, and stonework (apparently nonutilitarian items), he points out more of a "side by side" relationship and not a "blend." His observation about both the presence of pure Hohokam and pure Mogollon sites is also of interest. It seems clear that no sharp boundary existed between the Tucson Basin Hohokam and the San Simon Mogollon. Rather, a substantial area was encompased in which mixed sites graded from being predominantly Hohokam to predominantly Mogollon, possibly with occasional pure site intrusions relatively close to the other's "heartland." The important point suggested here is that these sites were largely mixtures of discrete Hohokam and Mogollon traits, and not a fusion or blend of the two. The mixture of easily separable Hohokam style and Mogollon style pit houses at Tres Alamos and Gleeson has already been noted (Tuthill 1947: 30-32; Fulton and Tuthill 1940: 14-20). At the Texas Canyon and Tres Alamos sites, cremation deposits were found with both Hohokam and Mogollon pottery, but inhumations at the former were accompanied by only Mogollon pottery (Fulton 1938: 12; Tuthill 1947: 48). These hardly sound like descriptions of homogenized, blended sites of a distinct cultural entity.
It is for these reasons that the term "Dragoon culture" has not been used in conjunction with the Rosemont sites. The validity of the Dragoon culture as a cultural entity continues to be debated, but without any new data from the Dragoon culture "core area." The excavations at Rosemont, Second Canyon (Franklin 1980), and Alder Wash Ruin have all produced new information on how Hohokam sites on the fringe of this area were affected. However, the only solid information on the "Dragoon" area itself came from the Texas Canyon sites (Fulton 1934a, 1934b, 1938), Gleeson (Fulton and Tuthill 1940) and possibly San Simon Village (Sayles 1945), if the last site is accepted as Dragoon. Not only were most of these sites investigated between 40 and 50 years ago, but Fulton and Tuthill (1940: 47) themselves clearly noted difficulties in segregating the "Dragoon" and Tucson Basin ceramic materials at Gleeson. Despite so much ink spilled about the supposedly distinctive, hybrid nature of the "Dragoon" series pottery types, on which the whole concept of a "Dragoon culture" is largely founded, the validity of the original definition is still open to question. I am unwilling to endorse as a demonstrated fact the supposed hybrid nature of groups in southeastern Arizona by uncritically referring to them as "Dragoon culture." There are so many strong architectural and ceramic similarities apparent with Mimbres Branch Mogollon, and it is possible that the diagnostic Dragoon pottery types were actually defined from a mixed assemblage which included Tucson Basin intrusives. Therefore, the aforementioned sites have been referred to here as San Simon branch Mogollon sites, and the pottery from Rosemont has been discussed using Sayles' (1945) typology. As a final note, if the term "Dragoon culture" can be applied to any materials, it should probably be the latter portion of the Cerros phase and the whole of the Encinas phase, whose ceramic types showed a true merging of Hohokam and Mogollon characteristics. 804 Alan Ferg
Wheat (1955: 203) also noted that more work would be needed in the San Simon branch area itself. Specifically, he recommended work in early sites to determine whether the "basic group was Mogollon or Hohokam, or was from the first a blended group." Ironically, the answer to this query may be that from the first, the group was a mixture rather than a blend of Mogollon and Hohokam. Although the data bearing on this point presently consist of a single pit house, the mixture of distinctly Hohokam traits with distinctly Mogollon traits in this area seems to have some time depth. Eddy and Cooley (1983: 25-26) excavated what they classified as a Cariada del Oro or Rillito phase pit house at AZ EE:2:34 on Matty Wash, only some 13 km (8 miles) east of the Rosemont land exchange. Thin micaceous, polished and unpolished plain and red ware sherds were found in the upper and lower fill. Eddy and Cooley stated that:
Architecturally, this structure showed stronger affinities with the Mogollon culture to the east than with the Hohokam culture, as evidenced by the long lateral entryway, the deep pit nature of the structure, and the use of the pit walls as part of the house itself. Paradoxically, the plain wares indicated that the structure was occupied by people of the Tucson Hohokam tradition as defined for this portion of the Cienega Valley. However, because this valley lies in a peripheral position to the Tucson area, a certain amount of overlap with adjacent regions may be expected (Eddy and Cooley 1983: 26).
The Rosemont sites were obviously active participants in the Hohokam regional system as proposed by Wilcox (1980), and their location in an upland, montane environment illustrates how diverse the system could be. To judge by their divergences from core area sites, however, these sites were obviously near the edge of this regional system. As with the other "peripheral" areas discussed in Doyel and Plog (1980), the Rosemont sites could be considered colonies, or on the frontier of the Tucson Basin sphere of influence and interaction. As such, they serve the valuable function of helping define the strength and extent of the Tucson Basin system. They also serve as a sign post of sorts: areas to the north and west are definitely part of the Hohokam regional system. However, not far to the east, is the geographic region in which the Hohokam and Mogollon systems overlapped. Each group apparently largely maintained its cultural identity, even while existing side by side in the same communities. The Rosemont sites thus represent an expansion of the Tucson Basin Hohokam into both an environmental zone and a geographic area not previously known to be part of the Tucson Basin system, and were probably instrumental in the transmission of a certain amount of Mogollon material culture and world view back into the Tucson Basin.
Site Distribution, Population Distribution, and Intersite Organization
This section examines the site and population distribution data, presents a tentative reconstruction of the ceramic period settlement and Discussion 805 abandonment of the area, and finally addresses specifically the social organization of the Rosemont area sites.
Population Estimates
Table 10.16 presents a listing of the estimated number of pit houses and limited-use structures for all sites, by the finest chronological divisions possible. Many of the structures on the excavated sites were quite difficult to date with much precision, as noted in Chapter 3. For example, many structures could only be assigned to the Colonial period, or "Rillito or early Rincon phase." However, for the purposes of charting the population growth and decline in the area, all structures have been assigned to one of the six temporal divisions in Table 10.16, on quantitative grounds when possible, and on a qualitative assessment when not. Similarly, the estimates of the number of structures of various ages to be found on the 18 unexcavated small sites are extrapolations based on the data from the 9 excavated small sites. The paucity of decorated sherds on the undug sites prevented any check on their exact ages. In that the small sites dug were selected from all of the geographic subareas of the exchange area, the proportions of sites of different ages are believed to be correct, or at least in the right order of magnitude. Estimates of the numbers of structures for the 18 unexcavated small sites were obtained by simply multiplying by 2 the numbers of pit houses and limited-use structures found on the 9 excavated small sites. This method was felt to be acceptable because the intent here was to simply determine the trends of growth and decline in an approximate way, not to propose precise population reconstructions. Indeed, detailed inferences are largely precluded by the very limited numbers of decorated sherds recovered from many excavated structures (and even entire sites), and by the general failure of radiocarbon and archaeomagnetic samples to provide reliable independent dating. No attempt was made to convert numbers of pit houses into population estimates because quite a few structures were too fragmentary to provide accurate measurements of their floor area for population computations. Also, the variable quality of the temporal control would make such estimates extremely tenuous. Further, it is believed to be unlikely that such population estimates would show any substantial differences from the proportions evident in the estimates of numbers of structures, because average pit house floor areas do not seem to change more than a few square meters through time (Table 10.17). To reiterate, it is the trend that we are attempting to discern, not the specifics.
Charting of the estimates in Table 10.16 can be done in any of several ways, depending on how fine or gross are the temporal divisions employed. The broader the time unit, the greater is the certainty that all the structures are accurately placed; however, the curve generated is rather coarse (Fig. 10.17a). The use of finer time units provides more detailed curves, but with less confidence as to their accuracy. Figure 10.17b and c both employ five time intervals, but one implies that population peaked and declined faster, and earlier in time, than
806 Alan Ferg
Table 10.16
ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF PIT HOUSES AND LIMITED—USE STRUCTURES BY TIME PERIOD
de r
Ve o
ue con n l Or de
0 inco Rin
R Tanq Rincon le da
ly ly a r te r dd Excavated na
i 0 La Ea Ea Ca Site Number O4 M
Large 1 AZ EE:2:105 6/0 10/2 12/2 32 Medium AZ EE:2:76 4/1 3/0 3/0 3/0 2/0 16 AZ EE:2:77 5/0 3/1 9 AZ EE:2:113 1/0 6/0 6/1 14 AZ EE:2:129 2/0 1/0 1/0 4 Small AZ EE:2:84 3/1 4 AZ EE:2:106 3/1 1/0 5 AZ EE:2:107 5/0 5 AZ EE:2:109 4/1 5 AZ EE:2:116 1/0 2/0 3 AZ EE:2:117 2/0 2 AZ EE:2:120 3/4 7 AZ EE:2:122 2/0 2 AZ EE:1:104 2/0 2 Unexcavated Sites 6/2 24/10 12/2 14/0 70
Total Pit Houses 11 19 37 43 21 21 152 Total Structures 180
1 pit houses/limited—use structures 2 numbers of structures for unexcavated sites (AZ EE:2:49, 93, 108, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 118, 119, 121, 124, 125, 126, 127, 130, AZ EE:1:101, 102) are extrapolated from data on small excavated sites. Discussion 807
Table 10.17
AVERAGE PIT HOUSE FLOOR AREA BY TIME PERIOD
2 Period or Sample Floor Area in m Phase Size Minimum Maximum Average
Colonial 12 7.8 25.2 17.9
Rillito/early Rincon 10 9.6 18.5 14.7
Early Rincon 8 10.0 18.7 14.9
Early/middle Rincon 7 8.0 26.3 14.3
Middle Rincon 13 6.7 23.3 13.7
Late Rincon 9 7.6 22.4 14.3
Late Rincon/early Tanque Verde 7 7.9 22.0 13.6
Total 66
does the other. Figure 10.17d shows a plot of points for all six of the temporal units given in Table 10.16, but it has the lowest level of confidence of the four curves. Although the four charts vary, they do serve to suggest that growth in the Rosemont area was steady (or even rapid) after its initial settlement, and that the decline was probably faster, perhaps even precipitous. Figure 10.17c and d are felt to be more accurate depictions than Figure 10.17a and b because the Rillito and early Rincon phase materials were both more abundant and more easily segregated than were the late Rincon and early Tanque Verde phase materials.
Combining the estimates of the numbers of structures with the rest of our knowledge of the exchange area sites, a very generalized scenario for the settlement and abandonment of the exchange area can be proposed. Figure 10.18 shows the known distribution of sites by time period. Sometime in the Cafiada del Oro phase, between A.D. 500 and 700, the area seems to have been intentionally colonized by an influx of several families or primary groups from the Tucson Basin (Fig. 10.18). Parenthetically, it should be noted that earlier speculation (Ferg and Huckell 1983: 12) that there might be a Snaketown phase occupation of AZ EE:2:76 proved to be false, or at least undemonstrable.
The Rillito phase (A.D. 700-900) saw the substantial growth of the three original sites founded in the area in Canada del Oro times 60 8
t 0 •(.1) H.P H. crQ
0 0 50 50 8 Q frt CD
CD ew
rt 0 40 40 ir
r a3
I—' be m rt 2a (D 30
0- Pt Nu
0 te lu 20 C Grt
I—. Abso (1) rt 11 ft) Cr) 10 0 frh (1g rt "0 0 rt r1" Caiiada del Oro Rillito/Early Rincon Middle Late Rincon Caiada del Oro Rillito/Early Rincon Middle Late Tanque Rincon / Tanque Verde Rincon Rincon Verde O pu G 0 CI) (1,
Cf) (1, Cr' n 60 60
rt H. CD 5 50 50 ro o
rt 40 frt 40 H. fD
a. • o 30 (.1) 30 co B 0 rt -0 20 20
(1) 10 10
0 Early Middle Late Rincon Caiiada del Oro Rillito Early Middle Late Tanque Pa CaFiada del Oro Rillito rt Rincon Rincon /Tongue Verde Rincon Rincon Rincon Verde 0 reflect relativesite size. Figure 10.18Distribution ofhabitationsitesbytimeperiod intheRosemontarea.Dotsizes • CANADA DELORO 109 middle RINCON • 76 • 76 I07 • ■ 6 120 129 105• 113 . • 77 EE 1:104 76 • late RINCON RILLITO 76* • I06 • 116 105 129 113 0 • early TANQUEVERDE early RINCON 76• 0 106 • 116 105e 129 117 113 • ( • 84 • 122 77
UOT S ST13 STa 810 Alan Ferg
(Fig. 10.18). Population had probably roughly doubled over the previous phase, but whether by births, additional immigration, or both is unknown. If not already built, the ballcourt at AZ EE:2:105 was probably constructed in the Rillito phase.
Early in the Rincon phase (approximately A.D. 900-1000) population seemed to have doubled again, with some of the populace apparently establishing new small sites in the vicinity of the old ones (Fig. 10.18). By the end of this time period, the largest sites, AZ EE:2:105 and EE:2:113, were abandoned.
If the population did not actually peak in early Rincon times, further increase in middle Rincon times (approximately A.D. 1000-1100) was probably minimal, and soon dissipated. Although the population was not much larger, it was now considerably dispersed into smaller sites (Fig. 10.18) due to the abandonment of AZ EE:2:105 and EE:2:113.
The late Rincon phase (A.D. 1100-1200) was a time of declining population and additional site relocation (Fig. 10.18). A few houses contained ceramic materials classifiable as transitional Rincon-Tanque Verde or early Tanque Verde Red-on-brown (Fig. 10.18), but there was essentially no Classic period occupation of the area. What population remained apparently abandoned the Rosemont area early in the Tanque Verde phase, at approximately A.D. 1200-1225.
Events and Causes Shaping Settlement and Abandonment
Canada Del Oro Phase
The Colonial period of Hohokam culture seems to have been aptly named. It was during the Santa Cruz phase and following Sedentary period (Sacaton phase) that Hohokam territorial expansion, population size, and intercultural contacts attained their greatest intensity and geographic extent. In the Tucson Basin regional system, Rillito and Rincon phase sites also appear to be more numerous and located in more topographically diverse settings than in either the preceding or following phases. The abrupt appearance of a relatively large number of families in the Rosemont area in Canada del Oro times has the appearance of an intentional colonizing effort on the part of Tucson Basin groups. However, the reasons for this southward extension are unclear. Masse (1979b: 178-179) has argued for the Tucson Basin proper that drought conditions from about A.D. 850 to 900 prompted the "rapid development of dry farming technology which had previously been used sparingly or not at all." Coupled with newly introduced superior races of corn, this resulted in a late Colonial and early Sedentary period population boom. This scenario may help explain the substantial increases in the size and number of Rillito and early Rincon phase sites in the basin proper, but, if Masse's inference of the time of these events is correct, it would not explain the earlier Canada del Oro colonization of the Rosemont area. Conversely, Masse (1979b: 178) also noted that population pressure might have been the trigger for rapid developments in Discussion 811
agricultural technology (Boserup 1965; Kappell 1974). From the limited number and extent of Cafiada del Oro phase sites found in the Tucson Basin (Czaplicki and Mayberry 1983: 36-38), it is hard to imagine this as a time of crowding; but population pressure, real or perceived, is one possible explanation for the emigration of a group of families out of the basin and into the presumably "open niche" of the Rosemont area. This situation is similar to that postulated by Doyel (1977a: 99-100) for the Tucson Basin Hohokam expansion into the middle Santa Cruz Valley in Rillito times.
Other explanations are also possible, but there is little evidence to support them. Colonization of the Rosemont area may have resulted simply from a purposeful expansion into an area in order to increase the size and resources of the Tucson Basin regional system, or from a specific desire to exploit upland resources. For that matter it could also represent the exodus of a group of malcontents from the Tucson Basin. At the present time, we simply do not know the reason for the initial colonization of the Rosemont area. As knowledge of the early Hohokam development of the Tucson Basin and surrounding areas increases, more refined inferences and reconstructions may be possible.
In Chapter 9, Phillips has made the point that access to level ridgetops, water, soil zones, and vegetation communities was relatively even throughout the exchange area, and that settlements were located primarily with respect to proximity to land along drainages that could be floodwater farmed. Two refinements or qualifications of these generalizations can be suggested. First, sites are most numerous between about 4400 and 5200 feet in elevation. A disproportionately low number of sites was found in that portion of the study area below 4400 feet (see Table 9.3). This suggests that, while proximity to floodplain areas with a less than 3.2 percent gradient was an important consideration in site placement, it was not the only consideration. If successful agriculture were the only concern, these lower elevtions, with their slightly gentler stream gradients and slightly warmer temperatures, might be expected to have been the most heavily settled. The amount of water which reached these lower portions of Barrel Canyon, as compared with those higher up, is unknown. Likewise, the effect of cold air drainage down the canyon might have neutralized the overall warmer temperature at this lower elevation, at least at the beginning and end of the growing season. Nevertheless, the most notable difference between the 4400 to 5200 foot elevation zone and the areas below 4400 feet is that of vegetation. The 4600 foot contour largely demarcates the present boundary between a pure desert grassland community and the mosaic zone of interfingered grassland and woodland (Fig. 1.2). If this boundary was in more or less the same location prehistorically, it would suggest that the Rosemont Hohokam chose to be in the mosaic zone, and that sucessful agriculture and the successful harvesting of wild plant foods and game were all necessary for survival in this upland setting. This is speculation built upon assumption, but it would help to explain the settlement pattern more fully.
Incidentally, along with avoidance of flooding and not using arable land for habitation, avoidance of cold air drainage might be 812 Alan Ferg another factor in site placement on ridge tops. This would have been secondary consideration, but something that might have made a difference during the winter. See Adams (1979) and Eddy (1977: 70) for discussions of cold air drainage in northern Arizona and southwestern Colorado with respect to both settlement location and farming.
The second qualification to Phillips' generalizations is that with regard to access to water and floodwater-farmable land, some site locations are "more equal than others." It is true, as Phillips observed, that access to water does not seem to have been a major consideration in site location, and most of the sites were next to floodplain land. Obviously, however, sites located with nearby abundant or permanent water and large amounts of farmable land would have been more likely to prosper than less fortunately located sites. These favorably located sites might also have survived during hard times when other sites might not. The original settlers of the Rosemont area seem to have taken these factors into account in selecting AZ EE:2:76 and EE:2:113 for site locations. The selection of a ridge in South Canyon for AZ EE:2:105 is less easily explained. Huckell (1984a: 240) noted that water may have been available prehistorically in South Canyon, but probably only on a seasonal basis, at best. Also, while South Canyon has a relatively wide floodplain in the vicinity of AZ EE:2:105, it is not as extensive as that at AZ EE:2:76 or EE:2:113. If suitability for construction of both a village and a ballcourt was an important consideration, then selection of the ridge upon which AZ EE:2:105 sits makes sense as it is perhaps the largest, widest ridgetop in the exchange area. Assessing the desire to build a ballcourt as a factor in site selection by the Catada del Oro colonists is difficult, however, and it is not certain that the court was constructed at this time. However, it will be argued below that it was in fact built in Caffada del Oro times.
Rillito Phase
The Rillito phase saw the growth of the Ballcourt Site and AZ EE:2:113. The prosperity of AZ EE:2:113 (and possibly the lushness of the McCleary and Barrel canyon confluence) was apparent in the abundance of extramural features at the site and the use of the nonhabitation west area of AZ EE:2:129, just up the ridge. At AZ EE:2:76, the population may either have declined slightly or remained stable at its Cafiada del Oro phase size.
It may also be asked to what extent the presence of the ballcourt on AZ EE:2:105 contributed to the site's maintenance and large size during the Rillito phase and perhaps earlier. Wilcox has proposed (1979: 111; Wilcox and Sternberg 1983: 189-217) that ballcourt sites served to integrate or articulate various levels of Hohokam society within a community, communities within local systems, and ultimately, local systems within the Hohokam regional system as a whole. This would be reflected in the presence of higher numbers of exotic goods or ritual paraphernalia at ballcourt sites. While presenting some interesting alternatives as to just how strong or hierarchical this integrative Discussion 813
system might have been, Antieau (1981: 350-357) also argues that ballcourts served such a function. He apparently also implies that the status of such sites would be reflected in a greater wealth of material goods. Wilcox and Sternberg (1983: 198) have suggested several comparisons that might help in establishing site hierarchies:
1. Are bailcourt sites larger than nonballcourt sites, and are their architectural and artifactual assemblages more complex?
2. Are these comparisons even more true of multiple-court sites?
3. Are there differential access relations that favor multiple- court sites above all others?
4. Is there any evidence that multiple-court sites have cemeteries more richly endowed than other sites?
5. Are there more households whose size is above average in bailcourt or multiple-court sites?
To queries 1, 3, 4, and 5 we may answer as follows: (1) yes, the Ballcourt Site was the largest of the Rosemont sites, both absolutely and for any given time during its occupation. No, there was no evidence to suggest that the architectual features and artifact assemblage of the Ballcourt Site were more complex than other Rosemont sites. (3) If we simply ask if the Ballcourt Site had preferential access to resources or trade, the answer is no. It may actually have had less access to water, farm land, and San Simon series and Trincheras series trade wares than other sites. (4) If we simply ask if the Ballcourt Site had a more richly endowed cemetery, the answer seems to be that it barely had a cemetery at all, and those burials present had, on the average, fewer grave goods than did contemporaneous burials at AZ EE:2:76, EE:2:77, EE:2:84, and EE:2:113. (5) There were 15 early Rincon and earlier pit houses with known floor areas on AZ EE:2:105; their average floor area was greater than the 15 comparably dated pit houses from all other sites (Tables 10.6 and 10.18). If those pit houses dated as early or middle Rincon are also considered, the small sizes of most of the pit houses on AZ EE:2:77 makes the disparity even greater (Table 10.18). This difference may be real. However, if a number of potentially large Colonial period pit houses from AZ EE:2:76 had not been largely obliterated by superimpositions (and thus available for measurement), and if the largely transitional early or middle Rincon phase houses from AZ EE:2:77 had not been included in the calculations, the two figures might have been virtually the same.
These mixed answers still leave us with no clear understanding of the role the Ballcourt Site may have played in intersite organization among the Rosemont settlements. They do not clarify the status of some or all of the Ballcourt Site residents, relative to the occupants of the nonballcourt sites. Assessing the liklihood of a pan-Hohokam-region tribute system in the Sedentary and Classic periods (Wilcox 1979a, 1979b: 112-115; Wallace and Holmlund 1982: 28-30) with the Rosemont data is beyond the scope of this report. Nevertheless, it can be suggested
814 Alan Ferg
Table 10.18
COMPARISON OF PIT HOUSE FLOOR AREA FOR PIT HOUSES AT THE BALLCOURT SITE (AZ EE:2:105) AND CONTEMPORANEOUS PIT HOUSES AT OTHER ROSEMONT SITES
2 Period or Pit House floor Area (m ) Phase AZ EE:2:105 Other Sites
Canada del Oro phase 20.4 8.9 Rillito phase 22.4 Colonial period 25.2 23.8 24.6 7.8 18.7 12.5
Rillito/early Rincon phase 20.4 12.8 10.9 16.3 18.7 12.4 13.2 11.8 9.6 17.6 16.5 18.1 18.5 Early Rincon phase 17.3 16.1 13.5 13.9 10.0 13.5 18.7 16.3 Average--early period 17.3 14.7 Early/middle Rincon 24.6 26.3 9.1 8.0 10.4 8.1 13.9 Average--all periods 17.8 14.1
that within the Rosemont "local system," the Ballcourt Site may have received material goods from other Rosemont sites in exchange for the performance of various administrative responsibilities connected to whatever social or religious activities were carried out in the ballcourt. Supporting such an idea is the fact that of the three Canada del Oro phase sites, the Ballcourt Site seems the most poorly situated with respect to natural resources, and yet it immediately achieved and Discussion 815 maintained a size far greater than its contemporaries. Of related interest was the enormous quantity of plain ware sherds at the Ballcourt Site. Although the actual numbers of local and intrusive decorated sherds were quite similar for AZ EE:2:76, EE:2:105, and EE:2:113 (Table 10.11), the number of plain ware sherds at AZ EE:2:105 was over twice that recovered at the other two sites. Were material goods, perhaps food, being supplied in plain ware vessels to inhabitants of the Ballcourt Site by the residents of the other Rosemont sites? This question cannot be answered at present.
In summary, there is some evidence to suggest that the Ballcourt Site was the ceremonial or political "center" for the Rosemont "local system" of sites, adapting Wilcox and Sternberg's (1983: 203) terminology. Its clear claim to this distinction, as seen in the relative numbers of pit houses during the Rillito phase, suggests that its differentiation was preplanned when the area was settled, or came into being very soon thereafter. It concomitantly implies that the ballcourt itself was built during or soon after AZ EE:2:105 was founded, probably in Caliada del Oro times.
Early Rincon Phase
The early portion of the Rincon phase proceeded smoothly from Rillito times, in that AZ EE:2:76 continued to appear prosperous but stable in size, while AZ EE:2:105 and EE:2:113 apparently continued their growth. Although the estimated number of structures at these latter two sites increased only slightly over Rillito phase estimates, it was presumably the excess population from these two sites which founded nearby AZ EE:2:77, EE:2:84, and the east area pit houses on AZ EE:2:129. Some or all of the unexcavated small sites that are inferred to be early Rincon phase in age probably also have their origins from people leaving these sites (Table 10.16). By the end of the early Rincon phase, however, growth at AZ EE:2:105 and EE:2:113 seemed to come to an abrupt halt, and these two sites were nearly completely abandoned at the beginning of middle Rincon times. Although we cannot be certain of the causes for the abandonment of these two sites, some suggestions can be made. Presumably, there is no reason to abandon an area unless it has become undesirable. It seems clear that the reason precipitating the abandonment of AZ EE:2:105 and EE:2:113 was neither a climatic one nor a political "policy decision." If it had been a severe climatic event, AZ EE:2:76 would also have been abandoned; it was not. By the same token, any decision made by the leaders of the Rosemont "local system" (who presumaby would have been residents of the Ballcourt Site) to abandon established sites would also have applied to AZ EE:2:76. All three sites were relatively similar in material culture inventory, and certain aspects of architecture and site layout. However, the stability of AZ EE:2:76 and the large size of AZ EE:2:105 and EE:2:113 stand in striking contrast to one another. Intense utilization of wild vegetal and perhaps faunal resources was evident at AZ EE:2:113, and AZ EE:2:105 had a population at least twice that of any other site in the exchange area. It is these two sites which would most likely 816 Alan Ferg
have severely overexploited their immediate environs; it is these two sites which were abandoned. Overtaxing even one of the food resources might have been sufficient to force relocation. If the residents of AZ EE:2:113 overhunted the area or depleted the arable land, curtailed harvests of wild plants, animals, and corn and chenopods might not have been sufficient to support the site without the occupants traveling farther afield than they felt was feasible or acceptable. The overex- ploitation of wood could also have caused the abandonment of AZ EE:2:113, regardless of whether food overexploitation occurred. Dove (1984) has rightly argued that archaeologists have generally failed to consider wood as a critical resource in reconstructions of prehistoric subsistence systems. Wood for building, firing pottery, cremation of the dead, daily cooking tasks, and possibly clearing agricultural fields by burning, could well have had a substantial impact on wood availability in a relatively short period of time. Such depletion of wood and brush could also have affected runoff, perhaps damaging floodwater farming systems and reducing the proximity and amount of game available. The use of mesquite, oak, and walnut (among others) would also have directly reduced availability of the foodstuffs derived from them. Given the "boom and bust" configuration of the known growth curve for the sites at the McCleary and Barrel canyon confluence area, overexploitation seems a probable explanation for the abandonment of AZ EE:2:113 and EE:2:84, and possibly the discontinued use of the AZ EE:2:129 West Area roasting pits. Further, if residents of these sites were contributing wood or food towards the maintenance of the Ballcourt Site, additional stress would have been created at the latter site as well. Thus it is possible that the abandonment of AZ EE:2:113 either caused, or materially hastened, the nearly synchronous abandonment of the Ballcourt Site. In short, at least for the early portion of the ceramic period occupation of the Rosemont area, reference to the colonists as "Hohokam" is perhaps the most appropriate appelation possible, for it means "all used up" (Haury 1976: 5).
Two tangential points concerning wood usage can be noted. First, juniper may have been the wood of choice for construction (Table 10.7) not only because of its durability, but also because its berries would be a far less important food source than mesquite pods, acorns, or walnuts. Second, Dove (1984: 68) proposes that a growing wood shortage might, by Classic period times, have contributed to the practice of inhumation over cremation. While inhumation in the Rosemont sites is pretty clearly a reflection of Mogollon (or Trincheras ?) influence, even in this foothills woodland area, it is conceivable that wood costs might have influenced a family with no strong preferences, or one that was vacilating between cremation and inhumation, to choose the latter form of burial.
Middle Rincon to Early Tanque Verde Phase
By middle Rincon times, according to the sequence of events postulated here, overexploitation of the immediate environment around Discussion 817
AZ EE:2:113 and AZ EE:2:105 so exhausted these areas that they could no longer support the large number of families that their original lushness helped spawn. The confluence of McCleary and Barrel canyons was largely abandoned, and in South Canyon the Ballcourt Site was abandoned. Their populations had dispersed to found new sites in previously unsettled areas further up Barrel Canyon, such as AZ EE:2:107, EE:2:109, and EE:2:120. However, these new sites, and AZ EE:2:77, did not last very long, and by late Rincon times had themselves been abandoned. New, even smaller sites were founded. Some were along upper Barrel Canyon, some were back in the previously depleted areas near the 100-year-old ruins of AZ EE:2:113 and the Ballcourt Site, and others were in previously ignored higher elevation areas (AZ EE:1:104). AZ EE:2:76 still survived with few noticeable changes in size. Population for the area as a whole might have dropped initially after the breakup of AZ EE:2:105 and EE:2:113. However, by this time, it might have been expected to have reached a stable level or possibly even to have started to grow again. Because of the difficulties in interpreting the contemporaneity and longevity of the late Rincon and early Tanque Verde phase sites, it is uncertain what actually happened. If there was a period of stable population, it did not last long (Fig. 10.17b, d). None of the new two- pit house sites appears to have lasted very long or been very intensely occupied. As Tanque Verde Red-on-brown started to flourish in other areas at or soon after A.D. 1200, the entire Rosemont area was abandoned in a very final and complete way. No pure Tanque Verde phase habitation sites or even pot breaks were found on survey, and not a single identifiable Tucson phase artifact was recorded.
Why didn't the population stabilize at some point and the occupation of the Rosemont area continue, even if in a somewhat stunted form, into the Classic period? Although many factors were doubtless involved, three may be suggested, either singly or in combination, as having been the most important. First, the Rosemont Hohokam continued to overexploit the area either purposely, accidentally, or through desperate necessity, in an attempt to support what was still too large a population for an already stressed local environment. The result was still an impoverished resource base, unable to support even the smallest group, and the area was abandoned. Second, because of events unrelated to the Rosemont Hohokam, the Hohokam regional system collapsed. Alternatively, the failure of colonies like Rosemont might have contributed to the collapse of the regional system. As a result of forces or events largely beyond their control or guidance, the Rosemont sites were abandoned for essentially political or economic reasons in the course of the general relocation and amalgamation of settlements which occurred late in the Rincon phase and early in the Tanque Verde phase. Third, increasingly unstable climatic conditions, marked by decreasing rainfall or erratic rainfall and weather patterns, eventually resulted in soil stripping and arroyo cutting, making floodwater farming increasingly difficult and finally impossible. In an area already made marginal by overuse of wild resources, an inability to raise sufficient crops proved the final blow to the Hohokam. Unable to count on their agricultural staples, the Hohokam abandoned the Rosemont area. 818 Alan Ferg
Assessing these three possibilities and their various combinations is difficult, but the evidence for each can be noted and some judgement can be made about their likelihood.
Continued abuse of the local wild plant and animal resources as a principal cause for abandonment seems unlikely, since the inhabitants of AZ EE:2:76 managed to survive in the same spot more or less continuously for some 500 years. However, in favor of this idea is the fact that middle Rincon sites also seem to have been largely abandoned, with new settlements being founded in different areas in late Rincon times. This is essentially the same pattern used in the argument that overexploitation was the basis for the abandonment of AZ EE:2:105 and EE:2:113. An important difference, however, is that none of the middle Rincon sites showed any evidence for the superintense use of the local resources, as at AZ EE:2:113 (reflected in the high number of extramural features), or for the huge population (relatively speaking) at AZ EE:2:105. Even if overuse of the environment continued, it seems that through continual shifting to new locations, at least some Classic period sites would occur, even if fewer in number and smaller in size than those of late Rincon times. But as far as our data indicate, they do not occur. The middle Rincon abandonments could be explained alternatively as the results of the beginning of serious climatic fluctuations in the area (discussed in the following paragraph). Considered by itself, continued overuse of the environment does not seem to be a likely explanation for final abandonment of the area.
Wallace (1983: 7-10) argues that increasing independence of subregions may have been a factor in the supposed breakup of the Hohokam regional system. In a more detailed treatment, Wallace and Holmlund (1982: 26-30) suggest that climatic change may also have been a factor. The merits of this model of a regional systemic breakdown cannot be assessed with the Rosemont data, but, if it occurred, it is possible that such a breakup might have affected the Rosemont area. The abandonment of the Rosemont area would not be out of place with the numerous other examples cited by Wallace and Holmlund (1982: 19-20, 1984: 173-176). Depopulation and relocation occurred in various parts of the Tucson Basin during late Rincon and early Tanque Verde phase times, from the Sierrita Mountains on the south, to the Tortolitas on the north, and the Rincon Mountain foothills on the east (see also Simpson and Wells 1983). It can be suggested, however, that even if they were affected by such a social restructuring, the Rosemont settlements seem unlikely to have contributed to any decentralization of power. Rather than growing increasingly autonomous and strengthening non-Hohokam relationships, the Rosemont sites appear to have been struggling weakly along on their own, possibly in increasing isolation from Tucson Basin, Mogollon, and Trincheras contacts alike. If anything, ties with the Tucson Basin were probably the best maintained. Evidence of Phoenix Basin contact during the later part of the occupa- tion consists of 20 buff ware sherds and a partial vessel at three middle and late Rincon sites. Mogollon contact evidence is reduced to only four San Simon Mogollon sherds at two sites. Worked shell (also Discussion 819
presumed to derive ultimately from the Phoenix Basin) also continued to be present in small quantities in middle Rincon proveniences. By itself then, collapse of the Hohokam and Tucson Basin regional systems probably little affected, or was little affected by, events in the Rosemont settlements. The latter were already apparently undergoing their own smaller scale collapse.
The most compelling argument for a specific cause leading to the final abandonment of the Rosemont area can be made for unstable climatic conditions. Climatic data are notoriously difficult to acquire, let alone interpret. At the 1983 Hohokam Symposium, Donald A. Graybill cautioned Hohokam archaeologists about the application of climatic reconstructions derived in northern Arizona to problems in the southern portion of the state. However, in the absence of anything closer to home, this has been done on occasion, with different researchers placing different emphasis on various portions of the data. A case in point is the citation of Euler and others (1979) in arguing that droughts occurred at various points in the Sedentary period (Masse 1979b: 181), and conversely, that the Sedentary experienced greater annual average precipitation (Dove 1984: 66). Both references are accurate, but their emphases obviously differ. Wallace and Holmlund (1982: 26-28) summarize most of the recent data which seem to support drought or climatic disruption interpretations of the Sedentary period, including flood damage to canals in the Phoenix area (Masse 1976, 1981: 409-410), types and proportions of wood species recovered from the SGA sites (Miksicek 1984b), and abandonment of nonriverine areas (Teague and Baldwin 1978: 8; Doyel 1977b: 168; Teague 1982b). In the absence of specific data regarding climatic conditions during the Rincon phase at Rosemont, data and interpretations from Eddy's and Cooley's work in the Cienega Valley, immediately to the east of Rosemont, can be used as a basis for discussion. Of the time period in question, they state:
. . . arroyo cutting may have occurred during the A.D. 1200s or slightly earlier, most likely between A.D. 1100 and 1300. The dating of this erosion is based on the Rincon phase material (A.D. 900-1200) buried in the upper part of Unit 3 and on scattered sherds of the Tanque Verde phase (A.D. 1200-1300) found in the Sanford formation. The erosion must have been caused largely by an environmental shift after A.D. 900 from stable to less stable conditions or wetter to drier conditions. This environmental shift resulted in the drying up of the Unit 4 cienegas, the scour-and-fill deposition of Unit 3, and the termination of Unit 3 deposition when conditions favored erosion and arroyo cutting (Eddy and Cooley 1983: 37).
Conditions favoring erosion were caused by an unstable environment, in turn reflecting an unstable climate. Precipitation must have been particularly unreliable, with fluctuations similar to modern southeastern Arizona. . . . The 820 Alan Ferg
effects of the inferred drought of the late Sedentary and early Classic periods, often referred to as the Great Drought, may not have been as severe as present effects because the arroyos at that time were smaller and had a more limited distribution than the modern ones . . . (Eddy and Cooley 1983: 50).
Assuming Eddy's and Cooley's interpretations to be correct, similar conditions would have prevailed in the adjacent Rosemont area. Hence, of the three possibilities suggested earlier for the cause of the final abandonment of the Rosemont area, degeneration of climatic conditions appears to be the most likely, either alone or in combination with other factors.
With the abandonment of the Rosemont area, as many as 20 small family units or primary groups would have been looking for new areas to settle or existing settlements which they could join. Ironically, the degradation of the foothills may have enhanced the agricultural potential of certain areas of the valley bottoms. As Eddy and Cooley note:
The fluvial deposition that occurred throughout the [Cienega] valley during the Sedentary period and, to a lesser extent, the Colonial period, probably increased the effective farming area on the floodplain. A pollen sample obtained from . . . [sediments] deposited during this time, yielded 99 percent maize pollen. This unusual record provides evidence of a cornfield in an area previously occupied by a cienega. . . . The population may have reached a maximum during the Sedentary period, and may have continued through the early Classic at this peak (1983: 47).
