Stone Tool Production in the Medio Periphery: Analysis of Debitage from the 76 Draw Site (LA 156980) A Thesis presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School University of Missouri In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts By Brenton E. Willhite Dr. Todd VanPool, Thesis Supervisor DECEMBER 2014 The undersigned, appointed by the Dean of the Graduate School, have examined the thesis entitled: STONE TOOL PRODUCTION IN THE MEDIO PERIPHERY: ANALYSIS OF DEBITAGE FROM THE 76 DRAW SITE (LA 156980) Presented by Brenton E. Willhite A candidate for the degree of Master of Arts And hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance. ___________________________________ Dr. Todd VanPool ___________________________________ Dr. Christine VanPool ___________________________________ Dr. Marcus Rautman ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Through this long process, I received help from a number of persons. My thesis supervisor and advisor, Dr. Todd VanPool, aided me tremendously through every stage of this project. His guidance, hard work, and knowledge proved to be invaluable. My committee members, Dr. Christine VanPool and Dr. Marcus Rautman were also incredibly helpful as they helped to continue to refine this research. I would like to thank Dr. Todd VanPool, Dr. Christine VanPool, and Dr. Gordon Rakita for allowing me to work with the 76 Draw lithic assemblage; Kyle Waller and Richard Kennedy for aiding me with data collection; as well as the department of Anthropology at MU-Columbia and the G. Ellsworth Huggins Scholarship for providing me with financial support. I would also like to thank my parents, who have supported my choice in archaeological study since day one. I have been truly fortunate to have parents who have always simply wished that I follow my interests. To all these people and the countless others who have supported me since I undertook this endeavor, I thank you. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ ii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. v ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... vi Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 2. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................... 5 The Beginnings of Casas Grandes Culture 3. METHODS AND ANALYTICAL BACKGROUND .......................................... 21 Excavation Methods and Background Analytical Methods: Raw Materials Analytical Methods: Debitage Type Analytical Methods: Size and Weight Analytical Methods: Percentage of Cortex Analytical Methods: Platform Morphology Analytical Methods: Retouch Analytical Methods: Cores 4. RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 32 Stone Tool Reduction at 76 Draw Inter-site Analysis 5. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................... 53 6. REFERENCES CITED ......................................................................................... 56 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Proportion of the Total Weight of Flakes within each Size Grade ....................... 44 iv LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Frequencies of Flake Raw Material by Excavation Unit ...................................... 33 2. Chi-Square Analysis of Raw Material Frequency by Excavation Unit ................ 34 3. Frequencies of Cryptocrystalline Silicate Stone and Other Raw Materials by Excavation Unit ........................................................................................ 35 4. Frequencies of Flake Type by Excavation Unit .................................................... 36 5. Chi-square Analysis of Flake Type Frequency by Excavation Unit ..................... 37 6. Chi-square Analysis of Flake Type Frequency by Raw Material at Excavation Unit 1 ........................................................................................................ 38 7. Chi-square Analysis of Flake Type Frequency by Raw Material at 76 Draw ...... 40 8. Frequencies of Core Weight Class by Raw Material at 76 Draw ......................... 40 9. Frequencies of Platform Types by Excavation Unit ............................................. 41 10. Frequencies of Cortex Class by Excavation Unit ................................................. 42 11. Total Weight of Debitage within each Length Group .......................................... 44 12. Frequencies of Cortical Debitage and Non-Cortical Debitage at Medio Period Sites ........................................................................................................... 47 13. Chi-square Analysis of Flake Type by Site .......................................................... 48 14. Chi-square Analysis of Raw Material by Site ....................................................... 50 v STONE TOOL PRODUCTION IN THE MEDIO PERIPHERY: ANALYSIS OF DEBITAGE FROM THE 76 DRAW SITE (LA 156980) Brenton Willhite Dr. Todd VanPool, Thesis Supervisor ABSTRACT Thousands of flaked stone artifacts have been recovered from the 76 Draw Site in Luna County, New Mexico. These artifacts were analyzed with regard to formal attributes (including presence or absence of a single interior surface, cortex, platform morphology, and margin morphology), in conjunction with mass analysis techniques. These data suggest that the inhabitants of 76 Draw reduced locally available material through generalized core reduction with hard-hammer percussors. In addition, intra-site variation within the assemblage indicates the presence of spatially separate reduction areas. Finally, a comparison of the 76 Draw flaked stone assemblage to several Medio Period Casas Grandes sites reflects the degree to which inhabitants of 76 Draw reduced stone in a manner similar to their neighbors to the South. vi Chapter 1 Introduction The Animas Phase of southern New Mexico, southeastern Arizona, northeastern Sonora, and northern Chihuahua has puzzled archaeologists studying the region for decades. The area has received irregular attention from archaeologists in the past and previous attempts at identifying the origins of sites in the Animas region have affiliated them with the Salado to the north and east, the Black Mountain Phase to the north, the El Paso Phase to the east, the Medio period of Casas Grandes to the south, or as independent of these larger groups (De Atley 1980; Douglas 1995; Findlow and De Atley 1978; Fish and Fish 1999; Kidder et al. 1949; Minnis 1984; Skibo et al. 2002). Each of these hypotheses have merit with respect to individual sites within the Animas phase region, and indeed, these are what we would expect from a region that shares borders with several groups. My research, however, is concerned with addressing the nature and strength of the influence of Medio period Casas Grandes (or Paqiumé) on Animas Phase sites in southwestern New Mexico. This will be done through a comparison of flaked stone reduction techniques between 76 Draw and other Medio period Casas Grandes sites. While Paquimé certainly influenced sites within its immediate vicinity, the degree to which it had political and economic influences on other prehispanic peoples further abroad has been hotly contested. This debate began soon after Paqiumé’s excavation by Charles Di Peso, who argued that the numerous Mesoamerican influences at Paquimé 1 signified that the site was a trading center established by a class of traders from Mesoamerica, known as the pochteca (Di Peso 1974). According to Di Peso, the pochteca oversaw trade within a highly centralized regional system that linked Mesoamerica and the American Southwest (Di Peso 1974, 301). Similar notions are conveyed by Bradley (1992), Foster (1986), Reyman (1978) and Whitecotton and Pailes (1986), with the focus shifting from central Mexico to the Aztatlan tradition of West Mexico. However, others contend that Paqiumé’s social and economic influences were less centralized. Many of these researchers agree with Di Peso and others that Paquimé had craft specialization and social hierarchy (Minnis 1998; Woosley and Olinger 1993; VanPool and Leonard 2002), but they suggest its power over significant social, economic, and political influence was limited (Douglas 1992:18; LeBlanc 1986:127; McGuire 1993:38; Mathien 1986:225; Vargas 1995; Whalen and Minnis 1996; Whalen and Minnis 2009). Some researchers find considerable evidence that links the southwestern New Mexican Animas Phase to the Medio period Casas Grandes culture (Brand 1943; De Atley 1980; Skibo et al. 2002), while others find the connection between Paquimé during the Medio period with Animas Phase sites sporadic or lacking (Kidder et al. 1949). Finally, Whalen and Minnis (1996; 2001) argue that although Paquimé influenced sites relatively far abroad, that it only heavily influenced or controlled sites within a 30km radius. Despite claims that Paquimé did not controlled sites outside of 30km, it is worth noting that the Casas Grandes culture, as defined by Casas Grandes polychromes, covers roughly 100,000 km2 (LeBlanc 1986: 116; Schaafsma and Riley 1999). As a site that