HOHOKAM HABITATION SITES IN THE NORTHERN SANTA RITA

Transcription

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. 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
Prepared for
ANAMAX Mining Company
1984
Archaeological Series No. 147, Vol. 2, Part 2
CONTENTS
FIGURES
xvii
TABLES
xxix
xxxxi
PREFACE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
xxxxiii
ABSTRACT
xxxxvii
1.
2.
THE ROSEMONT STUDY AREA AND PREVIOUS RESEARCH
IN SURROUNDING AREAS
Alan Ferg
Study Area Location
Study Area Environment
Climate and Topography
Vegetation
Fauna
Summary
Previous Research in the Land-Exchange Area
Regional Culture History
Tucson Basin
Middle Santa Cruz River Valley
Empire Valley
San Pedro River Valley
RESEARCH DESIGN
David A. Gregory and Alan Ferg
The Derivation and Character of the Present Sample
of Ceramic Period Sites
Problem Domains and Research Questions
Functional Site Types and Intrasite Organization
Relevant Data Classes
Economy and Subsistence
Site Distribution, Population Distribution,
and Intersite Organization
Areal and Regional Relationships
Methods
Site Selection
Intrasite Sampling
General Field Techniques
Specialized Sampling
iii
1
1
4
4
5
5
8
8
9
9
12
14
18
21
21
27
29
30
30
32
32
33
35
36
36
36
38
39
39
iv Contents
3.
SITE DESCRIPTIONS
Alan Ferg
Environment
Excavation Methods
Terms and Procedures Used in Data Presentation
Nonhabitation Sites
AZ EE:2:49
AZ EE:2:52
AZ EE:2:136
Trenched Habitation Sites
AZ EE:2:112
AZ EE:2:130
Early and Multicomponent Habitation Sites
AZ EE:2:76--The Gayler Ranch Ruin.
Structures
Feature 3
Feature 7
Feature 8
Feature 10
Feature 16
Feature 25
Feature 27
Feature 29
Slope Trash
Extramural Features
Pits and Hearths
Artifact and Animal Bone Clusters
Burials
Cremation Deposits
Feature 4002
Feature 5
Feature 46
Feature 52
Feature 56
Feature 57001
Inhumations
Feature 21
Feature 21
Feature 46
Feature 56
Feature 67
Ceramics and Dating
Nonceramic Artifacts
Subsistence
Summary
AZ EE:2:84
Structures
Feature 1
Features 10, 15, and 25
Slope Trash
Extramural Features
Burials
Cremation Deposits
41
41
45
49
56
56
57
57
58
58
58
59
59
59
62
62
71
76
76
76
79
79
79
79
79
80
80
80
80
81
81
81
81
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
83
85
85
86
87
88
89
89
91
91
92
92
Contents
Ceramics and Dating
Subsistence
Summary
AZ EE:2:105--the Ballcourt Site
Structures
Features 71200 and 71001
Features 30, 60, 90, and 99
Ballcourt
Slope Trash
Extramural Features
Pits and Hearths
Possible Borrow Pit
Caches: Ground Stone and Pottery
Burials
Cremation Deposits
Feature 28
Feature 41013
Feature 51
Feature 80
Feature 7022
Ceramics and Dating
Subsistence
Summary
AZ EE:2:113--Bumblebee Village
Structures
Features 6100, 6300, 6200, and 7
Feature 86
Slope Trash
Extramural Features
Pits and Rock Clusters
Stone Platform
Borrow Pits
Burials
Cremation Deposits
Feature 1
Feature 4
Feature 7001
Feature 29
Feature 62
Feature 70
Feature 80
Feature 81
Feature 84
Feature 107001
Feature 147
Features 160 and 164
92
92
92
93
94
94
108
108
108
110
114
114
114
115
115
115
117
117
117
117
117
118
118
118
118
118
119
120
120
123
137
141
141
141
143
143
145
145
145
146
146
146
146
146
146
146
146
147
147
148
148
148
vi Contents
Inhumations
Feature 2
Feature 3
Features 25 and 72
Feature 53
Feature 165
Domestic Dog Inhumations
Feature 60
Feature 159
Feature 169
Ceramics and Dating
Subsistence
Summary
AZ EE:2:129
Structures
Feature 1
Feature 2
Slope Trash
Extramural Features
Burials
Ceramics and Dating
Subsistence
Summary
Middle Rincon Habitation Sites
AZ EE:2:77--Lightning Camp
Structures
Feature 1
Feature 56
Slope Trash
Extramural Features
Pits and Hearths
Postholes
Sherd-Lined Pits
Burials
Cremation Deposits
Feature 40
Feature 44003
Inhumations
Feature 1003
Feature 4404
Ceramics and Dating