For the Cienega Valley the Arizona State Museum site survey files show 12 sites with Classic period components. Eight of these appear to have been purely Classic period occupations; several may have been substantial villages. There is no comparable survey data for Davidson Canyon downstream from the exchange area, but it would have been a logical place for the Rosemont folk to go, either founding or joining Tanque Verde phase settlements there. Davidson Canyon would have also been a logical route to the Tucson Basin for Rosemont residents who presumably would have already been familiar with the area, and there may have been Hohokam settlements all through this area, founded at the same time as the earliest Rosemont sites. If the topography or resources of Davidson Canyon were not as amenable as those of Cienega Creek, there is no apparent reason why the Rosemont refugees could not have gone into the Cienega Valley or the Tucson Basin. There they could have augmented extant Tanque Verde sites on the major drainages, or founded new sites such as those recorded by Simpson and Wells (1983: 59-60) in the Rincon Mountain foothills. Discussion 821
Social Organization
To return to some of the specific questions posed in Chapter 2 about intersite organization, we may now say that prior to the abandonment of the Ballcourt Site, those sites present in the exchange area do appear to have possessed some sort of community identity, with the Ballcourt Site functioning as the community or local system "center" (as suggested by Gregory in Wilcox and Sternberg 1983: 195). Resources were relatively evenly distributed within the exchange area, encouraging a dispersed settlement pattern with only loose control by the larger sites (Doyel 1977a: 97-103, 1977c: 102-103), however, there is some suggestion that the Ballcourt Site may have received or exacted some amount of material goods from the smaller sites, presumably in return for functioning as the local administrative or ceremonial center or both. Some of these duties or services doubtlessly centered around activites related to the ballcourt. Abandonment of the Ballcourt Site before the total abandonment of the area suggests that the political power of the Ballcourt Site was of a relatively low order, and was perhaps submitted to on a largely voluntary basis. Had its control been substantial and formalized, it might still have demanded goods from the new, smaller, more dispersed settlements that are inferred to have arisen from the breakup and abandonment of AZ EE:2:113 and its daughter sites at the McCleary and Barrel canyon confluence.
The supposed geographical groupings on which the excavation sampling design was based (Table 2.4, Fig. 2.2) were of mixed derivation. The clustering of small early Rincon sites around AZ EE:2:105 and EE:2:113 are more accurately described as daughter sites around parent sites, rather than as any purposeful hierarchical arrangment of different functional site types. The small sites in upper Barrel Canyon were the result of middle Rincon population movement away from the presumably depleted areas around AZ EE:2:105 and EE:2:113, into previously little exploited areas, and not a satellite arrangement of sites orbiting AZ EE:2:76. And finally, some of the sites which appeared to be part of these geographical clusters before being dated, were actually late Rincon or early Tanque Verde phase sites, settling in previously decimated areas which may have recovered to some extent (AZ EE:2:117, EE:2:122).
The distribution of the functional site types defined earlier as "new farmsteads," "stable or growing farmsteads," and "sites with ballcourts," can now be seen to be largely an artifact of the breakup and relocation of the Rosemont settlements through time. Essentially, there would appear to be only a single meaningful distinction to be made. That is, that the Ballcourt Site served as the community "center" from Cariada del Oro through early Rincon times, with all other sites, regardless of size, functioning as farmsteads. Organization as a community of sites may well have vanished after the abandonment of the Ballcourt Site, hastening the ultimate complete breakdown of the Rosemont "community" or "local system," and culminating in the total abandonment of the area in early Tanque Verde phase times. 822 Alan Ferg
Conclusion
The Rosemont sites cannot be considered exceptional as Hohokam sites go, but the data that they have produced add materially to our understanding of this culture. The ANAMAX-Rosemont Project afforded opportunities to examine in detail the efforts of the Tucson Basin Hohokam to adapt to an upland environment, to trace the development and decline of their settlements in one drainage basin, and to study in detail the material culture of these people. Such large-scale opportunities are rare for archaeologists interested in Tucson Basin prehistory, and it is hoped that the work in the Rosemont area will be of use to all those attempting to understand the rich prehistory of this region. Appendix A
FAUNAL REMAINS FROM HOHOKAM SITES IN THE ROSEMONT AREA, NORTHERN SANTA RITA MOUNTAINS
Margaret Glass
Department of Archaeology University of Calgary
ANAMAX-Rosemont Project excavations yielded approximately 6700 bones from a total of 14 sites. The geographic restriction of these sites to one major drainage basin, and their association with primarily Rillito and Rincon phase Hohokam occupations, lend spatial and temporal integrity to this collection as a representative sample for determining localized patterns in faunal resource exploitation.
Two major analyses of faunal assemblages from Hohokam sites have been carried out in recent years. Frank Bayham has documented changes in animal exploitation at Ventana Cave and has integrated his observations with shifts in the general economic basis of the surrounding Papagueria region from late Archaic to pre-Classic period times (Bayham 1982). Christine Szuter has described the role of small mammals in the subsistence system of agricultural villages in the Phoenix Basin, where the cultivation of domestic crops has traditionally been considered of prime importance (Szuter 1984). The ANAMAX-Rosemont Project faunal assemblage represents an addition to this emerging picture of flexibility and diversity in the use of local resources by the Hohokam.
The Rosemont sites are located in an area which today supports a combination of desert, grassland, and woodland fauna, as well as a variety of wild plants with high economic utility. Not surprisingly, the Hohokam occupants of the area appear to have taken advantage of this natural abundance. Faunal elements include a number of artiodactyls as well as the ubiquitous leporids. Plant remains include comparatively few domesticates with an assortment of wild seeds, nuts, and legumes (Miksicek 1984a). The temporal assignment of these sites also allows a restricted chronological view of a Colonial-Sedentary period occupation, probably closely associated with Tucson Basin populations which are best known from sites associated with the later Classic period.
The incomparability of faunal reports from Hohokam sites has been commented on by both Bayham (1982) and Szuter (1984). Much of this
823 824 Margaret Glass problem undoubtedly stems from the nature of the faunal remains themselves: bones from Hohokam sites are in uniformly poor condition and usually few in number. Preservation of bone from the Rosemont sites is generally good, and the number of bones at the larger sites is fairly high. Because of these circumstances, and to avoid inconsistencies like those described by Szuter and Bayham, a major portion of this report will consist of data description and explanation of methodology. Distribution of bone among and within sites will be considered, followed by discussion of evidence for particular procurement strategies and processiing techniques for both artiodactyls and lagomorphs.
Methodology
Identification of the bones was done at the Arizona State Museum using the National Park Service comparative faunal collection (curated by Stanley J. Olsen). Three basic categories of information were recorded for each specimen: provenience, taxonomic and element identification, and a description of general condition including natural and cultural modifications. These observations were recorded using a numerical coding system developed particularly for this set of faunal remains. A copy of this system, accompanied by documentation regarding its use, is on file with the Collections Division of the Arizona State Museum. The constant manipulation and recombination of observations was greatly facilitated by the use of software packages developed by BMDP (Dixon 1981) and SPSS (Nie and others 1975).
Taxonomic identifications constitute the primary information for every faunal analysis. Accuracy is crucial in the identification of species which have limited climatic tolerances and are used as paleo- environmental indicators. It is also important in the documentation of animals from archaeological faunas, which are not present in recent times, either because of changes in their range or the activities of humans. Identifiability, however, varies according to the condition and size of individual fragments. More subjective factors, such as differential representation of taxa in comparative collections and the expertise of individual analysts, also influence the level to which identifications are carried. For these reasons, it is worthwhile to present the criteria used for discrimination between closely related species, or those which resemble each other osteologically.
Taxonomic Overview
Leporidae
Two leporids were recorded as present in a recent environmental inventory of the Rosemont area: Lepus californicus, the black-tailed Appendix A 825
jack rabbit; and Sylvilagus audubonii, the desert cottontail (Roth 1977: 206). At the time of this study, the antelope jack rabbit, L. alleni, was considered to be either absent or at least unconfirmed in the project area. Cockrum (1960: 67-68) includes the Santa Rita mountains area within the range of distribution of L. alleni, and Vorhies and Taylor (1933) recorded numerous observations of the antelope jack rabbit at the Santa Rita Experimental Range Station on the west side of the ridgeline. One sighting occurred at the V.R. Ranch near Rosemont. Because of these records, L. alleni was considered likely to be present in the prehistoric environment. Morphological differences between the skeletons of L. alleni and L. californicus have not yet been described and most studies have relied upon size to separate the species (for example Bayham 1982, 1976; White 1978). Body weight of L. californicus averages 5.5 lbs while average weight of L. alleni is 8 lbs (males and females combined--data from Vorhies and Taylor 1933). Because of these marked differences in body weight, bone size seems an adequate criterion for separating these two hares. For this study, if a bone was larger that the largest L. californicus in the comparative collection, it was referred to L. alleni. Bones smaller than this were considered to be L. californicus. The major bias created by this practice probably involves underrepresentation of the antelope jack rabbit.
Sylvilagus audubonii was the only cottontail verified in the recent fauna in the project area, and the observed density of this species was very low (Roth 1977). Elevations above approximately 4000 feet are considered marginal habitat for the desert cottontail. Above this point, S. floridanus (eastern cottontail) may replace S. audubonii in the mountain ranges of southeastern Arizona (Sowls 1957). Thus, both of these species could have been available to prehistoric occupants of the Santa Rita foothills. The eastern cottontail is somewhat larger than the desert species, but considerable overlap in size still occurs, S. audubonii ranges in total length from 350 mm to 420 mm; S. floridanus, from 375 mm to 463 mm (Hall and Kelson 1959: 259, 265). For this reason, cottontail bones were only identified to the level of genus: Sylvilagus sp.
A number of lagomorph bones were intermediate in size between Lepus sp. and Sylvilagus sp., or were too fragmented to be assigned to either genus. These remains were simply designated as belonging to the family Leporidae.
Rodents
Rodents are an important part of the modern fauna of the Rosemont area, accounting for 23 of the 36 species (64%) of terrestrial mammals observed in the recent environmental inventory (Roth 1977: 213). They were also present and active at some time during, or shortly after, the Hohokam occupations, as demonstrated by the maze of burrows encountered during the excavations and the gnawmarks observed on many of the bones. Rodents made up 8 of the 19 genera (42%) of mammals recovered from the sites. In actual numbers of bones, however, they 826 Margaret Glass represented a much smaller percentage of the total number of fragments identifiable to the order level.
The importance of rodents in archaeological faunas is often difficult to assess, primarily because of uncertainty regarding their natural or cultural origin. Some criteria for evaluating the depositional history of small mammals in archaeological sites have recently been formulated (Szuter 1982; Kornfeld and Chomko 1983). The rather specific environmental preferences of most rodents also increases their utility as paleoclimatic indicators. Because of the complex interpretive values of rodent remains, the following decisions were made in problematic identifications.
Ammospermophilus harrisi, Harris's antelope squirrel, is the only small sciurid documented in the Rosemont area today (Roth 1977: 206). However, Cockrum (1960: 80) records two specimens of Spermophilus spilosoma, spotted ground squirrel, from the Santa Ritas. Body markings and cranial features are used to tell these species apart (Hall and Kelson 1959: 331-349). Elements attributable to either of these taxa were designated "small squirrel" in order to differentiate them from S. variegatus, the rock squirrel, easily distinguished by its large size.
Thomomys bottae was the only pocket gopher observed in the vicinity of the sites (Roth 1977: 206-207). Two elements, a cranium and a humerus, compared favorably with T. bottae skeletons in the NPS collection. Other remains seemed unusually small, even when mature. These are listed as Thomomys sp. and may represent merely a local population of diminutive pocket gophers.
A single Perognathus element was unidentifiable to the species level. Other heteromyids noted could be grouped only on the basis of size. Small Dipodomys specimens may include D. merriami and D. ordii, both present today (Roth 1977: 207-208). Large Dipodomys species, such as D. deserti and D. spectabilis were not noted in recent inventories of the Santa Ritas. D. deserti is generally restricted today to sandy areas in the lower elevations of central and southwestern Arizona; D. spectabilis prefers higher grasslands and has been recorded in the past from the Santa Ritas (Cockrum 1960: 140; Lowe 1964: 254). One cranium from one of the sites, in almost complete condition, contained an interparietal comparable to D. spectabilis as described by Cockrum (1960: 148) and Hall and Kelson (1959). Unfortunately, no osteological specimens of D. spectabilis could be located for comparison. For this reason, bones were characterized as large Dipodomys even though they most likely represented D. spectabilis.
Three groups of cricetids were recovered from the project excavations. Peromyscus postcranial remains could not be identified beyond the genus level; at least three species are present today (Roth 1977: 208-209). A single Sigmodon element presents the same problem. One maxilla with teeth has been listed as Neotoma albigula, but other Neotoma remains can probably be attributed to this species. N. mexicana also occurs in the Santa Ritas, but records only exist for specimens found above 8000 feet (Cockrum 1960: 197). Appendix A 827
Carnivores
Two large felids, Felis concolor, the mountain lion, and F. onca, the jaguar, have been observed in the Santa Rita mountains area in historic times (Roth 1977: 213). Two elements were determined as representing Felis, species indeterminate, because of the difficulty in differentiating between these large cats.
Postcranial dog-sized canid remains could not be identified below the genus level. Mature Canis sp. material seemed gracile enough to exclude the possibility of being wolf (Canis lupus), but immature bones could belong to wolf, coyote, or dog. Three separate proveniences contained cranial material which permitted the identification of domestic dogs on the basis of both morphological and metric characters. These will be discussed in greater detail.
Artiodactyls
Three species of artiodactyls presently reside in the ANAMAX- Rosemont Project area. One, the javelina, has been extending its range northward in historic times and was probably not a prehistoric game resource. Two deer species, Odocoileus hemionus (mule deer) and O. virginianus (white-tailed deer) have slightly different habitat preferences and today tend to frequent different parts of the region (Hungerford 1977: 233). Although the species are difficult to tell apart osteologically, mule deer average 50 percent heavier than white- tailed deer (Leopold 1972; Olin 1954). General size was used to compare bones of these two taxa. Elements of intermediate size were referred only to the genus Odocoileus.
In keeping with a conservative approach, certain fragments such as very broken teeth and antler tines were simply classed as Cervidae. The historic distribution of Cervus canadensis (elk) in the Southwest is poorly understood, but specimens have been documented for Pima County, Arizona (Cockrum 1960: 257). Archaeological specimens have also been reported from a small number of sites in southern Arizona (Johnson n.d.). Antler tine frequently appears in the Rosemont sites as pressure flakers (see the following bone tool discussion below). If present in the area, elk could have provided a source for antler tools.
Two additional artiodactyls not present today in the Santa Ritas were documented in this analysis. First, the pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) probably ranged throughout the state before the advent of modern cattle ranching (Cockrum 1960; Leopold 1972). Second, was the bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis). The closest bighorn population today is in the Santa Catalina Mountains (Hungerford 1977). Separation of these taxa from each other and from deer is often difficult. Lawrence (1951) provided criteria which were helpful in most designations. Additional insight into the variability characteristic of these taxa was gained by study of the deer, pronghorn, and bighorn specimens at the 828 Margaret Glass
Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard, in June, 1983. When identification was still problematic, an attempt was made to narrow the designation down to two of the three possible genera.
Unidentified material was categorized at the class level when possible (that is, mammal, reptile, bird). Mammal bone was further classified according to rough size groups, with small mammal including bone from fox- to rabbit-sized creatures as its upper limit. Large mammal bone may contain fragments from the bigger carnivores through the artiodactyls. Where human bone was suspected, an additional code was assigned. Mammal, size indeterminate, was reserved for fragments that could not be assigned to other groups.
Nonmammalian remains comprised an assortment of birds and reptiles. Amadeo M. Rea of the San Diego Museum of Natural History and Thomas Van Devender of the Arizona Sonora Desert Museum graciously contributed their time and expertise to the identification of these respective classes of animals.
Table A.1 presents a list of all fauna identified from the total collection of bones from the ANAMAX-Rosemont Project Hohokam sites. Reptile classification follows Stebbins (1954), avian taxonomy follows Phillips and others (1964); mammal scientific names are taken from Honacki and others (1982) and vernacular names are adopted from Hall and Kelson (1959).
Tables A.2 through A.9 list all categories of faunal remains recovered from the particular sites. Absolute frequencies are shown as well as a minimum number of individuals calculated on the presence of taxa in each feature, MNI(max), followed by MNI figured on the appearance of taxa within the site as a whole, MNI(min) (see Grayson 1973 for discussion of implications of these methods). In each case, MNI was calculated on the most common side and portion of the most frequent element, referring to additional modification data where appropriate. Both minimum and maximum distinction results are presented to allow comparison of these data to a wider selection of already published reports. Nonfeature bone does not contribute to either MNI figure. Frequencies of burned bone also appear in these tables. Data concerning the distribution of identified taxa within sites and element frequencies for mammalian, avian, and reptilian taxa are on file at the Arizona State Museum Library.
General Description of The Sample
The total number of bones examined included 6732 fragments from 14 sites. The number of bones at each site and the portion of those bones identified at or below the ordinal level can be seen in Table A.10. Three sites (AZ EE:2:76, EE:2:105 and EE:2:113) accounted for 93 percent (6283 fragments) of the assemblage, leaving very few bones at the other 11 locations. Comparisons between these small and large Appendix A 82 .9
Table A.1
IDENTIFIED FAUNA IN THE ANAMAX-ROSEMONT PROJECT HOHOKAM SITE COLLECTIONS
Class Reptilia Order Testudinata Emydidae Terrapene ornata Agassiz. Western box turtle. Testudinidae Gopherus agassizi Cooper. Desert tortoise. Order Squamata Suborder Lacertilia (Sauria) Iguanidae Crotaphytus collaris Say. Collared lizard. Sceloporus clarki Baird and Girard. Sonora spiny lizard. Urosaurus dorsalis Phrynosoma solare Gray. Regal horned lizard. Teidae Cnemidophorus burti Taylor. Sonora whiptail. Suborder Serpentes Colubridae Masticophis sp. Whipsnake. Pituophis melanoleucus Daudin. Bullsnake. Crotalidae Crotalus atrox Baird and Girard. Western diamondback rattlesnake. Crotalus scutulatus Kennicott. Mohave rattlesnake.
Class Aves Order Falconiformes Accipitridae Buteo jamaicensis (Gmelin). Red-tailed hawk. Buteo swainsoni Bonaparte. Swainson's hawk. Aquila chrysaetos (Linnaeus). Golden eagle. Order Galliformes Phasianidae Callipepla squamata (Vigors). Scaled quail. Callipepla gambelii (Gambel). Gambel's quail. Cyrtonyx montezumae (Vigors). Mearns quail. Order Passeriformes Corvidae Cyanositta stelleri (Bmelin). Stellars jay. Aphelocoma coerulescens (Boxc). Scrub jay. Aphelocoma ultramarina (Bonaparte). Arizona jay. 830 Margaret Glass
Table A.1, continued
IDENTIFIED FAUNA IN THE ANAMAX -ROSEMONT PROJECT HOHOKAM SITE COLLECTIONS
Class Mammalia Order Lagomorpha Leporidae Lepus alleni Mearns. Antelope jack rabbit. Lepus californicus Gray. Black-tailed jack rabbit. Sylvilagus Gray. cottontail. Order Rodentia Sciuridae Spermophilus variegatus (Erxleben). Rock squirrel. Geomyidae Thomomys Wied. Pocket gopher. Thomomys bottae (Eydoux and Gervais). Valley pocket gopher. Heteromyidae Dipodomys Gray. Kangaroo rat. Perognathus Wied. Pocket mouse. Cricetidae Neotoma Say and Ord. Wood rat. Neotoma albigula Hartley. White-throated wood rat. Peromyscus Gloger. Mouse. Sigmodon Say and Ord. Cotton rat. Order Carnivora Canidae Canis Linnaeus. Canis familiaris Linnaeus. Domestic dog. Urocyon cineroargenteus (Schreber). Gray fox. Vulpes macrotix Merriam. Kit fox. Felidae Felis Linnaeus. Lynx rufus (Schreber). Bobcat. Order Artiodactyla Cervidae Odocoileus Rafinesque. Deer. Odocoileus hemionus (Rafinesque). Mule deer. Odocoileus virginianus (Zimmerman). White-tailed deer. Antilocapridae Antilocapra americana (Ord). Pronghorn. Bovidae Ovis canadensis Shaw. Bighorn. Bos taurus Domestic cattle. Appendix A 831
Table A.2
AZ EE:2:76, FAUNAL REMAINS: FREQUENCIES OF TAXA AND BURNING WITHIN TAXA
Elements Burning 2 MNI(max) 1 Taxon % N MNI(min) leporid, gen. et sp. indet. jack rabbit or cottontail 3 + 0 0/0
Lepus alleni antelope jack rabbit 4 + 1 25 3/3
Lepus californicus blacktailed jack rabbit 31 7 4 13 7/3
Sylvilagus sp. cottontail 13 3 5 33 5/2 rodent, indet. 1 + 0 0/0
Thomomys sp. pocket gopher 1 + 0 1/1
Neotoma sp. wood rat 1 + 0 1/1
Neotoma albigula white-throated wood rat 1 + 0 1/1
Urocyon cinereoargenteus gray fox 1 + 0 1/1 artiodactyl, indet. deer, pronghorn or bighorn 22 5 8 38 2/0 cervid, indet. 4 + 1 25 2/1
1 percent of site total (+ = less than 1%) 2 percent of taxon total 3 MNI(max) = minimum number of individuals determined for each feature as an independent unit. MNI(min) = minimum number of individuals for the site as a whole, using only bone from features. 832 Margaret Glass
Table A.2, continued
AZ EE:2:76, FAUNAL REMAINS: FREQUENCIES OF TAXA AND BURNING WITHIN TAXA
Elements Burning 2 MNI(max) 1 Taxon MNI(min)
Odocoileus sp. mule or white-tailed deer 5 1 3 60 0/0
.....O. cf. 0. hemionus mule deer 4 + 1 25 2/1
O. cf. O. virginianus white-tailed deer 6 1 0 4/1
Antilocapra americana pronghorn 3 0 2/1
Ovis canadensis bighorn 5 1 0 3/1
pronghorn or bighorn 4 + 0 0/0 unidentified small mammal 101 22 16 16
unidentifed large mammal 128 28 58 45 mammal, size indeterminate 100 22 11 10
Mammal Total 438
1 percent of site total (+ = less than 1%) 2 3 percent of taxon total MNI(max) = minimum number of individuals determined for each feature as an independent unit. MNI(min) = minimum number of individuals for the site as a whole, using only bone from features. Appendix A 833
Table A.2, continued
AZ EE:2:76, FAUNAL REMAINS: FREQUENCIES OF TAXA AND BURNING WITHIN TAXA
Elements Burning 2 MNI(max)6 1 Taxon N % MNI(min)
Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk 1 0 1/1
B. cf. B. jamaicensis possible red-tailed hawk 1 0 1/1
Callipepla squamata or C. gambelii scaled or Gambel's quail 1 + 0 1/1 unidentified animal bone 1 +
Excavation Total 442
4 Urosaurus dorsalis tree lizard (?) 1 1/1 unidentified large mammal 1
Site Total 444
1 percent of site total (+ = less than 1%) 2 percent of taxon total 3 MNI(max) = minimum number of individuals determined for each feature as an independent unit MNI(min) = minimum number of individuals for the site as a whole, using only bone from features 4 from flotation 834 Margaret Glass
Table A.3
AZ EE:2:77, FAUNAL REMAINS: FREQUENCIES OF TAXA AND BURNING WITHIN TAXA
Elements Burning 2 MNI(max) 1 Taxon N 7. Z N MNI(min)
Lepus californicus black-tailed jack rabbit 10 18 1 10 7/2
Sylvilagus sp. cottontail 5 10 0 4/2
artiodactyl, indet. deer, proghorn or bighorn 6 11 2 33 0/0
Odocoileus spp. mule or white-tailed deer 1 2 1 100 1/0
O. cf. O. hemionus mule deer 5 10 0 1/1
O. cf. O. virginianus white-tailed deer 5 10 1 20 5/1
proghorn or bighorn 1 2 0 1/1 unidentified small mammal 10 18 5 50
unidentified large mammal 8 15 1 13 mammal, size indeterminate 5 10 5 100
unidentified animal 1 2 0
Excavated Total 53
Recovered from flotation 2
Site Total 55
percent of site total (+ = less than 1%) 2 percent of taxon total 3 MNI(max) = minimum number of individuals determined for each feature as an independent unit MNI(min) = minimum number of individuals for the site as a whole, using only bone from features Appendix A 835
Table A.4
AZ EE:2:84, FAUNAL REMAINS: FREQUENCIES OF TAXA AND BURNING WITHIN TAXA
Elements Burning, MNI(max) 1 Taxon 70 4 MNI(min)
Lepus californicus black-tailed jack rabbit 2 6 0 1/1
Sylvilagus sp. cottontail 5 14 0 2/2
Bos taurus cattle 1 3 0 0/0
Terrapene ornata ornate boxturt e 1 3 0 1/1 unidentified small mammal 2 6 0 unidentified large mammal 24 68 2 8
Site Total 35
1 percent of site total (+ = less than 1%) 2 percent of taxon total 3 MNI(max) = minimum number of individuals determined for each feature as an independent unit. 3 MNI(min) = minimum number of individuals for the site as a whole, using only bone from features. 836 Margaret Glass
Table A.5
AZ EE:2:105, FAUNAL REMAINS: FREQUENCIES OF TAXA AND BURNING WITHIN TAXA
Elements Burning 2 MNI(max) 1 Taxon N % % N MNI(min) leporid, gen. et sp. indet. jack rabbit or cottontail 24 + 6 25 0/0
Lepus alleni antelope jack rabbit 18 + 6 33 8/3
Lepus californicus black-tailed jack rabbit 343 9 72 20 39/11
Sylvilagus sp. cottontail 149 4 39 26 24/10 rodent, indet. 1 0/0
Spermophilus variegatus rock squirrel 14 2 14 8/4 small sciurid indet. 3 1 33 3/1
Thomomys sp. pocket gopher 3 + 0 2/0
Thomomys bottae Vally pocket gopher 2 0 2/1
Perognathus sp. pocket mouse 1 + 0 1/1 large Dipodomys sp. kangaroo rat 23 + 0 1/1 small Dipodomys sp. kangaroo rat 3 + 0 1/1
1 percent of site total (+ = less than 1%) 2 percent of taxon total 3 MNI(max) = minimum number of individuals determined for each feature as an independent unit. MNI(min) = minimum number of individuals for the site as a whole, using only bone from features. Appendix A 837
Table A.5, continued
AZ EE:2:105, FAUNAL REMAINS: FREQUENCIES OF TAXA AND BURNING WITHIN TAXA
Elements Burning 2 1 MNI(max)4 Taxon MNI(min)
Neotoma sp. wood rat 7 0 4/2 carnivore, indet. 5 1 20 3/0 canid, gen. et sp. indet. fox, dog, wolf, or coyote 1 0 1/0
Canis sp dog, wolf, or coyote 4 + 0 3/1
Urocyon cinereoargenteus gray fox 8 + 3 37 3/1
Felis sp. mountain lion or jaguar 2 + 1 50 2/1
Lynx rufus bobcat 1 + 0 1/1 artiodactyl, indet. deer, pronghorn or bighorn 175 5 94 53 4/0 cervid, indet. 20 14 70 1/0
Odocoileus sp. mule or white-tailed deer 97 2 61 62 1/2
O. cf. O. hemionus mule deer 8 1 12 4/1
O. cf. O. virginianus white-tailed deer 37 12 32 10/2
1 percent of site total (+ = less than 1%) 2 percent of taxon total 3 MNI(max) = minimum number of individuals determined for each feature as an independent unit. MNI(min) = minimum number of individuals for the site as a whole, using only bone from features. 838 Margaret Glass
Table A.5, continued
AZ EE:2:105, FAUNAL REMAINS: FREQUENCIES OF TAXA AND BURNING WITHIN TAXA
Elements Burning MNI(max) 1 2 Taxon N % N % MNI(min)
Antilocapra americana pronghorn 43 1 16 37 7/2
Ovis canadensis bighorn 3 + 2 100 2/1 pronghorn or bighorn 6 + 4 66 1/0 pronghorn or deer 15 + 9 60 0/0 bighorn or deer 4 + 4 100 0/0 unidentified small mammal 594 17 214 36 0/0 unidentifed large mammal 1093 31 579 52 0/0 mammal, size indeterminate 571 16 214 37 0/0 may include human 62 1 18 29
Mammal Total 3339 95
Buteonine 1 + 0 0/0
Buteo sp. 2 + 0 0/0
Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk 2 + 0 2/2
B. cf. B. jamaicensis possible red-tailed hawk 7 0 2/0
Buteo swainsoui Swainson's hawk 2 1 2/1
1 percent of site total (+ = less than 1%) 2 percent of taxon total 3 MNI(max) = minimum number of individuals determined for each feature as an independent unit. MNI(min) = minimum number of individuals for the site as a whole, using only bone from features. Appendix A 839
Table A.5, continued
AZ EE:2:105, FAUNAL REMAINS: FREQUENCIES OF TAXA AND BURNING WITHIN TAXA
Elements Burning MNI(max) 1 Taxon N % N % MNI(min)
Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle 1 1/1
Callipepla sp. or Cyrtonyx montezumae quail 1 0 1/1
Cyanocitta stelleri or Aphelocoma coerulescens Steller's Jay or Scrub jay 1 + 0 1/1 raptor, indeterminate 2 + 0 1/0 bird, unid. 1 + 0 0/0
Aves Total 20
Pituophis melanoleucus Daudin bullsnake 1 0 1/1
Crotaphytus collaris Say collared lizard 1 0 1/1
Pituophis melanoleucus Daudin bullsnake 1 + 0 1/1
Crotalus Atrox diamondback rattlesnake 7 + 0 1/1
Gopherus agassizi desert tortoise 5 5 1/1
1 percent of site total (+ = less than 1%) 2 percent of taxon total 3 MNI(max) = minimum number of individuals determined for each feature as an independent unit. MNI(min) = minimum number of individuals for the site as a whole, using only bone from features. 840 Margaret Glass
Table A.5, continued
AZ EE:2:105, FAUNAL REMAINS: FREQUENCIES OF TAXA AND BURNING WITHIN TAXA
Elements Burning 2 MNI(max) 1 Taxon N % % N MNI(min)
Terrapene ornata ornate box turtle 7 0 1/1
22
Unidentified Animal 85 2 4 0
Excavation Total 3466
Flotation Total 28 +
Site Total 3494
1 percent of site total (+ = less than 1%) 2 percent of taxon total 3 MNI(max) = minimum number of individuals determined for each feature as an independent unit. MNI(min) = minimum number of individuals for the site as a whole, using only bone from features. Appendix A 841
Table A.6
AZ EE:2:113, FAUNAL REMAINS: FREQUENCIES OF TAXA AND BURNING WITHIN TAXA
Elements Burning 2 MNI(max) 1 Taxon N % MNI(min) leporid, gen. et sp. indet. jack rabbit or cottontail 38 1 10 26 0/0
Lepus alleni antelope jack rabbit 7 + 0 3/1
Lepus californicus black-tailed jack rabbit 373 15 46 12 42/15
Sylvilagus sp. cottontail 105 4 14 13 22/1 rodent, indet. 3 0 1/0
Spermophilus variegatus rock squirrel 7 + 0 4/2 small squirrel indet. 1 + 0 1/1
Thomomys sp. pocket gopher 7 + 0 5/4
Sigmodon sp. coton rat 1 1/1
Neotoma sp. wood rat 9 0 6/3 carnivore, indet. 6 1 16 1/0
Canis sp. dog, wolf, or coyote 17 0 5/0
1 percent of site total (+ = less than 1%) 2 percent of taxon total 3 MNI(max) = minimum number of individuals determined for each feature as an independent unit MNI(min) = minimum number of individuals for the site as a whole, using only bone from features 842 Margaret Glass
Table A.6, continued
AZ EE:2:113, FAUNAL REMAINS: FREQUENCIES OF TAXA AND BURNING WITHIN TAXA
Elements Burning MNI(max) l 2 Taxon N N % MNI(min)
Urocyon cinereoargenteus gray fox 8 + 3 37 3/1
Perognathus sp. pocket mouse 2 + 0 2/ 2 small fox, indet. 1 + 0 0/0 artiodactyl, indet. deer, pronghorn or bighorn 118 5 30 25 4/0 cervid, indet. 10 + 1 1/0
Odocoileus sp. mule or white-tailed deer 59 2 29 49 3/4
O. cf. O. hemionus mule deer 13 + 3 23 6/2
O. cf. O. virginianus white-tailed deer 19 + 5 26 6/2
Antilocapra americana pronghorn 35 1 7 20 9/ 4
Ovis canadensis bighorn 1 + 1 1/1
pronghorn or bighorn 7 + 0 1/0
pronghorn or deer 17 + 4 23 1/0
bighorn or deer 2 + 0 0/0
21 percent of site total (+ = less than 1%) percent of taxon total 3 MNI(max) = minimum number of individuals determined for each feature as an independent unit MNI(min) = minimum number of individuals for the site as a whole, using only bone from features Appendix A 843
Table A.6, continued
AZ EE:2:113, FAUNAL REMAINS: FREQUENCIES OF TAXA AND BURNING WITHIN TAXA
Elements Burning 2 MNI(max) 1 Taxon N % N % MNI(min) small mammal 447 19 99 22 1/0 large mammal 635 27 177 28 0/0 mammal, size indeterminate 266 11 74 27 0/0 may include human 73 3 50 68 0/0
Mammal Subtotal 2283 97 (2 complete dog burials counted as 1 each.)
Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk 1 0 1/1
Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle 1 0 0/0
....B. cf. B. jamaicensis possible red-tailed hawk 7 + 0 2/0
Quail, indet. 1 + 0 0/0
Callipepla squamata or C. gambelii scaled quail or Gambel's quail 1 0 1/1
Aphelocoma coerulescens scrub jay 1 0 1/1
A. ultramarine Arizona jay 1 + 0 1/1 bird, unid. 1 + 0 0/0
Avian Subtotal 7
1 percent of site total (+ = less than 1%) 2 percent of taxon total 3 MNI(max) = minimum number of individuals determined for each feature as an independent unit MNI(min) = minimum number of individuals for the site as a whole, using only bone from features 844 Margaret Glass
Table A.6, continued
AZ EE:2:113, FAUNAL REMAINS: FREQUENCIES OF TAXA AND BURNING WITHIN TAXA
Elements Burning 2 MNI(max) 1 Taxon % N MNI(min)
Phyronosoma solare regal horned lizard 1 0 1/1
Crotalus Atrox diamondback rattlesnake 1
C. scutulatus Mohave rattlesnake 3 1 3/1
Masticophis sp. whipsnake 1 0 1/1
Reptile Subtotal 6
Unidentified animal 18 0
Excavation Total 2314
Flotation Total 31
Site Total 2345
1 percent of site total (+ = less than 1%) 2 percent of taxon total 3 MNI(max) = minimum number of individuals determined for each feature as an independent unit MNI(min) = minimum number of individuals for the site as a whole, using only bone from features Appendix A 845
Table A.7
AZ EE:2:129, FAUNAL REMAINS: FREQUENCIES OF TAXA AND BURNING WITHIN TAXA
Elements Burning 2 1 MNI(max) Taxon % N MNI(min)
Lepus californicus black-tailed jack rabbit 3 1 2 66 1/1
Sylvilagus sp. cottontail 1 0 1/1
Thomomys sp. pocket gopher 1 0 1/1
Urocyon cinereoargenteus gray fox 150 50 3 2 3/3 artiodactyl, indet. deer, proghorn or bighorn 6 2 4 66 1/1 cervidae 1 + 1 100 0/0
Odocoileus spp. mule or white-tailed deer 4 1 4 100 1/0
..._O. cf. O. hemionus mule deer 1 + 1 100 1/1 unidentified small mammal 64 21 3 5 unidentified large mammal 52 17 22 42 mammal, size indeterminate 17 6 3 18
Site Total 301
percent of site total (+ = less than 1%) percent of taxon total 3 MNI(max) = minimum number of individuals determined for each feature as an independent unit MNI(min) = minimum number of individuals for the site as a whole, using only bone from features Table A.8
AZ EE 2 06, AZ EE-2.107, AZ EE.2 120, AND AZ EE.2.116 FAUNAL REMAINS: FREQUENCIES OF TAXA AND BURNING WITHIN TAXA
alUN AZ EE'2.106 AZ EE:2,107 AZ EE!2:120 AZ EE:2,116 Elements Burning MNI(max)/ Elements Burning MNI(max)/ Elements Burning MNI(max)/ Elements Burning MNI(max)/ re Taxon N 7 1 N MNI(min)3 N % I N %2 MNI(min) 3 N %I N %2 MNI(min) 3 N % 1 N 7.2 MNI(min) 3 la
O leporid, gen. et sp. indet. jack rabbit or cottontail 2 11 50 1/0 17 0 ET SS Lepus californicus black-tailed jack rabbit 2 1 50 2/1 1 17 1 100 1/1 1 13 0 1/1
L. alleni antelope jack rabbit 6 0 1/1
Sylvilagus sp. cottontail 1 17 0 1/1
Artiodactyl, indet. deer, pronghorn, or bighorn 6 1 100 1/1
Cervidae deer
Odocoileus cf. O. hemionus mule deer 25 0 1/1
O. cf. O. virginianus white-tailed deer 17 1 100 1/1
Unidentified small mammal 2 11 0 2 33 0 1 13 0
Unidentified large mammal 11 61 11 100 1 25 0
Mammal, size indeterminate 6 0 4 50 0
Sceloporus clarki spiny lizard 1 13 0 1/1
SITE TOTAL 18 4 6 8
I percent of site total 2 percent of taxon total 3 MNI(max) = minimum number of individuals determined by feature MNI(min) = minimum nimber of individuals for the site as a whole, using only bone from features Table A.9
AZ EE:1:104, AZ EE:2:52, AZ EE:2:79, AND AZ EE:2:109 FAUNAL REMAINS: FREQUENCIES OF TAXA AND BURNING WITHIN TAXA
AZ EE:1:104 AZ EE:2:52 AZ EE:2:79 AZ EE:2:109
Elements Burning MNI(max) Elements Burning MNI(max) Elements Burning MNI(max) Elements Burning MNI(max)/ . 2 N % 1 N MNI(min) N 7. 1 N 4 MNI(min) N %I N % 2 MNI(min)' %1 N MNI(min) 3
Lepus californicus black—tailed jack rabbit 6 0 1/1
Sylvilagus sp. cottontail 1 100 0 1/1 6 0 1/1
Antilocapra americana pronghorn 1 6 0 1/1 1 100 0 1/1
Unidentified small mammal 1 100 1 100 2 11 0
Unidentified large mammal 12 67 8 67
Unidentified animal 1 6 0
SITE TOTAL 1 1 18 1
1 percent of site total 2 percent of taxon total 3 MNI(max) = minimum number of individuals determined by feature MNI(min) = minimum number of individuals for the site as a whole, using only bone from features
ddv a u xTp . v 848 Margaret Glass
Table A.10
DISTRIBUTION OF IDENTIFIED AND UNIDENTIFIED BONE AMONG SITES
Site Total Number (%) of Bones Number Bone Identified to Order
AZ EE:2:76 444 113 ( 25.0)
AZ EE:2:77 55 29 ( 52.0)
AZ EE:2:84 35 9 ( 25.0)
AZ EE:1:104 1 0
AZ EE:2:105 3494 1058 ( 30.0)
AZ EE:2:106 18 4 ( 22.0)
AZ EE:2:107 4 4 ( 75.0)
AZ EE:2:109 1 1 (100.0)
AZ EE:2:113 2345 875 ( 37.0)
AZ EE:2:116 8 3 ( 37.0)
AZ EE:2:120 6 4 ( 66.0)
AZ EE:2:129 301 187 ( 62.0)
AZ EE:2:52* 2 1 ( 50.0)
AZ EE:2:79* 18 3 ( 16.0)
Total 6723
* tested, not fully excavated collections were difficult to make. As a result, discussions of intersite variability have been restricted to qualitative description of bone assemblages from smaller sites, followed by more detailed comparisons of the taxa represented at the three larger sites. Unfortunately, no reliable inferences could be drawn regarding temporal variability in faunal resource use in the Rosemont area. Although the larger sites, especially AZ EE:2:76 and AZ EE:2:105, contained ceramics spanning several phases, the faunal remains were primarily recovered from features designated Rillito and early Rincon. Many of the smaller Appendix A 849
sites were assigned to middle or late Rincon. Their dating, however, was often based on a small number of decorated sherds and can only be considered tentative (Ferg and Huckell 1983). In addition, the functions of these small sites and their relationships to larger villages within and outside the project area are incompletely understood. Variation in the composition of faunal assemblages from these sites may reflect minor ecological differences within the project area, functional differences in the kinds of activities carried out at each site, or shifts through time in the reliance upon different faunal resources. Discrimination of the importance of these various factors is not possible because of the uneven spatial and temporal distribution of faunal remains.
A description of the small faunal samples recovered from nine different sites and their distributions among various depositional contexts may provide information that can be incorporated into general site interpretations. In the next section, sites will be discussed by location within the project area.
Analysis of the Small Sites
Sites AZ EE:2:107 and EE:2:109 were in upper Barrel Canyon, in the southwestern portion of the project area. Two pit houses at AZ EE:2:107 yielded jack rabbit and large mammal bone. The only other bone consisted of a hairpin associated with the burial of a middle-aged male. A pit house at AZ EE:2:109 contained one pronghorn mandible. Because of its relatively complete condition, it was selected for tooth thin-section analysis in an attempt to determine the season of the animal's death. The results will be discussed in conjunction with other age and seasonality data. The cultural association of this mandible with the lower fill or floor of the pit house is relatively secure. However, traces of both rodent and carnivore activity were obvious. The removal of the gonial angle, anterior symphisis, and ascending ramus were characteristics of canid gnawing as described by Brain (1981) and Binford (1981). The possibility that this bone was brought into the feature or the site by a wild or domestic canid cannot be totally eliminated.
AZ EE:1:104, a site north and slightly west of AZ EE:2:109, yielded only one burned small mammal bone from a pit house.
Four small sites are located in middle Barrel Canyon, in the vicinity of AZ EE:2:76. At AZ EE:2:106, three pit houses contained small amounts of bone. At least one artiodactyl and one lagomorph were partially represented. Nearby, at AZ EE:2:120, cottontail, black-tailed jack rabbit, and white-tailed deer were identified from a total of six bones from two structures. An inhumation at AZ EE:2:52 contained one cottontail tibia and a bone artifact. The final small site in this area, AZ EE:2:116, produced eight bones (one Lepus, one cervid, and five unidentified). A Sonora spiny lizard bone was probably an intrusive 850 Margaret Glass modern specimen. The site AZ EE:2:79 was only partially tested in 1979; excavations at one pit house recovered 18 elements from cottontail, jack rabbit, and pronghorn, as well as unidentified mammals.
Northeast of Rosemont Junction, in the lower Barrel Canyon drainage, AZ EE:2:84 produced 33 bones from three pit houses. Although only cottontail and jack rabbit were identified, 24 large mammal bones suggested the presence of artiodactyl-sized animals. Nonfeature bone included the only intrusive recent domesticate: one Bos taurus phalanx. A hypoplastron of a juvenile box turtle from one of the pit houses may also be a modern element.
Faunal remains from the above nine sites were recovered only from a small number of pit houses even when other types of features such as hearths, pits, and other extramural features, were excavated. Most of the sites excavated contained evidence of both large and small mammals, although the bone was unidentifiable beyond this level. The cultural or natural origins of such small samples are difficult to ascertain. Two reptiles, probably of recent intrusive origin, occurred in pit house fills. Noncultural origins have also been considered above for the pronghorn mandible from AZ EE:2:109. Modified bone comprised two complete artifacts recovered from inhumations at AZ EE:2:52 and AZ EE:2:107 and two fragments from structure fill at AZ EE:2:106 and AZ EE:2:84. Explanations for such sparse accumulations of faunal remains could involve site function, length or intensity of occupation, patterns of disposal of organic remains, or differential preservation at these localities.
AZ EE:2:129 and AZ EE:2:77 merit separate discussion because they contained more bone in a greater variety of contexts than the other sites described. Both house pits at AZ EE:2:129 contained bone. Large mammal long bones predominated in Feature 1 (8 of the 10 bones recovered) and included two pendants and two awl-hairpin fragments. Four of the eight elements from Feature 2 were from lagomorphs.
Most bone from AZ EE:2:129 consisted of gray fox elements, excavated from the Feature 6001 roasting pit (125 bones), which was probably associated with the Feature 6 extramural activity surface (25 bones). These 150 elements represented the remains of at least three adult gray foxes. Although only three pieces (one mandible, one femur, and one tibia) were charred black, many others were spotted gray- brown and had a brittle texture characteristic of bone that has been partially insulated from direct exposure to a flame (Buikstra and Swigle n.d.; Shipman and Foster n.d.). It is inferred from this evidence that meat was still adhering to the bones at the time heating occurred, suggesting cooking for consumption. Figure A.1 shows the percent representation of all body parts. The vertebral column, including ribcage and sternebrae, was virtually absent and the feet were barely present. Excavation damage and recovery bias may have exaggerated this pattern, but were probably not solely responsible. These elements did not show up in the unidentified small mammals from this feature. No additional modifications, such as cut or gnaw marks, were obvious on these remains, but foxes, like rabbits and other small mammals, can be % R EPR ESENTATION 100 80 40 20 60 CR M ST VRI Figure A.1Representationofgrayfoxelements. I F TI ELEMENTS Fl CaTSCHRAUMPPH Appendix A851 852 Margaret Glass easily disarticulated with a minimum of cutting or chopping. The ribcage of these small canids did not contain easily removeable meat, and may have been processed differently from the limbs, or discarded altogether with low utility portions such as the feet. Gray fox remains are not uncommon in Hohokam sites, but usually occur in low frequencies (Sparling 1978; Bayham 1982). By ethnographic analogy, the pelts of these carnivores are usually assumed to be their most important product (Russell 1908).
The presence of three adult individuals may indicate that these animals were intentionally sought rather than procured opportunis- tically. Male gray foxes are territorial creatures, and establish and mark home ranges. Males and females form pairs for the breeding season after which they, and any young pups, disperse for the fall and winter (Samuel and Nelson 1982). Thus, the likelihood of encountering three adults at any one time seems slim.
Additional remains associated with this feature included deer or other large mammal fragments (the majority of which were burned) and one antler flaking tool.
Two pits of indeterminate function and one roasting pit comprised the remaining features with bone at AZ EE:2:129. The latter contained one burned large mammal bone. Remains within Features 7 and 9 were unidentifiable except for one complete pocket gopher humerus.
The excavated bone from AZ EE:2:77 consisted of 53 fragments from a total of 10 provenience units. All pit houses contained a mixture of large and small mammals. In contrast, four of the six extramural pits contained only large mammal bone--one piece in each pit. Of the remaining two pits, one yielded a deer phalanx and two small mammal bones; the other had only one partial Lepus sp. tibia. All of the identifiable remains from these pits consisted of distal limb elements--those associated with very little usable meat. Within the pit houses, a much broader assortment of bones was present for both artiodactyls and lagomorphs. Rabbit remains included mandibles, pelves, one femur, tibiae, one humerus, radii, and metatarsals. Artiodactyls were represented by one mandible, scapulae fragments, a cervical vertebra, one radius, one femur, one astragalus, and a carpal. For both orders of animals, this combined pit house assemblage exhibited a high proportion of elements considered high in meat yield. Also present, however, were a few portions that can only be described as low utility: carpals, tarsals, and metatarsals.
AZ EE:2:77, with its fairly uncomplicated depositional units, allows some qualitative characterizations of the faunal inventories of different types of features that may help understand the distribution of bone within sites with more complex depositional histories. First, extramural areas might be expected to contain body parts removed in the early stages of preparation, or those overlooked in the maintenance of general activity areas. Roasting pits, which were the sites of additional processing, had small accumulations that may have included a higher proportion of charred bone. Pit houses could represent a mixture Appendix A 853 of remains from all stages of food preparation and consumption. Periodic emptying of extramural fire pits, or those from within occupied pit houses, may account for the frequent incidence of burned bone in pit house fill. Haury cites the mixed burned and unburned bone from structure fill at Snaketown as evidence of a similar pattern of redeposition (Haury 1976).
Analysis of the Large Sites
Depositional Origin of Taxa
A major problem in the analysis of any body of faunal material involves the identification of the remains of cultural prey versus natural accumulations of bone. In pit house villages such as those excavated here, most bone is recovered from structures or other clearly cultural contexts. This does not completely eliminate the possibility of intrusion of fauna not exploited in a prehistoric system or the natural deposition of fauna that was also an important economic resource. Because the likelihood of encountering rare taxa increases with sample size (Grayson 1978), animal remains which occur in very low frequencies within large assemblages should be carefully evaluated before being treated as cultural refuse.
Historic descriptions such as those given by Russell (1908), Castetter and Bell (1942), and Castetter and Underhill (1935) and recent ethnographies (Rea 1974) illustrate the variety of ways Sonoran Desert fauna has been used in recent times. Rather than depend solely upon these records, or arbitrarily exclude a group of animals based on the likelihood of intrusion, criteria were set up to evaluate the depositional origins of different mammals. Birds and reptiles were dealt with separately, for it was felt that these classes were not directly related to prehistoric Hohokam subsistence but contained other sorts of information, cultural and ecological, that deserve special attention.
Absolute frequencies of taxa, element representation, and overall condition of bone were the three main criteria used to isolate possible natural appearances of species in the assemblages from AZ EE:2:76, EE:2:105, and EE:2:113. Economically important animal remains are assumed to be present in relatively high numbers, and to exhibit frequent evidence of human modification (burning, butchering, often extreme fragmentation). Representation of elements presents certain problems of interpretation. Natural and cultural agents often act on the same bones or bone portions resulting in similar archaeologi- cal patterns from very different causal circumstances. As in many recent faunal studies, resolution of these problems will be a major theoretical and methodological consideration throughout this investigation. 854 Margaret Glass
Two orders of mammals (rodents and carnivores) were found in relatively low frequencies and should be evaluated to discern their depositional origin. Eight genera of rodents were identified at the three largest Rosemont sites. Two additional groups, rodent and small sciurid, were formed for bones unidentified below the order level, and those potentially belonging to two genera. Table A.11 shows the element representation for each rodent taxon. Burned elements are indicated by an asterisk in the appropriate cell. An additional figure in the upper right corner of particular cells indicates the number of bones in that taxon and element category that are less than 50 percent complete. Small sciurids and Spermophilus variegatus have the only burned elements and the highest fragmentation frequencies. These taxa were the only rodents found that show convincing evidence of cultural use. However, they occurred in frequencies too low for valid comparison to the main small mammal resource: lagomorphs. Two final observations can be made regarding this table. First, the large Dipodomys sp. bones all came from one provenience and represented a burrow death, as suggested by the spectrum of body parts present. Second, the three most common elements of all taxa combined were mandibles, humeri, and femora. This pattern of element representation was also noted in cultural and natural assemblages described by Kornfeld and Chomko (1983), and was probably related to the survival potential of these specific elements, rather than to human behavior.
Carnivores, with the exception of fossorial creatures, were less likely to become frequent intrusive components of cultural fill. Carnivore elements were rarely recovered from the Rosemont sites. A large felid and a bobcat were represented by two foot elements and one mandible, respectively, from different pit house fills at AZ EE:2:105. One large felid bone was charred, but the low frequency of this taxon makes it unlikely that it was regularly exploited. Gray fox appeared at each of the three large sites and some elements at AZ EE:2:105 were charred. This evidence, combined with the pattern of use already described for AZ EE:2:129, contributes to a picture of intentional procurement of this taxon. A final carnivore of obvious significance in the prehistoric Southwest is the domestic dog. Three burials from AZ EE:2:113 (to be described in detail) were partially articulated, arguing against the interpretation that they served as a source of protein. Additional isolated Canis sp. specimens also lacked any sign of human modification.
While the occasional use of infrequently occurring taxa can never be totally eliminated, neither the carnivores nor the rodents evaluated above seem to have achieved any constant level of economic importance among the inhabitants of these sites. Lagomorphs and artiodactyls constituted the major animal food sources. The dominance of these two taxa is typical of Hohokam sites in general (Sparling 1974, 1978; Greene and Mathews 1978; Johnson 1980). As Bayham (1982) points out, most of the variation between assemblages is in the relative contribution of artiodactyls and lagomorphs. The remainder of this analysis will address the importance of these taxa to the prehistoric Rosemont area inhabitants. Table A.11
ELEMENT REPRESENTATION OF RODENT TAXA FROM AZ EE:2:76, AZ EE:2:105, AND AZ EE:2:113 h t
r--1 te CU d too •ri ca W ..0 te ina ble bra I—I o
m $4 a, ,-.4 la di te a w m m r lcaneum n m .1-/ 4J Taxon W .....4 W 0 Iso Inno Ve Ma Ca W = z H Rodent 4 1 1 5 Small sciurid 1 1 2 1 1 4 Spermophilus variegatus 11 61 2 53 1 1 1 1 3 20 Thomomys sp. 1 8 2 1 1 1 1 13 Perognathus sp. 1 1 Large Dipodymys 2 2 7 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 23 Small Dipodymys 1 2 3 1 Neotoma sp. 1 42 4 4 4 1 1 31 18 Sigmodon sp. 1 1
Total 4 6 20 10 8 14 8 1 4 10 2 1 88 ddy a u xTp Note: superscripts indicate the number of fragmentary elements (less than 50%) 856 Margaret Glass
Comparison of Assemblages
It is first important to assess the comparability of the faunal remains from AZ EE:2:76, EE:2:105, and EE:2:113. General project analyses have lead to the interpretation of these three sites as villages probably occupied year-round for relatively long periods. The occupations of AZ EE:2:113 and EE:2:105 were largely overlapping and restricted to Rillito and early Rincon times. The majorityodproveniences of the remains at AZ EE:2:76 also dated to this time period, but a few did date both earlier and later. Comparison of their assemblages may reveal patterns of economic integration or competition between these sites.
Establishing comparability of specific taxa across sites with varying sample sizes is somewhat more difficult. Grayson (1978) suggests two ways to determine the validity of taxonomic comparisons by calculating the relationship between the number of elements (N) and MNI for each group investigated. The simpler method involves adopting an arbitrary ratio of MNI/N above which samples cannot be compared. Grayson considers 0.15 as a reasonable upper limit of MNI/N especially when MNI is calculated by a minimum distinction technique. Bayham (1982) adopts a similar correction value in his study of resource exploitation at Ventana Cave. Minimum MNI, calculated for the site as a whole, was divided by the element frequencies for each group of leporids and artiodactyls from sites AZ EE:2:76, EE:2:105, and EE:2:113. Because the number of elements attributed to certain species often reflects the identifiability of particular bones rather than species abundance, it was decided to combine all the artiodactyls, and to consider both of the jackrabbits as Lepus sp. The resulting taxa, Sylvilagus sp., Lepus sp., and artiodactyls, each had MNI/N less than 0.15 for all three large sites, thus allowing valid comparisons using MNI as a unit of manipulation.
The relative proportions of artiodactyls, Lepus sp., and Sylvilagus sp. were compared using both number of elements per taxon and MNI(min). Table A.12 presents the number of elements in each taxon for each site and the corresponding MNI(min) figures. Neither of these calculations can be interpreted as representing any more than the rank order of taxa (Grayson 1979). Between certain pairs of taxa, the ordering remains consistent regardless of the figure used. For example, Lepus sp. is more abundant than Sylvilagus sp., both in number of elements and MNI for all three sites. Comparing the contributions of artiodactyls to Lepus sp. gives slightly different results depending upon the method selected. Artiodactyls are represented by more elements but fewer individuals than jack rabbits at AZ EE:2:76 and EE:2:105; only at AZ EE:2:113 does the relative abundance of these taxa remain the same for MNI as well as elements. Here, Lepus sp. is more abundant than artiodactyls which, in turn, outnumber Sylvilagus.
Collapsing the two leporid genera and comparing the contributions of lagomorphs to artiodactyls for each site suggests that, overall, the artiodactyls are less abundant than lagomorphs. The one
Appendix A 857
Table A.12
NUMBERS AND MINIMUM MNI COUNTS OF LEPUS sp., SYLVILAGUS sp. AND ARTIODACTYL ELEMENTS FROM AZ EE:2:76, AZ EE:2:105 AND AZ EE:2:113
Lepus sp. Sylvilagus sp. Artiodactyls Site Number N MNI N MNI N MNI Total AZ EE:2:76 35 6 13 2 53 4 101
AZ EE:2:105 381 14 149 10 364 8 894
AZ EE:2:113 380 16 105 9 255 13 740
Total 796 36 267 21 672 25 1,735
apparent exception is at AZ EE:2:76, where a few more bone fragments were identified for artiodactyls than for jack rabbits and cottontails combined.
Any assessment of the relative importance of artiodactyls and lagomorphs to the diet of the inhabitants of this area must also consider the differences in body size and meat yield between these taxa. Table A.13 presents data on mean live weight and amount of digestible energy in kilocalories for each lagomorph and artiodactyl taxon as calculated by Bayham (1982). The last three columns contain kilo- calories multiplied by the minimum site MNI for each taxon at sites AZ EE:2:76, EE:2:105, and EE:2:113. Although such calculations can never be considered absolute measures of amounts of meat consumed, they do indicate the relative contribution made by each taxon to the total meat diet of the sites' inhabitants.
When the amount of available kilocalories for all lagomorphs and all artiodactyls are compared within each site, the relative importance of these two mammalian orders can be seen. Artiodactyls provide 9.4 times more digestible energy than lagomorphs at AZ EE:2:105, and as much as 15.7 times more kilocalories at AZ EE:2:113. The relative contribu- tions of taxa were compared in more detail by ranking each taxon on the basis of digestible energy available within each of the three sites (see Table A.14 for rank order schemes). For AZ EE:2:76, the ordering of taxa by kilocalorie values directly corresponds to an ordering of taxa based on body weight. This reflects the low MNI values figured for each taxon in this site, which may invalidate comparison of this sample with others when genus or species level determinations are used.
Sites AZ EE:2:105 and EE:2:113 were compared using Spearman's rank correlation. A correlation coefficient of 0.90 (p < .01) shows the Table A.13
DIGESTIBLE ENERGY AVAILABLE FROM LAGOMORPH AND ARTIODACTYL TAXA
FROM AZ EE:2:76, AZ EE:2:105 AND AZ EE:2:113 vw aa Available Kilocalories2 aa
4-J ,r) ,-,) l ..--4 al 0 +.0 0 p a.) 0 ...-, f---- .-4 .--i > .. .. X ..0 ui •,- 1 •r., .--i CV C■I C ,,I 1-) ,-i a 4.-i .,,,..-, X • • X • • .4 --, —, w W-4 w w u-1 ss ■ ..--, ;.Q OD • w „o a S- al —4 W ,--∎ W a3 ,--1 0 ai W 0 U al al cc! a 0 w u) •-I U N 0 N c_) N Taxon X 3 ,--- i3--,' la) W x < x< x <
Lepus alleni 4,309.2 70 6,334.6 19,003.8 19,003.8 6,334.6
L. californicus 2,268.0 70 3,334.0 10,002.0 36,674.0 50,010.0
Sylvilagus sp. 952.6 70 1,400.3 2,800.6 14,003.0 12,602.7
Lagomorph Total 31,806.4 69,680.8 68,974.3
Odocoileus sp. 56,700.0 72.2 85,968.5 — 165,937.0 343,874.0
O. cf. O. hemionus 68,040.0 72.2 103,162.3 103,162.3 103,162.3 206,324.6
O. cf. O. virginianus 45,360.0 72.2 68,774.8 68,774.8 137,549.6 137,549.6
Antilocapra americana 47,628.0 72.2 72,213.5 72,213.5 144,427.0 288,854.0
Ovis canadensis 71,215.2 72.2 107,976.5 107,976.5 107,976.5 107,976.5
Artiodactyl Total 352,127.1 659,052.4 1,084,569.8
'values taken from Bayham (1982) 2 based on minimum number of individuals Note: 1 lb = 453.6g; 100g. meat = 210 kilocalories Appendix A 859
Table A.14
RANK ORDER SCHEMES FOR TAXA BASED ON KILOCALORIE VALUES
Taxon AZ EE:2:105 AZ EE:2:113
Odocoileus sp. 1 1
Antilocapra americana 2 2
O. cf. O. virginianus 3 4
Ovis canadensis 4 5
O. cf. O. hemionus 5 3
Lepus californicus 6 6
L. alleni 7 8
Sylvilagus sp. 8 7
r = 0.905 Ps < 0.01
strong similarities between the ordering of taxa for these sites. Deer contribute the greatest amount of digestible energy, followed by the pronghorn. Any differences in the amounts of mule deer and white-tailed deer appear unimportant here, but are undoubtedly obscured by the large number of specimens only identified to the genus level. Finally, bighorn are the lowest ranked artiodactyl.
The three lagomorph taxa are ranked lowest in kilocalories of energy. In general, jack rabbits are somewhat higher than cottontails, although there is a slight difference in the values for Lepus alleni between the sites.
An important assumption underlying the above ranking is that animals were brought to the sites as complete individuals. This seems a reasonable assumption to make in the case of small mammals like lagomorphs. However, considerable variability may be introduced into an assemblage because of kill site processing and transport constraints associated with large mammal exploitation. 860 Margaret Glass
A variety of qualitative and quantitative comparisons were carried out on the lagomorph and artiodactyl bones recovered from the larger sites, with the aim of describing cultural and natural factors affecting assemblage variability.
Lagomorphs
Representation
Representation of skeletal elements was investigated in an attempt to isolate patterning which may have been related to lagomorph processing. Element representation was figured in the following manner: the minimum distinction MNI was used to calculate the maximum number of elements expected if every individual were completely preserved. This number was divided by the actual number of each element recovered. In order to assure the independence of bones counted, only the most commonly found segment or portion of each element was used, and numerous small fragments were excluded. Element representation for Lepus sp. and Sylvilagus sp. from AZ EE:2:76, 105, and 113 can be compared in Figures A.2 through A.4.
Taphonomic processes affecting archaeological deposits in general are incompletely understood, and processes which affect small mammal bones are very poorly known. While differential weathering conditions, bone density, and predator activity have been related to element survivability for large mammals, parameters affecting attrition of smaller skeletons are only beginning to be described. Until taphonomic processes are better comprehended, they will continue to confuse any cultural patterning that may be present in an assemblage. With this restriction in mind, some general observations may be made regarding skeletal representation of lagomorphs from the Rosemont sites.
Although there is some variability in the representation of body parts among the samples investigated, mandibles and scapulae frequently appear among the most common elements. There also seems to be a slight tendency for hind limbs to have greater representation values than bones from fore limbs. Finally, some suites of elements are consistently underrepresented. These include axial elements such as vertebrae, sternebrae and ribs, and carpals, tarsals (except for calcanei), metapodials, and phalanges.
A combination of factors have undoubtedly contributed to this pattern of remains. The underrepresentation of axial remains may be somewhat exaggerated; broken fragments of vertebrae and ribs often had to be identified merely as small mammal. Alternatively, it is possible that these bones, which bear very little meat, may have been discarded separately from food remains.
Appendix A 861
80
60 TATION
EN 40 RES
20 REP %
M RI I F TI CA SC H RA U MP PH ELEMENT REPRESENTATION-Lepus sp.
100
80 ON TI 60 NTA SE
RE 40
% REP 20
I T I I I I T I I I I M RI I F TI CA SC H RA U MP PH ELEMENT REPRESENTATION-Sy/vi/agus sp.
Figure A.2 Representation of leporid elements at AZ EE:2:76. 862 MargaretGlass
Figure A.3Representation ofleporidelementsatAZEE:2:105. % REPRESENTATI ON % REPRESENTATION 100 60 20 40 80 80 40 60 20 M STVRIIF TICAASCHRAUMPPH M STVRIIFTICAASCHRAUMPPH ELEMENT REPRESENTATION- ELEMENT REPRESENTATION- Sy/vi/opus Lepus sp. sp. `Yo REPRESEN TATION % REPR ESENTATION Figure A.4Representationofleporidelements atAZEE:2:113. 60 20 40 80 M STVRIIFTCASCHRA UMPPH M STVRIIFTCASCHRAUMPPH ELEMENT REPRESENTATION—Sy/vi/opus sp. ELEMENT REPRESENTATION—Lepussp. Appendix A863 864 Margaret Glass
The lack of foot elements can likewise be attributed to either (or both) of two possible factors. Collection bias may be responsible for the underrepresentation of many of these small bones. Carpals, tarsals and phalanges of either Lepus sp. or Sylvilagus sp. are particularly unlikely to be recovered using one-quarter-inch mesh screen. The largest of these elements, the calcaneum, consistently shows the highest representation of distal limb bones. It is interesting to note thatflotation samples did not contain a high proportion of foot elements, as might be expected if excavation loss alone was responsible for their absence. However, it is difficult to assess the quantitative relationship between these flotation samples and the total number of site units from which bone was recovered.
An alternative possibility which could explain the paucity of foot elements involves differential disposal of body parts. Initial processing of lagomorphs may have occurred in a field context, as suggested by Bayham (1976), and distal limbs could have been discarded away from sites. If such processing was practiced, it does not seem to have been very elaborate. Crania, which might also be expected to be thrown away in such an activity, were highly represented by mandibles and other fragments. A variation of this explanation may be that foot elements were left encased in skins and never entered the site as waste from food remains.
In general, some sort of differential disposal probably accounts for the scarcity of lagomorph foot bones better than does excavation bias. Metapodials are just as uncommon as other carpus or tarsus elements although they are much larger and easily recognizable. The high proportion of calcanei could be due to their tight structural connection with the tibia as well as their larger size compared to other tarsals. Unfortunately, no direct evidence of lagomorph processing could be observed, with one possible exception. A single Lepus californicus metatarsal from Feature 11 (a pit house) at AZ EE:2:13 bore a cut mark oriented transversely on the proximal shaft. Dismemberment of rabbit-sized mammals can be (and probably was) easily accomplished by hand. Skinning may be the only task requiring some tool use.
The two largest samples of lagomorphs (from AZ EE:2:105 and EE:2:113) were compared more closely by plotting the percent represen- tation for each element from Lepus sp. against the corresponding values for Sylvilagus sp. Figures A.5 and A.6 show the resulting scatterplots with Sylvilagus sp. placed along the X-axis and Lepus sp. along the Y-axis. The regression line drawn predicts representation of Lepus sp. elements based on the values for Sylvilagus sp. (that is, regression of Y on X). Correlations of 0.80 and 0.73 for AZ EE:2:105 and EE:2:113, respectively, indicate the close resemblance of element representation between the two taxa. Inspection of the positioning of individual elements relative to the regression lines also shows a consistency in the skeletal representation of these two taxa between sites. For example, the scapula, tibia, calcaneum, humerus, and radius are overrepresented for Lepus sp. relative to the representation of these elements for Sylvilagus sp. in both sites. In order to more clearly view this patterning between samples, the residual variation in X (Lepus at AZEE:2:105. Figure A.5ComparisonofLepusandSylvilagus elementrepresentation °/0 E LEMENTR EPR ESENTATION —Lepus sp. °A3 ELEMENTREPRESENTATION r=.8, y=.85x-.0I .2 .6 — Sy/w/agus Appendix A865 .8 sp. 1.00 866 Margaret Glass
1.00— • SC
sp. s
u .8— Lep ON—
TI .6-
TA H • CA • ESEN
.4- • RA T REPR
F .2- • % ELEMEN
.2 .6 .8 1.00 % ELEMENT REPRESENTATION — Sy/vilagus sp. r=.73, y=1.01+.I
Figure A.6 Comparison of Lepus and Sylvilagus element representation at AZ EE:2:113. Appendix A 867 sp.) was plotted for each site in Figure A.7. The positive linear trend seen in this plot shows the close similarity in over- and underrepre- sentation of Lepus sp. elements relative to Sylvilagus sp. elements for AZ EE:2:105 and EE:2:113. Although the original correlation of 0.63 for this plot is not overwhelming, the exclusion of two outlying values for scapula and ulna results in a much stronger value of 0.93.
The above analysis has strengthened the impression that skeletal representation is strongly comparable both between lagomorph genera and between the two major sites. The most obvious differences are in the relative underrepresentation of Sylvilagus sp. scapulae at AZ EE:2:113 and the overabundance of Lepus sp. ulnae at AZ EE:2:105. In general, however, natural and cultural processes have patterned these assemblages in similar ways. These overall similarities in representation permit the samples to be viewed together. Figure A.8 presents a bar graph showing mean representation for all Lepus sp. and Sylvilagus sp. elements from AZ EE:2:105 and EE:2:113. Here the underrepresentation of axial and distal limb elements is obvious. Scapulae and mandibles appear as the most abundant elements, and the slightly higher proportions of hind limbs to forelimbs can be seen.
Fragmentation
The Lepus sp. and Sylvilagus sp. bones from AZ EE:2:105 and EE:2:113 were also compared using a ratio designed to show the relative fragmentation of each kind of element. This fragmentation index was created by dividing the number of independent elements (figured for the representation analysis) by the total number of fragments identified in each element category. Scatterplots were drawn comparing fragmentation first within taxa, then within sites. After the exclusion of outlying values, fairly high correlations were obtained for the two Lepus sp. samples and between the two genera for AZ EE:2:113 (r = 0.78 and r = 0.89, respectively). With the exception of some irregularities in the Sylvilagus sp. bones from AZ EE:2:105, the fragmentation of all four lagomorph samples appears to follow similar patterns. Mean fragmentation values were calculated for each element, and can be seen in the bar chart in Figure A.9. A bimodal pattern is obvious with vertebrae, ribs, calcanei, scapulae, metapodials, and phalanges having relatively few fragments per individual element. Limb elements and mandibles tend to have more pieces per element, while innominate fragmentation values are best considered intermediate. It was anticipated that this analysis might show patterning created by manual processing. For instance, proximal limb bones (for example, humeri, femora) might be expected to be more fragmentary than distal segments. Indeed, this tendency can be seen in Figure A.7, although it is admittedly weak. Postdepositional activities have undoubtedly obscured many of the immediate traces of human food preparation.
Combined with the representation data presented above, a general interpretation of rabbit processing may be postulated. Removal and disposal of feet were probably involved in an early stage of
.40 - 2IEN 1E 30 _ .30 - Ln TO
0 SS w }— 65 .20 - Sc CO • ....1 < .7.) .10 - 0 CT) w ct
0 -
-.10 -
I 1 I I I 1 1 1 -.30 -.20 -.10 0 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 RESIDUALS—SITE 113 2 r= .63, y=.489+.11
Figure A.7 Comparison of residual variation in Lepus element representation at AZ EE :2 :105 and AZ EE :2 :113. Appendix A 869
100
80 2! 0
1--2r 60 0, 11.1 OC Lij 40 OC
20
ST V RI TI CA SC H RA U MP PH
ELEMENTS
Figure A.8 Mean representation for all leporid elements at AZ EE:2:105 and AZ EE:2:113.
disarticulation, as indicated by the low representation and high fragmentation indices. The axial column may or may not have been kept intact while cooking. In either case, vertebrae, ribs, and sternebrae seem to be rare and, when present, are relatively unbroken. Forelimbs could have been easily detached along the scapulae and may secondarily have been broken at the humerus. Hindlimbs could likewise have been removed at the pelvis (by snapping the weak symphysis) or at the femur.
This leaves the mandible as an apparent anomaly with the second highest representation value and in fairly fragmented condition. In addition, crania are generally not considered to be important in consumption. A possible explanation for their abundance could involve the use of rabbit incisors as tools for notching stone tools or manipulating plant materials. The horizontal ramus provides a natural handle for such an implement. Haury (1950: 382-383) recovered fiber- wrapped lagomorph mandibles from Ventana Cave and ascribes a chipping or engraving function to them. Closer study of rabbit mandibles combined with experimental work could help evaluate this possibility. 870 Margaret Glass
100
80 N O
TATI 60 N RESE
P 40 RE °/0
20
ST' V RI TI CA A SC H RA U MP PH
ELEMENTS low sample size
Figure A.9 Mean fragmentation values for leporid elements at AZ EE:2:105 and AZ EE:2:113. Appendix A 871
Lagomorph Procurement
Although hares and rabbits frequently account for a high percentage of the total faunal remains from Hohokam sites, procurement and use of these taxa are still rather poorly understood. An analysis of lithic scatters encountered in the CONOCO-Florence Project and their interpretation as possible rabbit processing stations, represents the only published attempt to describe lagomorph use among the Hohokam (Bayham 1976). Few systematic studies have been done on postdeposi- tional factors affecting small mammal bone accumulations. In addition, the role of small mammals within agricultural economies in general still needs investigation. The attraction of lagomorphs to crop fields and other disturbed land has frequently been noted (Vorhies and Taylor 1933; Dunn and others 1982). Did these creatures serve as a constant "reservoir" of easily obtainable meat or were they intentionally hunted at particular points of the economic cycle?
Ethnographic literature for both the Pima and the Papago describes large-scale communal hunts for jack rabbits, and both drives and individual collection of cottontails (Russell 1908; Underhill 1946; Rea 1974). Bayham (1976) discusses behavioral differences between Lepus sp. and Sylvilagus sp. that could influence the methods used to capture these animals. The Rosemont lagomorph remains constitute a sample large enough to test whether there were different techniques used for hunting jackrabbits and cottontails prehistorically, and perhaps to infer general strategies of procurement.
Mortality curves describe the age structure within a death assemblage, and have been used extensively by paleontologists to characterize fossil assemblages and infer conditions under which death occurred. Under ideal conditions, two distinct types of assemblages can be described by mortality curves. A death assemblage which has resulted from a catastrophic event generally approximates the age structure of a living population at a given moment in time. Barring any demographic imbalances, this age structure typically resembles a pyramidal distri- bution with variable decreases in numbers of individuals from one age class to the next depending upon the survival potential for that age class. An attritional curve represents mortality over a period of time and shows relatively high abundances of juvenile and old individuals, who are more susceptible to disease and predation than adults (Kurten 1953; Vorhies 1969). By dividing the lagomorph bones into age groups and creating mortality curves with these data it may be possible to determine whether these assemblages are products of catastrophic or attritional processes. As suggested by White (1978), collective rabbit drives should result in assemblages which have characteristics of catastrophic mortality.
For the following analysis, lagomorphs were grouped at the generic level to facilitate comparison. Four relative age groups were created for both Lepus sp. and Sylvilagus sp., separated by epiphyseal fusion of various suites of elements. General mammalian fusion schedules and complete lagomorph specimens from the comparative 872 Margaret Glass collection were used in the formation of these groups. The specific elements, or portions of elements, used to define each fusion group are listed in Table A.15. Unfortunately, calibration of these fusion episodes with known ages of individuals is not possible. Biologists, who are most concerned with this information, rely upon soft tissue for aging most mammals. The age at which fusion occurs is known only for two elements. The proximal humerus fuses at about 7 to 9 months of age in Lepus californicus. This is comparable to a 9 month age of fusion of the same element in cottontails. For European rabbits, fusion of the tibia occurs at approximately 10 months of age (Lechleitner 1959). The tibia and proximal humerus are among the elements used to define the third and latest fusion group. Thus, rabbits and hares with these epiphyses completely closed can be considered to be at the very least about 8 to 11 months old. The upper limit of this age group extends to the maximal life expectancy of lagomorphs.
The mortality curve for each taxon was figured in the following manner. First, the number of elements within each fusion group was counted, taking care to include only those fragments complete enough to
Table A.15
FUSION GROUPS OF LAGOMORPH POSTCRANIAL SKELETON
Fusion Group Elements
First acetabulum scapula (glenoid) proximal ulna distal humerous proximal radius planalges (unfused)
Second metapodials distal radius distal ulna calcaneum phalanges (epiphyseal line visible or fused)
Third proximal tibia distal tibia proximal femur distal femur proximal humerus vertebra (centrum) Appendix A 873
determine degree of epiphyseal closure. Then the percentage of fused elements was figured separately for each of the three element groups. Bones still exhibiting a fusion line were counted as open, with one exception. Phalanges fuse over a relatively long period of time depending upon their position within the carpus or tarsus. In order to reflect this time span, the percentage of fused phalanges was figured twice in slightly different ways. As part of fusion group one, the percentage of fused phalanges also included those showing traces of an epiphyseal line. As part of the second fusion group, the number of fused as opposed to partly fused phalanges was counted.
The percentages of fused bones in each group were plotted next to each other in bar format. In this way, four relative age classes have been created: three consist of hares or rabbits which died before the fusion of certain bones, and a fourth which includes lagomorphs in which even the latest epiphyses are closed. Graphic depiction of this last class, however, is impossible--death could have occurred anytime between fusion and the upper limit of rabbit life expectancy.