Subsistence
Summary
AZ EE:2:107
Structures
Feature 1
Feature 2
148
148
148
148
149
149
149
150
150
150
150
150
152
152
153
155
155
155
157
160
162
163
163
164
165
165
166
166
166
166
169
174
176
176
176
177
177
177
178
178
178
179
179
179
179
179
180
180
180
182
183
183
183
Contents vii
Feature 3
Feature 4
Feature 5
Slope Trash
Extramural Features
Burials
Cremation Deposits
Subfeatures 7001 and 7002
Inhumations
Feature 9
Feature 10
Feature 15
Ceramics and Dating
Subsistence
Summary
AZ EE:2:109
Structures
Feature 2
Feature 3
Slope Trash
Extramural Features
Ceramics and Dating
Subsistence
Summary
AZ EE:2:120
Structures
Slope Trash
Extramural Features
Pits with Rocks and Roasting Pit-Hearths
Artifact Cluster
Burials
Cremation Deposits
Feature 8001
Ceramics and Dating
Subsistence
Summary
Late Rincon Habitation Sites
AZ EE:1:104
Structures
Feature 1
Feature 2
Slope Trash
Extramural Features
Ceramics and Dating
Subsistence
Summary
AZ EE:2:106
Structures
Feature 1
183
183
185
185
185
187
187
187
189
189
189
189
189
190
191
191
192
192
192
192
192
192
194
194
195
196
197
197
199
200
200
201
202
202
202
202
203
203
203
203
204
204
204
204
204
206
206
207
207
208
208
209
209
viii Contents
Feature 2
Feature 3
Feature 6
Slope Trash
Extramural Features
Pits
Roasting Pit-Hearths
Lined Pits
Ceramics and Dating
Subsistence
Summary
AZ EE:2:116
Structures
Feature 1
Feature 2
Ceramics and Dating
Subsistence
Summary
AZ EE:2:117
Structures
Extramural Features
Pits
Postholes
Ground Stone Caches
Ceramics and Dating
Subsistence
Summary
AZ EE:2:122
Structures
Feature 1
Feature 2
Extramural Features
Rock Clusters
Burials
Primary Cremation
Ceramics and Dating
Subsistence
Summary
4.
POTTERY
William L. Deaver
Research Objectives
Methods
Decorative Study: A Stylistic Model
Design Structures
Banded Designs
Horizontal Band
Oblique Band
Combined Horizontal-Oblique Band
Spiral Band
Cross Band
211
211
212
212
213
213
215
215
215
216
217
217
218
218
218
218
220
220
220
221
222
224
224
224
226
226
226
227
228
228
231
231
231
231
234
234
234
234
235
235
235
237
239
241
242
245
246
247
247
247
247
250
Contents ix
Sectored Designs
Trisected
Quartered
Offset-Quartered
Plaited
Simple Plait
Diamond
Vertical Panel
Styles
Pioneer Period Style
Colonial Period Style
Sedentary Period Style
Rincon Style A
Rincon Style B
Rincon Style C
Technological Study
Temper
Surface Mica
Polish
Vessel Form Study
Restorable Vessels
Rim Sherds
Measuring Orifice and Aperture Diameters
Rim Study
Painted Pottery
Pioneer Period
Colonial Period
Caffada del Oro Red-on-brown
Color
Shape
Paste
Design
Surface Finish
Rims
Varieties
Remarks
Rillito Red-on-brown
Color
Shape
Paste
Design
Surface Finish
Rims
Varieties
Remarks
Sedentary Period
Rincon Red-on-brown
Color
Shape
Paste
Design
Surface Finish
Rims
250
250
250
251
251
252
252
252
252
254
254
259
259
262
262
265
267
269
269
269
272
273
273
273
273
285
286
286
286
286
288
289
289
293
295
295
296
296
296
297
297
299
302
303
304
305
305
306
306
306
309
316
319
x
Contents
Varieties
Remarks
Rincon Black-on-brown
Color
Shape
Paste
Design
Surface Finish
Rims
Varieties
Remarks
Rincon Polychrome
Rio Rico Polychrome
Sahuarita Polychrome
Color
Paste
Shape
Design
Rims
Varieties
Remarks
Miscellaneous Painted Pottery
Classic Period
Tanque Verde Red-on-brown
Plain Pottery
Type I
Color
Shape
Paste
Surface Finish
Rims
Remarks
Type II
Color
Shape
Paste
Surface Finish
Rims
Remarks
Type III
Color
Shape
Paste
Surface Finish
Rims
Remarks
Type IV
Red Ware
Color
Shape
Paste
Surface Finish
Rims
Remarks
319
321
322
322
322
323
324
324
324
324
324
326
326
328
328
328
328
329
329
329
329
329
331
331
331
335
335
335
339
339
339
340
341
342
342
342
344
346
346
348
348
348
350
353
353
353
355
356
356
358
358
359
359
359
Contents xi
5.