Finally, a rough mortality curve was derived by plotting the differences between the percentage of fused elements for each group relative to the preceeding group. This distribution, also represented as a series of adjacent bars, provides a more interpretable picture of the contribution of each age class to the total death assemblage than do the raw data. It should be noted that the fourth group is included in this curve. Figures A.10 and A.11 contain fusion and mortality curves for AZ EE:2:105 and EE:2:113. AZ EE:2:76 was omitted from this part of the analysis because of the low frequencies of epiphyseal areas for lagomorph bones. Lepus sp. and Sylvilagus sp. curves can easily be compared from these figures. The number above each fusion group indicates the total number of elements used to figure percentage of fused bones.
Some general comparisons may be made of these four pairs of curves. First, there appear to be no major differences between curves for Lepus sp. and Sylvilagus sp. from either site. Assemblages of both taxa display relatively high proportions of fused bones for the earliest fusion groups. This indicated an underrepresentation of young individuals, especially when the life table of a typical mammal population is kept in mind. Second, the distributions of age groups for these taxa are also similar when compared between the two sites. This indicates broadly similar techniques of procurement or similar post- depositional processes structuring the faunal record. With respect to postdepositional activity, special note must be taken of the relation- ship between the second and third fusion groups in the data presented for Sylvilagus sp. from AZ EE:2:105. In a perfect sample of complete individuals, the percentage of fused elements in any group should always be equal to or less than the preceeding group value. The activity of some sampling bias has resulted in a slightly higher percentage of fused elements in the third element group than in the second. It is not obvious which of the two element groups may be misrepresented. 874 Margaret Glass
ioo ve o 80 ED S zLL FU 60 ■°.
TS o
N 1
ME 40 E
EL LL 20 %
I 2 3 2 3 FUSION GROUPS AGE GROUPS Lepus sp. Lepus sp.
100
80 ED IL
FUS z 60 0 TS o N E 40 o EM U) EL LL
% 20
I 2 3 I 2 3 FUSION GROUPS AGE GROUPS Sylvilogus sp. Sylvilagus sp.
Figure A.10 Fusion groups and age groups for leporids at AZ EE:2:105. Appendix A 875
100 a x
80 ED
S U_
FU z 60
TS o
x 40 EMEN EL U_ 20 z
I 2 3 2 3 FUSION GROUPS AGE GROUPS Lepus sp. Lepus sp.
100
O x 80 UJ ED U) U_ FUS z 60 TS
EN 1 40 U.1 U) U_
% ELEM 20 z
a2 1 2 3 2 3 FUSION GROUPS AGE GROUPS Sylvilagus sp. Sylvdagus sp.
Figure A.11 Fusion groups and age groups for leporids at AZ EE:2:113. 876 Margaret Glass
Two general interpretations are suggested by the data presented above. First, Lepus sp. and Sylvilagus sp. assemblages appear to have been structured by similar processes of age selection and element survival. Second, the majority of elements are from individuals which lived beyond the latest fusion age, defined as approximately 8 to 11 months. This would seem to argue for selective procurement of hares and rabbits, focusing on older individuals, rather than using a collective drive. This second interpretation rests on the assumption that rabbit drives did, in fact, collect individuals from all age groups within a local population. In this light, it would be useful to have detailed ethnographic descriptions of drives in order to see if culling or selective release of captured rabbits was practiced.
A number of other assumptions are built into the above technique which should be explained to allow evaluation of the overall interpre- tation. The assemblages are assumed to constitute complete individuals, or, if not, it is assumed that postdepositional preservation biases have not altered the proportion of unfused elements relative to fused ones. Studies on medium- and large-sized mammals have indicated that bones of juvenile individuals are less dense and have a lower survival potential (Binford and Bertram 1977). The extent to which such factors have affected these lagomorph assemblages is unknown. There does not appear to be major sample error between age groups because, in all collections except one, each age class is equal to or less than the previous one. However, it is impossible to determine whether the entire sample is biased toward mature individuals in all age classes.
A further assumption is that the lagomorph populations studied here were not undergoing any major demographic changes. Finally, it has been assumed that patterning in the faunal assemblage has not been obscured by variability in prehistoric hunting practices.
The models of population structure and mortality curves mentioned above have been used frequently in the analysis and interpretation of archaeological assemblages of large mammals, primarily ungulates. However, ungulates can be more successfully aged by techniques of dental analysis which permit a finer age resolution than has been achieved here. In addition, population dynamics of ungulates are better known. Lagomorph populations, on the other hand, are poorly described and are characterized by cycles of abundance and scarcity. Drastic fluctuations could make comparisons with stable population models problematic. Despite these problems, the preceding analysis has attempted to evaluate evidence for collective as opposed to individual procurement of lagomorphs by Hohokam occupying the Santa Rita foothills. It is hoped that this analysis will be treated critically, and eventually contribute to a more detailed understanding of the role of small mammals in food procurement strategies in general. Appendix A 877
Artiodactyls
Habitat Distribution
The four artiodactyl species which were present in the prehistoric Rosemont area are roughly comparable in terms of body weight and percentage of usable meat. Each taxon, though, has slighty different habitat preferences and is characterized by different kinds of social behavior. Mule deer and white-tailed deer ranges overlap somewhat today, but white-tailed deer generally prefer areas of denser, more closed vegetation. Both taxa are considered solitary in that they do not regularly form large groups. Local densities of white-tailed deer appear to be more closely associated with variability in plant resources, and this species is also characterized by more altitude variation throughout the year (Hungerford 1977). Pronghorn, the most gregarious of the artiodactyls discussed here, is a grassland-adapted species. If modern vegetation communities are at all similar to prehistoric ones, the major habitation area for these creatures might be expected to be to the east and southeast, in the Cienega Valley. Pronghorn density in the Rosemont area may have been less than density in optimal range areas. Bighorn is a solitary species primarily favoring rocky slopes with grassy vegetation at higher elevations. Although not present today, bighorn could probably have been found within a few hours of Barrel Canyon, toward the north and west and perhaps the south.
An additional factor which must be considered when discussing the distribution of artiodactyls in the desert is availability of water. All modern streams in the area are ephemeral. However, there are seven major springs distributed throughout the northern portion of the Rosemont study area, and numerous other springs exist to the south (Phillips, Chapter 9). It is probably valid to assume that many of these springs were active in prehistoric times, with seasonal runoff supplementing the local water supply. Thus, there is no reason to consider water as severely limiting the distribution of game in the project area.
This discussion of factors affecting artiodactyl distribution allows some general observations about the character of large mammal resources around Rosemont. Deer were probably the most abundant large animal in the immediate site vicinity, with perhaps seasonal differences in the ratios of white-tailed deer to mule deer. Pronghorn would have been available in the local region in low densities, possibly in higher densities in the grasslands to the south and east. Bighorn range may have been the most spatially segregated from the area of human occupation. Their procurement could have been by fortuitous encounters near the prehistoric occupation sites or by deliberate trips to higher elevations. Finally, all three genera were probably encountered as individuals or in very small groups, reducing the effectiveness of hunting by collective drive techniques. 878 Margaret Glass
Representation
Element representation of the artiodactyl taxa can be compared among the three major sites to evaluate the assumption underlying the MNI calculations: that complete animals were introduced into site context. Because of the differences in the number of bones which could be identified to the species level at each site, only presence or absence of general element categories will be considered here. Data were taken from Tables A.2 through A.9.
Ovis canadensis is the artiodactyl expected to be least accessible by the habitat preference previously described. Bighorn elements appear in all three of the major sites, but in very low quantities. Actual elements identified include only teeth and phalanges from AZ EE:2:76, teeth and an ulna from AZ EE:2:105, and a humerus bone tube from AZ EE:2:113. Unless a high proportion of the bones identified merely as artiodactyl are really from bighorn, it seems unlikely that complete individuals from this taxon were regularly brought into any of the three sites.
Pronghorn remains from AZ EE:2:105 and EE:2:113 include a broader range of anatomical parts. AZ EE:2:76 shows only phalanges attributed to this taxon. At AZ EE:2:105, all major body parts are represented among the pronghorn remains. In fact, over two-thirds of these bones come from one feature (Feature 41, a pit house) and may be from a single individual. AZ EE:2:113 contains pronghorn crania fragments and distal limb elements including carpals, tarsals, metapodials, and phalanges. This pattern suggests two possible explanations. First, these limb elements, which can be considered low utility parts because of their lack of meat, were brought into the site as "handles" for carrying in higher utility body parts from a spatially separate butchering locality. However, this leaves the crania unaccounted for. Also, it is questionable as to whether an animal the size of an antelope, procured within a few hours' distance from a site, would be subject to strong transport constraints. A more reasonable interpretation of this skeletal representation involves differential destruction of axial and proximal limb segments due to both human processing and nonhuman scavenging. Cranial fragments and distal limbs tend to be better preserved and are most easily identified to the species level. A high number of axial and proximal limb bones classified as "deer or pronghorn" or "artiodactyl" also suggest that preservation and identifiability are important factors to keep in mind. So, the pronghorn at AZ EE:2:105 and EE:2:113 were most likely introduced into the sites as complete animals.
Deer elements are more abundant than bones from other artiodactyl taxa at all three sites. In addition, when lumped at the genus level to eliminate identification bias, all main body portions are represented. As indicated earlier, deer are expected to have been the most common ungulate in Barrel Canyon prehistorically. The local population of white-tailed deer may even have been attracted to the site vicinity by crops grown in the area; their habit of crop scavenging is well Appendix A 879 documented from historic times (Leopold 1972). It is easiest to imagine deer being brought into the sites as complete individuals.
The small number of fragments identified to the genus or species level prevents anything more than the qualitative discussion of artiodactyl procurement presented here. However, it seems reasonable to assume that, with the possible exception of bighorn, all of the taxa described were encountered in low densities, probably individually, and were brought whole into the site contexts.
It has frequently been pointed out that regularities in faunal assemblages reflect cumulative decision-making regarding procurement strategies and processing, modified by disposal and postdepositional activities. Analyses of the pooled artiodactyl samples from each site were carried out in an attempt to describe such regularities in a more quantitative fashion, and in order to isolate factors relevant to such patterns.
Representation of skeletal elements was figured in the same manner as described for the lagomorphs. Higher level identifications (that is, bones designated at the genus or order level) were included only when it was clear that they could not be accounted for in the more specific categories. Because the articular ends of long bones have different degrees of resistance to attrition, representation was figured separately for proximal and distal ends of limb elements. Figures A.12, A.13, and A.14 show the representation bar graphs for AZ EE:2:76, EE:2:105, and EE:2:113. The underrepresentation of artiodactyl bones at AZ EE:2:76 can be clearly seen, and further comparison with the two larger sites was considered invalid.
Visual comparison of Figures A.13 and A.14 brings out some of the similarities in skeletal patterning between the two large assemblages. Mandibles have the highest representation values. Elements of the central body cavity--vertebrae, ribs and sternebrae--are generally underrepresented. Finally, carpals and tarsals, except for the astragalus and calcaneum, are also present in lower numbers than expected. Beyond these initial similarities, the representation of artiodactyl bones at these sites is difficult to interpret. A correlation of the two series of representation values yielded only a low value (r = 0.40).
Assuming complete animals were usually brought into both sites, differences in element percentages could stem either from variation in processing techniques, disposal habits, or postdepositional attrition. The latter factor, attrition, encompasses a broad group of activities: trampling and scavenging by humans and nonhumans, mechanical weathering, and organic decay. Of these activities, carnivore scavenging has been best described (Binford and Bertram 1977; Binford 1981; Brain 1981), and its effects can be indirectly tested. Binford and Bertram (1977) noticed a relationship between density of a bone and the probability of that bone being devoured by dogs. They provide a measure of bone density for various parts of elements which, if plotted against representation, may indicate the importance of carnivore action on the
ELEM ENTS (DI) (DI) (PR) (PR) (PR) T1 (LUMB) V (DI) (DI) (DI) (PR) (CERV) V- (PR) MP (DI) (PR) RA (THOR) VI MP PH RA CA SC- T - Ti - H - RI- C U- U- H A - F- F - 1 - in Figures A.12-A.14 Artiodactylelement representation atAZEE:2:76,105, and113,respectively. 20 Figure A.12 % REPRESENTATION 40 b0 80 100
ELEM E (DI) (DI) (PR) (PR) TI (PR) (PR) MP (DI) (CERV) V (PR) (THOR) V (DI) (PR) RA (01) (DI) (LUMB) V MP PH RA CA SC TI RI H A F 20 Figure A.13 REPRESENTATION 40 60 80 100
ELE MENTS (DI) (DI) (PR) (PR) (PM (WW1) (CERA (PR) W (DI) U (PR) (DI) (DI) (THOM (DI) RA- (PR) RA MP CA PH SC TI - TI RI T H H v A F F I - r 1.11. 20 Figure A.14 % REPRESENTATION 40
60 80
ss ei o l a xe B.z. -eysi Appendix A 881
structure of the bone assemblage. Figures A.15 and A.16 show scatterplots of percent element representation against bone density (from Binford and Bertram 1977: caribou values) for sites AZ EE:2:105 and EE:2:113. There is a moderate correlation between these variables for site 105 (r = 0.63), but virtually no relationship visible for AZ EE:2:113.
An interpretation of carnivore activity at AZ EE:2:105 also corresponds with a general pattern observable in the bar graph for this site, Figure A.13. Binford and Bertram (1977) and Brain (1981) both describe the overabundance of distal ends relative to proximal ends of the same element, and attribute this pattern to attrition. This is especially obvious in the humerus and tibia values for AZ EE:2:105.
The role of such agents of attrition at AZ EE:2:113 is harder to assess. The low correlation value between representation and density can mean that other agents besides carnivores have been active, or that factors involved in processing or discard were dominant in structuring this assemblage.
Feature Contexts
Discard contexts at both sites can be briefly compared to see if any major differences are present. Pit houses are the provenience units which yielded the majority of artiodactyl bone at both sites. What appear to be trash-filled borrow pits at AZ EE:2:105 and EE:2:113 contributed the next highest amounts of artiodactyl bone. Finally, hearths, rock clusters, indeterminate pits, and burials contributed only a minor percentage to each site total. In general, then, the provenience contexts of artiodactyl bone are similar between the two sites. Overall, it is unlikely that the two sites were characterized by major differences in disposal patterns.
Fragmentation
A fragmentation index was created by a procedure similar to that described for the lagomorphs. The representation analysis was done separately for proximal and distal ends of long bones, but these portions were combined for calculating fragmentation. Whichever articular end was represented by the highest number of independent bones was chosen as the divisor for the fragmentation ratio. All fragments, whether proximal or distal, were combined for the dividend. High fragmentation values indicate relatively complete elements.
Figures A.17 and A.18 present the fragmentation indices for artiodactyls from AZ EE:2:105 and EE:2:113 plotted as bar graphs. Lines at 30 percent and 80 percent separate the elements into three arbitrary groups to simplify comparison. Overall, remains from AZ EE:2:113 appear to be broken more than the bones from AZ EE:2:105. This is especially density atAZEE:2:113. Figure A.16Comparison ofartiodactylelementrepresentation andbone Figure A.15Comparisonofartiodactylelementrepresentationandbone density atAZEE:2:105. 882 MargaretGlass
% ELEMENT REPRES ENTATION % ELEMENT REPRESENTATI ON .80 - .20 .40- .60 - .80 - 40- 60 - 20- • • rr .26 r=.63 • 1 10 1 0 • •
BONE DENSITY BONE DENSITY • • 1.2 • 1.2 11 • • • • •• . • • • • • • 1.4 14 I • 1.6 1 6 I 1
Figure A.17FragmentationindicesofartiodactylelementsatAZEE:2:105. Figure A.18Fragmentation indicesofartiodactylelements at AZEE:2:113.
FRAGMENTATION FRAGMENTATION 1.00 .20 40 60 80 - RI TI TI ACATSCHRAU A CATSCHRAU ELEMENTS ELEMENTS C MPPH C MPPH Appendix A883
884 Margaret Glass apparent when each of the three arbitrary fragmentation groups are compared. AZ EE:2:113 contains four more elements that can be considered highly broken (index < 30) than does AZ EE:2:105: ribs, tibiae, femora, and humeri. AZ EE:2:113 also has fewer complete elements; astragalus, calcaneum, and other tarsals and carpals have indices of 100 percent for AZ EE:2:105. Although both sets of indices underestimate the actual breakage of elements, a difference in the relative degree of fragmentation of artiodactyl bones is apparent. More intense human processing, different food preparation habits or variability in postoccupational processes are all potentially relevant factors in explaining the difference between these two sites.
Any patterning in artiodactyl bone fragmentation results from the combined effects of human processing and subsequent taphonomic forces. Artiodactyl bones from AZ EE:2:105 and EE:2:113 appear to have undergone more intense destruction than lagomorph bones from these same sites. This impression is at least partially created by a factor called minimum size (Hesse 1982); that is, the smallest size a fragment may be and still be identified to element and taxon. Logically, this minimum size increases with the size of the animal. Human processing undoubtedly compounds this phenomenon of identifiability: bones of larger mammals yield grease and marrow with additional processing. In contrast, such secondary products may not be as important in small mammals, or can be extracted by methods other than intense fragmentation (for example, boiling, stewing, or ingestion of small elements). The net result of all of these factors is the underrepresentation of artiodactyl bones (which must often be identified only as large mammal) and the impression of severe destruction of the faunal assemblage. What must be kept in mind, however, is that the degree of fragmentation described here for artiodactyls is different from that observed for lagomorphs, and that this difference is likely to reflect qualitative differences in the agents and sequences of destruction between large and small mammal bones.
Cut Marks
Provisions were made to record in detail the cut marks which appeared on the artiodactyl remains, in the hope of describing Hohokam butchering patterns. Unfortunately, only 24 bones from AZ EE:2:76, EE:2:105, and EE:2:113 bore marks which were convincingly of human origin, and 3 of these were only identifiable as large mammal. Ribs accounted for the majority of the cut marks (13 of the total 24). Cut marks were generally oriented either transverse or diagonal to the length of the rib, and occurred on both the medial and lateral surfaces. About half of these cuts were located near the rib head or neck. The character of these cuts--short, sharp but shallow--suggests they were probably a result of defleshing.
Two vertebrae showed cut marks. One, a thoracic, had a slice along the anterior margin of the thoracic spine, a mark often made when detaching the skin from the vertebral column. A second vertebra, a Appendix A 885 lumbar, exhibited deep, sharp cuts oriented transversely on the inferior surface of the centrum. Such a cut could result from attempting to separate the hind portion of the body (pelvis and limbs) from the thoracic segment.
Only three hind limbs (one femur and two tibiae) contained cut marks. The femur had shallow marks running transversely on the medial shaft just proximal to the condyle. One tibia showed shallow, parallel cuts oriented longitudinally on the anterior distal shaft. Both these series of marks could have been made by stripping tissue from bone with the help of a tool, but without sawing at the bone itself. In contrast, a second tibia bore deep, V-shaped cuts around the medial malleolus. This is most likely a result of disarticulation at this joint.
Forelimbs with cut marks included a scapula, a humerus, two radii, one ulna and a metacarpal. The scapula had cuts running anterior-posterior within the infraspinous fossa. These cuts can be associated with the removal of the large muscle masses which lie along the scapula. A distal humerus fragment showed deep, invasive cuts just proximal to the condyles, probably from disarticulation. An ulna, showing sharp marks on the olecranon process, could also have resulted from severing of this joint. Two radii exhibited fine cut marks on the shafts, probably from defleshing. One set of marks was on the lateral border of the proximal shaft, the other, on the anterior midshaft. Finally, one metacarpal showed transversely oriented cut marks on the proximal-medial shaft.
It is more useful to consider the collective pattern created by this series of cut marks rather than to split them up by site and taxon. Two kinds of butchering marks have been described: skinning or defleshing marks and disarticulation cuts. They are characterized by different morphologies: shallow, fine, sharp lines as opposed to deep, V-shaped nicks, respectively. Three areas with disarticulation cuts were noted: at the lumbar section of the vertebral column, the distal tibia, and between the distal humerus and the radius-ulna. The majority of traces, however, appear to have been left by skinning or defleshing actions.
Burning
A certain amount of confusion exists regarding the interpre- tation of charred or calcined mammal bones from archaeological sites. Analysis of Hohokam faunal assemblages have frequently noted the high incidence of burning on large mammal bones, and the comparatively low incidence of fire modification on small mammals (Johnson n.d., 1981; Sparling 1978). In most cases, this burning is assumed to be a direct result of meat preparation, usually involving roasting over an open fire.
Burning experiments have demonstrated that bone undergoes a progression of color and textural changes with exposure to fire (Amprino 886 Margaret Glass
1958; Shipman and Foster 1983). A burning episode of short duration, or cooking a body portion surrounded by meat often results in only slight discoloration of the insulated bone. The brown tones that indicate such exposure can often be hard to detect because of the compounding effects of soil discoloration. It is only the later stages of fire exposure, characterized by little or no protection from open flames and longer periods of burning at higher temperatures, that leave bone visibly altered. An obvious example of the extreme modification of bone at high temperatures can be seen in human cremations.
The suggestion made here is that burning of bones may be more directly related to disposal practices than to food preparation. Two types of burning contexts can be envisioned, Incidental burning of elements may occur when bones fall or are casually thrown into a fire, or into a pit where a fire is subsequently lit. An example of this context may be seen in the small mammal foot elements associated with fire pits excavated at some of the Salt-Gila Aqueduct sites (Szuter 1984). A second type of burning may result from fires set deliberately to burn refuse, or from the use of bone as fuel, as suggested by Haury (1976). In either case, this sort of burning would be expected to result in similar patterns of charring across different taxa on a feature-by-feature basis.
Some general observations can be made on the occurrence of burning in the faunal collections from AZ EE:2:105 and EE:2:113 which tend to support these above suggestions. Percentages of burned bones were figured for the features which contributed the most fragments (100 or more) to the site totals. These percentages reflected total number of bones, regardless of the taxonomic level to which they could be identified. Five features at AZ EE:2:113 contributed 100 or more fragments each, with percentages of burned bones ranging from 9 percent to 20 percent (mean = 14%). Nine features from AZ EE:2:105 contributed high numbers of bone, with burning percentages ranging from 23 percent to 53 percent (mean = 39%).
Burning percentages were also figured for lagomorph and artiodactyl bones from these two sites. A percentage figure was calculated for each element. If burning patterns were most closely related to food preparation techniques of specific taxa, and if these techniques were culturally patterned, we would expect the percentages of burned elements from lagomorphs at AZ EE:2:105 to be highly correlated with the percentages figured for the same taxon at AZ EE:2:113. The same would probably be true for the artiodactyls. No consistent relationship could be found among these samples, however.
On the other hand, there do apear to be regularities in the percentages of burned artiodactyl and lagomorph bones when the two sites are compared. Burning percentages are low at AZ EE:2:113 for both taxa. Only two elements from the lagomorphs have 20 percent or more of their fragments charred. The overall values of burning for artiodactyls is higher, but only one element shows charring on over 40 percent of its fragments. Appendix A 887
AZ EE:2:105 shows much higher burning frequencies for both taxa. For example, nine out of 14 element categories from lagomorphs show burning on 20 percent or more fragments. Six out of 17 elements from artiodactyls have 40 percent or more of their fragments burned. Thus, the relative percentages are more similar between taxa within sites than within taxa across sites. The provenience units which have contributed to this analysis are all pit houses or trash pits, and probably represent similar disposal contexts. If refuse burning is responsible for a majority of charred bones at these sites, there seems to have been more of this activity going on at AZ EE:2:105 than at AZ EE:2:113. This may be related to either longer or more intense site occupation. Differential burning at the sites may also be associated with differences in preservation, and be partly responsible for the representation patterns previously discussed.
Burning of bones is a more complex phenomenon than has often been assumed. These context-specific analyses may be ultimately more informative than those based on the assumption of patterning from food preparation.
Summary and Conclusion of Artiodactyl and Lagomorph Analyses
At this stage, it might be useful to briefly review the major conclusions which can be drawn from the previous series of analyses.
First, artiodactyls, especially deer, probably provided the most important source of meat protein to the inhabitants of the Barrel Canyon sites. Local habitat conditions may have supported a denser and more diverse faunal community than was available to other Hohokam settlements in the low-lying desert basins to the north and west. Procurement of artiodactyls seems to have proceeded on the basis of proximity of the taxa to the sites--deer outnumber pronghorn, and bighorn are least common. With the exception of bighorn, artiodactyls appear to have been regularly brought into sites as complete individuals. A series of two kinds of cut marks begin to show how these large mammals were processed.
The artiodactyl bones were also characterized by intense fragmentation, as previously noted in other Hohokam site analyses. An attempt was made to relate this breakage to other factors. Among the two largest samples, biases in bone representation and fragmentation are probably due to the combined action of processing for secondary animal products and differential attritional forces.
Second, lagomorphs also represented an important source of meat, easily and regularly available to the local inhabitants. Patterns in representation and fragmentation were described, but are difficult to interpret because of the lack of comparative analyses on small mammals in general. The mortality curves derived from the representation data seem to indicate that individual procurement dominated over collective 888 Margaret Glass hunting techniques. Finally, although the percentages of burned bones are generally lower for lagomorphs than artiodactyls, this seems to have been more closely related to disposal practices than to food preparation.
These two mammalian orders constituted the central economic focus of Hohokam faunal exploitation in the Rosemont area. Analyses in the following section will discuss other taxonomic groups--domestic dogs, birds and reptiles--and describe bone modifications.
Additional Taxa
Birds
A total of 30 isolated bird bones and one complete individual was recovered from three of the Rosemont sites. The majority of these bones were excavated from pit house contexts, although one Aquila chrysaetos (golden eagle, female-sized) femur was found in the overburden at AZ EE:2:113. This species is present throughout Arizona and possibly nests in the Santa Ritas today (Russell and others 1977: 184), so its occurrence as part of the natural fauna is not surprising.
Bird remains appeared in three pit houses from AZ EE:2:76, seven pit houses from AZ EE:2:105, and three pit houses from AZ EE:2:113. Table A.16 gives numbers and percentages of bird bones in the total number of bones for each site, and in the number of bones identified at, or below, the order level.
Table A.16
NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES FOR BIRD BONES FROM ALL SITES
AZ EE:2:76 AZ EE:2:105 AZ EE:2:113
Total bird bone 3 20 7
Percentage of all bone 0.6 0.5 0.1
Total identified below order level 3 17 6
Percentage of all bone identified below order 2.7 1.6 0.6 Appendix A 889
Buteonine raptors account for 18 of the 30 isolated bird specimens, as well as one complete individual. All isolated elements represent portions of either wings or feet with no cranial or other axial fragments. It is impossible to tell whether this resulted from a bias in the original use and deposition of body parts, or is due to differential survivorship of denser limb elements compared to fragile crania and vertebrae. The relatively complete individual, a Buteo jamaicensis recovered from the fill of the Feature 27 pit house at AZ EE:2:76, seemed to have been partially articulated and did include axial remains. It is not known whether this bird was intentionally interred in a pit or simply discarded in a trash-filled structure.
Identified species of raptors comprise two hawks, the red-tailed hawk, Buteo jamaicensis, and Swainson's hawk, B. swainsoni, and the golden eagle, Aquila chrysaetos. As indicated by the site lists, more specimens are compared to the red-tailed hawk than the other taxa. This species is considered rare, but present year-round in all habitats of the modern Rosemont area (Russell and others 1977: 184). Swainson's hawk, not observed in the recent inventory, has been characterized as a common summer resident of the grasslands of eastern Arizona (Phillips and others 1964: 22). One tarsometatarsus, referred to this hawk, is charred. Finally, one phalanx documents the presence of golden eagle in an archaeological deposit in addition to the previously discussed element recovered from overburden.
Three bones represent at least two and possibly three species of jay. Aphelocoma coerulescens and A. ultramarina are common residents of the local limestone scrub thickets and wooded habitats, respectively (Russell and others 1977: 187). Cyanositta stelleri, which may account for one tibiotarsus, has been considered a winter and spring visitor in the mountains of southern Arizona (Phillips and others 1964: 103). The depositional origin of these specimens is difficult to ascertain. Jays easily become accustomed to the presence of people and could have become incorporated into human occupational debris through either natural or cultural processes.
Quail, represented by a total of four elements, may represent a possible food source. They are often found in Hohokam sites (Bayham 1982; Ferg and Rea 1983; McKusick 1976; Rea 1981; Sparling 1974; 1978) and their use by historic Pima and Papago is well documented (Rea 1974). Three species of quail are presently in the Rosemont area, Cyrtonyx montezumae (Mearns quail), Callipepla squamata (scaled quail) and Callipepla gambelii (Gambel's quail). Mearns quail generally prefers the higher oak grassland while the latter two are more common at lower elevations (Hungerford 1977: 219). These three modern taxa may all be represented in the elements recovered from the sites.
The paucity of avian bone in these and other Hohokam sites, and their frequent lack of modification make it difficult to assess the ecc,nomic or cultural significance of birds. The depositional contexts discussed here do not preclude the possibility of fortuitous or a( idental inclusion of birds in human debris. All of the taxa re )vered from excavations can still be considered local residents for 890 Margaret Glass at least portions of the year. The relative abundance of buteonine raptors does suggest intentional procurement of these birds. Ethnographic records of historic Southwestern peoples describe hawks kept in captivity for ceremonial use or as a source of feathers (Haury 1950: 160). Analogous treatment of birds by prehistoric Hohokam could account for the high frequency of raptors. Disparities in the abundances of different body elements (if not produced by postdeposi- tional processes) are more difficult to explain. The major meat-bearing bones of birds lie close to the axis of the body and include elements like femora, scapulae, coracoid, furculae, and sternum. Only 2 of the 18 hawk or eagle bones represent such body parts. The majority are terminal limb elements like phalanges, or other wing and claw bones. The occurrence of these bones in general trash fill rather than in more specialized disposal contexts could imply that they were more of a utilitarian resource than a focus of ritual or ceremonial activity. Perhaps an overview of the depositional contexts of avian body parts from a large sample of sites could help clarify the significance of birds to the prehistoric Hohokam.
Reptiles
Table A.17 provides a separate tabulation of reptile remains arranged by site and feature.
Carapace and plastron fragments belonging to two genera of turtles were excavated from pit house contexts at two sites. Terrapene ornata, the ornate box turtle, was identified from a right hypoplastron at AZ EE:2:84 and carapace fragments from AZ EE:2:105. In both cases, juvenile individuals were represented. This turtle is primarily a grasslands taxon (Lowe 1964: 159), found in short grass prairie and some mesquite forests up to about 6000 feet (Stebbins 1954). It occupies burrows to secure shelter in the daytime and hibernates seasonally in pits up to 1.5 feet deep. These habits, plus the unmodified nature of the specimens observed, support the conclusion that these particular remains are probably natural intrusions.
Desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizi) carapace fragments were also recovered at AZ EE:2:105. These pieces were calcined, suggesting that cultural processes were responsible for their incorporation into a trash deposit. Desert tortoise was considered a food resource by recent Pima and Papago, who both prepared and consumed this reptile directly from its shell (Rea 1974; Castetter and Underhill 1935: 47).
Four iguanids were identified from cranial remains derived from feature fill at four sites. A left dentary attributed to Urosaurus dorsalis, came from float sample residue obtained from a hearth (Feature 7001) at AZ EE:2:76. This taxon was not documented in the recent herpetological inventory of Rosemont (Lowe and Johnson 1977). Furthermore, AZ EE:2:105 yielded a dentary from a collared lizard (Crotaphysus collaris), cranial material from a regal horned lizard (Phrynosoma solare) came from AZ EE:2:113, and a parietal of a Sonora Appendix A 891
Table A.17
REPTILES IDENTIFIED FROM ANAMAX-ROSEMONT HOHOKAM SITES
Site Feature Number Number Taxon Element
AZ EE:2:76 7 Urosaurus dorsalis dentary
AZ EE:2:84 15 Terrapene ornata hypoplastron
AZ EE:2:105 nonfeature Crotalus atrox vertebra 5 Crotaphytus collaris dentary 13 Pituophis melandencus vertebra 41 Gopherus agassizi carapace 71 Cnemidophorus burti dentary 81 Terrapene ornata carapace
AZ EE:2:113 6 Crotalus atrox vertebra Crotalus scutulatus vertebra 7 Crotalus scutulatus vertebra 52 Crotalus scutulatus vertebra 152 Phrynosoma solare crania Masticophis sp. vertebra
AZ EE:2:116 2 Sceloporus clarki crania
spiny lizard (Sceloporus clarki) was recovered from AZ EE:2:116. These three taxa can be found in slightly different habitats of the modern project area (Lowe and Johnson 1977). In addition, one teid (Cnemidophorus burti, the giant spotted whiptail), also frequently found today, was identified from feature fill at AZ EE:2:105.
Snake remains included two colubrid vertebrae from AZ EE:2:105 and EE:2:113. Pituophis melanoleucus, gopher snake, and various species of whipsnake (Masticophis sp.) are widely distributed across Arizona at the present time. Crotalid vertebrae were also recovered and represented both the Western diamondback (Crotalus atrox) and Mohave (C. scutulatus) rattlesnakes. Local desert and grassland communities provide ideal habitats for these snakes (Lowe 1964: 172-173).
Lizards and snakes frequently seek shelter in burrows formed by other creatures or secrete themselves in rocky crevasses and loose soil when threatened. The complete condition and excellent preservation 892 Margaret Glass exhibited by the remains just described, indicate that most of them can be considered to be modern and natural intrusions. One possible exception may be a burned C. atrox vertebra from Feature 6 at AZ EE:2:113. The herpetofauna recovered from excavations does not contain any taxa not found in the project area today.
Domestic Dogs
AZ EE:2:113 yielded the only Canis sp. remains which could definitely be attributed to domestic dog. Taxonomically diagnostic cranial remains were recovered from three intentional dog burials, Features 60, 159, and 169.
Two fragmentary mandibles from the upper fill of Feature 12 are assumed to be paired on the basis of similar size and general condition. Classification as Canis familiaris is founded upon the close spacing of premolars observed in one ramus, and the size and proportions of individual teeth. Measurements taken on these and other specimens are presented in Table A.18.
Feature 159, classified in the field as a dog burial, contained 12 postcranial bones from an individual referred to Canis sp. The stratigraphic context of this burial and association of bone were disturbed by rodent activity and the cranium was destroyed by removal of overburden. Because the original boundaries of Feature 12 overlay what was later defined as Feature 159, it seems probable that the two fragmentary mandibles are in fact part of the Feature 159 dog burial. Therefore, the animal represented by the postcranial bone is likely referrable to Canis familiaris.
Canid remains from Feature 60 consisted of cranial fragments, one ramus, and an almost completely articulated postcranial skeleton. The body was positioned on its left side with the legs partially flexed and the head recurved over the body cavity. All major limbs are at least partially represented; missing portions of the vertebral column and distal extremities can probably be attributed to excavation loss. Complete fusion of all bones and full eruption of the mandibular dentition indicate that this individual was mature. The presence of a baculum permits a sexual identification of male. A very short and stout premolar region of the right ramus was used to support a species determination of Canis familiaris.
Certain portions of the postcranial skeleton of this individual bear marks which can best be described as chop marks or hack marks. The asymmetrical, V-shaped gouges could have been made by a thick, relatively blunt-edge tool. They do not resemble the fine, shallow-cut lines observed on artiodactyl remains in this collection, interpreted as skinning or defleshing traces. Burning of dog remains (Johnson 1981, n.d.; Sparling 1974) and occasional butchering marks (Sparling 1978) have been documented from other Hohokam sites. However, articulation of the remains argues against an explanation that involves consumption of Appendix A 893
Table A.18
MANDIBLE MEASUREMENT OF CANIS FAMILIARIS SPECIMENS FROM AZ EE:2:113 (MEASUREMENTS SELECTED FROM VON DEN DRIESCH [19761)
Specimen Description Feature 169 Feature 60 Feature 12
Total length from condyle 115.6(L) process to Infradentale
Length: angular process- 116.0(L) Infradentale
Length from indentation 110.7(L) between condyle and angular process-Infradentale
Length: condyle-aboral border 110.0(L) of canine alveolus Length from indentation 96.9(L) between condyle and angular process-aboral border of canine alveolus
Length: angular process-aboral 110.0(L) border of canine alveolus
Length: aboral border of M 66.5(L) alveolus-aboral border of 67.2(R) canine alveolus
Length of cheektooth row, P I - 62.3(L) M3, measured along alveoli 64.5(R)
Length of cheektooth row, Pl- 58.1(L) M3, measured along alveoli 60.0(R)
Length of molar row, along 30.2(L) alveoli 31.2(R)
Length of premolar row, P l - 33.0(L) P measured along alveoli 4' 33.2(R) 37.3(R) 894 Margaret Glass
Table A.18, continued
MANDIBLE MEASUREMENT OF CANIS FAMILIARIS SPECIMENS FROM AZ EE:2:113 (MEASUREMENTS SELECTED FROM VON DEN DRIESCH [1976])
Specimen Description Feature 169 Feature 60 Feature 12
Length of premolar row, P 2- 28.0(L) 32.3(R) P measured along alveoli 19.0(R) 4' Length of carnassial at 19.0(L) 22.0(R) 20.5(L) cingulum 18.7(R)
Breadth of carnassial at 7.7(L) 9.2(R) 8.4(L) cingulum 8.0(R)
Length of carnassial alveolus 17.5(L) 21.5(R) 19.4(L) 18.0(R)
Length of M2 at cingulum 7.5(L) 8.9(R) 7.7(R)
Breadth of M2 at cingulum 6.2(L), 6.2(R) 6.5(R)
Length of M3 at cingulum 4.3(L), 4.2(R)
Breadth of M at cingulum 3.7(L), 3.9(R) 3 Greatest thickness of body 10.8(L) of jaw below M 1 9.8(R)
Height of vertical ramus: base 49.3(L) of angular process-Coronion
Height of mandible behind M 1 , 21.5(L) 19.4(R) on lingual side at right 22.4(R) angles to basal border
Height of mandible between 17.8(L) 20.8(R) P and P 3 , on lingual side 17.8(R) at right angles to basal border Appendix A 895
this particular dog. In addition, the presence of almost all of the elements, including the hyoid and patella support the idea that this animal was interred soon after death (that is, before natural disarticulation could begin) and left essentially undisturbed until recovery.