Textured Pottery
Intrusive Pottery
Phoenix Basin Hohokam Types
San Simon Mogollon Types
Trincheras Types
Anasazi Types
Miscellaneous Intrusives
Discussion
Worked Sherds
Figurines
Pottery Variability
Temporal Variation
Evaluation of the Stylistic Model
Ratios of Plain, Painted, and Red-Slipped Wares
Bowl-to-Jar Ratios
Changes in Decorated Pottery
Changes in Plain Pottery
Changes in Red Ware
Functional Variation
Vessel Shape
Bowls
Jars
Technology
Comparisons of Plain Ware Types
Vessel Size
Vessel Shape
Summary of Function
Regional Variation
Summary and Conclusions
365
362
363
363
370
372
372
372
374
376
378
378
380
384
386
386
392
399
399
399
400
402
407
407
407
407
409
410
410
FLAKED STONE
Kenneth C. Rozen
Introduction
Project Background
Research Objectives
Previous Research
Theoretical Orientation and Analytic Approach
Technological Considerations
Selective Factors
Raw Materials
Occupational Factors
Tool Function
Analysis Terms and Procedures
Basic Artifact Category Definitions
Provenience Classes
Sampling Consideratons
Attributes
Material Type and Texture
Quartzite
Metasediment
Silicified Limestone
Chert
Limestone
421
421
421
421
423
427
427
432
433
435
437
439
439
442
443
446
446
446
451
451
451
452
xii Contents
Rhyolite
Basalt
Chalcedony
Other Materials
Material Texture
Artifact Size
Cortex
Platform Type
Platform Lipping
Direction of Flaking
Microflaking
Abrasion
Tool Typology
The Approach
Tool Type Descriptions
Notches
Irregularly Retouched Flake Fragments
Discontinuously Retouched Flake Fragments
Flakes with Continuous, Marginal, Nonextensive
Retouch
Flakes with Continuous, Marginal, Extensive Retouch
Flakes with Continuous Invasive Retouch
Continuously Retouched Flake Fragments
Flakes with Nonextensive Bifacial Retouch
Irregular Bifaces
Regular Bifaces
Projectile Point Preforms
Projectile Points
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Type 4
Type 5
Type 6
Type 7
Type 8
Type 9
Type 10
Type 11
Type 12
Type 13
Drills
Projections
Large Primary-Flake Tools
Hammerstones
Battered Flakes
Wedges
Edge-Altered Flakes
Raw Material Variability and Assemblage Characteristics:
Project-Wide Relationships
Raw Material Type by Texture Class
Bivariate Relationships between Material Texture
and Assemblage Characteristics
452
452
452
453
453
453
454
454
455
455
455
455
456
456
460
460
461
461
461
462
462
470
470
470
472
472
475
475
479
480
480
481
481
482
482
482
483
483
483
484
484
486
486
489
489
489
492
492
493
495
Contents xiii
Proportions of Debitage, Retouched Pieces, and Cores,
by Texture Class
Debitage Category Proportions by Texture Class
Complete Flake Size by Texture Class
Complete Flake Cortex by Texture Class
Proportions of Striking Platform Types by Texture Class
Platform Lipping by Texture Class
Fragment Size by Texture Class
Cortex on Fragments by Texture Class
Core Size by Texture Class
Core Flaking Direction by Texture Class
Cortex on Cores by Texture Class
Scraper Size and Retouch Extent by Material Type
Summary and Interpretation of Project-Wide Relationships
Between Material Texture and Assemblage Characteristics
Conclusions
Assemblage Variation Among Sites and Major Provenience
Classes Within Sites
Definition of the Analyzed Collections
Data Presentation and Comparative Observations
Material Type
Material Texture
Basic Artifact Categories
Complete Flake Size
Complete Flake Cortex
Striking Platform Type
Platform Lipping
Edge Alteration Attributes
Tool Type Proportions
Projectile Point Types
Scraper Size
Scraper Retouch Extent
Summary
Interpretation of Observed Variation
Interpretation of Variation in Tool Type Proportions
Conclusions
Discussion
Problems and Directions for Future Research
6.
UTILITARIAN GROUND STONE
Martyn D. Tagg
Research Objectives
Description of the Artifact Classes
Manos
Manos
Handstones
Hammer-Rubbing Stones
Polishing Stones
Discussion
Metates
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
495
498
498
501
505
508
509
509
510
512
512
512
519
529
530
531
536
536
539
543
546
553
556
556
556
561
575
577
579
579
582
598
601
601
602
605
605
609
609
611
618
619
622
623
624
625
630
631
xiv Contents
7.
Type 4
Discussion
Pestles
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Discussion
Mortars
Tabular Knives
Type 1
Type 2
Discussion
Grooved Axes
Tabular Abrading Stones
Pitted Stones
Stone Disks
Subrectangular Ground Stone Objects
Ground Stone Artifact Assemblages
Floor Assemblages
Caches
Summary and Discussion
Conclusions
632
635
637
637
638
639
639
640
642
643
644
644
646
648
649
651
652
653
653
656
658
664
NONUTILITARIAN GROUND STONE, CRYSTALS, AND MINERALS
Alan Ferg
Palettes
Finger Rings
Slate Rods
Slate Disks
Unidentified Slate Objects
Unworked Slate
Stone Bowls
"Slab Bowls"
Unworked Slabs
Paint Pestles
Paddle or Human Effigy Fragment
Jewelry
Turquoise
Unworked Pieces
Pendants and Blanks
Overlay
Bead
Worked Pieces
Steatite
Overlay
Beads
Argillite
Bird Pendant
Phyllite
Pendants or Earrings
Unidentified Stone
Beads
665
665
673
676
676
677
677
677
678
678
680
680
681
681
681
681
681
681
683
683
683
683
683
683
684
684
685
685
Contents xv
8.
9.
Quartz Crystals
Mineral Specimens
Calcite
Gypsum
Manganese Oxide
Limonite
Hematite
Azurite, Malachite, Chrysocolla
Summary
685
686
686
686
687
687
687
687
688
SHELL
Alan Ferg
Artifact Descriptions
Bracelets
Plain and Carved
Reworked Fragments
Finger Rings
Pendants
Irregular Shapes
Geometric Shapes
Zoomorphic Shapes
Whole Shell Pendants
Beads
Whole Shell and Barrel Beads
Disk Beads
Perforated Shell
Nose Plug
"Toggle"
Other Worked Shell
Distribution Patterns
Trade Implications
687
CERAMIC PERIOD SETTLEMENT PATTERNS IN THE ROSEMONT AREA:
A DISCUSSION
Selection of Location Variables
Site Categories
Site Location and Vegetation Type
Site Location and Topographic Setting
Site Distribution and Elevation
Site Location and Permanent Water
Site Location and Soils
Initial Discussion
Site Location and Stream Profile Gradient
Further Discussion
Predictive Value of the Stream Profile Gradient Model
A Closing Note: Rock Piles and Clusters
10. DISCUSSION
Alan Ferg
Chronological Controls and Constraints
Archaeomagnetic Sampling
Radiocarbon Sampling
687
687
687
693
694
694
694
696
696
696
697
697
697
697
698
698
698
698
699
701
703
703
705
707
709
711
712
714
714
719
720
722
725
725
726
726
xvi Contents
Nonpottery Artifacts
Cnramics
Summary
The Artifact Assemblages
Pottery Analysis
Flaked Stone
Utilitarian Ground Stone
Nonutilitarian Ground Stone, Miscellaneous Stone,
Shell, and Bone
Artifact Kinds and Proportions
Artifact Densities
The Settlement Pattern Evidence
Intrasite Organization
Architectural Attributes
Extramural Features
Pits
Roasting Pit-Hearths and Related Feature Types
Extramural Plastered Hearths and Sherd-Lined Pits
Stone Platforms
Postholes
Borrow Pits
Caches
Ballcourt
Discussion
Structure Architecture
Floor Area
Roof Support
Entryways
Hearths
Floor Grooves
Floor Pits
Functional Structure Types
Disposal of the Dead
Disposal of Refuse
Site Structure
Pit House Orientation
Distribution of Trash, Burials, and Ballcourts
Summary: Functional Site Types and Intrasite Organization
Hunting
Gathering
Agriculture
Contrasts with Basin Sites
Trade Goods
Shell
Nonlocal Stone
Intrusive Ceramics
Cultural Influences
Architecture and Community Organization
730
731
732
734
735
735
736
736
737
737
740
742
742
744
744
744
744
746
746
746
747
747
747
747
747
751
751
756
758
760
760
761
761
768
770
770
771
778
780
782
782
784
784
786
787
787
787
787
788
791
791
Contents xvii
Mortuary Practices
Cremation Deposits
Inhumations
Physical Anthropology
Summary
Site Distribution, Population Distribution, and
Intersite Organization
Population Estimates
Events and Causes Shaping Settlement and Abandonment
Caflada Del Oro Phase
Rillito Phase
Early Rincon Phase
Middle Rincon to Early Tanque Verde Phase
Social Organization
Conclusion
792
792
798
802
802
804
805
810
810
812
815
816
821
822
Appendix A: FAUNAL REMAINS FROM HOHOKAM SITES IN THE
ROSEMONT AREA, NORTHERN SANTA RITA MOUNTAINS
Margaret Glass
823
Appendix B: PLANT REMAINS FROM THE ANAMAX-ROSEMONT PROJECT
Bruce B. Huckell
917
Appendix C:
POLLEN ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENTS FROM HOHOKAM
SITES IN THE ROSEMONT AREA
Robert S. Thompson
Appendix D: HUMAN REMAINS FROM THE ANAMAX-ROSEMONT PROJECT
Kurt Dongoske
921
935
Appendix E:
PARASITOLOGICAL AND DIETARY STUDY OF INHUMATIONS
FROM BUMBLEBEE VILLAGE, AZ EE:2:113 (ASM)
Karl J. Reinhard and Richard H. Hevly
945
Appendix F:
ARCHAEOMAGNETIC DATING OF SAMPLES FROM THE
ANAMAX-ROSEMONT PROJECT
Richard C. Lange
953
REFERENCES
957
FIGURES
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 ANAMAXRosemont land-exchange area (after McLaughlin and
Van Asdall 1977).