The right tibia exhibits chop marks along the anterior aspect of the shaft in general transverse orientation. Two sets of marks can be discerned--one set appears to have been made from the distal end aiming proximally. The second set probably were struck from the proximal end, leaving angular marks directed distally. The left femur bears similar chop marks along the proximal and anterior aspects of the shaft. Finally, the dorsal borders of the necks of both ilia contain a series of abrupt marks. Such treatment of a domestic animal, apparently unrelated to use as a food item, has not been described in relation to any other Hohokam dog remains.
The third dog was recovered from Feature 169, another intentional burial. This individual was also almost fully articulated, although rodent activity had removed at least a portion of one limb. Complete fusion of all bones and extreme wear on the occlusal surfaces of the teeth indicate a fully mature, possibly old individual. Absence of a baculum, while other equally fragile bones are present, allows tentative sexual identification of female. The burial was filled in with fairly large cobbles as well as dirt. This may account for the crushed condition of some of the body parts, especially the cranium. A large enough block of matrix was removed to allow extraction and reconstruction of many cranial fragments. Measurements as described in Von den Driesch (1978) were taken where possible and are included in Table A.19. The dished, sloping rostrum, gracile mandibles, slender braincase, and narrow palate contribute to the picture of a small individual without the extreme facial shortening characteristic of Allen's (1920) short-faced Pueblo dog type. This specimen is generally smaller than the other dog remains recovered from this site, but all three series of measurements taken are well within the range of variation described for Southwestern aboriginal dogs. As pointed out by Haag (1948: 152-157), domestic canids from the prehistoric Southwest appear to be quite a heterogeneous group compared to dogs from other cultural areas.
Worked Bone
Hohokam sites are generally characterized by a scarcity of bone artifacts, and those found exhibit little variability in form when compared to Anasazi or Mogollon bone tool assemblages (Haury 1976: 302). Thus, it is not too surprising that only 174 bones (less than 1%) from a total of nine sites in the Rosemont area bore traces of tool preparation or other modification for use. Despite this small number of tools, it is possible to describe their forms and some aspects of the technology involved in their production. The spatial distribution of these artifacts within the sites, and the conditions of particular items will 896 Margaret Glass
Table A.19
CRANIAL MEASUREMENTS OF CANIS FAMILIARIS SPECIMEN FROM FEATURE 169 AT AZ EE:2:113. (Measurements Selected from Von Den Driesch, 1976)
Feature 169 Description C. familiaris
Upper neurocranium length: Akrokranion - Frontal Midpoint 77.6 mm
Length of the horizontal part of the palatine 25.1
Length of the molar row 17.8 (L)
Length of the carnassial, at cingulum 16.1 (L), 16.3 (R)
Greatest breadth of carnassial 8.8 (L), 3.8 (R)
Length of Mi, at cingulum 11.5 (L), 11.6 (R)
Breadth of Mi, at cingulum 14.1 (R)
Length of M?, at cingulum 6.3 (R)
Breadth of Ml, at cingulum 9.0 (R)
Greatest breadth of occipital condyles 6.9 (L), 6.8 (R)
Greatest breadth of foramen magnum 18.6
Breadth of skull at postorbital constriction 27.2
Skull height: basioccipital to top of sagittal crest 53.2
Skull height without the sagittal crest 46.2 Appendix A 897 also help to develop an understanding of the factors associated with their deposition.
Tables A.20 through A.22 give frequencies of humanly modified bones in each feature for the three largest site assemblages. Tables A.23 through A.25 present taxonomic and element representation for each artifact class for the same sites. Table A.26 contains this combined information for a series of the smaller sites in the project. These tables provide the basic data for the following discussion.
Awls and Hairpins
Bone awls are perhaps the best documented artifact type and aspects of their morphology and technology of their production have been fully described (Kidder 1932; Olsen 1979). This category comprises a broad range of forms bearing points of varying shape used for tasks such as hide piercing and basketry. Morphologically, these tools grade into hairpins or wands; major differences involve the contour of the tips and quality of surface treatment. The fragmentary condition of the Rosemont bone tools prevents classification of the majority of the 97 bones given this designation. Most (69) were fragments containing only small portions of finished edges. Twenty-eight bones, however, exhibited unbroken tips and 11 of these artifacts were judged to be complete.
Table A.20
AZ EE:2:76 BONE ARTIFACT TYPE FREQUENCIES BY FEATURE
Feature Number Artifact Type Nonfeature 2 8 10 27 29 Total
Awl/hairpin 1 3 1 2 0 1 8
Antler Flaker 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Tube Fragments 0 0 0 2 0 1 3
Miscellaneous 1 0 3 0 1 0 5 Modified Bone
Total 3 3 4 4 1 3 17 898 Margaret Glass
Table A.21
BONE ARTIFACT FREQUENCIES, AZ EE:2:105
re
tu Feature Number
fea co n Artifact Type 5 6 7 9 10 35 41 50 71 87 88 91 0, No
Awl/hairpins 2 11 5 1 3 1 3 2 15 4 47
Antler flakers 2 2 4
Bone Tubes 3 3 3 1 4 10
Miscellaneous Modified Bone 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 7 1 18
Total 6 3 13 10 3 4 2 6 3 29 4 0 1 83
Of the complete artifacts, eight could be classified as awls and three were identified as hairpins. The hairpins were each made on the hind limbs of artiodactyls (2 tibiae and 1 metatarsal), using the distal articular ends as the base. The tibiae both show some modification of the distal articulation: one specimen is abraded or worn around the base (Fig. A.19b), and the other is more definitely shaped, with the edges of the articular surfaces ground down and a diagonal slash and hole placed on the shaft (Fig. A.19c). The metatarsal hairpin (Fig. A.19a) has unaltered distal condyles. The edges of the blades on all three artifacts are smoothed from the base to the tip and the exterior surfaces are plain but polished.
Somewhat more variety can be seen in the group of tools classified as awls. Six awls were made on large mammal bones, five of which are identified as artiodactyls. Figure A.19e, g, and h shows examples of these awls. The two remaining specimens are both jack rabbit tibiae which display dull, rounded points on the distal shaft (Fig. A.20a and b). The termination of the shaft is rounded for the entire circumference and has a polished surface that extends proximally to about the juncture of the fibula. These extremely blunt artifacts may represent the terminal stages in the functional life of a piercing tool, after which a sharp point cannot be maintained.
The large mammal awls include four specimens manufactured on artiodactyl metapodials. Two of these have a single distal condyle as the handle or base and the blade and tip follow the lateral portion of Table A.22
BONE ARTIFACT FREQUENCIES, AZ EE:2:113
re
ts tu
a Feature Number fe tex n
Co Total Artifact Type Non 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 52 80 83 86 154 205
Awl/hairpins 4 2 1 8 2 3 3 1 1 5 3 1 34
Tube Fragments 2 4 2 1 9
Flat, Spatulate Tools 2 2
Miscellaneous Modified Bone 2 1 4 2 1 10
Total 2 6 2 2 18 2 3 7 1 1 2 5 3 1 55
ddV ua p xT V 900 Margaret Glass
Table A.23
SUMMARY OF BONE MODIFICATIONS, AZ EE:2:76
Taxon Element Modification Number
Lepus californicus tibia awl 1
Artiodactyl metatarsal awl 1 metapodial abraded, cut 1 humerus tube 1
Cervid antler flaker 1
Ovis canadensis metatarsal awl/hairpin 1
Large Mammal long bone awl/hairpin 3 long bone tube 2 long bone notched 1 long bone abraded 1
Mammal, size indeterminate long bone awl/hairpin 2 long bone beveled tip 1 long bone abraded 1
Total 17
the shaft (Fig. A.19g and h). The two other metapodial awls have bases shaped from the proximal articular surface. An additional awl is made on an artiodactyl radius with the distal end serving as a base. Finally, one awl is formed on a shaft fragment of a long bone from an unidentified large mammal. Within the category of large mammal awls, individual tools differ in the degree of edge smoothing and amount of surface polish they exhibit, as well as in general size and shape. However, none of these awls showed the symmetry or overall surface polish described above for the hairpins.
One of the most distinctive differences between awls and hairpins can be observed in tip morphology. Characteristics of the tip are probably especially useful as diagnostic criteria separating these two classes of artifacts, because certain functional constraints can be expected to influence the morphology of awls but not hairpins. Simply put, the tasks performed by an awl (piercing, plaiting, and so forth) are done best with a tip of a certain shape, and this shape is created and maintained by a combination of deliberate preparation and tool use. Appendix A 901
Table A.24
SUMMARY OF BONE MODIFICATIONS, AZ EE:2:105
Taxon Element Modification Number
Spermophilus variegatus mandible drilled 1
Artiodactyl metapodial awl/hairpin 7 metatarsal awl/hairpin 4 tibia hairpin 1 tibia tube 1
Cervid antler flaker 4
Odocoileus cf. O. virginianus metatarsal awl/hairpin 1 tibia hairpin 1 femur tube stock 1
Deer or Pronghorn metatarsal awl/hairpin 2 radius awl/hairpin 1
Small Mammal long bone awl/hairpin 4 long bone tube 1 long bone abraded 1
Large Mammal long bone awl/hairpin 22 long bone tube 11 long bone cut 7 long bone abraded 2 unidentified cut 1 unidentified notched 1
Total 74
Hairpins, because they are thought to serve more as ornamental artifacts or articles of adornment, are not expected to exhibit such regularities in tip morphology.
An attempt was made to separate known awls and hairpins using attributes which may reflect the functional requirements of awls. Sandra L. Olsen (ASM) has used two measurements of tip morphology to describe a transverse cross section at a point far enough from the tip to avoid casual resharpening yet close enough to reflect modification from use of the tool. Width and thickness measurements were taken 5 mm from the tip for each artifact. Width was measured with the tool placed 902 Margaret Glass
Table A.25
SUMMARY OF BONE MODIFICATIONS, AZ EE:2:113
Taxon Element Modification Number
Lepus californicus tibia awl 1
Artiodactyl metapodial awl/hairpin 4 metapodial tube 1 metapodial polished 1 metacarpal awl/hairpin 1 tibia abraded 1
Odocoileus cf. O. hemionus femur tube 1 tibia abraded 1
O. cf. O. virginianus femur tube 1
Antilocapra americana metatarsal awl/hairpin 1 metapodial awl/hairpin 1
Ovis canadensis humerus tube 1
Deer or Pronghorn metatarsal awl/hairpin 1 matatarsal polished 1 femur tube 1
Small Mammal long bone awl/hairpin 2
Large Mammal long bone awl/hairpin 22 long bone tube 4 long bone fleshing tool (?) 1 long bone abraded 3 long bone cut 1 long bone cut 1 long bone gouging tool (?) 1 unidentified abraded 1
Mammal, size indeterminate long bone awl/hairpin 1
Total 55 Appendix A 903
Table A.26
SUMMARY OF BONE MODIFICATIONS FROM SMALL SITES
Site Feature Number Number Taxon Element Modification Number
AZ EE:2:52 1 mammal unidentified pendant? 1 AZ EE:2:77 1 large mammal long bone awl/hairpin 1 large mammal long bone tube fragment 1 small mammal long bone tube/ring 1 31 large mammal long bone awl/hairpin 1 AZ EE:2:84 10 large mamal long bone awl/hairpin 1 AZ EE:2:106 1 large mammal long bone tube fragment 1 AZ EE:2:107 9 O. cf O. metatarsal hairpin 1 hemionus 7001 deer or metapodial awl/hairpin 1 pronghorn AZ EE:2:129 nonfeature large mammal long bone awl/hairpin 1 large mammal long bone 1 awl/hairpin 2 large mammal long bone pendant 2 6 cervid antler flaker
Total 15
concave surface (that is, marrow cavity) down on a piece of metric graph paper. The artifact was rotated 90 degrees from this position to record thickness. Measurements were taken with dial calipers to the nearest tenth of a millimeter. These measurements were taken on all but two of the known artifacts and all tip fragments well preserved enough to be measured. The measurements are given in Table A.27. The two jack rabbit tibiae were excluded: width and thickness measurements taken on these bones would have included the circumference of the entire distal shaft, which was not comparable to the other tips recorded. Also, if they do represent tools at the end of their use-life, as suggested above, the metrics may reflect a shape not interpretable as due to functional requirements. 904 Margaret Glass
d
4
f g h
Figure A.19 Bone awls and hairpins. a-c, hairpins; e, _g-h, awls; d and f, awls-hairpins. Length of a is 24.7 cm.
Appendix A 905
d e
a b
Figure A.20 Miscellaneous bone and antler artifacts. a-b, bone awls; c, antler flaker; d, bone "toggle"; e and 20 bone pendants or earrings; f, perforated squirrel mandible. Width of e is 3.75 cm.
Width and thickness measurements for each artifact are plotted in Figure A.21. Bones from small mammals and large mammals are designated by different symbols. Most of the points in Figure A.21 represent isolated tips lacking any distinctive base or shaft criteria of awls or hairpins and are lumped as awl-hairpins. A number of observations can be made regarding the distribution of points on this scatterplot.
Known awl and hairpin specimens originally identified on the basis of numerous qualitative attributes can be separated on the basis of width and thickness of tip. Awl tips uniformly exhibit a fairly round cross section, as can be seen by the relationship between the awl points in Figure A.21 and the line drawn in to show equal width and thickness values. Hairpins can be discriminated from awls in a number of ways. One hairpin (Fig. A.19a) exhibits the same relative proportions of width to thickness as the awls, but the overall size of the tip is much larger. Two other hairpins (Fig. A.19b and c) have tips that are relatively broad and thin, and more closely approximate the line drawn in which width is twice thickness. Separation between these two artifacts and the rounder hairpins probably reflects differences in the shaft thickness of the two anatomical elements chosen as raw materials. The hairpins made on tibiae are the broader ones and the metapodial specimen has the round cross section. Each of these three tips, however, is easily distinguished from the awls by its overall larger dimensions.
906 Margaret Glass
Table A.27
BONE ARTIFACT MEASUREMENTS PLOTTED IN FIGURE A.21
Feature Site Number Number Taxon Element Classification Width Thickness
AZ EE:2:76 29 O. cf. 0. virginianus metatarsal awl 2.3 2.3 AZ EE:2:105 6 large mammal long bone awl/hairpin 2.3 2.2 6 large mammal long bone awl/hairpin 3.1 2.5 7 deer or proghorn radius awl 3.4 3.0 10 large mammal long bone awl/hairpin 3.5 3.4 10 large mammal long bone awl/hairpin 2.9 2.1 41 small mammal long bone awl/hairpin 3.8 2.0 71 small mammal tibia awl/hairpin 3.6 1.5 71 deer or proghorn metatarsal awl/hairpin 3.5 3.0 71200 artiodactyl tibia Hairpin 4.1 2.3 71 artiodactyl metatarsal awl 3.5 3.2 71200 O. cf. O. virginianus tibia Hairpin 4.7 2.6 87 small mammal long bone awl/hairpin 4.0 2.3 AZ EE:2:113 6300 large mammal long bone awl/hairpin 2.7 2.4 7 large mammal long bone awl/hairpin 4.5 5.0 7 artiodactyl metapodial awl 2.5 2.1 10 large mammal long bone awl/hairpin 3.5 3.2 10 large mammal long bone awl/hairpin 2.6 2.5 10 large mammal long bone awl 2.9 2.9 11 artiodactyl metapodial awl/hairpin 2.8 2.9 12 large mammal long bone awl/hairpin 2.0 2.0 83 Antilocapra americana metapodial awl 2.8 2.6 154 artiodactyl metapodial awl/hairpin 3.6 4.0 154 small mammal long bone awl/hairpin 2.8 1.6 AZ EE:2:107 9 O. cf. O. hemionus metatarsal Hairpin 4.4 4.6 7001 deer or proghorn metapodial awl/hairpin 3.4 3.0
* measured 5 mm from tip (mm)
Appendix A 907
6.0—
5.0— •
4.0— P
TI • M 1 RO F
3.0— 5mm
H • 0 T 2.0— • WID
• Small Mammal 0 Awl ■ Hairpin 1 .0 — • Awl /Hairpin
I 1 I 1 1.0 2A0 3.0 4A0 5.0
THICKNESS 5mm FROM TIP
Figure A.21 Width and thickness relationships for awls and hairpins. 908 Margaret Glass
Comparison of the unkown tip fragments with these that have been more definitely classified, suggests that the majority of bone tips were probably awls. One exception may be a relatively large tip plotted near the metapodial hairpin. Unfortunately, its heavily weathered surface prevents any other observations which could support this classification.
Small mammal bone tips are distinguished by open triangles in Figure A.21. These appear to be allied more closely with the tibia hairpins in which width is approximately twice as great as thickness. The edges of these artifacts are well finished with the curvature of the shaft gradually giving way to a broad, often flat tip. There is no trace of secondary modification from use visible on these shafts. The delicacy and irregular cross section of these implements make it difficult to imagine their use as piercing tools. Provenience information unfortunately gives no additional clues as to what activities these bones may be associated with, since all were recovered from general pit house fill. Similar artifacts recovered from the prehistoric Western Pueblo site of Kinishba (Olsen 1980: 49) and Pecos (Kidder 1932) have been variously described as hair ornaments or clothes fasteners. Functional interpretations are hard to make from the small number and fragmentary condition of these items. But they do seem to warrant consideration as a separate class of bone artifact.
Awls and hairpins are often recovered from sites in fragmented condition and are frequently represented by isolated tips. It is suggested that this method may eventually provide a simple way to discriminate between these two categories of artifacts when whole specimens are not available. An initial step toward this end should involve taking width and thickness measurements on complete awls and hairpins from a number of sites in order to more fully describe the range of variability to be expected within each class of artifacts. Awls will probably be fairly limited in the range of tip shapes and sizes due to their task-related morphology. Hairpin tips could potentially show more variety in shape. Context of the fragments does not seem to be a reliable indicator of artifact type, as is often assumed. Haury (1976: 304) has noted the association of hairpins with cremations and has suggested that they may be a predominantly masculine attribute. He also described the presence of awls in at least one inhumation, however, at Ventana Cave (Haury 1950: 464). In this study, one complete hairpin was recovered from an inhumation at AZ EE:2:107 (Fig. A.19a). A cremated, fragmented specimen recovered from the Feature 7001 cremation at AZ EE:2:107 (Fig. A.19d) falls close to specimens classified as complete awls based on its metric attributes. As mentioned previously, hairpins cannot necessarily be expected to show the same degree of regularity in tip morphology as awls. So at present, this cremated specimen and isolated tips are best considered as awl- hairpins. Hopefully, continued recording of tip measurements will lead to a better understanding of variability in Hohokam bone artifacts.
Manufacture
Two types of bone awls have been described based on methods of manufacture. Splinter awls are made on fortuitously shaped fragments of Appendix A 909
long bone shatter; cut awls are prepared by incising two longitudinal grooves, then snapping the enclosed segment free (Olsen 1980: 58-59). The results of these techniques are quite distinct. Splinter awls often have irregular edges above the working area of the tip while cut awls exhibit two prepared sides for their entire length.
A number of awl fragments recovered from the Rosemont sites show one finished longitudinal side opposed by an unfinished edge that can be characterized as an old break (broken sometime prior to recovery). The surface texture and general condition of most of these bones make it impossible to tell at what stage during the manufacture, use, or depositon of the tool the break occurred. However, three relatively complete awls and one tip have abrasion or polish extending up an otherwise unmodified, broken surface. This suggests an intermediate method of bone awl manufacture in which only one side is formed by incising a longitudinal groove; the opposing side is apparently broken free from the shaft with no preparation. Another method to achieve the same result could involve finishing only one side of a splintered bone. The standard dichotomy of cut awls and splinter awls does not adequately reflect these aspects of variability in bone tool technology.
Surface treatment is important, especially in the preparation of hairpins. Although intricate decoration was not present on the specimens from the Rosemont area, hairpin shafts showed heavy abrasion and high polish. A number of long bone fragments identified as miscellaneous worked pieces showed abrasion striae on the exterior shaft surface. In particular, four artiodactyl tibiae were heavily abraded, one for the major portion of the distal shaft. It seems likely that preparation of the surface was easily accomplished before the artifact form was cut from the bone. Numerous fragments of partially abraded and polished bone probably represent manufacturing debris from this process.
The conditions of individual bone artifacts can provide additional information about their depositional histories. Four awls from Rosemont sites show types of breakage which may have resulted in their eventual discard. Two awl sections have splinters of one lateral margin broken off, leaving an abrupt, stepped edge adjacent to the finished surface. Two additional specimens, one a tip and the other a middle or base section, have had the points snapped off, leaving a flat fracture surface lipped on one side. Few controlled experiments have been performed using bone tools. However, it is suggested that breaks like those described above may have resulted from the application of presssure or sudden impact. The broken awls, in addition to all of the fragments discussed above, were recovered from trash-filled features, mostly pit houses.
Tubes
Bone tubes are the most characteristic form of modified bone found at Hohokam sites (Haury 1976: 304). Twenty-eight tube fragments made from large mammal long bones were recovered from the Rosemont 910 Margaret Glass sites. None bore any exterior incising or decoration of the shaft. These fragments probably represent various stages in the manufacture of these artifacts but the degree of completion represented by the recovered pieces is difficult to tell. Some bones, such as artiodactyl femora. and humeri, can perhaps be considered as tube stock, from which a number of segments have been removed. The cut ends of some of these bones have been ground smooth, possibly indicating that finishing of one edge was done prior to removal of a segment from the shaft. This procedure has also been noted in the manufacture of bone rings at Grasshopper Pueblo (Olsen 1979: 360). The final width of bone tubes from these Hohokam sites is difficult to tell. Two fragments, probably from the same artifact, had finished edges 1.9 cm apart. One specimen, a proximal bighorn humerus shaft with only one smooth rim, was associated with the Feature 80 cremation at AZ EE:2:113. It is possible that similar bones, usually thought to be unfinished segments of stock, were actually considered final products by their makers. The frequent occurrence of these modified pieces and their deposition in trash-filled structures support Haury's (1976) suggestion that tubes were relatively common household items. One modified small mammal bone was also found and could represent a tube, ring, whistle, or bead.
Unidentified Tools
Two bones from Feature 10 of AZ EE:2:113 show traces of deliberate shaping and use as some sort of tool. Longitudinal portions of large mammal long bone shafts provided flat, spatulate rough forms in both cases. One tool bears a jagged end created by the removal of numerous, irregular small fragments of bone. This damage is reminiscent of the kind of wear found on gouges as described by Olsen (1980: 61). Heavy flaking of the edge of bone tools seems to be associated with their use on hard materials. A second shaft piece has one end shaped with smooth, flat surfaces present at the edge. No obvious traces of wear or polish extend onto the shaft itself. Olsen (1980: 55) noted similar characteristics on bones used in the scraping of hides or plant fibers.
Ornamental Worked Bone
A final category of worked bone, generally ornamental pieces, includes four artifacts recovered from three sites. A burial at AZ EE:2:52 included a small, flat finished piece of bone called a "toggle" by the excavators. It may have been a pendant or some other decorative item (Fig. A.20d). Two drilled pendants came from the Feature 1 pit house at AZ EE:2:129. They are identical in size and construction, even to the central placement of the drilled hole (Fig. A.20f and g). They closely resemble bird effigy shell pendants illustrated by Haury from the material remains at Snaketown (Haury 1976: 312, Fig. 15.17). A final ornamental element is a rock squirrel mandible with a hole drilled through the horizontal ramus beneath the Appendix A 911
cheekteeth (Fig. A.20e). Although somewhat rare, drilled mandibles of other small mammals have been found at Snaketown (Haury 1976: 304) and recent excavations at Las Colinas, according to Christine Szuter of the Arizona State Museum.
Antler Pressure Flakers
Six antler tines excavated from three of the sites in the project area showed evidence of modification and use as pressure flakers for the manufacture of flaked stone tools. More bluntness of the tip was not enough to warrant designation as a tool--all of these six antlers were characterized by faceted or beveled edges created by use and resharpening (Fig. A.20c), heavy tip damage in the form of nicks or flake scars, and, in one case, chop marks at the proximal end resulting from detachment of the tine from the main beam. Four fragments were found in pit house fill and two were in extramural areas of their respective sites.
Miscellaneous Modified Bone
Thirty-six fragments from three sites include pieces of bone that are abraded, cut, or polished. Intensive processing of animal food products (for instance, marrow extraction), often requires meticulous preparation of bone surfaces prior to use (Binford 1978: 153-154). These could easily be confused with fragmentary debris of bone artifact manufacture. Traces considered to be more reliable evidence of butchering or defleshing activities have been previously described.
Nonhuman Modification
Rodent gnawing is the most common form of animal bone modification, appearing on 198 fragments from eight sites. Table A.28 contains the number of fragments showing evidence of either rodent or carnivore gnawing for each taxon within each site. Bones that were modified by both groups of animals have been counted twice. No identifications can be made as to the particular taxa that were engaged in this gnawing activity. Rodents gnaw on bone or other hard materials to keep their incisors at optimal length and sharpness. Any of the rodent species identified by remains at these sites could be responsible for the observed bone modifications.
No patterning appears to be present regarding taxonomic or element selection. Rodent gnawing occurs on bones of many taxa at the Rosemont sites, and the amount of gnawing in each taxon generally corresponds with the relative abundance of that taxon within the site. The condition of the bone may not influence the possibility of selection Table A.28
INSTANCES OF RODENT(R) AND CARNIVORE(C) GNAWING WITHIN TAXA AND SITES
-ew 1
0, (,) cr, 2. .0 r-- 0. 0 o o ...-4 c,..] u aa N N N N N N N N
W 47 W 4-1 41 W W W l
41 W W W 41 W 41 41 o N N N N N N N N < d <4 <4 d d <4 d ei ss Taxon R C R C R C R C R C R C R C R C
Lepus cf. alleni 1 1
Lepus cf. californicus 1 20 1 14 1 1 Sylvilagus sp. 1 4 Spermophilus variegatus 1 Neotoma sp. 1 Canis sp. 1 1 Urocyon cinereoargenteus 33 artiodactyl 1 5 9 4 1 cervid 4 3 Odocoileus sp. 7 5 O. cf. hemionus 2 1 2 1 O. cf. virginianus 2 1 1 2 6 1 Antilocapra americana 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 canadensis Ovis 1 pronghorn or deer 2 1 1 bighorn or deer 1 1 small mammal 7 7 3 1 large mammal 3 1 16 16 2 1 ?Human 1 bird 2 Appendix A 913
by rodents either. Twenty-eight fragments (14% of the total) showing rodent toothmarks were burned. Finally, because rodents use bones for their mechanical properties rather than for nutritional content, gnawing can occur at any time between the bone's deposition and recovery.
Carnivore gnawing is a much more destructive process, and traces of this activity are often difficult to identify. Descriptions and photographs given in Brain (1981) and Binford (1981) provided criteria used to help interpret instances of carnivore action. Only clear examples of pitting, scoring, or circular crush marks were attributed to carnivores. Twenty-two fragments contained carnivore toothmarks: 4 small mammal and 18 large mammal bones. It is possible that complete destruction and ingestion of small animals accounts for a slight underrepresentation of these taxa. General studies of attritional processes affecting bone assemblages (Binford and Bertram 1977; Binford 1978, 1981; Brain 1981) have attempted to characterize patterns of bone selection by carnivores acting on artiodactyl skeletons. Table A.29 presents a list of artiodactyl remains from Rosemont sites which show carnivore gnawing. The small sample prevents more than description of this collection. Elements present include relatively dense bones (for example, mandible), as well as those more susceptible to attrition (for example, phalanges). Bones associated with high meat yield (that is,
Table A.29
FREQUENCIES OF CARNIVORE GNAWING ON ARTIODACTYL ELEMENTS FROM ALL SITES
Element Gnawing
Mandible 2
Vertebra 4
Femur 1
Tibia 3
Scapula 1
Humerus 2
Radius 1
Phalanges 2 914 Margaret Glass
scapula, femur) have been gnawed as have ones with poor meat yield. In general, it is dificult to find any consistent bias in this small, mixed collection. A single exception is the absence of burning on these specimens--only one bone is partially charred. Dogs, and probably other carnivores as well, chew bones to get at marrow and grease, not merely for a mechanical exercise. Charred or calcined bones might be avoided because they lack nutritive value for most creatures.
Two small mammal long bones and one artiodactyl metapodial have edges that are rounded and smoothed, and the entire surface exhibits a dull, matte texture. These descriptions fit those given for bone from carnivore scat (Mellett 1974), and identical modifications were seen on fragments recovered from recent coyote droppings.
One final form of animal modification has been noted in the Rosemont collection. A complete cranium of a pocket gopher has a jagged hole in the top of its braincase, with sharp nicks surrounding the edges of the breaks. This type of damage is typically caused by raptorial birds, which descend upon their prey from the sky and kill them with sharp blows of the bill, usually around the back of the skull (Bond 1936). As with the rodents and carnivores, it is impossible to identify the particulr species responsible for this modification.
This survey of nonhuman modifications helps emphasize the fact that faunal collections in archaeological sites are structured by a number of processes besides human activity. Scavenging commonly goes on during the deposition of an assemblage, by domestic dogs or rodents attracted to stored foods. In addition, these processes continue throughout the history of a site. Although it may be impossible to completely isolate the effects of noncultural deposition on a given collection description of natural agents may eventually help clarify the cultural processes behind the accumulation of faunal remains.
Conclusion
The aims of this report have been: (1) to describe the body of faunal material recovered from the Rosemont Hohokam sites in such a way as to facilitate comparison with other collections, and (2) to provide a series of analyses which attempt to segregrate factors relevant to the formation of the faunal assemblages at these sites.
The Rosemont faunal collection represents a unique addition to our knowledge of prehistoric Hohokam subsistence. Because of poor preservation conditions, the role of animals in Hohokam subsistence has been generally underrated. Intense fragmentation of large mammal bones and the frequent appearance of rabbits and rodents has been cited as evidence of constant scarcity of faunal resouces (Haury 1950, 1976). Appendix A 915
Recent analyses, however, have been able to rely upon larger samples as well as the growing theoretical and methodological sophistication of faunal studies in general. We can begin to see how faunal exploitation may be related to the distribution of Hohokam remains in various parts of southern Arizona. Bayham (1982) has described characteristics of faunal assemblages at specialized hunting camps and village sites on the Papagueria (1982), and has suggested a relationship between lithic scatters and lagomorph processing in the Florence area (Bayham 1976). Szuter (1984) has urged a reevaluation of the role of small mammals in Hohokam subsistence, especially in the intensely agricultural core area of the Salt and Gila drainages. Finally, this project yielded a collection which has allowed tentative conclusions about artiodactyl and lagomorph procurement in a foothills region.
Studies of these kinds provide a necessary complement to the detailed botanical analyses which have so far contributed the most to our understanding of Hohokam subsistence. Considered together, these data allow us not only to better understand the local prehistoric adaptation, but have the potential to contribute to a general perspective of variability in the roles of plants and animals in agricultural economies.
Appendix B
PLANT REMAINS FROM THE ANAMAX-ROSEMONT PROJECT
The study of the flotation samples, wood charcoal, and architectural wood from the Rosemont Hohokam sites was performed by Charles H. Miksicek. A draft report manuscript was submitted upon completion of the analysis, and was returned to the author with a request for certain revisions. The revisions were not made by the time this volume went to press, so the report originally intended to be Appendix B has not been included. A copy of the draft manuscript is on file at the Arizona State Museum Library (Miksicek 1984a), as are data tables for each site. In the interest of providing some information for those interested, two tables from this manuscript have been included. Table B.1 lists the plant species identified from each site and the percentage of samples containing them. Table B.2 lists the same kind of information for wood charcoal. Both tables were prepared by Miksicek.
Bruce B. Huckell
917 Table B.1
CARBONIZED PLANT REMAINS FROM THE ANAMAX-ROSEMONT PROJECT SITES
Agricultural Weeds
a -0 a a o 0 ,., a a ,., o a a a ,.., o -a >, ..a o warn-, o --, a 0 Stems a a — E . ,..