6
1.1
xviii
1.4
1.5
Contents
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
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
Plan view and cross sections of the four house floors
in the Feature 8 house pit, AZ EE:2:76.
75
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
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
3.7
3.8
Contents
3.16
xix
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
Contour map of the ballcourt (Feature 1) at AZ EE:2:105
prior to excavation.
112
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
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
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
184
3.17
3.18
3.21
3.33
Plan view and cross section of the Feature 3 pit house,
AZ EE:2:107.
188
3.34
193
3.35
198
3.36
205
3.37
210
xx Contents
AZ EE:2:106.
214
3.39
219
3.40
AZ EE:2:116.
223
3.41
225
3.42
AZ EE:2:117.
229
3.43
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
3.38
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
Various parts of vessels used in this study and the
characteristic points used to define them.
271
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
Side wall angles used to infer vessel shape from rim
sherds, and the idealized shapes that they may represent.
275
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
vessels.
283
vessels.
284
Canada del Oro Red-on-brown sherds showing decorative
treatment.
287
Exterior bowl design patterns noted on Canada del Oro Redon-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-onbrown 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
Rillito Red-on-brown body sherds showing typical
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
Rincon Red-on-brown Style A bowl sherds showing typical
decorative treatment and trailing line treatments.
312
Rincon Red-on-brown Style A jar sherds showing typical
313
Rincon Red-on-brown Style B and Style C.
314
4.20
4.21
4.22
4.23
4.28
4.33
4.34
4.35
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
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
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
Relative proportion of plain to decorated to red wares
by phase.
385
4.66
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-tobreadth ratio for bowls.
403
Aperture-to-breadth ratio plotted against vessel-heightto-breadth ratio for jars.
404
Limits of variation in vessel-height-to-breadth ratio
and aperture-to-breadth ratio for historic vessels of
known use.
405
Ethnographic data superimposed on ANAMAX-Rosemont data,
partitioning vessels into possible use categories.
406
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
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
4.71
4.72
4.73
4.74
4.75
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
467
5.6
468
5.7
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
Relative frequency distributions of debitage, retouched
pieces, and cores by texture class.
497
5.21
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
Relative frequency distributions of cortical, plain,
faceted, and intermediate platforms by texture class.
507
Relative frequency distribution of cortical fragments
by texture class.
511
Percentages of multidirectional, bidirectional, and
unidirectional cores by Texture Classes 3 through 6.
514
Percentages of core cortex classes by Texture Classes 3
through 6.
515
Relative frequency distributions of chert, metasediment,
silicified limestone, and quartzite scrapers by retouch
extent percentage class.
518
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
Mean-flake-length by mean-flake-width scattergram for all
analyzed collections.
550
Triangular coordinate plot of percentages of complete
flakes by cortex classes, for all analyzed collections.
555
Triangular coordinate plot of cortical, plain, and
faceted striking platforms.
558
Cumulative percentage distributions of tool types for the
analyzed assemblages.
574
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
5.26
5.27
5.28
5.29
5.30
5.31
5.34
5.35
5.36
5.37
5.38
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
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
Decorated stone bowls, unworked slab, "slab bowl,"
paint pestles, and a paddle or human effigy fragment.
679
7.1
7.5
Contents
7.6
xxvii
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
Stream gradients for drainages lacking sites in the
Rosemont area.
717
Distribution of Class 12 through 19 sites with respect
to stream gradient.
718
Site location plotted against stream gradient for three
canyons in the Catalina Mountains.
721
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
Ratio of number of extramural features to number of
structures at investigated sites.
750
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
9.2
9.3
9.4
10.1
10.4
10.5
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 rockcovered dog inhumation from AZ EE:2:113.
797
Flexed, seated, and kneeling inhumations from AZ EE:2:76,
AZ EE:2:107, and AZ EE:2:113.
800
Postulated growth and decline of the Rosemont area
population using estimated numbers of pit houses by
time period.
808
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
862
A.4
863
A.5
Comparison of Lepus and Sylvilagus element representation
at AZ EE:2:105.
865
Comparison of Lepus and Sylvilagus element representation
at AZ EE:2:113.
866
Comparison of residual variation in Lepus element
representation at AZ EE:2:105 and AZ EE:2:113.
868
Mean representation for all leporid elements at
AZ EE:2:105 and AZ EE:2:113.
869
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
880
10.16
10.17
10.18
A.6
A.7
A.8
A.9
Contents xxix
A.14
880
A.15
Comparison of artiodactyl element representation and
bone density at AZ EE:2:105.
882
Comparison of artiodactyl element representation and
bone density at AZ EE:2:113.
882
Fragmentation indices of artiodactyl elements at
AZ EE:2:105.
883
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
A.16
A.17
A.18
TABLES
1.1
Swanson's Empire Valley chronology.
16
2.1
Hohokam sites located outside the final eastern
boundary of the land exchange.
24
Sites in the Barrel Canyon Archaeological District,
by class and area.
26
The sampling universe of Hohokam sites by group,
class, age, and area.
28
Rosemont Hohokam habitation sites selected for
excavation, by geographic group and site class.
38
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
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.1
xxx
Contents
at AZ EE:2:84.
89
3.9
90
3.10
91
3.11
93
3.12
at AZ EE:2:105.
96
Artifact totals by class for AZ EE:2:105, the Ballcourt
Site.
97
3.14
98
3.15
103
3.16
116
3.17
at AZ EE:2:113.
123
3.18
124
3.19
125
3.20
136
3.21
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
at AZ EE:2:129.
157
3.24
158
3.25
159
3.26
161
3.27
Decorated pottery types from AZ
3.28
at AZ EE:2:77.
168
3.29
169
3.30
170
3.8
3.13
3.23
EE:2:129.
164
Contents
xxxi
3.31
3.32
3.33
at AZ EE:2:107.
185
3.34
186
3.35
187
3.36
190
3.37
at AZ EE:2:109.
194
3.38
195
3.39
196
3.40
3.41
at AZ EE:2:120.
199
3.42
200
3.43
201
3.44
202
3.45
at AZ EE:1:104.
206
3.46
207
3.47
208
3.48
209
3.49
at AZ EE:2:106.
211
3.50
212
3.51
213
3.52
3.53
at AZ EE:2:116.
220
221
3.54
EE:2:77.
EE:2:109.
EE:2:106.
175
181
197
216
xxxii Contents
3.55
222
3.56
224
3.57
at AZ EE:2:117.
226
3.58
227
3.59
228
3.60
230
3.61
at AZ EE:2:122.
233
3.62
233
3.63
234
4.1
Tucson Basin decorated pottery types and corresponding
decorative styles.
253
Temper classes used in the technological study of ANAMAXRosemont 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
Frequency of temper classes for Caftada del Oro Red-onbrown from the ANAMAX-Rosemont, Hodges Ruin, Hardy Site,
and ASM type collections.
290
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
Inventory of Rillito Red-on-brown vessel shapes as
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
Synopsis of the Tucson Basin painted pottery sequence
showing named pottery types and technological variants.
306
Inventory of Rincon Red-on-brown vessel shapes as
309
4.2
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.10
4.11
Contents xxxiii
Frequency of temper types for Rincon Red-on-brown,
by style, for the ANAMAX-Rosemont, Hodges Ruin, Hardy
Site, and ASM type collections.
311
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
338
4.17
Frequency of temper types for Type I plain ware.
339
4.18
Inventory of Type II plain ware vessel shapes as
345
4.19
Frequency of temper types for Type II plain ware.
346
4.20
Inventory of Type III plain ware vessel shapes as
350
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
Association of intrusive types and Tucson Basin red-onbrown types in specific stratified deposits.
368
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
4.12
4.13
4.21
4.26
4.27
xxxiv Contents
Typological, contextual, and metric data on restorable
painted, plain, and red ware bowls from the ANAMAXRosemont collection.
393
Typological, contextual, and metric data on restorable
painted and plain ware jars from the ANAMAX-Rosemont
collection.
395
Inventory of bowl and jar shapes for Type I, II, and III
plain wares.
411
Basic chipped stone artifact category frequencies for
each site.
441
Numbers of chipped stone artifacts recovered and analyzed,
by major provenience class, for each site.
444
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
Frequencies and percentages of debitage, retouched pieces,
and cores by texture class.
496
Frequencies and percentages of complete and split flakes,
proximal and medial-distal flake fragments, and
nonorientable fragments by texture class.
499
Mean, standard deviation, and sample size for complete
flake length, width, and thickness by texture class.
501
Frequencies, percentages, and sample sizes for complete
flake cortex class, for each texture class.
504
Frequencies, percentages, and sample size of striking
platform types on complete flakes and prozimal flake
fragments, combined, for each texture class.
506
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
Mean, standard deviation, and sample size for maximum
dimension of fragments, by texture class.
509
Frequencies, percentages, and sample sizes for the
presence and absence of cortex on fragments, by texture
class.
510
4.32
4.33
4.34
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.13
Contents xxxv
5.14
5.15
5.16
Mean and standard deviation for maximum dimension for
cores by texture class.
511
Frequencies and percentages of flaking direction and
cortex classes for cores, for Texture Classes 3 through 6.
513
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
534
Frequencies and percentages of artifacts by material
type for analyzed collections.