a 3 a E w u . 7:3 ss 0 M s. a a •, a . 0 -, a — a 1, o • 4 ■ 0 0-1 (14 U co P- 105 54 3.40 70 2 48 20 2 2 4 2 6 13 2 2 31 11 17 4 11 31 76 37 2.00 68 32 22 3 3 8 3 16 30 11 3 5 84 19 1.65 63 10 10 26 5 5 5 16 113 40 2.32 48 2 2 38 2 2 2 25 10 2 2 25 10 8 20 10 8 129 26 2.06 38 31 19 4 4 54 8 11 8 8 11 77 34 2.05 47 26 3 3 20 24 26 9 26 12 120 11 1.87 27 18 18 9 18 27 9 106 20 2.19 10 25 15 5 5 15 5 5 10 5 5 5 50 107 16 1.94 50 6 6 81 6 6 6 6 25 6 6 19 109 16 2.29 31 6 6 12 12 12 6 6 6 6 6 6 117 19 1.58 21 10 5 5 16 32 116 11 1.86 18 9 18 9 9 18 27 104 5 1.05 40 20 40 122 5 1.33 20 20 20 40 Note: Percent of samples containing Table B.2 WOOD CHARCOAL AND LAND SNAILS FROM THE ANAMAX-ROSEMONT PROJECT SITES Conifer Chaparral Land Snails 0 „.., ts m . n .-, u JD e m a -■ m u o 4.: m w ..--, ..c , -, „o m .-■ m co m G frag . m ., m z . ..= 1... E m 0 0 w 0 C f o cf,0co . m .4 a C m '" w llo ..-- a 17 o , , t t t 1 I er 1.1 4-1 I 0 0. i -5 on . 0 .. C .-0 t 4 ip C ,-, 0 ber - m , 3 .., .. lnu 1 , a m 0 - , a a ,L, 0 0 ,f, f., 0 ff, Oco Piny Jun Wa z Num 105 4790 864 13 11 1 1 45 6 1 1 1 113 1 5 2 1 1 27.0 0.9 76 4900 606 33 1 19 2 1 1 25 1 1 1 1 9 2 3 1 1 6.5 0.6 84 4650 186 34 4 17 6 2 13 9 1 11 2 14.0 0.7 0.1 113 4620 604 31 9 33 1 3 21 2 1 12.6 1.9 0.1 129 4665 225 9 6 11 50 1 4 16 2 1 0.1 35.3 2.3 0.1 77 4810 834 20 3 1 36 4 1 1 1 27 1 4 1 1 1 1 5.8 0.1 0.5 120 4945 220 20 20 1 48 4 1 1 1 3 4.4 0.5 0.2 106 5035 231 29 14 36 6 1 1 2 11 23.4 0.3 107 5065 256 24 5 31 1 37 1 1 1.9 0.5 109 5245 257 17 19 1 41 16 1 1 5 6.8 0.3 117 4795 200 2 2 87 4 5 1 19.7 116 4908 219 5 62 21 1 2 2 1 6 19.3 104 5190 158 9 2 39 26 2 1 3 4 12 16.0 ddv 122 4644 74 11 43 30 7 4 3 28.0 a u Note: Percent of wood charcoal, mean number of snails per sample TP x q Appendix C POLLEN ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENTS FROM HOHOKAM SITES IN THE ROSEMONT AREA Robert S. Thompson Department of Geosciences University of Arizona One hundred and one sediment samples from Hohokam sites in the ANAMAX-Rosemont Project area were analyzed to determine their pollen content. Five of these were analyzed by Suzanne K. Fish, the remainder by the author. Only 40 of these samples contained enough identifiable pollen to permit meaningful analysis (Tables C.1 and C.2), while the rest contained little or no pollen (Table C.3). Seven of these 40 were modern surface samples from the site localities, while 33 were of Hohokam age. The samples from modern soil surfaces and from archaeological contexts were prepared in the same fashion. Subsamples of sediment of 15 cubic centimeters volume were placed in beakers with distilled water, and five tables containing 12,500 Lycopodium tracer grains each were placed in each beaker. After the tablets dissolved, the sediments were washed through fine mesh brass screens to remove coarse materials. The remaining finer sediments were treated with hydrochloric and hydroflouric acids to remove carbonates and silicates. Potassium hydroxide was employed to remove unwanted organic materials, and when necessary, an acetolysis mixture (Faegri and Iversen 1975) was utilized to destroy additional organics. Following extraction, the sample residues were placed in glycerin in one dram shell vials. A portion of each sample was then stained with Saffranin 0 and mounted on microscope slides. The pollen content of these slides was analyzed under 540X to 950X magnification, and, when possible, at least 200 grains were counted per sample. The Lycopodium tracer grains were counted as encountered during the tabulation of the fossil pollen. The ratio of tracer to fossil grains obtained by this method permitted the calculation of the concentration of fossil pollen within the samples. The identification of the fossil pollen was accomplished through reference to type slides and published keys. The modern surface samples from the Rosemont area are dominated by the pollen of woodland plants. Cupressaceae (probably juniper) and 921 922 Robert S. Thompson Table C. 1 RELATIVE POLLEN PERCENTAGES FOR SAMPLES FROM HOHOKAM SITES IN THE ANAMAX-ROSEMONT PROJECT AREA AZ EE:2:76 Modern Archaeological Samples Pollen Type Surface F7* F8* F8 F8 TREES, SUCCULENTS, AND SHRUBS Acacia 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Celtis 0.5 0.0 0.5 Cupressaceae 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 Cylindropuntia 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 Ephedra trifurca-type 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Juglans 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pinus 3.0 5.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 Prosopis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 Quer cus 9.5 12.5 1.5 5.1 0.5 cf. Rhus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 COMPOSITAE Ambrosia-type 17.5 40.0 4.5 2.8 0.0 Artemisia 2.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tubulifloreae 12.0 7.0 2.0 4.7 0.5 OTHER TERRESTRIAL TAXA Eriogonum 1.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gramineae 28.0 6.0 9.0 1.9 0.5 Leguminosae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 INDETERMINATE 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 2.4 CULTIGENS, DISTURBANCE PLANTS, AND WEEDS Zea 0.0 0.0 + 0.0 0.0 Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus 15.0 9.0 79.0 80.4 95.6 Nyctaginaceae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SUM 200 200 200 214 207 CONCENTRATION/GRAM (X1000) 23.0 58.0 Appendix C 923 Table C. 1, continued RELATIVE POLLEN PERCENTAGES FOR SAMPLES FROM HOHOKAM SITES IN THE ANAMAX-ROSEMONT PROJECT AREA AZ EE:2:76 Archaeological Samples Pollen Type F27 F48 F16001 F16002 TREES, SUCCULENTS, AND SHRUBS Acacia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Celtis Cupressaceae 0.0 1.5 0.4 0.0 Cylindropuntia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ephedra trifurca-type 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Juglans 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pinus 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 Prosopis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Quercus 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 cf. Rhus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 COMPOSITAE Ambrosia-type 1.9 4.4 2.6 1.4 Artemisia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tubulifloreae 0.9 2.9 4.4 4.6 OTHER TERRESTRIAL TAXA Eriogonum 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gramineae 0.0 2.0 1.3 2.3 Leguminosae 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 INDETERMINATE 2.8 8.8 1.4 6.9 CULTIGENS, DISTURBANCE PLANTS, AND WEEDS Zea 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus 93.5 77.9 71.9 84.3 Nyctaginaceae 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 SUM 215 204 228 216 CONCENTRATION/GRAM (X1000) 00.3 19.9 79.8 25.9 924 Robert S. Thompson Table C. 1, continued RELATIVE POLLEN PERCENTAGES FOR SAMPLES FROM HOHOKAM SITES IN THE ANAMAX-ROSEMONT PROJECT AREA AZ EE:2:77 EE:1:104 Pollen Type Fl F4* F12 Mod TREES, SUCCULENTS, AND SHRUBS Acacia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 Celtis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cupressaceae 0.9 0.0 0.0 9.6 Cylindropuntia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ephedra trifurca-type 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Juglans 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pinus 0.0 0.0 0.5 5.5 Prosopis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Quer cus 1.4 0.5 0.0 10.6 cf. Rhus 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 COMPOSITAE Ambrosia-type 3.3 19.0 0.0 10.1 Artemisia 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.5 Tubulifloreae 0.9 31.0 1.5 10.1 OTHER TERRESTRIAL TAXA Eriogonum 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.5 Gramineae 7.0 1.5 2.0 27.5 Leguminosae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 INDETERMINATE 1.7 22.9 7.8 CULTIGENS, DISTURBANCE PLANTS, AND WEEDS Zea 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus 69.3 7.5 73.1 13.8 Nyctaginaceae 0.0 22.5 0.0 0.0 SUM 215 200 201 218 CONCENTRATION/GRAM (X1000) 25.8 13.2 Appendix C 925 Table C. 1, continued RELATIVE POLLEN PERCENTAGES FOR SAMPLES FROM HOHOKAM SITES IN THE ANAMAX-ROSEMONT PROJECT AREA AZ EE:2:105 Modern Archaeological Samples Pollen Type Surface F44 F81014 F30001 TREES, SUCCULENTS, AND SHRUBS Acacia 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Celtis 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cupressaceae 26.9 2.0 0.9 0.4 Cylindropuntia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 Ephedra trifurca-type 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Juglans 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pinus 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 Prosopis 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Quercus 12.4 2.0 3.4 3.0 cf. Rhus 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 COMPOSITAE Ambrosia-type 5.5 2.4 0.4 2.6 Artemisia 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tubulifloreae 9.0 18.1 2.5 2.2 OTHER TERRESTRIAL TAXA Eriogonum 1.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 Gramineae 22.6 5.9 3.4 3.9 Leguminosae 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 INDETERMINATE 10.0 9.3 3.4 8.2 CULTIGENS, DISTURBANCE PLANTS, AND WEEDS Zea 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus 6.4 57.1 77.9 84.9 Nyctaginaceae 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.4 SUM 469 205 231 238 CONCENTRATION/GRAM (X1000) 61.6 11.2 55.4 15.6 926 Robert S. Thompson Table C.1, continued RELATIVE POLLEN PERCENTAGES FOR SAMPLES FROM HOHOKAM SITES IN THE ANAMAX-ROSEMONT PROJECT AREA AZ EE:2:106 AZ EE:2:107 Pollen Type F4 Mod F2001 TREES, SUCCULENTS, AND SHRUBS Acacia 0.0 0.0 0.0 Celtis 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cupressaceae 0.5 23.7 1.0 Cylindropuntia 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ephedra trifurca-type 0.0 0.0 0.0 Juglans 0.0 0.4 0.0 Pinus 3.9 0.9 0.0 Prosopis 0.0 0.9 0.0 Querc us 1.0 22.8 3.8 cf. Rhus 0.0 0.0 0.0 COMPOSITAE Ambrosia-type 6.4 3.6 2.9 Artemisia 0.0 0.4 0.0 Tubulifloreae 15.3 7.6 4.8 OTHER TERRESTRIAL TAXA Eriogonum 0.5 0.0 0.5 Gramineae 3.4 17.4 8.6 Leguminosae 0.0 0.4 0.0 INDETERMINATE 45.3 15.2 13.9 CULTIGENS, DISTURBANCE PLANTS, AND WEEDS Zea 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus 23.6 6.3 64.6 Nyctaginaceae 0.0 0.0 0.0 SUM 203 224 209 CONCENTRATION/GRAM (X1000) 42.6 78.4 175.6 Appendix C 927 Table C.1, continued RELATIVE POLLEN PERCENTAGES FOR SAMPLES FROM HOHOKAM SITES IN THE ANAMAX-ROSEMONT PROJECT AREA AZ EE:2:113 Modern Archaeological Samples Pollen Type Surface F8 F8 F12004 TREES, SUCCULENTS, AND SHRUBS Acacia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Celtis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cupressaceae 26.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 Cylindropuntia 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 Ephedra trifurca-type 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Juglans 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pinus 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prosopis 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Quercus 12.6 0.0 0.0 1.0 cf. Rhus 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 COMPOSITAE Ambrosia-type 8.1 0.4 0.0 1.5 Artemisia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tubulifloreae 1.9 7.8 1.0 4.8 OTHER TERRESTRIAL TAXA Eriogonum 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gramineae 2.1 8.6 0.5 3.4 Leguminosae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 INDETERMINATE 6.3 3.5 3.3 3.4 CULTIGENS, DISTURBANCE PLANTS, AND WEEDS Zea 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus 11.8 78.1 95.2 84.1 Nyctaginaceae 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 SUM 271 256 210 207 CONCENTRATION/GRAM (X1000) 1138.2 190.8 16.0 32.2 928 Robert S. Thompson Table C.1, continued RELATIVE POLLEN PERCENTAGES FOR SAMPLES FROM HOHOKAM SITES IN THE ANAMAX-ROSEMONT PROJECT AREA AZ EE:2:113 Pollen Type F6 F7 F12 F86 F108 TREES, SUCCULENTS, AND SHRUBS Acacia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Celtis 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cupressaceae 2.3 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.5 Cylindropuntia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ephedra trifurca-type 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Juglans 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pinus 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prosopis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Que rcus 2.8 0.0 2.3 1.8 1.9 cf. Rhus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 COMPOSITAE Ambrosia-type 1.9 1.0 1.4 1.3 1.9 Artemisia 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tubulifloreae 3.2 4.7 5.5 1.3 0.9 OTHER TERRESTRIAL TAXA Eriogonum 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gramineae 7.4 1.9 2.7 4.5 3.7 Leguminosae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 INDETERMINATE 4.6 4.2 2.7 5.8 4.7 CULTIGENS, DISTURBANCE PLANTS, AND WEEDS Zea 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus 75.9 86.5 84.9 84.4 86.4 Nyctaginaceae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 SUM 216 215 219 224 214 CONCENTRATION/GRAM (X1000) 23.8 10.2 470.4 64.2 36.2 Appendix C 929 Table C.1, continued RELATIVE POLLEN PERCENTAGES FOR SAMPLES FROM HOHOKAM SITES IN THE ANAMAX-ROSEMONT PROJECT AREA AZ EE:2:113 Pollen Type F154 F159 F205 F86001 TREES, SUCCULENTS, AND SHRUBS Acacia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Celtis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cupressaceae 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 Cylindropuntia 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ephedra trifurca type 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Juglans 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pinus 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 Prosopis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Quercus 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.0 cf. Rhus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 COMPOSITAE Ambrosia-type 3.4 1.5 0.0 2.0 Artemisia 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Tubulifloreae 1.9 2.9 4.1 3.9 OTHER TERRESTRIAL TAXA Eriogonum 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gramineae 1.0 3.9 4.1 5.9 Leguminosae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 INDETERMINATE 3.4 6.3 5.5 6.4 CULTIGENS, DISTURBANCE PLANTS, AND WEEDS Zea 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus 84.5 82.0 84.1 79.8 Nyctaginaceae 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 SUM 207 205 220 203 CONCENTRATION/GRAM (X1000) 36.2 71.1 47.4 930 Robert S. Thompson Table C.1, continued RELATIVE POLLEN PERCENTAGES FOR SAMPLES FROM HOHOKAM SITES IN THE ANAMAX-ROSEMONT PROJECT AREA AZ EE:2:116 EE:2:117 EE:2:120 EE:2:122 Pollen Type Mod F2001 F2001 Mod F2 Fl TREES, SUCCULENTS, AND SHRUBS Acacia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Celtis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cupressaceae 39.4 0.4 0.5 15.1 3.0 0.5 Cylindropuntia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ephedra trifurca-type 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Juglans 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Pinus 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.5 1.9 Prosopis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Quercus 18.9 3.4 1.5 16.5 0.5 1.4 cf. Rhus 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 COMPOSITAE Ambrosia-type 3.5 0.4 2.5 9.6 7.4 5.3 Artemisia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 Tubulifloreae 1.6 2.5 0.5 5.0 14.4 12.5 OTHER TERRESTRIAL TAXA Eriogonum 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gramineae 21.3 3.4 13.2 12.3 15.8 26.4 Leguminosae 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.4 INDETERMINATE 4.3 3.4 17.2 33.9 20.8 13.5 CULTIGENS, DISTURBANCE PLANTS, AND WEEDS Zea 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus 8.7 84.9 63.7 27.1 30.2 36.1 Nyctaginaceae 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 SUM 254 238 204 218 202 208 CONCENTRATION/GRAM (X1000) 152.4 55.4 40.8 65.4 14.9 11.6 Appendix C 931 Table C.2 RELATIVE POLLEN PERCENTAGES FOR TAXA WHICH OCCURRED IN FEWER THAN FOUR SAMPLES Site- Site- Site- Pollen Type Feature Feature Feature Agave 113-F8 (0.4) 122-F2 (0.5) 116-F2001 (0.4) Ephedra viridis-type 113-F6 (0.5) Fraxinus 116 Mod (0.4) Populus 105 Mod (0.2) Rosaceae 105 Mod (0.2) 107 Mod (0.4) 116 Mod (0.4) Salix 76 Mod* (1.0) 104 Mod (0.5) cf. Vitis 105 Mod (0.2) 113 Mod (0.4) Cannabis 105 Mod (0.2) 113 Mod (0.4) Caryophyllaceae 116-F2001 (0.3) Cleome 105 Mod (0.2) 104 Mod (0.5) 116-F2001 (0.3) Convoluaceae 116-F2001 (0.3) Cyperaceae 117-F2001 (0.5) 10-F44 (1.0) 116-F2 (0.3) Erodium cicutarium 104 Mod (0.5) Eschscholtzia 105 F44 (0.5) Euphorbia 76 Mod* (1.0) 76-F7 (4.0); 76-F8 (1.0) Gilia-type 104 Mod (0.5) Ipomea 104 Mod (0.5) Labiatae 120 Mod (0.5) Ligulifloreae 77-F4 (2.0) 116-F2 (0.3) 122-F1 (0.5) Mentzelia 104 Mod (0.5) Phlox 105-F44 (0.5) Polygonaceae 120 Mod (0.5) Solanaceae 76-F8* (0.5) 105-F44 (0.5) Trilete Spores 117-F2001 (0.5) 104 Mod (0.5) 113-F12 (0.5) Umbelliferae 116-F2001 (0.4) Verbena 113-F8 (0.4) Yucca 76-F7* (0.5) Mod=modern; *=sample counted by Suzanne K. Fish. Note: Other, unknown pollen was found in the following samples-- 76 Mod* (1.0%); 76-F7* (3.0%); 76-F8* (1.5%); 77-F4* (0.5%); 122-F2 (2.0%); 116-F2 (0.3)% 932 Robert S. Thompson Table C.3 SUMMARY OF SAMPLES WHICH LACKED SUFFICIENT POLLEN FOR ANALYSIS Site- Percent Percent Concentration Feature Sum Chenopodiaceae Indeterminate Per Gram 76-F25002 27 18.5 59.3 4500 76-F69 7 42.9 42.9 1200 76-F52 9 22.2 66.7 1500 76-F8 50 46.0 54.0 26,100 76-F17 8 50.0 50.0 1200 76-F56 4 25.0 50.0 800 76-F8 2 - 100.0 300 77 Mod* 0 - - 0 77-F1005 70 42.9 34.3 5700 77-F56 0 - - 0 77-F13 14 21.4 78.6 1000 77-F40 24 37.5 50.0 4000 77-F16002 78 53.8 38.5 6200 77-F32 12 33.3 50.0 2000 84-F6 40 55.0 35.0 1700 104-F1 33 30.3 27.3 13,900 104-F2 1 - - 500 105-F57 3 100.0 - 500 105-F74 1 - - 200 106-F5 22 9.1 86.4 30,800 106-F7 13 23.1 76.9 3900 106-F7 3 33.3 33.3 600 106-F7004 8 12.5 75.0 600 106-F7 17 23.5 70.6 7100 106-F6 3 - 66.7 1300 106-F3004 6 16.7 83.3 1300 107-F5 11 45.5 45.5 900 107-F1001 1 - 100.0 10 107-F5 3 100.0 - 300 109-F3001 5 40.0 60.0 1100 109 Mod 0 - - 0 109-F5002 0 - - 0 109-F7 0 - - 0 109-F4001 0 - - 0 109-F5001 0 - - 0 Mod=modern surface sample, *=analyzed by Suzanne K. Fish. Appendix C 933 Table C.3, continued SUMMARY OF SAMPLES WHICH LACKED SUFFICIENT POLLEN FOR ANALYSIS Site- Percent Percent Concentration Feature Sum Chenopodiaceae Indeterminate Per Gram 109-F2 5 - 60.0 800 109-F6 4 - 50.0 600 113-F52 16 56.3 12.5 4000 116-F2 63 25.4 44.4 5200 116-F2 0 - - 0 116-F2 0 - - 0 116-F2 26 23.1 19.2 2200 116-F1 9 22.2 33.3 1900 117-F11 0 - - 0 117-F3 9 11.1 66.7 2500 117-F1002 5 - 80.0 1400 117-F10 3 - 33.3 500 120-F3001 1 100.0 - 400 120-F4 0 - - 0 120-F1 0 - - 0 120-F5 0 - - 0 120-F2 0 - - 0 129-F2001 3 - 100.0 500 129-F2002 9 33.3 66.7 2000 129-F1002 5 40.0 40.0 1200 129-F6 6 - 66.7 1400 129-F8 0 - - 0 129-F1 1 - 100.0 400 Quercus pollen together comprise 15 to more than 50 percent of these samples. Gramineae pollen is also important in most of these samples (up to 28% of the sum), reflecting the regional importance of grassland vegetation. The pollen of the Chenopodiaceae-Amaranthus category is at moderate levels in the modern surface samples (15% or less), and the pollen representations of the major compositae types (Ambrosia-type and Tubulifloreae) are at similar levels. In general, the Rosemont surface samples resemble those in previous reports on southeastern Arizona (Hevly and others 1965; Martin 1963). One minor taxon in the surface samples is noteworthy: two samples (AZ EE:2:105 and EE:2:113) contained single grains of Cannabis pollen. 934 Robert S. Thompson In contrast to the modern surface samples, the Hohokam samples have very low representations of woodland plants. Instead, the archaeological samples that contained sufficient pollen for analysis are uniformly dominated by the pollen of the Chenopodiaceae-Amaranthus category. This pollen type represents up to 96 percent of the sum in some of these Hohokam samples, and it is also the most important type observed in the samples that had too little pollen for analysis (Table C.3). As mentioned previously, chenopod pollen is relatively unimportant in the modern samples (the mean of this type in the modern samples is 9.6%, while that for the Hohokam samples is 69.6%). The abundance of Chenopodiaceae-Amaranthus pollen in the Hohokam samples could be due to three possible factors: (1) it is possible that this abundance reflects the removal of the woodland taxa and the replacement of these plants with field weeds such as Chenopodium; (2) it is possible that Chenopodium or Amaranthus plants or both were being encouraged by the prehistoric farmers as an edible green; or (3) as suggested by Miksicek (1984a), it is possible that species within Chenopodium were under active cultivation. While it is not possible, on the basis of the pollen data, to choose from among these alternatives, the palynological evidence provides strong support for the hypothesis that the Hohokam had a large-scale impact on the environment. This impact was expressed in the removal of the native local vegetation and its replacement with cultigens or field weeds or both. The pollen of spiderling (cf. Boerhaavia in the Nyctaginaceae), another possible field weed, is abundant in one of the Hohokam samples counted by Suzanne K. Fish (1980; see Table C.2). Corn (Zea) pollen was recovered from seven of the Hohokam samples from three sites: AZ EE:2:76, EE:2:77, and EE:2:116. This pollen type is rarely well represented in archaeological sites, and the occurrence of even a single grain in a sample is indicative of the nearby occurrence of corn. Summary Pollen samples from archaeological contexts indicate that the local woodland was probably removed during the Hohokam occupations and that field weeds or cultivated chenopods or both were abundant during these periods. Corn was apparently grown at or near these archaeological sites. Appendix D HUMAN REMAINS FROM THE ANAMAX-ROSEMONT PROJECT Kurt Dongoske Arizona State Museum University of Arizona The following is a presentation of the 53 cremation deposits and 22 inhumations recovered from the ANAMAX-Rosemont Archaeological Project. Nonmetric and metric observations were taken on the inhumations, and nonmetric observations on the cremation deposits whenever possible. However, due to the often incomplete and ground warped nature of these remains, an analysis of these observations is not included. The complete results are on file and available at the Human Identification Laboratory of the Arizona State Museum. Methodology Of all the human bone retrieved from archaeological contexts the most challenging and time consuming to study are the cremated remains. Due to the mostly incomplete nature of these remains the amount of recoverable biological data is rather small. The information sought in a typical analysis of cremated remains is the number of individuals represented, their probable age and sex, and observations on dental and osseous pathologies, as well as nonmetric (discontinuous) traits. However, a cremation deposit often consists of only scanty, very fragmented and warped osseous debris from which it is sometimes difficult to obtain even gross estimations of age or sex. The bones in each cremation deposit from the Rosemont sites were specifically identified and sided, and were then initially separated into cranial and postcranial categories. Reconstructions were made if fragments of an osseous element could be pieced together. After this the following information was recorded: the bones represented, the degree of calcination of the total cremation, any duplication of osseous elements, the probable sex and age of the individual represented, the eruptive stage of the dentition, and bone and tooth pathologies. Finally, the weights of the identified and unidentified cranial and postcranial material were recorded for each cremation. 935 936 Kurt Dongoske The same observations were made for the inhumations, and whenever possible stature estimations were made. Age and Sex of Individuals The very fragmentary nature of cremations makes the sexing and aging of an individual a more difficult task, and often the results must be stated with the qualifier "probable." Results from the study of inhumations, on the other hand, are far more reliable due to the usual completeness of inhumations. The aging and sexing of both the cremations and inhumations from the Rosemont sites were based primarily upon the same set of criteria. Age determination for inhumations of adult age was estimated primarily from dental attrition. In a few instances the adult pubic symphyses were missing or had undergone such extensive postmortem erosion that these features could not be used for age estimations. The beginning or recently complete fusion of various epiphyses allows the assigning of definite ages to some remains (Krogman 1962). Osseous degenerative changes are also a general aging criterion. For age estimations of subadults the relative development of various bones (especially long bones), and the eruptive state of deciduous or permanent dentition (Johanson 1971) were used. For cremation deposits the above criteria were used as warranted; however, adult or subadult age was mostly assigned based upon cranial or long bone cortical thickness. Various criteria are available for determining the sex of human skeletal remains, basically from cranial and postcranial morphology (Krogman 1962; Bass 1971). In general, the sex of an individual may be ascertained by the relative robusticity of the bones. Nonadult osseous remains cannot be classified by sex because of the lack of skeletal dimorphism prior to about 15 years of age. "Probable" was used as a modifier if there was any question regarding an individual's sex. Of the 53 cremation deposits (Table D.1) representing a maximum of 52 individuals, 17 were identifiable as adults. Two of these were probable males and two were probable females; 13 subadults were identified of which 3 were classified as children, 2 as infants, and 1 as a neonate or fetus. Fifty percent of the adults were aged on cranial thickness and long bone cortical thickness. Similarly 50 percent of the subadults were classified by the same criteria; however, more specific age determination was made in conjunction with develop- mental dentition in two individuals. The most useful indicator of sex in adult cremated remains was the robusticity of the nuchal line and the mastoid process. Twenty inhumations were found, one of which appeared to contain two individuals. In addition, two unburned individuals were recovered from cremation deposits. These 23 individuals (Table D.2) included Appendix D 937 Table D.1 CREMATION DATA FROM THE ROSEMONT HOHOKAM SITES Site Feature Age of Weight Number Number Individual Sex (g) AZ EE:2:76 1 adult 531 4001 subadult 60 4002 adult 127 5 subadult 3 16003 158 22 64 32 492 35 131 44 1-2 years 50 45 17 51 382 52 2 53 6 54 adult 299 55 adult 177 56 1-3 years 45 57001 139 64 adult 151 65 subadult 4 68 subadult ? 4 AZ EE:2:77 22 1 23001/52 7 40 adult ? 879 44003 34 54 3 AZ EE:2:84 7 neonate 7 AZ EE:2:105 28 subadult 154 41013 adult 59 51 adult 830 80 subadult 49 AZ EE:2:107 7001 adult F ? 1378 7002 adult 869 AZ EE:2:113 1 4 63 7001 adult 112 29 10 938 Kurt Dongoske Table D.1, continued CREMATION DATA FROM THE ROSEMONT HOHOKAM SITES Site Feature Age of Weight Number Number Individual Sex (g) AZ EE:2:113, 62 adult 290 continued 70 80 adult F ? 472 81 adlut 154 83015 adult M ? 377 84 6-7 years 107 107001 child 4 147 160/164 adult 185 AZ EE:2:120 8001 298 9 2-6 years 11 AZ EE:2:122 2001 adult M ? 859 5 males, 1 probable male, 3 females, 4 probable females, and 9 subadults of unknown sex. Four of the 22 inhumations were aged as neonates or fetuses, 2 aged between birth and 2 years (infants), 2 aged between 5 and 6 years, 1 represented the 13 to 16-year age group, 1 the 16 to 19-year age group, 1 the 25 to 35-year age group, 2 the 35 to 50-year age group, 4 the 40 to 50-year age group, and 3 the 50-year or greater age group. Three were unable to be given a specific age placement. Types of Incineration The extent of calcination for each cremation was classified according to the standards established by Baby (1954), and later expanded by Birkby (1976): Chalky--the bones are so well calcined that they can be used to write on a chalk board or can be powdered between the fingers. This type of burning goes beyond the completely incinerated category established by Baby (Birkby 1976). Completely incinerated--cremated bone fragments range in color from white to blue-gray to buff and show transverse fracturing and warping (Baby 1954: 2). Table D.2 INHUMATIONS FROM THE ROSEMONT HOHOKAM SITES Feature Site Number Number Age Years Sex Position AZ EE:2:52 1 adult F ? flexed AZ EE:2:76 21 fetus/neonate 46 adult (40-50) F flexed 56 adult (50+) F ? flexed 56 infant (1-2) (mixed in with F.56 urn cremation) 67 child (5-6) flexed AZ EE:2:77 1003 fetus/neonate extended ? 44004 fetus/neonate extended ? AZ EE:2:105 7022 infant (0-6 mos) extended? 51 fetus/neonate (mixed in with F.51 urn cremation) AZ EE:2:107 9 adult (35-50) M flexed 10 adult (25-35) F ? flexed 15 young adult (16-19) F flexed AZ EE:2:113 2 adult (50-60) M seated 3 adult (40+) M ? 15 adult (40-50) F seated 16 adult (40-50) M 25 adult (35-45) M kneeling 52 adult (50+) M seated 53 adolescent (13-16) flexed ddv 72 adult kneeling ua 165 child (5) x-rp 165 adult F ? Q Appendix D 937 Table D.1 CREMATION DATA FROM THE ROSEMONT HOHOKAM SITES Site Feature Age of Weight Number Number Individual Sex (g) AZ EE:2:76 1 adult 531 4001 subadult 60 4002 adult 127 5 subadult 3 16003 158 22 64 32 492 35 131 44 1-2 years 50 45 17 51 382 52 2 53 6 54 adult 299 55 adult 177 56 1-3 years 45 57001 139 64 adult 151 65 subadult 4 68 subadult ? 4 AZ EE:2:77 22 1 23001/52 7 40 adult ? 879 44003 34 54 3 AZ EE:2:84 7 neonate 7 AZ EE:2:105 28 subadult 154 41013 adult 59 51 adult 830 80 subadult 49 AZ EE:2:107 7001 adult F ? 1378 7002 adult 869 AZ EE:2:113 1 4 63 7001 adult 112 29 10 Appendix D 941 An alternative explanation offered by Reinhard and Fink (1982) suggests that multiple cremations may be the result of poor gleaning of the crematorium resulting in the mixing of bone from separate cremation episodes. They specifically argue that fetal or neonate and infant remains were not entirely gleaned from the crematorium and became mixed with subsequent cremations of adults. Two cremations from the Rosemont sites reflected this adult and child association, but these are perhaps best explained by poor gleaning practices. It might be expected that a deliberate multiple individual interment would contain larger quantities of bone reflecting both individuals. Both Rosemont cremations had minimal amounts of bone for each individual. The two multiple cremation-inhumation interments and the multiple inhumation may be best explained through rodent burrowing or some other type of postinterment natural or cultural disturbance. Pathologies Of all the osseous pathologies recorded on inhumations, 98.8 percent were found on burials from AZ EE:2:113. This included one case of senile osteoporosis, three cases of arthritic fibrosis, and one case of osteophytosis. The bones from the Feature 2 burial at AZ EE:2:113 exhibited senile osteoporosis by a general pitting on all cranial bones, the long bone diaphysis, and the vertebral centra. Bones from the Feature 25 and 52 burials at this site showed less advanced signs of this pitting on the vertebrae and on some long bone diaphyses. Arthritic fibrosis was also evident on the cervical vertebrae of the Feature 2 burial, and on the facets of the lumbar vertebrae extending into the sacral area of the bone from the Feature 16 burial at AZ EE:2:113. The Feature 15 burial at this site exhibited this condition on the right humerus proximal to the capitulum surface, and in the coronoid process of the right ulna. This condition may be the result of trauma to the elbow. Also, the same burial showed signs of arthritic fibrosis on the inferior articular facets of the lower thoracic vertebrae. An osteophytotic condition was seen on the centra of the lower lumbar vertebrae of the burial at AZ EE:2:113 Feature 16, suggesting a degenerative disk disease. Except for the trauma to the elbow of the Feature 15 burial, all of the pathologies noted above are indicative of advancing years and are to be expected considering the ages of these individual's specimens. There was one incident of a "pseudo-arthrosis" with an osteo- callous growth encompassing the area of a mended break on the right ulna of the Feature 9 burial from AZ EE:2:107. 942 Kurt Dongoske Cranial Deformations Of all the inhumations from the Rosemont Sites, only one instance of cranial deformation was noted. The burial of a young adult female (Feature 15 at AZ EE:2:107) exhibited an asymmetrical flattening of the occipital and posterior parietals as well as some flattening of the temporal bones. Dentition Of the total dental remains observed in the Rosemont cremations, 10 (29.5%) were identified as molars, 1 (2.3%) as a premolar, 6 (13.6%) as canines, 7 (11.4%) as incisors; 20 (43.2%) were unidentifiable dental fragments. Only 4.5 percent of the cremated dentitions from the Rosemont sites exhibited mandibular fragments where either the sockets were undergoing or had completed bony resorption after tooth loss. This figure is lower than the 29.8 percent of the 94 adult cremations from Snaketown (Birkby 1976: 382), or the 53 percent reported by Merbs (1967: 502) for the Mogollon at Point of Pines. The inhumations included eight instances of antemortem tooth loss, with the sockets exhibiting partial to complete bony resorption of the socket. As would be expected, most instances of complete resorption were seen in those skeletons over the age of 40. The dental caries seen in the skeletal population were one occurrence of an occlusal caries on the right and left mandibular first molar of the Feature 46 burial at AZ EE:2:76. The Feature 2 burial at AZ EE:2:113 displayed caries on the maxillary right lateral incisor. Discussion The majority of the cremated human remains recovered at the Rosemont sites were well burned and all of the bony matter appears to have been "green" when fired; that is, the bones were flesh covered when they were burned. The calcined material shows deep transverse fracturing or checking and extensive warpage, indicating that the bones were fresh at the time of firing. Dry-bone cremations produce a longitudinal splitting pattern and tend not to warp (Baby 1954). With one exception, all of the Rosemont cremations were secondary interments; that is, the remains were interred in a different place than where the cremation took place. The only instance of a primary cremation was Feature 2001 at AZ EE:2:122. Here an adult, probably male, had been cremated in an extended, supine position on the Appendix D 943 floor of the Feature 2 pit house. The bones were incompletely incinerated and differentially burned. Those bones that were protected by larger amounts of muscle tissue (femora and humeri) only experienced heat warping while the less protected bones (cranium, tibiae, and fibulae) showed considerable charring. The average weight of all the Rosemont cremation deposits (Table D.1) was 213 g. The average weight of the adult deposits was 456 g. Neither figure approaches the 1750 g estimated by Binford (1972) for a fully calcined and leached cremated adult male. Even the heaviest cremation (1478 g) was several hundred grams short of this figure. Low cremation weights seem to be ubiquitous among Hohokam cremation deposits, as noted at Snaketown (Birkby 1976), the Baca Float sites (Shipman and Wolf 1977) and the Cashion Site (Long 1981), to name only a few. These low weights may reflect poor gleaning practices after burning, resulting in most of the bone being left in the crematorium. A second explanation could be that "serial" or "partition burial" was practiced, with the burned bone of a single individual deposited in several different vessels or pits. However, the existence of such a practice has yet to be documented among the Hohokam. All the Rosemont cremations were typified by low percentages of identifiable bone elements. This may suggest an intentional pulverizing or crushing of the bones after cremation. The practice of stirring the bones in the hot embers for a time after the body had been reduced could also account for a greater fragmentation of the osseous remains. Both could account for a reduction in the amount of identifiable bone elements and in cremation weights. Of all the cremated and inhumed remains recovered from the Rosemont sites, 29 percent (22 of 76 interments) were classified as subadult. Of these, 13 came from cremations and 9 from burials, representing 25 percent of the cremations and 39 percent of the inhumations. Large burial populations from archaeological sites usually have such a structure so as to suggest that from 40 percent to 60 percent of the population dies prior to reaching reproductive age (Birkby 1976: 384). If a similar mortality rate obtained for the Rosemont area Hohokam, and if the relative percentages of cremated and inhumed subadult remains are accurate reflections of the prehistoric disposal patterns, it would appear that the favored interment for subadults was inhumation. Alternatively, less careful gleaning of subadult cremations could cause underrepresentation of this particular mode of disposal, and sampling bias in excavation may also have had a role. Finally, it must be noted that 38 percent of the cremations (20 of 53) were too fragmentary to be classified as adult or subadult, again introducing a possible source of bias into the analysis. Appendix E PARASITOLOGICAL AND DIETARY STUDY OF INHUMATIONS FROM BUMBLEBEE VILLAGE, AZ EE:2:113 (ASM) Karl J. Reinhard Biology Department Texas A&M University and Richard H. Hevly Department of Biological Sciences Northern Arizona University Soil samples from three inhumations were extracted for parasitological, macrobotanical, and palynological remains. The inhumations were intrusive into the fill of the Feature 6100 pit house at Bumblebee Village, AZ EE:2:113 (ASM). Although not accompanied by any grave goods, they are considered Hohokam and probably date to the late Rillito or early Rincon phase (about A.D. 800-1000). This is the first attempt to isolate parasitic worm eggs from Hohokam burial contexts. Parasitological Finds in Archaeological Deposits The most common finds of helminth ova have come from examination of dried, prehistoric feces, commonly called "coprolites." The examination of ancient Amerindian feces for worm eggs was first done from Peruvian deposits (Callen and Cameron 1955). In that study, the eggs of the fish tapeworm, Diphylobothrium, were recovered. The next study of feces for parasites was done by Samuels (1965) with feces from Mesa Verde. In that study the eggs of pinworm, Enterobius vermicularis, were discovered. This ubiquitous human parasite has also been found at Inscription House (Fry and Hall 1973), Antelope House (Fry and Hall 1975; Reinhard 1983b), Danger Cave (Fry 1976), Hogup Cave (Fry 1976), Salmon Ruin (Reinhard, current research), Elden Pueblo (Hevly and others 1979), additional localities at Mesa Verde (Stiger 1977), and by the senior author in current research on material from the Salmon Ruin. The numbers of eggs found at Salmon Ruin and Antelope House indicate a 100 percent infection rate. 945 946 Reinhard and Hevly Although pinworm is potentially debilitating (Stiger 1977), more dangerous parasites are also known from the prehistoric New World. Besides Diphylobothrium mentioned above, tapeworm eggs of the families Taeniidae and Hymenolepidae were found (Hevly and others 1979) as well as the tapeworm genus Railietina(?) (Reinhard 1983b). Of the roundworms, Ascaris lumbricoides and Trichuris trichiura were found at Elden Pueblo by Hevly and Anderson. Ascaries lumbricoides may also have been a parasite of the Archaic inhabitants of Salts Cave, Kentucky (Fry 1974). At Antelope House, the roundworms Strongyloides stercoralis(?) and Trichostrongylus have been identified (Reinhard 1983b, in press). One acanthocephalan, the thorny headed worm, is known to have parasitized prehistoric man in the Great Basin and in Glen Canyon (Fry 1976). Mummies have also provided parasitological information. Feces extracted from a prehistoric Peruvian mummy were found to contain eggs of Trichuris trichiura. The hookworm Ancylostoma duodenale was identified in the gut of a Peruvian mummy (Cockburn and Cockburn 1980). The examination of latrine soils from open sites has only rarely been done. Teague (1967) submitted samples of soils taken from a Mississippian mound midden for parasitological analysis. What is possibly Ascaris lumbricoides was found in that investigation. The senior author is currently examining soil samples from Revolutionary War-period privies excavated at Newport, Rhode Island. Although in its preliminary stages, the Newport study has revealed a variety of parasite eggs. The predominant species seems to be Trichuris trichiura. Eggs of this species are very plentiful and number, in some samples, 3500 per cubic centimeter. The Elden Pueblo study referenced above was completely based on soil samples from prehistoric rooms used as privies. Salmon Ruin is an open site in which feces were recovered. These four studies are the only ones of which we are aware that have involved the examination of New World privy or midden soil samples for parasite remains from open sites. False parasitism occurs when an egg of a noninfective parasite is ingested. The egg is then passed through the alimentary tract in the feces. The ingestion of parasites noninfective to humans is not a health hazard and cases have been found in the prehistoric Southwest (Reinhard and others, in press; Moore and others 1974). Cases of false parasitism can generally be inferred by the relatively few eggs found in feces as opposed to an abundance of eggs found in cases of true parasitism. Parasite finds from feces on the Colorado Plateau are summarized in Table E.1. All the above parasites could survive in the Hohokam area. Most are adapted to mesic environments, and the river valleys inhabited by the Hohokam could maintain worm populations. Moniliformes clarki requires the camel cricket as a secondary host; camel crickets are not common in the southern Arizona deserts and consequently Acanthocephalans were probably not a common Hohokam parasite. Ascaris lumbricoides requires temperatures somewhat lower than human body temperature to complete development within the egg. This may limit the ability of this animal to survive in the lower deserts. Appendix E 947 Table E.1 HELMINTH PARASITES FOUND ON THE COLORADO PLATEAU BY LOCALITY AND TAXONOMIC GROUP Taxon Locality Reference Trematoda (Flatworms) Species unknown Glen Canyon (Moore and others 1974) Cestoda (Tapeworms Taeniidae Elden Pueblo (Hevly and others 1979) Hymenolepidae Elden Pueblo (Hevly and others 1979) Railietina ssp. ? Antelope House (Reinhard 1983b) Nematoda (Roundworms) Ascaris lumbricoides Elden Pueblo (Reinhard 1983b) Trichuris treichiura Elden Pueblo (Reinhard 1983b) Unknown species Elden Pueblo (Reinhard 1983b) Strongyloides stercoralis Antelope House (Reinhard 1983b, in press) Inscription House? (Fry and Hall 1974) Trichostrongylus ssp. Antelope House (Fry and Hall 1974) Inscription House? (Fry and Hall 1974) Enterobius vermicularis Mesa Verde (Samuels 1965) Mesa Verde (Stiger 1977) Antelope House (Fry and Hall 1975) Salmon Ruin (Reinhard, in press) Elden Pueblo (Reinhard, in press) Inscription House (Reinhard, in press) Acanthocephala (Thorny headed worms) Moniliformes clarki Glen Canyon (Fry 1977) In most cases, slight infection with any of these worms would not necessarily be debilitating. However, in heavy infections some worms could be pathological. This is especially true of the nematodes and even the most benign parasite, the pinworm, can cause anemia in stressed populations (Stiger 1977). It would be difficult to describe all the effects of each species so we will concentrate on the mesic- adapted species found in the Southwest which Hohokam peoples in their riverine habitats might have encountered. Trichuris trichiura is very likely to have parasitized Hohokam peoples and inferential evidence indicates that it lived in the moist 948 Reinhard and Hevly areas of the Verde Valley and infected seasonal inhabitants from the Flagstaff area (Hevly and others 1979). In light infections there are almost no symptoms, but as worm load increases, there is greater intestinal damage. Once worms become established in great numbers in the large bowel there is a great deal of blood lost, which is passed with the feces. Irritation may cause a prolapse of the rectum in exceptional cases. Diarrhea and anemia are caused by typical infections. Trichostrongylus is a mesic-adapted genus that is well suited to river environments. It is worldwide in distribution, but is most common in warm, moist areas. Eight species of this genus are known to infect humans (Schmidt and Roberts 1981). It is relatively benign and no symptoms are produced by light infections; however, in heavy infections dysentery may result. This genus is often associated with more dangerous strongyles and hookworms. Consequently, finding Trichostrongulus in a prehistoric area is of significance in that the environment probably supports these other, more hazardous animals. One deadly animal which has been found in the prehistoric Southwest is Strongyloides stercoralis(?) (Reinhard, in press). This strongyle is a parasite of both dogs and humans and it has been found in the prehistoric feces of both the domestic dog and human inhabitants of Antelope House, Canyon de Chelly, Arizona. Like hookworms, strongyles bore through the skin and enter the blood stream. They are carried to the lungs where they carry out embryological development. Although strongyles can exist as free-living soil nemotodes with separate male and female sexes, once the parasitic existence is adopted, all animals are parthenogenic females. This means they produce viable offspring from unfertilized eggs. Lung irritation occurs once entry to the lung has been gained. In some cases the lung tissue encysts around the worms. If this occurs, the worm matures and produces eggs. Most worms mature in the lungs without encystment and then migrate up the trachea and down into the alimentary tract. They establish themselves in the intestine where their burrowing in the mucosa causes severe damage and blood loss. Secondary infection can occur when the intestine is perforated and bacteria enter the blood. Eggs are layed and hatched in the intestine and most larvae are passed with the feces. Some larvae remain in the intestine and eventually enter the blood through perforations made by their parents. This aspect of autoinfection is especially dangerous because chronic infections develop even though the host may not come into contact with infective larvae in the soil for many years. The real danger of strongyle infection is hyperinfection in which massive numbers of worms parasitize a single individual. Anemia is one consequence of strongyle infection and in severe cases portions of the intestinal mucosa will slough off entirely. One interesting aspect of Strongyloides infection is that the larval worms can be passed from mother to baby with milk. There is no infection level with this worm that is safe, as with Trichuris and Trichostrongylus, because of the danger of autoinfection and hyperinfection. American Indian populations in the Southwest were not unarmed against roundworms. It is apparent that the consumption of Chenopodium Appendix E 949 seed that included species containing the worm poison ascaridole eliminated worm infection in prehistory as it does today in certain parts of the world. Chenopodium graveolens is one species available in the Southwest that is a strong anthelmintic as well as a dietary supplement. However, with the strongyles, a systemic poison as well as an anthelmintic must be consumed to kill worms both in the digestive tract and blood system. Clearly, the numbers and variety of worm species found demonstrates the potential of parasitological studies in archaeology. The durability of helminth eggs allows their preservation in a variety of soil types. Full utilization of parasitological studies of archaeological deposits should involve the examination of soils associated with burials. Methods Five soil samples taken from three separate inhumations were submitted for analysis. The samples were extracted in a manner that would optimize the possibility of recovering intestinal contents. After rehydration the soils were screened for any macroscopic botanical remains. They were then run through pollen and parasite extraction procedures. Two samples were taken from the Feature 15 inhumation, one from the pelvic cavity (SN 16) and another from below the right innominate (SN 18). Similarly, the Feature 16 inhumation was sampled from inside the pelvic cavity (SN 12) and from underneath the pelvis and sacrum (SN 14). Lastly, a single sample was taken from below the sacrum of the Feature 52 inhumation (SN 6). All inhumations had been placed upright in pits with their legs flexed in front of them. In the examination of soils for parasite remains, problems are encountered that are absent in fecal or mummy studies. These problems stem from the huge quantities of inorganic soil particles which hinder the ability to concentrate eggs for study. We have found the use of acid baths extremely efficient in dissolving miscellaneous soil particles. This technique was first employed by Hevly in the Elden Pueblo study. Soil samples from Elden Pueblo were submitted to complete pollen extraction procedures involving baths in hydrochloric, hydrofluoric, and acetic acids followed by acetolysis treatment. The use of strong acids may seem destructive to the parasite ova. One must remember, however, that the eggs of parasitic, intestinal worms are evolved to resist acid and enzymatic destruction. In the case of the Elden Pueblo remains, a variety of tapeworm and roundworm eggs were found to survive the pollen treatment intact with even the mummified worm embryos within the eggs. 950 Reinhard and Hevly In the case of the burial soils examined here, the high content of carbonates, silicates, and miscellaneous organics indicated that a full pollen extraction procedure be employed along with preliminary examination of untreated, sedimented remains. After treatment, three microscope preparations utilizing 22-mm-by-50-mm cover slips were examined. Experience has shown that this is sufficient for identifying a parasite infection. However, to be sure nothing was missed, an examination of treated sediments poured into a petri dish was done with a 37X dissecting scope. Such procedure permits accurate examination of particles larger than 40 micrometers in a large volume of sediment. Results and Discussion No parasite ova were identified in any examination. This is attributed to the small number of burials examined and possibly to the effects of subsidence after burial. Our experience in coprolite analysis demonstrates that most feces contain no parasites. In examination of 100 Archaic feces from the Glenn Canyon area, only three contained ova. In sites with high infection levels such as Antelope House, one of every four feces contained eggs. These, however, were mostly pinworm eggs which are usually layed outside the body. If there was any death ceremony at Bumblebee Village involving washing the body before burial, the eggs of even this ubiquitous parasite would be lost. Consequently it was no surprise that no ova were found in these three bodies. Subsidence is a major problem to be faced in the examination of burial soils. As the body decays, the body cavity fills with soil. This soil subsidence will scatter the remains of parasitic worms that may be present in the body at the time of burial. The effects of subsidence can be minimized by examination of soils from the pelvic cavity which is more closed than the thoracic cavity and in which worm eggs will be concentrated as feces accumulate in the colon before death. Recently we examined the burial soils of an Anasazi inhumation for zoological and botanical remains. By examining dirt gleaned from the bones as they were being cleaned and comparing the contents of these soils to control soil samples taken in the field, we were able to isolate fecal debris compacted in the sacrum of the skeleton. By examining the sacrum soil contents, we were able to minimize the action of subsidence in scattering remains. In this case, the seeds of six plant species commonly eaten by the Anasazi were isolated, as were the fragments of insects involved in decomposition. With the three Bumblebee Village inhumations, the bodies were placed in a more or less upright posture with the legs flexed in front. This oriented the pelvis and pelvic cavity in a vertical position. During subsidence, it is probable that soil moved through the pelvic cavity in a vertical manner, thereby flushing the contents of the pelvic region out and below the body, dispersing them in the soils and away Appendix E 951 from the sacrum. Analysis of pollen samples from these three inhumations demonstrate that the alimentary contents were sampled. The screening for macroscopic sediments was fruitless. Only a few pieces of charcoal were recovered. However, the pollen analysis provided significant information relating to both diet and parasitism. There was not a high diversity of pollen types in the burial soils. The pollen counts are presented in Table E.2. Each sample contained 95 percent or more Cheno-Am pollen. Importantly, some of the pollen occurred in aggregates indicating the consumption of flowers or immature seed. The presence of pollen aggregates is in itself convincing that the soils contained remnants of previous meals. However, we also checked the natural pollen profiles from southern Arizona as presented by Martin (1963) to confirm that the soils contained dietary, not natural pollen. At the time of burial, around A.D. 800-1000, the pollen spectrum was dominated by composite species. In later times the natural amount of Cheno-Am increased but not nearly to the 95 percent level found in the soils. Consequently, two lines of evidence support that the soils contained consumed Cheno-Am from the alimentary tract. First, the presence of pollen clusters indicates dietary origin. Secondly, the amount of Cheno-Am in the soils does not correspond to levels of Cheno-Am present in natural deposits at the time of burial. With respect to parasitism, the presence of Cheno-Am pollen is significant. Although many genera are represented by Cheno-Am pollen, Table E.2 POLLEN COUNTS FROM SAMPLES RECOVERED FROM BUMBLEBEE VILLAGE INHUMATIONS Feature 15 Feature 16 Feature 52 Pollen Type SN16 SN18 SN12 SN14 SN6 Cheno-Am 121* 105* 129* 111* 114* Poaceae 2 1 2 1 1 Low spine composite 3 1 2 4 3 High spine composite 2 1 2 Brassicaceae 1 Eriogonum 1 * Individual grain counts are lumped with aggregate counts and the presence of aggregates indicated by an asterisk. 952 Reinhard and Hevly one of the most common dietary genera is Chenopodium. If seeds of this plant were consumed in high quantities by these individuals, parasitic infection with roundworms could be limited, depending on the quantity of ascariodole contained in that species. From our perspective, it would be insightful to ascertain from ancillary studies whether or not Chenopodium was a major dietary constituent. Conclusions It is impossible to determine whether or not the inhabitants of Bumblebee Village were parasitized. It is likely that they carried one or more of the parasites now known from the Southwest. However, the examination of only three burials limits the chance of finding evidence of infection. Dietary study by pollen analysis of alimentary remains indicates final meals of a species in the families Chenopodiaceae or Amaranthaceae. Since certain species within these families contain anthelminthic compounds, it is possible that consumption of vermifuge is represented by the pollen. This provides a third possible explanation for the lack of parasite remains in the burial soils. Appendix F ARCHAEOMAGNETIC DATING OF SAMPLES FROM THE ANAMAX-ROSEMONT PROJECT Richard C. Lange Arizona State Museum University of Arizona Fifteen archaeomagnetic samples were recovered on the ANAMAX- Rosemont Project. Nine samples were submitted to the Archaeomagnetic Program, Arizona State Museum. These samples were analyzed in the Paleomagnetism Laboratory, Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, by Richard C. Lange and Laurie A. Reiser of the Arizona State Museum. The remaining samples are curated at the Arizona State Museum. Dates are reported for the samples on the basis of the Southwestern Virtual Geomagnetic Pole Curve (SWVGP curve) developed by Sternberg (1982). The SWVGP curve covers the time period A.D. 700-1450 and is based upon 158 in situ, cross-dated features at 33 archaeological sites in the southwestern United States. Date ranges are obtained by statistically testing the paleomagnetic results of an unknown sample against the known curve. A window of a set time length is moved along the curve at a specific increment to provide tests against successive date ranges. Where there are relatively few data points in the early portion of the curve, the windows cover 100-year intervals. In the later portion of the curve, after A.D. 1000, windows cover 50-year intervals because of the greater number of data points in the curve. Three types of date ranges, as determined from the statistical comparisons, are usually reported. This allows date ranges of some sort to be assigned even in cases where the confidence intervals are relatively large. Date ranges are given in preference over a central figure with a standard error. This avoids giving undue emphasis to the date of the central tendency. The types of ranges are: 1. 95 percent confidence interval corresponds to two standard deviations. This is comparable to results now being reported by radiocarbon laboratories and is the date range with the highest confidence level for interpretation that is provided by this laboratory. 953 954 Richard C. Lange 2. 63 percent confidence interval corresponds to one standard deviation in Fisher statistics (a statistical technique adapted to measurements on the surface of a sphere, that is, the Earth). 3. Best fit interval indicates the date interval (or windows) with the highest statistical probability of the sample dating to that range. The confidence level suggested for standard comparisons of archaeomagnetic results is the 95 percent interval. The 63 percent and best fit intervals can, however, be useful in certain contexts. The analysis of the nine samples submitted shows very mixed results. Five samples were not carried beyond the initial stages of the analysis because of extreme random dispersion of the sample directions. Of the remaining four samples for which dating interpretations could be made, three (AR004, AR007, and AR009) matched archaeological expectations in the 95 percent confidence and best fit intervals, while one result was suspect due to poor clustering of the sample directions (AR002). The date at the best fit interval for AR004 is also somewhat suspect due to the large confidence interval (alpha-95). Confidence results for this project are on the high side of averages compared to other samples analyzed by the Archaeomagnetic Program. The proportion of date ranges reported to number of samples taken is also relatively low. Most samples were taken by a single individual, so there is the possibility that problems in sampling technique contributed to the poor results. However, the extreme dispersion of samples cannot be accounted for simply through sampler error. A number of explanations are possible, none of which can be confirmed or disregarded at this point in time: 1. The soil into which hearths were built, or the plaster used if hearths were plastered, may be low in ferromagnetic minerals; that is, low in ability to take on magnetic alignments. This seems unlikely given the character of the local geology. 2. The hearths may not have achieved high temperatures. However, there is no obvious reason why these hearths, or the fuels used in them, would have achieved temperatures significantly below those in other areas of southern Arizona where results have been much more reliable. 3. The features were not protected from drying and shifting. For the features analyzed, excavations were conducted from July to early October, the height of summer heat. After excavation, the hearths were sometimes left open for a week or more before sampling, without protective soil or other cover. Appendix F 955 4. Local magnetic anomalies may have caused distortions in magnetic alignments during firing or during sampling. Tests made comparing Brunton and sum compass declinations at sites AZ EE:2:76, EE:2:77, EE:2:105, EE:2:106, EE:2:109, EE:2:116, and EE:2:129 showed no differences beyond normal variability (0.5-1.5 degrees). 5. Poor sampling techniques may have created the dispersions of directions. Sampling was no doubt made more difficult by not protecting the features after excavation, making them more friable and thus more difficult to cut and recover stable samples. Wheelbarrows or tool boxes in close proximity to the feature being sampled might result in an anomalous direction with a tight confidence interval. Finally, while some samples were provided date ranges close to anticipated archaeological dates, this set of samples was disappointing and shows the need for increased care in sample recovery and consideration of the several factors which can affect archaeomagnetic results. REFERENCES Abbott, David R. 1984 A technological assessment of ceramic variation in the Salt- Gila area: Toward a comprehensive documentation on Hohokam ceramics. In "Hohokam Archaeology Along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project, Vol. VIII: Material Culture," edited by Lynn S. Teague and Patricia L. Crown. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 150(8). Tucson: University of Arizona. Abbott, David R., and Frederick W. Huntington 1983 Excavations at Casas Pequeffas (AZ U:15:97), Hohokam field houses in the Queen Creek area, Part 2 of "Hohokam Archaeology Along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project, Vol. V: Small Habitation Sites on Queen Creek," Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 150(5). Tucson: University of Arizona. Adams, E. Charles 1978 The function of limited activity sites in the settlement system of the Lower Piedra District, Colorado. In "Limited Activity and Occupation Sites: A Collection of Conference Papers," compiled and edited by Albert E. Ward. Contributions to Anthropological Studies 1: 99-108. Albuquerque: Center for Anthropological Studies. 1979 Cold air drainage and length of growing season in the Hopi Mesas area. The Kiva 44(4): 285-296. Allen, Glover 1920 Dogs of the American aborigines. Comparative Zoology 63(9): 431-517. Amprino, Rodolfo 1958 Investigations on some physical properties of bone tissue. Acta Anatomica 34: 161-186. Amsden, Charles Avery 1936 An analysis of Hohokam pottery design. Medallion Papers 23. Globe , Arizona: Gila Pueblo. Anderberg, Michael R. 1973 Cluster Analysis for Applications. New York: Academic Press. 957 958 References Antieau, John M. 1981 The Palo Verde archaeological investigations, Hohokam settlement at the confluence: Excavations along the Palo Verde pipeline. Museum of Northern Arizona Research Papers 20. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona. Arizona Bureau of Mines 1959a Geologic Map of Cochise County, Arizona. Tucson: University of Arizona. 1959b Geologic Map of Pinal County, Arizona, by Eldred D. Wilson and Richard T. Moore. Tucson: University of Arizona. 1960 Geologic Map of Pima and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona, by Eldred D. Wilson, Richard T. Moore, and Robert T. O'Haire. Tucson: University of Arizona. Baby, Raymond S. 1954 Hopewell cremation practices. Ohio Historical Society Papers in Archaeology 1. Columbus. Barnett, Franklin 1969 Tongue Pueblo: A Report of Partial Excavation of an Ancient Pueblo IV Indian Ruin in New Mexico. Albuquerque: The Albuquerque Archeological Society. Bartlett, Katherine 1933 Pueblo milling stones of the Flagstaff region and their relation to others in the Southwest. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 3. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona. 1939 A prehistoric "mine" of red argillite, resembling pipestone, near Del Rio, Arizona. Museum Notes 11(12): 75-78. Bass, William M. 1971 Human osteology: A Laboratory and Field Manual of the Human Skeleton. Columbia, Missouri: Missouri Archaeological Society. Bayham, Frank E. 1976a Lithics. In "Desert resources and Hohokam subsistence: The CONOCO-Florence Project," by William H. Doelle. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 103: 195-217. Tucson: University of Arizona. 1976b Faunal exploitation. In "Desert Resources and Hohokam Subsistence: the CONOCO-Florence Project," edited by William H. Doelle. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 103: 110-123. Tucson: University of Arizona. 1982 A diachronic analysis of prehistoric animal exploitation at Ventana Cave. MS, doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. References 959 Beals, Ralph L., George W. Brainerd, and Watson Smith 1945 Archaeological Studies in Northeast Arizona: A Report on the Archaeological Work of the Rainbow Bridge-Monument Valley Expedition. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bernard-Shaw, Mary 1984 Lithics. In Part 2 of "Hohokam Archaeology Along the Salt- Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project, Vol. VIII: Material Culture," edited by Lynn S. Teague and Patricia L. Crown. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 150(8). Tucson: University of Arizona. Binford, Lewis R. 1972 Analysis of a cremated burial from the Riverside Cemetery, Menominee County, Michigan. In An Archaeological Perspective, pp. 383-389. New York: Seminar Press. 1978 Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. New York: Academic Press. 1981 Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. New York: Academic Press. Binford, Lewis R., and Jack B. Bertram 1977 Bone frequencies and attritional processes. In For Theory Building in Archaeology, edited by Lewis R. Binford, pp. 77- 113. New York: Academic Press. Birkby, Walter H. 1976 Cremated human remains. In The Hohokam, Desert Farmers & Craftsmen, by Emil W. Haury, pp. 380-384. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Bohrer, Vorsila L. 1976 Peer Reviews: Review 1. In "Desert Resources and Hohokam Subsistence: The CONOCO-Florence Project," by William H. Doelle. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 103: 245-250. Tucson: University of Arizona. Bond, Richard 1936 Eating habits of falcons with special reference to pellet analysis. Condor 38: 72-75. Boserup, Ester 1965 The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change Under Population Pressure. Chicago: Aldine. Bowen, Thomas R. 1976 Esquema de la Historia de la Cultura Trincheras. In "Sonora: Antropologia del Desierto," edited by Beatriz C. Braniff and Richard S. Felger. Coleccion Cientifica 27: 267-280. Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, S.E.P., Mexico. 960 References Bradley, Bruce A. 1979 Arizona BB:11:2 - Redington Ruin: Report on the Excavation of Feature 1. MS, Arizona State Museum Library, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1980 Excavations at AZ BB:13:74, Santa Cruz Industrial Park, Tucson, Arizona. CASA Papers 1. Oracle, Arizona: Complete Archaeological Service Associates. Bradley, Cynthia S. 1980 Analysis of the cremations from Arizona BB:13:74. In "Excavations at Arizona BB:13:74, Santa Cruz Industrial Park, Tucson, Arizona," by Bruce A. Bradley. CASA Papers 1: 53-57. Oracle, Arizona: Complete Archaeological Service Associates. Brain, C. K. 1981 The Hunters or the Hunted? An Introduction to African Cave Taphonomy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Brantley, Susan L. 1982 Chemical analysis of pigments on sherds from Los Morteros (AZ AA:12:57). MS, Arizona State Museum Library, University of Arizona, Tucson. Brown, Jeffrey L., and Paul Grebinger 1969 A lower terrace compound at San Cayetano del Tumacacori. The Kiva 34(203): 185-198. Bullard, William Rotch, Jr. 1962 The Cerro Colorado Site and pit house architecture in the southwestern United States prior to A.D. 900. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 44(2). Cambridge: Harvard University. Bunzel, Ruth L. 1929 The Pueblo Potter: A Study of Creative Imagination in Primitive Art. New York: Columbia University Press. Bye, Robert A., Jr. 1979 Incipient domestication of mustards in northwest Mexico. The Kiva 44(2-3): 237-256. Cable, John S. 1984 Trends in Hohokam field house design and the character of their construction and use. In "City of Phoenix, Archaeology of the Original Townsite: Murphy's Addition," edited by John S. Cable, Susan L. Henry, and David E. Doyel. Soil Systems Publications in Archaeology 3: 227-258. Phoenix: Professional Service Industries. References 961 Cable, John S., and Wilma Allen 1982 The prehistoric component. Part I of "City of Phoenix, Archaeology of the Original Townsite: Blocks 1 and 2," edited by John S. Cable, Susan L. Henry, and David E. Doyel. Soil Systems Publications in Archaeology, 1. Phoenix: Professional Serivce Industries. Cable, John S., and David E. Doyel 1983* Hohokam Land-Use Patterns Along the Terraces of the Lower Salt River Valley: The Central Phoenix Project. Paper presented at the 1983 Hohokam Symposium, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. MS, Arizona State Museum Library, University of Arizona, Tucson. Callen, E. 0., and T. W. Cameron 1955 The diet and parasites of prehistoric Hueca Prieta Indians as determined by dried coprolites. Royal Society of Canada Proceedings 5: 51-52. Campbell, Elizabeth W. C., and William H. Campbell 1935 The Pinto Basin Site. Southwest Museum Papers 9. Los Angeles: Southwest Museum. Carpenter, Alice H. 1977 A prehistoric shell and bone necklace from a burial exposed in a bank of the San Pedro River, Arizona. The Kiva 43(1): 19-25. Castetter, Edward F., and Willis H. Bell 1942 Pima and Papago Indian agriculture. Inter-Americana Studies 1. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. 1951 Yuman Indian Agriculture. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Castetter, Edward F., and Ruth M. Underhill 1935 The ethnobiology of the Papago Indians. In "Ethnobiological Studies in the American Southwest II." University of New Mexico Bulletin 275, Biological Series 4(3). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico. Chapman, Kenneth M. 1961 New light upon a rare Southwestern pottery type. El Palacio 68(4): 214-217. Cockburn, Aldan, and Eve Cockburn, editors 1980 Mummies, Desease and Ancient Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cockrum, E. Lendell 1960 The Recent Mammals of Arizona: Their Taxonomy and Distribution. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. 962 References Cockrum, E. Lendell, assembler 1981 An Environmental Inventory of the Rosemont Area in Southern Arizona, Vol. III: The 1981 Supplemental Report. Tucson: University of Arizona. Colton, Harold S. 1941 Winona Ridge Ruin Part II: Notes on technology and taxonomy of the pottery. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 19. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona. 1953 Potsherds: An introduction to the study of prehistoric Southwestern ceramics, and their use in historic reconstruction. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 25. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona. Colton, Harold S., and Lyndon L. Hargrave 1935 Naming pottery types, and rules of priority. Science 82(2133): 462-463. 1937 Handbook of northern Arizona pottery wares. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 11. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona. Cook, Sherburne F. 1972 Prehistoric demography. Addison-Wesley Modular Publications 16. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Crosswhite, Frank S. 1981 Desert plants, habitat and agriculture in relation to the major pattern of cultural differentiation in the O'odham people of the Sonoran Desert. Desert Plants 3(2): 47-76. Cosgrove, H. S., and C. B. Cosgrove 1932 The Swarts Ruin: A typical Mimbres Site in southwestern New Mexico. Report of the Mimbres Valley Expedition Seasons of 1924-1927. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology. Cambridge: Harvard University. Crown, Patricia L. 1981 Variability in Ceramic Manufacture at the Chodistaas Site, East-central Arizona. MS, doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1983 Introduction: Field houses and farmsteads in south-central Arizona. In "Hohokam Archaeology Along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project, Vol. V: Small Habitation Sites on Queen Creek," edited by Lynn S. Teague and Patricia L. Crown. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 150(5): 3-22. Tucson: University of Arizona. References 963 Crown, Patricia L. 1984a Classic period ceramic manufacture: Exploring variability in the production and use of Hohokam vessels. In Part 1 of "Hohokam Archaeology Along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project, Vol. VIII: Material Culture," edited by Lynn S. Teague and Patricia L. Crown. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 150(8). Tucson: University of Arizona. 1984b Prehistoric agricultural technology in the Salt-Gila Basin. In Part 3 of "Hohokam Archaeology Along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project, Vol. VII: Environment and Subsistence," edited by Lynn S. Teague and Patricia L. Crown. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 150(7): 207-260. Tucson: University of Arizona. In Morphology and function of Hohokam small structures. The Press Kiva 50(2). Culin, Stewart 1907 Games of the North American Indian. In Twenty-Fourth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology by W. H. Holmes, pp. 3-846. Washington: Government Printing Office. Czaplicki, Jon S., and James D. Mayberry 1983 An archaeological assessment of the middle Santa Cruz River Basin, Rillito to Green Valley, Arizona, for the proposed Tucson Aqueduct Phase B, Central Arizona Project. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 164. Tucson: University of Arizona. Denson, Edward B. 1946 An archaeological survey of the Santa Cruz River Valley from the headwaters to the town of Tubac, Arizona. MS, master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1957 Pottery type descriptions. In "Excavations, 1940, at University Indian Ruin, Tucson, Arizona," by Julian D. Hayden. Southwestern Monuments Association Technical Series 5. Globe, Arizona: Gila Pueblo. Dart, Allen 1983 Agricultural features. Part 4 of "Hohokam Archaeology Along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct Project, Vol. III: Specialized Activity Sites," edited by Lynn S. Teague and Patricia L. Crown. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 150(3): 345-573. Tucson: University of Arizona. 1983a Reach 4 specialized activity sites. Part 3 of "Hohokam Archaeology Along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project, Vol. III: Specialized Activity Sites," edited by Lynn S. Teague and Patricia L. Crown. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 150(3): 209-344. Tucson: University of Arizona. 964 References Dart, Allen, and James Gibb 1982 An archaeological investigation of AZ BB:13:146, a small occupation site in the Tucson Basin. In "Archaeological Test Excavations in Southern Arizona," by Susan A. Brew. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 152: 105-144. Tucson: University of Arizona. Davis, Russell, and Joan R. Callahan, editors 1977 An Environmental Inventory of the Rosemont Area in Southern Arizona, Vol. I: The Present Environment. Tucson: University of Arizona. Dean, Jeffrey S. 1978 Independent dating in archaeological analysis. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. I, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 257-314. New York: Academic Press. Deaver, William L. 1982 Some Notes on Tucson Basin Pottery: Color Scheme Variations During the Rincon and Tanque Verde Phases. Paper presented at Tucson Basin Archaeology Conference, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1983 Excavations at the Ellsworth Site (AZ U:15:57), a Hohokam field house on Queen Creek. Part 3 of "Hohokam Archaeology Along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct , Central Arizona Project, Vol. V: Small Habitation Sites on Queen Creek," edited by Lynn S. Teague and Patricia L. Crown . Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 150(5) : 225-310. Tucson: University of Arizona. 1984 Ceramics of the Los Morteros Project. MS, Archaeology Division, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. Debowski, Sharon S., assembler 1980 The ANAMAX-Rosemont Project: An Archaeological Evaluation in the Santa Rita Mountains. Report submitted by the Cultural Resource Management Division, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona to ANAMAX Mining Company. MS, Arizona State Museum Library, University of Arizona, Tucson. Debowski, Sharon S., and Bruce B. Huckell 1979 Archaeological Testing Proposal: ANAMAX-Rosemont Land Exchange. MS, Arizona State Museum Library, Univeristy of Arizona, Tucson. De Garmo, Glen Dean 1975 Coyote Creek, Site 01: A Methodological Study of a Prehistoric Population. MS, doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. References 965 Di Peso, Charles C. 1951 The Babocomari Village Site on the Babocomari River, southeastern Arizona. The Amerind Foundation 5. Dragoon, Arizona: The Amerind Foundation. 1956 The upper Pima of San Cayetano del Tumacacori: An archaeohistorical reconstruction of the Ootam of the Pimeria Alta. The Amerind Foundation 7. Dragoon, Arizona: The Amerind Foundation. 1958 The Reeve Ruin of southeastern Arizona: A study of a prehistoric Western Pueblo migration into the middle San Pedro Valley. The Amerind Foundation 8. Dragoon, Arizona: The Amerind Foundation. Di Peso, Charles C., John B. Rinaldo, and Gloria J. Fenner 1974 Casas Grandes, a fallen trading center of the Gran Chichimeca, Vol. 6: Ceramics and shell. The Amerind Foundation 9(6). Flagstaff: Northland Press. Dixon, W. J., editor 1981 BMDP Statistical Software. Berkeley: University of California Press. Doelle, William H. 1976 Desert resources and Hohokam subsistence: The CONOCO-Florence Project. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 103. Tucson: University of Arizona. 1983* The Southern Tucson Basin: Rillito-Rincon Subsistence, Settlement, and Community Structure. Paper presented at the 1983 Hohokam Symposium, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. MS, Arizona State Museum Library, University of Arizona, Tucson. Dove, Donald E. 1984 Prehistoric subsistence and population change along the lower Ague Fria River, Arizona: A model simulation. Arizona State University Anthropological Papers 32. Tempe: Arizona State University. Dow, Sumner A., Jr., and Philip L. Wright 1962 Changes in mandibular dentition associated with age in pronghorn antelope. Journal of Wildlife Management 26(1): 1-18. Doyel, David E. 1976 Reply to Raab's "A Prehistoric Cactus Camp in Papagueria." Journal of the Arizona Academy of Science 11(1): 42-43. 1977a Excavations in the middle Santa Cruz River Valley, southeastern Arizona. Arizona State Museum Contribution to Highway Salvage Archaeology in Arizona 44. Tucson: University of Arizona. 966 References Doyel, David E. 1977b Classic Period Hohokam in the Escalante Ruin Group. MS, doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1977c Rillito and Rincon period settlement systems in the middle Santa Cruz River Valley: Alternative models. The Kiva 43(2): 93-110. 1978a The Miami Wash Project: Hohokam and Salado in the Globe-Miami Area, central Arizona. Arizona State Museum Contribution to Highway Salvage Archaeology in Arizona 52. Tucson: University of Arizona. 1978b Hohokam and Salado small sites and small site methodology. In "Limited Activity and Occupation Sites: A Collection of Conference Papers," compiled and edited by Albert E. Ward. Contributions to Anthropological Studies 1: 179-190. Albuquerque: Center for Anthropological Studies. 1979 Archaeological Investigations at AZ BB:13:14 in the Tucson Basin. Arizona State Museum Contribution to Highway Salvage Archaeology in Arizona 58. Tucson: University of Arizona. 1980 Hohokam social organization and the Sedentary to Classic transition. In "Current Issues in Hohokam Prehistory: Proceedings of a Symposium," edited by David E. Doyel and Fred Plog. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers 23: 23-40. Tempe: Arizona State University. Doyel, David E., and Sharon S. Debowski 1980 Prehistory in Dead Valley, east-central Arizona: The TG&E Springerville report. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 144. Tucson: University of Arizona. Doyel, David E., and Fred Plog, editors 1980 Current issues in Hohokam prehistory: Proceedings of a Symposium. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers 23. Tempe: Arizona State University. Duffen, William Arnaman 1936. Development of Human Culture in the San Pedro Valley. MS, master's thesis, Graduate College, University of Arizona, Tucson. Dunn, J., Joseph Chapman, and R. Marsh 1982 Jack rabbits (Lepus californicus and allies). In Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Economics, edited by Joseph Chapman and G. Feldhamer, pp. 124-145. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. References 967 Eddy, Frank W. 1958 A Sequence of Cultural and Alluvial Deposits in the Cienega Creek Basin, Southeastern Arizona. MS, master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1977 Archaeological investigations at Chimney Rock Mesa: 1970- 1972. Memoirs of the Colorado Archaeological Society 1. Boulder: Colorado Archaeological Society. Eddy, Frank W., and Maurice E. Cooley 1983 Cultural and environmental history of Cienega Valley, southeastern Arizona. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona 43. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Ervin, Richard G. 1982 Archaeological Monitoring and Salvage Excavations at AZ BB:9:101, a Late Rincon Site in Tucson, Arizona. MS, Cultural Resource Management Division, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. Ervin, Richard G., and Martyn D. Tagg 1984 Lithic material procurement sites in the Rosemont area. In "Miscellaneous Archaeological Studies in the ANAMAX-Rosemont Land-Exchange Area," by Richard G. Ervin, Martyn D. Tagg, and Bruce B. Huckell. Arizona State Archaeological Series 147(4): 1-59. Tucson: University of Arizona. Euler, Robert C., George J. Gumerman, Thor N. V. Karlstrom, Jeffrey S. Dean, and Richard H. Hevly 1979 The Colorado Plateaus: Cultural dynamics and paleoenvironment. Science 205(4411): 1089-1101. Ezell, Paul 1954 An archaeological survey of the northwestern Papagueria. The Kiva 19(2-4): 1-26. 1955 The archaeological delineation of a cultural boundary in the Papagueria. American Antiquity 20(4): 367-374. Faegri, Knut, and Johannes Iversen 1975 Textbook of Pollen Analysis, 3rd edition. New York: Hafner Press. Ferg, Alan 1977 Analysis of shell from the Baca Float sites. In "Excavations in the Middle Santa Cruz River Valley, Southeastern Arizona," by David E. Doyel. Arizona State Museum Contribution to Highway Salvage Archaeology in Arizona 44: 156-164. Tucson: University of Arizona. 968 References Ferg, Alan 1980 Shell from Gu Achi. In "Excavations at Gu Achi, a reappraisal of Hohokam settlement and subsistence in the Arizona Papagueria," by W. Bruce Masse. Western Archeological Center Publications in Anthropology 12: 371-394. Tucson: National Park Service. 1981 An Archaeological Survey of a Parcel of Land Added to the ANAMAX-Rosemont Land Exchange Area. MS, Arizona State Museum Library, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1983a Two archaeological occurrences of Black Vulture in southern Arizona. The Kiva 49(1-2): 111-117. 1983b The Dust Bowl Site (AZ U:15:76) and the Saguaro Site (AZ U:15:77), Part 2 of "Hohokam Archaeology Along the Salt- Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project, Vol. VI: Habitation Sites on the Gila River," edited by Lynn S. Teague and Patricia L. Crown. Arizona State Museum L2 111 Series 150(6): 159-258. Tucson: University of Arizona. Ferg, Alan, and Bruce B. Huckell 1983* The Tucson Basin Hohokam Occupation of the Rosemont Area, Northern Santa Rita Mountains. Paper presented at the 1983 Hohokam Symposium, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. MS, Arizona State Museum Library, University of Arizona, Tucson. Ferg, Alan, and Amadeo M. Rea 1983 Prehistoric bird bone from the Big Ditch Site, Arizona. Journal of Ethnobiology 3(2): 99-108. Fish, Paul R. 1974 Prehistoric land use in the Perkinsville Valley. The Arizona Archaeologist 8: 1-36. Fish, Suzanne K. 1981 An Analysis of Pollen Samples from Three Sites in the Rosemont Area, Santa Rita Mountains. MS, Cultural Resource Management Division, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. Franklin, Hayward H. 1980 Excavations at Second Canyon Ruin, San Pedro Valley, Arizona. Arizona State Museum Contribution to Highway Salvage Archaeology in Arizona 60. Tucson: University of Arizona. Franklin, Hayward H., and W. Bruce Masse 1976 The San Pedro Salado: A case of prehistoric migration. The Kiva 42(1): 47-56. Fraps, Clara Lee 1935 Tanque Verde Ruins. The Kiva 1(4): 1-4. References 969 Frick, Paul S. 1954 An Archaeological Survey in the Central Santa Cruz Valley, Southern Arizona. MS, masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. Fry, Gary F. 1974 Ovum and parasite examination of Salts Cave human paleofeces. In Archaeology of the Mammoth Cave Area, edited by Patty Jo Watson, p. 61. New York: Academic Press. 1976 Analysis of Prehistoric Coprolites from Utah. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 97. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Fry, Gary F., and Henry J. Hall 1973 The Analysis of Human Coprolites from Inscription House. MS, Western Archaeological and Conservation Center, Tucson. 1975 Human coprolites from Antelope House: Preliminary report. The Kiva 47(1): 87-96. Fulton, William Shirley 1934a Archaeological notes on Texas Canyon, Arizona. Contributions from the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation 12(1). New York: Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation. 