537
Frequencies and percentages of artifacts by texture
class, for all analyzed collections.
540
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
Comparative flake size statements based on nonoverlapping
95 percent confidence intervals for mean flake thickness.
551
Frequencies, percentages, and sample sizes of complete
flakes by cortex class, for analyzed collections.
554
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
Frequencies, percentages, and sample sizes of the
occurence of platform lipping on complete and split
flakes and proximal flake fragments combined, for
559
5.20
5.21
5.22
5.25
5.26
5.27
5.28
xxxvi Contents
Frequencies, percentages, and sample sizes of the
occurence of microflaking and abrasion on debitage,
for analyzed collections.
560
Tool type frequencies by provenience class for
AZ EE:2:76.
562
AZ EE:2:77.
563
AZ EE:2:84.
563
AZ EE:2:105.
564
AZ EE:2:106.
565
AZ EE:2:107.
565
AZ EE:2:109.
565
AZ EE:2:113.
566
AZ EE:2:116.
567
AZ EE:2:117.
567
AZ EE:2:120.
568
AZ EE:2:122.
568
AZ EE:2:129.
569
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
Projectile point type frequencies by provenience.
576
5.29
5.30
5.31
5.32
5.33
5.34
5.35
5.36
5.37
5.38
5.39
5.40
5.41
5.42
5.43
5.46
Contents xxxvii
Mean, standard deviation, and sample size for whole
scraper length, width, and thickness by texture class for
analyzed sites and site groups.
578
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
Artifact density, numbers of structures, extramural
features, and burials, and occupation span for all sites,
by occupation class.
584
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
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
5.47
5.48
5.49
5.50
5.51
xxxviii Contents
10.1
Archaeomagnetic dates from the ANAMAX-Rosemont sites.
727
10.2
Calibrated radiocarbon dates from the ANAMAX-Rosemont
sites.
729
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
Intrusive ceramic counts compared with totals of
decorated sherds and all sherds.
789
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
Identified fauna in the ANAMAX-Rosemont Project
Hohokam site collections.
829
AZ EE:2:76, faunal remains: frequencies of taxa and
burning within taxa.
831
10.3
10.11
10.12
A.1
A.2
Contents xxxix
834
835
836
841
845
846
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
Distribution of identified and unidentified bone among
sites.
848
Element representation of rodent taxa from AZ EE:2:76,
AZ EE:2:105, and AZ EE:2:113.
855
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
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
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
A.3
A.4
A.5
A.6
A.7
A.8
A.9
A.10
A.11
A.12
A.13
A.19
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
901
A.25
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
Frequencies of carnivore gnawing on artiodactyl
elements from all sites.
913
Carbonized plant remains from the ANAMAX-Rosemont
project sites.
918
Wood charcoal and land snails from the ANAMAX-Rosemont
project sites.
919
Relative pollen percentages for samples from Hohokam
sites in the ANAMAX-Rosemont Project area.
922
Relative pollen percentages for taxa which occurred
in fewer than four samples.
931
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
Pollen counts from samples recovered from Bumblebee
Village inhumations.
951
A.29
B.1
B.2
C.1
C.2
C.3
E.2
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
H
a)
cra
TYPES AND PROVEISi6t CRS OF GROUND STOMP ARTIFACTS
oc
Metate
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Type 4
Unknown
4 (28.6)
26 (21.))
1 i 0.8)
4 ( 3.3)
2 ( 1.7)
5 ( 4.2)
9
1
2
3
2
(
(
(
(
(
8.3)
0.9)
1.9)
2.8)
1.9)
( 8.0)
(1.7)
( 2.1)
( 2.1)
84.)