1934b Archaeological notes on Texas Canyon, Arizona. Contributions from the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation 12(2). New York: Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation. 1938 Archaeological notes on Texas Canyon, Arizona. Contributions from the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation 12(3). New York: Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation. 1941 A ceremonial cave in the Winchester Mountains, Arizona. The Amerind Foundation 2. Dragoon, Arizona: The Amerind Foundation. Fulton, William S., and Carr Tuthill 1940 An archaeological site near Gleeson, Arizona. The Amerind Foundation 1. Dragoon, Arizona: The Amerind Foundation. Gabel, Norman E. 1931 Martinez Hill Ruins, an Example of Prehistoric Culture of the Middle Gila. MS, master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. 970 References Gasser, Robert E. 1981 Flora resources--flotation studies. In "The Palo Verde Archaeological Investigations, Hohokam Settlement at the Confluence: Excavations Along the Palo Verde Pipeline," by John M. Antieau. Museum of Northern Arizona Research Paper 20: 331-335. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona. 1982 Are roasting pits always roasting pits? The Kiva 47(3): 171-176. Gerald, Rex Ervin 1975 Drought Correlated Changes in Two Prehistoric Pueblo Communities in Southeastern Arizona. MS, doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago, Chicago. Gifford, James C. 1960 The type-variety method of ceramic classification as an indicator of cultural phenomena. American Antiquity 25(3): 341-347. 1976 Prehistoric pottery analysis and the ceramics of Barton Ramie in the Belize Valley. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 18. Cambridge: Peabody Museum. Gladwin, Harold S. 1945 Preface. In "The San Simon Branch, Excavations at Cave Creek and in the San Simon Valley I: Material Culture," by E. B. Sayles. Medallion Papers 34: iii-vi. Globe, Arizona: Gila Pueblo. 1957 A History of the Ancient Southwest. Portland, Maine: Bond Wheelwright. Gladwin, Harold S., Emil W. Haury, E. B. Sayles, and Nora Gladwin 1937 Excavations at Snaketown: Material culture. Medallion Papers 25. Globe, Arizona: Gila Pueblo. Gladwin, Winifred, and Harold S. Gladwin 1929 The Red-on-Buff Culture of the Papagueria. Medallion Papers 4. Globe, Arizona: Gila Pueblo. 1933 Some Southwestern pottery types: Series III. Medallion Papers 13. Globe, Arizona: Gila Pueblo. Goodyear, Albert C. 1975 Hecla II and III: An interpretive study of archaeological remains from the Lakeshore Project, Papago Reservation, south-central Arizona. Arizona State Anthropological Research Paper 9. Tempe: Arizona State University. References 971 Gordon, Bryan H. L. 1982 Tooth sectioning as an archaeological tool. Canadian Studies Report 14e. Ottawa: Archaeological Survey of Canada, National Museum of Man. Grayson, Donald K. 1973 On the methodology of faunal analysis. American Antiquity 39(4): 432-439. 1978 Minimum numbers and sample size in vertebrate faunal analysis. American Antiquity 43(1): 53-65. 1979 On the quantification of vertebrate archaeofaunas. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 2, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 199-237. New York: Academic Press. Grebinger, Paul F. 1971a Hohokam Cultural Development in the Middle Santa Cruz River Valley, Arizona. MS, doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1971b The Potrero Creek Site: Activity structure. The Kiva 37(1): 30-52. Grebinger, Paul F., and David P. Adam 1974 Hard Times? Classic period Hohokam cultural development, Tucson Basin, Arizona. World Archaeology 6(1): 226-241. 1978 Santa Cruz Valley Hohokam: Cultural development in the Classic period. In Discovering Past Behavior: Experiments in Archaeology of the American Southwest, edited by Paul Grebinger. New York: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers. Greene, Jerry L., and Thomas W. Mathews 1976 Faunal study of unworked mammalian bones. In The Hohokam: Desert Farmers & Craftsmen by Emil W. Haury, pp. 367-373. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Greenhouse, Ruth, Robert E. Gasser, and Jannifer W. Gish 1981 Cholla bud roasting pits: An ethnoarchaeological example. The Kiva 46(4): 227-242. Greenleaf, J. Cameron 1975 Excavations at Punta de Agua in the Santa Cruz River Basin, southeastern Arizona. University of Arizona Anthropological Papers 26. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Gregonis, Linda M. 1983 The Hardy Site at Fort Lowell Park. MS, Arizona State Museum Library, University of Arizona, Tucson. 972 References Gregonis, Linda M., and Lisa W. Huckell 1980 The Tucson Urban Study. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 138. Tucson: University of Arizona. Gregonis, Linda M., and Karl J. Reinhardt 1979 Hohokam Indians of the Tucson Basin. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Gregory, David A. 1975 Defining variability in prehistoric settlement morphology. Fieldiana: Anthropology 65: 40-46. Chicago: Field Museum. 1983 Excavations at the Siphon Draw Site (AZ U:10:6). Part 1 of "Hohokam Archaeology Along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project, Vol. IV: Village Sites on Queen Creek and Siphon Draw," edited by Lynn S. Teague and Patricia L. Crown. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 150(4). Tucson: University of Arizona. Gregory, David A., and Alan Ferg 1982 A Research Design for the Investigation of Ceramic Period Sites in the ANAMAX-Rosemont Land Exchange Area. MS, Cultural Resource Management Division, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. Guthe, Carl Eugen 1925 Pueblo Pottery Making, a study at the village of San Ildefonso. Papers of the Southwestern Expedition 2. New Haven: Yale University Press. Haag, William G. 1948 An osteometric analysis of some aboriginal dogs. University of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology 8(3). Lexington: University of Kentucky. Haas, Jonathan 1971 The Ushklish Ruin, a Preliminary Report on Excavation of a Colonial Hohokam Period Site in the Lower Tonto Basin, Central Arizona. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. Hall, E. R., and K. Kelson 1959 The Mammals of North America. New York: Ronald Press. Hammack, Nancy S., Alan Ferg, and Bruce Bradley 1983 Excavations at three developmental period sites near Zia and Santa Ana Pueblos, New Mexico. CASA Papers 2. Cortez, Colorado: Complete Archaeological Service Associates. References 973 Hargis, David R., and John W. Harshbarger 1977a Geology of the Rosemont area. In An Environmental Inventory of the Rosemont Area in Southern Arizona, Vol. 1: The Present Environment, edited by Russell Davis and Joan R. Callahan. Tucson: University of Arizona. 1977b Hydrology of the Rosemont area. In An Environmental Inventory of the Rosemont Area in Southern Arizona, Vol. 1: The Present Environment, edited by Russell Davis and Joan R. Callahan, pp. 16-40. Tucson: University of Arizona. Harrington, Mark R. 1933 Gypsum Cave, Nevada. Southwest Museum Papers 8. Los Angeles: Southwest Museum. Hastings, James R., and Raymond M. Turner 1965 The Changing Mile: An Ecological Study of Vegetation Change With Time in the Lower Mile of an Arid and Semiarid Region. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Haury, Emil W. 1932 Roosevelt 9:6: A Hohokam site of the Colonial period. Medallion Papers 11. Globe, Arizona: Gila Pueblo. 1936a Some southwestern pottery types: Series IV. Medallion Papers 19. Globe, Arizona: Gila Pueblo. 1936b The Mogollon culture of southwestern New Mexico. Medallion Papers 20. Globe, Arizona: Gila Pueblo. 1940 Excavations in the Forestdale Valley, east-central Arizona. Social Science Bulletin 12. Tucson: University of Arizona. 1945 The excavation of Los Muertos and neighboring ruins in the Salt River Valley, southern Arizona. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 24(1). Cambridge: Harvard University. 1956 Speculations on prehistoric settlement patterns in the Southwest. In "Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the New World," edited by Gordon R. Willey. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 23: 3-10. New York: Wenner-Gren Foundation. 1976 The Hohokam: Desert Farmers and Craftsmen. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. 1980 Comments on the Hohokam symposium. In "Current Issues in Hohokam Prehistory: Proceedings of a Symposium," edited by David E. Doyel and Fred Plog. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers 23: 113-120. Tempe: Arizona State University. 974 References Haury, Emil W., Kirk Bryan, Edwin H. Colbert, Norman Gabel, Clara L. Tanner, and T. E. Buehrer 1950 The Stratigraphy and Archaeology of Ventana Cave. Tucson: University of Arizona Press and Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. (Second printing 1975, Tucson: University of Arizona Press.) Hayden, Julian D. 1957 Excavations, 1940, at University Indian Ruin. Southwestern Monuments Association Technical Series 5. Globe, Arizona. Hesse, Brian 1982 Bias in the zooarchaeological record: Suggestions for interpretation of bone counts in faunal samples from the plains. In "Plains Indian Studies: A Collection of Essays in Honor of John C. Ewers and Waldo W. Wedel," edited by Douglas Ubelaker and Herman Viola. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 30: 157-172. Washington: Government Printing Office. Hevly, Richard H., Peter J. Behringer, Jr., and Harrison G. Yocum 1965 Modern pollen rain in the Sonoran desert. Journal of the Arizona Academy of Sciences 3(3): 123-135. Hevly, Richard H., Roger E. Kelly, G. A. Anderson, and Stanley J. Olsen 1979 Comparative effects of climate change, culural impact, and volcanism in the paleoecology of Flagstaff, Arizona, A.D. 900-1300. In Volcanic Activity and Human History, edited by P. Sheets and D. Grayson. New York: Academic Press. Hewitt, James M., and David Stephen 1981 Archaeological investigations in the Tortolita Mountains region, southern Arizona: Tortolita Mountains Archaeological Project field report, 1980-1981. Anthropology Series, Archaeological Field Report 10. Tucson: Pima Community College. Hoffman, Teresa L., David E. Doyel, and Mark D. Elson 1983* Ground Stone Tool Production in the New River Basin. Paper presented at the 1983 Hohokam Symposium, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. MS, Arizona State Museum Library, University of Arizona, Tucson. Honaki, James H., K. Kinman, and J. Koeppl 1982 Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. Lawrence, Kansas: Allen Press and the Association of Systematics Collections. Hough, Walter 1918 The Hopi Indian Collection in the United States National Museum. Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum 54: 235-296. References 975 Howard, Jerry B. 1982 Community Patterns at La Ciudad de los Hornos. MS, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. Howell, David H. 1940 Pipestone and red shale artifacts. American Antiquity 6(1): 45-62 Huckell, Bruce B. 1978 Test excavations at AZ BB:9:54, the Vista Del Rio Site. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 124. Tucson: University of Arizona. 1980 The ANAMAX-Rosemont Testing Project: Review Draft. MS, Arizona State Museum Library, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1981a An Archaeological Survey of Two Parcels of Land Added to the ANAMAX-Rosemont Land Exchange Area. MS, Arizona State Museum Library, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1981b The Las Colinas flaked stone assemblage. In "The 1968 Excavations at Mound 8, Las Colinas Ruins Group, Phoenix, Arizona," edited by Laurens C. Hammack and Alan P. Sullivan. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 154: 171-199. Tucson: University of Arizona. 1984a The Archaic occupation of the Rosemont area, northern Santa Rita Mountains, southeastern Arizona. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 147(1). Tucson: University of Arizona. 1984b The Paleo-Indian and Archaic occupation of the Tucson Basin: An overview. The Kiva 49(3-4): 133-145. Hungerford, Charles R. 1977 Game species of the Rosemont area. In An Environmental Inventory of the Rosemont Area in Southern Arizona, Vol. 1: The Present Environment, edited by Russell Davis and Joan R. Callahan, pp. 218-232. Tucson: University of Arizona. Hunt, Alice 1960 Archeology of the Death Valley Salt Pan, California. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 47. Salt Lake City: University of Utah. Huntington, Frederick 1982 Archaeological data recovery at AZ BB:9:72 (ASM), the band quarters, kitchen, and corral wall at Fort Lowell, and AZ BB:9:54 (ASM), a Rincon phase habitation site, Craycroft Road, Tucson, Arizona. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 163. Tucson: University of Arizona. 976 References Jelinek, Arthur J. 1976 Form, function, and style in lithic analysis. In Cultural Change and Continuity: Essays in Honor of James Bennett Griffin, edited by Charles E. Cleland, pp. 19-34. New York: Academic Press. Jernigan, E. Wesley 1978 Jewelry of the Prehistoric Southwest. Santa Fe and Albuquerque: School of American Research and University of New Mexico Press. Johanson, Gunnar 1971 Age determination from human teeth. Odontologisk Revy 22(21): 1-126. Johnson, Alfred E. 1960 The Place of the Trincheras Culture of Northern Sonora in Southwestern Archaeology. MS, master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1963 The Trincheras culture of northern Sonora. American Antiquity 29(2): 174-186. Johnson, Paul C. n.d. Archaeological Fauna from the Big Ditch Site. MS, Arizona State Museum Library, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1981 Mammalian remains from Las Colinas. In "The 1968 Excavations at Mound 8, Las Colinas Ruins Group, Phoenix, Arizona," edited by Larry Hammack and Alan P. Sullivan. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 154: 269-282. Tucson: University of Arizona. Kappell, Wayne 1974 Irrigation development and population pressure. In "Irrigation's Impact on Society," edited by Theodore E. Downing and McGuire Gibson. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona 25: 159-168. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Keeley, Lawrence H. 1977 The functions of Paleolithic flint tools. Scientific American 237(5): 108-126. Kelly, Isabel T. 1937 Letter and progress report. Item 13 in "Correspondence Between Isabel Kelly and Harold Gladwin (Nov. 1936-May 1938)," pp. 22-44 of Archives Folder #A-109, Arizona State Museum Library, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1978 The Hodges Ruin: A Hohokam community in the Tucson Basin. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona 30. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. References 977 Kelly, Roger E. 1963 The Socio-Religious Roles of Ball Courts and Great Kivas in the Prehistoric Southwest. MS, master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. Kidder, Alfred V. 1932 The Artifacts of Pecos. New Haven: Yale University Press. Klein, Jeffrey, J. C. Lerman, P. E. Damon, and E. K. Ralph 1982 Calibration of radiocarbon dates: Tables based on the consensus data of the workshop on calibrating the radiocarbon time scale. Radiocarbon 24(2): 103-150. Kornfeld, Marcel, and Steven Chomko 1983 Pre-Shoshonean Rodent Utilization. Paper presented at the 48th annual meeting, Society for American Archaeology, Pittsburgh. Krogman, Wilton M. 1962 The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas. Kurten, Bjorn 1953 On the variation and population dynamics of fossil and recent mammal populations. Acta Zoologica Fennica 76: 1-122. Lange, Richard C. 1982 Steatite: An analysis and assessment of form and distribution. In "Cholla Project Archaeology, Vol. I: Introduction and Special Studies," edited by J. Jefferson Reid. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 161(1): 167-192. Tucson: University of Arizona. Lawrence, Barbara 1951 Post-cranial skeletal characteristics of deer, pronghorn, and sheep-goat with notes on Bos and Bison. Reports of the Awatovi Expedition, Peabody Museum 4. Cambridge: Harvard University. Lechleitner, R. R. 1959 Sex ratio, age classes, and reproduction of the black-tailed jack rabbits. Journal of Mammology 40(1): 63-81. Leopold, A. Starker 1972 Wildlife of Mexico: The Game Birds and Mammals. Berkeley: University of California Press. Long, Jeffery C. 1981 Cremated human remains from the Cashion Site. In "The Palo Verde Archaeological Investigations, Hohokam Settlement at the Confluence: Excavations Along the Palo Verde Pipeline," by John M. Antieau. Museum of Northern Arizona Research Paper 20: 116-121. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona. 978 References Lowe, Charles H., editor 1964 The Vertebrates of Arizona. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Lowe, Charles H. 1981 The vegetation and flora of the Sycamore Canyon area and Deering Spring area in the Santa Rita Mountains, Arizona. In An Environmental Inventory of the Rosemont Area in Southern Arizona, Vol. III: The 1981 Supplemental Report, assembled by E. Lendell Cockrum, pp. 21-61. Tucson: University of Arizona. Lowe, Charles H., and Terry B. Johnson 1977 Fishes, amphibians, and reptiles of the Rosemont site. In An Environmental Inventory of the Rosemont Area in Southern Arizona, Vol. I: The Present Environment, edited by Russell Davis and Joan R. Callahan, pp. 116-166. Tucson: University of Arizona. Lowe, Charles H., and Cecil R. Schwalbe 1981 Fish, amphibians and reptiles of the Sycamore Canyon area and Deering Spring area in the Santa Rita Mountains, Arizona. In An Environmental Inventory of the Rosemont Area in Southern Arizona, Vol. III: The 1981 Supplemental Report, assembled by E. Lendell Cockrum, pp.79-94. Tucson: University of Arizona. McAllister, Shirley Powell, and Fred Plog 1978 Small sites in the Cheylan Drainage. In "Limited Activity and Occupation Sites: A Collection of Conference Papers," edited by Albert E. Ward. Contributions to Anthropological Studies 1: 17-23. Albuquerque: Center for Anthropological Studies. McGregor, John C. 1941 Winona and Ridge Ruin, Part 1: Architecture and material culture. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 18. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona. 1945 Nose plugs from northern Arizona. American Antiquity 10(3): 303-307. 1965 Southwestern Archaeology, second edition. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. McKusick, Charmion Randolf 1976 Avifauna. In The Hohokam: Desert Farmers & Craftsmen, edited by Emil W. Haury, pp. 374-377. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. McLaughlin, Steve, and Willard Van Asdall 1977 Flora and vegetation of the Rosemont area. In An Environmental Inventory of the Rosemont Area in Southern Arizona, Vol. I: The Present Environment, edited by Russell Davis and Joan R. Callahan, pp. 64-98. Tucson: University of Arizona. References 979 McPherson, Gale, and David E. Doyel 1980 Ground stone assemblages from sites in Dead Valley. In "Prehistory in Dead Valley, East-Central Arizona: The TG&E Springerville Report," by David E. Doyel and Sharon S. Debowski. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 144: 305-340. Tucson: University of Arizona. Martin, Paul S. 1943 The S.V. Site: Excavations at a Mogollon Village, western New Mexico, second session, 1941. Field Museum of Natural History Anthropology Series 32(2). Chicago: Field Museum. 1963 The Last 10,000 Years: Southwest Palynology and Prehistory. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Masse, W. Bruce 1976 The Hohokam Expressway project: A study of prehistoric irrigation in the Salt River Valley, Arizona. Arizona State Museum Contribution to Highway Salvage Archaeology in Arizona 43. Tucson: University of Arizona. 1979a Ceramics from the Peppersauce Wash Project: Sites in the Lower San Pedro, Arizona. MS, Arizona State Museum Library, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1979b An intensive survey of prehistoric dry farming systems near Tumamoc Hill in Tucson, Arizona. In "The Tumamoc Hill Survey: An Intensive Study of a Cerro de Trincheras in Tucson, Arizona." The Kiva 45(1-2): 141-186. 1980a The Hohokam of the lower San Pedro Valley and the northern Papagueria: Continuity and variability in two regional populations. In "Current Issues in Hohokam Prehistory, Proceedings of a Symposium," edited by David E. Doyel and Fred Plog. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers 23: 205-223. Tempe: Arizona State University. 1980b Excavations at Gu Achi: A reappraisal of Hohokam settlement and subsistence in the Arizona Papagueria. Western Archeological Center Publications in Anthropology 12. Tucson: National Park Service. 1981 Prehistoric irrigation systems in the Salt River Valley, Arizona. Science 214(23): 408-415. 1982 Hohokam ceramic art: Regionalism as the imprint of societal change. In "Southwestern Ceramics: A Comparative Review," edited by Albert H. Schroeder. The Arizona Archaeologist 15: 75-105. Phoenix: Arizona Archaeological Society. Mellett, J. A. 1974 Scatological origin of microvertebrate fossil accumulations. Science 185: 349-350. 980 References Merbs, Charles F. 1967 Cremated human remains from Point of Pines, Arizona: A new approach. American Antiquity 32(4): 498-506. Miksicek, Charles H. 1982 Hohokam nutrition: Archaeobotanical evidence from AZ BB:13:146. In "An Archaeological Investigation of AZ BB:13:146, a Small Occupation Site in the Tucson Basin, Pima County, Arizona," by Allen Dart and James Gibb. In "Archaeological Test Excavations in Southern Arizona," compiled by Susan A. Brew, pp. 103-144. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 152: 132-139. Tucson: University of Arizona. 1984a Hohokam Adaptation to the Chaparral Zone: Paleoecology and Subsistence in the ANAMAX-Rosemont Area. MS, Arizona State Museum Library, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1984b Historic desertification, prehistoric vegetation change, and Hohokam subsistence in the Salt-Gila Basin. Part 2 of "Hohokam Archaeology Along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project, Vol. VII: Environment and Subsistence," edited by Lynn S. Teague and Patricia Crown. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 150(7): 53-80. Tucson: University of Arizona. Moore, J. G., A. W. Gunderson, H. J. Hall, and G. F. Fry 1974 Human fluke infection in Glen Canyon at A.D. 1250. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 41(1): 115-118. Morris, Earl H. 1928 An aboriginal salt mine at Camp Verde, Arizona. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 30(3): 75-97. New York: American Museum Press. Nelson, Richard S. 1981 The Role of the Puchtecha System in Hohokam Exchange. MS, doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, New York University, New York. Nesbitt, Paul H. 1938 Starkweather Ruin: A Mogollon-Pueblo Site in the upper Gila area of New Mexico, and affiliative aspects of the Mogollon culture. than Museum Publications in Anthropology Bulletin 6. Beloit, Wisconsin: Beloit College. Nie, Norman H., C. Hadlai Hull, Jean G. Jenkins, Karin Steinbrenner, and Dale H. Bent 1975 Statistical package for the social sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill. References 981 Olin, George 1954 Animals of the southwest deserts. Southwestern Monuments Association Popular Series 8. Globe, Arizona: Southwestern Monuments Association. Olsen, Sandra L. 1979 A study of bone artifacts from Grasshopper Pueblo, AZ:P:14:1. The Kiva 44(4): 341-373. 1980 Bone artifacts from Kinishba Ruin: Their manufacture and use. The Kiva 46(1-2): 39-67. Pepper, George H. 1920 Pueblo Bonito. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 27. New York: American Museum Press. Phillips, A. R., J. Marshall, and G. Monson 1964 The Birds of Arizona. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Phillips, David A., Jr. 1972 Social implications of settlement distribution on Black Mesa. In "Archaeological Investigations on Black Mesa: The 1969- 1970 Seasons," by George J. Gumerman, Deborah Westfall, and Carol Weed. Prescott College Studies in Anthropology 4: 199-210. Prescott, Arizona: Prescott College. 1984a Sites of the ANAMAX-Rosemont Study Area, Southern Arizona: A Summary Listing. MS, Cultural Resource Management Division, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1984b The Archaeology of Northwestern Mexico: A Review of the Literature and Annotated Bibliography. MS, Arizona State Museum Library, University of Arizona, Tucson. Phillips, David A. Jr., Patricia Castalia, and Gordon Bronitsky 1984 Cultural resources survey and evaluation of Forest Highway 39, Santa Catalina Mountains, Pima County, Arizona. Western Division Report of Investigations 3. Tucson: New World Research. Petryszyn, Yar 1981 Mammals of the supplemental areas--Rosemont region. In An Environmental Inventory of the Rosemont Area in Southern Arizona, Vol. III: The 1981 Supplemental Report, assembled by E. Lendell Cockrum, pp. 105-109. Tucson: University of Arizona. Pilles, Peter J. 1978 The field house and Sinagua demography. In "Limited Activity and Occupation Sites, a Collection of Conference Papers," edited by Albert E. Ward. Contributions to Anthropological Studies 1: 119-133. Albuquerque: Center for Anthropological Studies. 982 References Plog, Fred 1980 Explaining culture change in the Hohokam Preclassic. In "Current Issues in Hohokam Prehistory," edited by David Doyel and Fred Plog. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers 23: 4-22. Tempe: Arizona State University. Plog, Stephen E. 1980 Stylistic Variation in Prehistoric Ceramics: Design Analysis in the American Southwest. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. Raab, Mark L. 1973 AZ AA:5:2: A Prehistoric Cactus Camp in Papagueria. Journal of the Arizona Academy of Sciences 8: 116-118. 1974 Archaeological investigations for the Santa Rosa Wash Project, Phase I preliminary report. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 60. Tucson: University of Arizona. Rea, Amadeo M. 1974 Animal foods of the Pima Indians of Arizona. MS, Arizona State Museum Library, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1983 Once a River, Bird Life and Habitat Changes on the Middle Gila. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Reinhard, Karl J. 1982 The Cortaro Phase in the Tucson Basin: A Reevaluation. Paper presented at the 1982 Tucson Basin Conference, Tucson, Arizona. MS, Arizona State Museum Library, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1983a Projectile points. In "The Hardy Site at Fort Lowell Park," by Linda M. Gregonis. MS, Arizona State Museum Library, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1983b Parasitological and Dietary Analysis of Antelope House Coprolites, 1983. MS, Western Archaeological and Conservation Center, Tucson. In Stongyloides stercoralis in the prehistoric Southwest. Press In "Health and Disease in the Prehistoric Southwest," edited by Charles F. Merbs and Robert J. Miller. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Paper 34. Tempe: Arizona State University. Reinhard, Karl J., J. Richard Ambler, and Magdalene McGuffie In Diet and parasitism at Dust Devil Cave, Utah. American Press Antiquity. Reinhard, Karl J., and T. Michael Fink 1982 The multi-individual cremation phenomenon of the Santa Cruz drainage. The Kiva 47(3): 151 - 161. References 983 Reinhard, Karl J., and Jeff H. Shipman 1978 Prehistoric cremations from Nogales, Arizona. The Kiva 43(3-4): 231-252. Rice, Glen 1979 A study of technology and function in Hohokam lithics. In "An Archaeological Test of Sites in the Gila Butte-Santan Region, South-Central Arizona," by Glen E. Rice, David R. Wilcox, Kevin Rafferty, and James Schoenwetter. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers 18: 127-144. Tempe: Arizona State University. Richardson, M. L., S. D. Clemmons, and J. C. Walker 1979 Soil Survey of Santa Cruz and Parts of Cochise and Pima Counties, Arizona. Washington: U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. Rinaldo, John B., and Elaine A. Bluhm 1956 Late Mogollon pottery types of the reserve area. Fieldiana: Anthropology 36(7): 149-187. Chicago: Field Museum. Roberts, Frank H. H., Jr. 1940 Archeological remains in the White Water District, eastern Arizona, Part II: Artifacts and burials. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 126. Washington: Government Printing Office. Rodgers, James B. 1978 The Fort Mountain Complex, Cave Buttes, Arizona. In "Limited Activity and Occupation Sites: A Collection of Conference Papers," compiled and edited by Albert E. Ward. Contributions to Anthropological Studies 1: 147-164. Albuquerque: Center for Anthropological Studies. Roth, Edward L. 1977 Mammals of the Rosemont region. In An Environmental Inventory of the Rosemont Area in Southern Arizona, Vol. I: The Present Environment, edited by Russell Davis and Joan R. Callahan, pp. 195-217. Tucson: University of Arizona. Rouse, Irving 1960 The classification of artifacts in archaeology. American Antiquity 25(3): 313-322. Rozen, Kenneth C. 1979 Lithic analysis and interpretation. In "The AEPCO Project, Vol. II," by Deborah A. Westfall, Kenneth C. Rozen, and Howard M. Davidson. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 117: 209-321. Tucson: University of Arizona. 9 84 References Rozen, Kenneth C. 1981 Patterned associations among lithic technology, site content, and time: Results of the TEP St. Johns Project lithic analysis. In "Prehistory of the St. Johns Area, East-Central Arizona: The TEP-St. Johns Project," by Deborah A. Westfall. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 153: 157-233. Tucson: University of Arizona. Russell, Frank 1908 The Pima Indians. Twenty-Sixth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1904-1905, pp. 3-390. Washington: Government Printing Office. Russell, S. M., and S. Goldwasser 1981 A supplemental inventory of the birds of the Rosemont area. In An Environmental Inventory of the Rosemont Area in Southern Arizona, Vol. III: The 1981 Supplemental Report, assembled by E. Lendell Cockrum, pp.95-103. Tucson: University of Arizona. Russell, S. M., G. S. Mills, and J. R. Silliman 1977 An inventory of the birds of the Rosemont area. In An Environmental Inventory of the Rosemont Area in Southern Arizona, Vol. I: The Present Environment, edited by Russell Davis and Joan R. Callahan, pp. 167-194. Tucson: University of Arizona. Sackett, James R. 1977 The meaning of style in archaeology: A general model. American Antiquity 12(3): 369-380. Samuel, D., and B. Nelson 1982 Foxes (Vulpes vulpes and allies). In Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Economics, edited by Joseph Chapman and G. Feldman, pp. 475-490. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Samuels, Robert 1965 Parasitological study of long-dried fecal samples. American Antiquity 31(2): 175-179. Sauer, Carl 0., and Donald Brand 1930 Pueblo sites in southeastern Arizona. University of California Publications in Geography 3(7): 415-458. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1931 Prehistoric settlements of Sonora with special reference to the Cerros de Trincheras. University of California Publications in Geography 5(3). Berkeley: University of California Press. References 985 Sayles, E. B. 1945 The San Simon Branch, excavations at Cave Creek and in the San Simon Valley I: Material culture. Medallion Papers 34. Globe, Arizona: Gila Pueblo. Sayles, E. B., and Ernst Anteus 1941 The Cochise culture. Medallion Papers 29. Globe, Arizona: Gila Pueblo. Scantling, Frederick H. 1940 Excavations at the Jackrabbit Ruin, Papago Indian Reservation, Arizona. MS, master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. Schiffer, Michael B. 1982 Hohokam chronology: An essay on history and method. In Hohokam and Patayan: Prehistory of Southwestern Arizona, edited by Randall H. McGuire and Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 299-344. New York: Academic Press. Schmidt, G. D., and L. S. Roberts 1981 Foundations of Parasitology. New York: C.V. Mosby. Sellers, William D. 1977 Climate of the Rosemont area. In An Environmental Inventory of the Rosemont Area in Southern Arizona, Vol. I: The Present Environment, edited by Russel Davis and Joan R. Callahan, pp. 1-6. Tucson: University of Arizona. Semenov, S. A. 1964 Prehistoric Technology: An Experimental Study of the Oldest Tools and Artifacts from Traces of Manufacture and Wear. London: Cory, Adams, and Mackay. Severinghaus, C. W. 1949 Tooth development and wear as criteria of age in white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 13(2): 195-216. Shephard, Anna O. 1976 Ceramics for the archaeologist. Carnegie Institute of Washington Publication 609. Washington: Carnegie Institute. Shipman, Jeff H., and Lori B. Wolf 1977 Analysis of the cremations from the Baca Float sites, AZ DD:8:122 and AZ DD:8:128. In "Excavations in the Middle Santa Cruz River Valley, Southeastern Arizona," by David E. Doyel. Arizona State Museum Contribution to Highway Salvage Archaeology in Arizona 44: 182-186. Tucson: University of Arizona. 986 References Simpson, Kay, and Susan J. Wells 1983 Archaeological survey in the eastern Tucson Basin: Saguaro National Monument, Rincon Mountain Unit, Cactus Forest Area. Western Archeological and Conservation Center Publications in Anthropology 22. Tucson: National Park Service. Sires, Earl W., Jr. 1983 Archaeological investigations at Las Fosas (AZ U:15:19): A Classic period settlement on the Gila River. Part 5 of "Hohokam Archaeology Along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project, Vol. VI: Supplemental Archaeological Survey," edited by Lynn S. Teague and Patricia L. Crown. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 150(6): 493-658. Tucson: University of Arizona. 1984 Hohokam architecture and site structure. Part 2 of "Hohokam Archaeology Along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project, Vol. IX: Synthesis and Conclusions," edited by Lynn S. Teague and Patricia L. Crown. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 150(9). Tucson: University of Arizona. Sowls, Lyle 1957 Reproduction in the Audubon cottontail in Arizona. Journal of Mammology 38(2): 234-243. Sparling, John 1974 Analysis of faunal remains from the Escalante Ruin Group. In "Excavations in the Escalante Ruins Group, Southern Arizona," by David E. Doyel. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 37: 215-249. Tucson: University of Arizona. 1978 Analysis of the faunal remains from the Miami Wash Project. In "The Miami Wash Project: Hohokam and Salado in the Globe- Miami Area, Central Arizona," by David E. Doyel. Arizona State Museum Contribution to Highway Salvage Archaeology in Arizona 52. Tucson: University of Arizona. Stebbins, Robert C. 1954 Amphibians and Reptiles of Western North America. New York: McGraw-Hill. Steen, Charlie R., L. M. Pierson, V. L. Bohrer, and K. P. Kent 1961 Archeological studies at Tonto National Monument, Arizona. Southwestern Monuments Association Technical Series 2. Globe, Arizona: Southwestern Monuments Asociation. Sternberg, Robert Saul 1982 Archaeomagnetic Secular Variation of Direction and Paleointensity in the American Southwest. M3, doctoral dissertation, Department of GeoFciences, University of Arizona, Tucson. References 987 Stiger, Mark A. 1977 Anasazi Diet: The Coprolite Evidence. MS, master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder. Sullivan, Alan P., III 1980 Prehistoric Settlement Variability in the Grasshopper Area, East-Central Arizona. MS, doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. Swanson, Earl H., Jr. 1951 An Archaeological Survey of the Empire Valley, Arizona. MS, master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. Szuter, Christine R. 1982 The Interpretation of Rodent Bones from Hohokam Sites. Paper presented at the 47th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 1984 Faunal exploitation and the reliance on small animals among the Hohokam. Part 3 of "Hohokam Archaeology Along the Salt- Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project, Vol. VII: Environment and Subsistence," edited by Lynn S. Teague and Patricia L. Crown. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 150(7): 139-170. Tucson: University of Arizona. Tagg, Martyn D. 1983 Archaeological Testing at the Abused Ridge Site (AZ BB:9:120), an Early Tanque Verde Site in the Tucson Basin. MS, Cultural Resource Management Division, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. Teague, George A. 1976 An Assessment of the Archaeological Resources in the Parr Project Area, South Carolina. MS, Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia. 1981 The nonflaked stone artifacts from Las Colinas. In "The 1968 Excavations at Mound 8, Las Colinas Ruins Group, Phoenix, Arizona," by Laurens C. Hammack and Alan P. Sullivan. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 154. Tucson: University of Arizona. Teague, Lynn S. 1982a Evaluation of SGA surface artifact asemblages. In Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project, Archaeological Data Collection Studies and Supplemental Class 3 Survey: 1981-1982 Annual Report, compiled by Lynn S. Teague and Patricia L. Crown, pp. 80-94. Tucson: University of Arizona. 1982b The Preclassic to Classic Period Transition in Hohokam Society. Paper presented at the 47th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Minneapolis. MS, Arizona State Museum Library, University of Arizona, Tucson. 988 References Teague, Lynn S., and Anne R. Baldwin 1978 Painted Rock Reservoir Project Phase 1: Preliminary survey and recommendations. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 126. Tucson: University of Arizona. Teague, Lynn S., and Patricia L. Crown 1981 Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project Archaeological Data Collection Studies and Supplemental Class 3 Survey: 1980-1981 Annual Report. Tucson: University of Arizona. Teague, Lynn S., and Frank Hull 1982 Project management. In Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project Archaeological Data Collection Studies and Supplemental Class 3 Survey: 1981-1982 Annual Report, compiled by Lynn S. Teague and Patricia L. Crown, pp. 5-25. Tucson: University of Arizona. Teiwes, Helga, and Gary P. Nabhan 1983 Tepary beans, O'odham farmers and desert fields. Desert Plants 5(1): 15-37. Thomas, David H. 1976 Figuring Anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Tringhame, Ruth, Glenn Cooper, George Odell, Barbara Voytek, and Anne Whitman 1974 Experimentation in the formation of edge damage: A new approach to lithic analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology 1: 171-195. Trischka, Carl 1933 Hohokam: A chapter in the history of red-on-buff culture of Arizona. The Scientific Monthly 37: 417-433. Tuthill, Carr 1947 The Tres Alamos Site on the San Pedro River, southeastern Arizona. The Amerind Foundation 4. Dragoon, Arizona: The Amerind Foundation. Vokes, Arthur 1984 The shell assemblage of the Salt-Gila Aqueduct Project sites. Part 3 of "Hohokam Archaeology Along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project, Vol. VIII: Material Culture," edited by Lynn S. Teague and Patricia L. Crown. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 150(8). Tucson: University of Arizona. Von den Dreish, Angela 1976 A guide to the measurement of animal bones from archaeological sites. Peabody Museum Bulletin 1. Cambridge: Harvard University. References 989 Voorhies, Michael R. 1969 Taphonomy and population dynamics of an early Pliocene vertebrate fauna, Knox County, Nebraska. University of Wyoming Contributions to Geology Special Paper 1. Laramie: University of Wyoming. Vorhies, C. T., and W. P. Taylor 1933 The life histories and ecology of jack rabbits Lepus alleni and Lepus californicus spp. in relation to grazing in Arizona. University of Arizona Technical Bulletin 49. Tucson: University of Arizona. Walker, Noel P., Jr., and Ann S. Polk 1973 Archaeological survey of the Apache-Twin Buttes and Pantano- Whetstone transmission lines. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 27. Tucson: University of Arizona. Wallace, Henry 1983* The Late Rincon Phase in the Tucson Basin. Paper presented at the 1983 Hohokam Symposium, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. MS, Arizona State Museum Library, University of Arizona, Tucson. Wallace, Henry, and James Holmlund 1982 The Classic Period in the Tucson Basin. Paper presented at the 1982 Tucson Basin Conference, Tucson, Arizona. MS, Arizona State Museum Library, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1984 The Classic period in the Tucson Basin. The Kiva 49(3-4): 167-194. Wasley, William W. 1959 Cultural Implications of Style Trends in Southwestern Prehistoric Pottery: Basketmaker III to Pueblo II in West- Central New Mexico. MS, doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. Weber, Edward J. 1978 The Inca's ancient answer to food shortage. Nature 272(5653): 486. Weed, Carol S., and Albert E. Ward 1970 The Henderson Site: Colonial Hohokam in north-central Arizona, a preliminary report. The Kiva 36(2): 1-12. Wheat, Joe Ben 1955 The Mogollon culture prior to A.D. 1000. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 10. Wheat, Joe Ben, James C. Gifford, and William W. Wasley 1958 Ceramic variety, type cluster, and ceramic system in Southwestern pottery analysis. American Antiquity 24(1): 34-47. 990 References White, Richard S. 1978 Archaeological faunas from the Quijotoa Valley, Arizona. In The Quijotoa Valley Project, edited by E. Jane Rosenthal, Douglas R. Brown, Marc Severson, and John B. Clouts, pp. 224- 254. Tucson: National Park Service. Wilcox, David R. 1979a The Hohokam regional system. In "An Archaeological Test of Sites in the Gila Butte-Santan Region, South-Central Arizona," by Glen Rice and others. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers 18: 77-116. Tempe: Arizona State University. 1979b Warfare implications of dry-laid masonry walls on Tumamoc Hill. In "The Tumamoc Hill Survey: An Intensive Study of a Cerro de Trincheras in Tucson, Arizona." The Kiva 45(1-2): 15-38. 1980 The current status of the Hohokam concept. In "Current Issues in Hohokam Prehistory; Proceedings of a Symposium," edited by David E. Doyel and Fred Plog. Arizona State University Anthropological Papers 23: 236-242. Tempe: Arizona State University. Wilcox, David R., Thomas R. McGuire, and Charles Sternberg 1981 Snaketown revisited: A partial cultural resource survey, analysis of site structure and an ethnohistoric study of the proposed Hohokam-Pima National Monument. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 155. Tucson: University of Arizona. Wilcox, David R., and Charles Sternberg 1983 Hohokam ballcourts and their interpretation. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 160. Tucson: University of Arizona. Withers, Arnold Moore 1941 Excavations at Valshni Village, Papago Indian Reservation. MS, master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1944 Excavations at Valshni Village, a site on the Papago Indian Reservation. American Antiquity 10(1): 33-47. 1973 Excavations at Valshni Village, Arizona. The Arizona Archaeologist 7. Phoenix: Arizona Archaeological Society. Woodbury, Richard B. 1954 Prehistoric stone implements of northeastern Arizona: Reports of the Awatovi Expedition 6. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 34. Cambridge: Harvard University. References 991 Zahniser, Jack L. 1966 Late prehistoric villages southeast of Tucson, Arizona and the archaeology of the Tanque Verde phase. The Kiva 31(3): 103-204. Planned for publication as Occasional Papers 2, Phoenix Chapter of the Arizona Archaeological Society, 1985.