2 ( 9.1)
1 ( 5.6)
1 ( 4.3)
19
4
5
5
20(
1 ( 4.5)
4 ( 8.2)
1 ( 7.1)
16 ( 7.8)
10 ( 4.9)
1 ( 0.5)
4 ( 1.9)
18 ( 8.7)
2 ( 4.3)
96
22
14
15
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)
2 ( 4.3)
Polishing Stone
2 ( 1.7)
8 ( 7.4)
I ( 4.3)
32
31
I ( 0.8)
5 ( 4.6)
2 (
2 ( 1.9)
2(120.0)
Pestle
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Unknown
1.7)
2 ( 8.7)
4 (17.4)
(
(
(
(
1 ( 7.1)
6 (12.8)
2 ( 4.3)
1 ( 2.1)
( 9.2)
1 ( 9.1)
1
2 ( 4.1)
1.7)
0.4)
0.8)
0.4)
1 (16.7)
1
6 ( 2.9)
1 ( 7.1)
(7.7)
1 ( 0.5)
Tabular Knives
Type 1
Type 2
Unknown
Grooved Axe
1 ( 4.3)
1 ( 0.8)
1 ( 0.4)
1 ( 2.0)
I ( 7.1)
1 ( 0.8)
3 ( 2.5)
4 (3.3)
1 ( 0.9)
1 ( 0.4)
2 (0.8)
1 ( 0.4)
1 ( 7.1)
2 ( 1.7)
1 ( 0.9)
3 ( 1.3)
1
2 ( 0.8)
1 ( 2.0)
Abrading Stone
I ( 0.8)
Disk
2 ( 1.7)
1 ( 4.5)
1
(
4.5)
2.0)
2
120
108
23
238
22
49
1 ( 7.7)
1 ( 2.1)
3
1 ( 2.1)
4 ( 1.9)
2 ( 1.0)
1
(
8
8
7
1 ( 7.7)
13
1 ( 7.7)
9.1)
8
1 ( 7.7)
2 ( 1.0)
1 ( 0.5)
7
7
2
14
percent
(
1 ( 7.1)
Subrectangular
Object
Total
2 ( 1.0)
2 (14.3)
1 ( 7.1)
1 ( 4.3)
2 ( 1.9)
j ( 2.1)
5 ( 2.4)
2 ( 1.0)
Pitted Stones
12
4
13
2
3 (16.7)
2 ( 4.1)
Mortar
'( )
2 (18.2)
9 ( 4.4)
11 ( 4 .6)
4
1
2
1
8 (16.3)
206
(
1.0)
2
11
18
13
6
47
891
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?
I
AZ EE:2:76,
Snaketown/Caliada del Oro
Feature 8, Floor 1
AZ EE:2:105, Feature 10
AZ EE:2:105, Feature 6, Level 4
A i .m 3
AZ EE:2:76, Feature 8, Floor 2
Rillito
AZ EE:2:84, all
proveniences
except Feature 10
AZ EE:2:1I3, all
proveniences
except Features
8, 10100,and 154
AZ EE:2:84,
Early Rincon
Feature 10
AZ EE:2:105, all
proveniences except
Features 10, 71200,
and Feature 6,
Level 4
AZ EE:2:I29,
Feature II
AZ EE:2:1I3, Features 8,
10100, and 154
AZ EE:2:77, all
proveniences except
Features 2,3,and 4
I
api
Middle Rincon
AZ EE:2:77, Features 2,3, and 4
AZ EE:2:106, all proveniences except Feature 2
AZ EE : 2 :107, all proveniences
AZ EE:2:109, all proveniences
Late Rincon
AZ EE: 1:104, all proveniences
AZ EE:2 :117, a II proveniences
AZ EE:2:76, all
proveniences except
Features land 8
AZ EE:2: 129,
Features I and 2
Tongue Verde
I
Figure 6.1 Division of sites by time period
AZ EE: 2:129,011
proveniences except
Features 1,2,and II
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 dd
d d
220 -
di
210 -
d
d d
d
d
d
dd
d d d
d d
d
LEN GTH(mm)
190 -
di 61
d
180 -
d
cl„,
dd
d
d
d dd
ddd
dd d
170
&
d
cru dd d
d
cfl d
d
160 -
cd
150 -
g d
)d co
od 61
cp
cc
c c
dd d
d 5c
C
c
120 -
c
c
c cc cc
c
cc
cc
cce.bcc
c
..c , cc
110 -
c
cE
c
C
c
be
c
100 -
d
cc
c c dcc
cc c
130 -
d
dc
cc
cc
140 -
c
b
cc
e c
cb
bbc c — C
90 -
b
c b cbb
bcp
b
b
80 -
c
a- Polishing Stone
b- Hammer-Rubbing
Stone
c- Handstone
d-Mano
b
b
70 a a
60 -
aoa a
a
a a as
a
a
a
as
50 40 -
a
0°
00
30 -
d
dd d
200-
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.
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 —
— — Early
---- Late
1
1
1
40—
ICr 30 —
W
CL
20 —
.0'
.00
00
10—
Unknown
Rectangular
Oval
Round
PLAN VIEW
Figure 6.3 Mano shape by time period.
Irregular
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).
47 T9
— — Early
— Late
— — Early
— Late
50
/
St
St
40
I—
U 30
/
St
Qr
20
10
Unknown
Rectangular BiConvex
PlanoConvex
TRANSVERSE CROSS SECTION
Irregular
Unknown
I
I
Rectangular BiConvex
I
PlanoConvex
Irregular
LONGITUDINAL CROSS SECTION
Figure 6.5 Mano transverse and longitudinal cross section plotted by time period.
ass •a ilica aw
60
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
— Late
1
20
Quartzite
Quartz
Monzonite
Igneous
Basalt
MATERIAL TYPE
Figure 6.6 Plano material type by time period.
Limestone
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
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.
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-
— — Early
---- Late
40-
/
303
/
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.
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.
f
e
a
g
h
k
Figure 6.10 Hammer-rubbing stones and polishing stones. 27k, hammerrubbing 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 potpolishers (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).
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,
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 openended 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.
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 openended 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.
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-thansubstantial 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.
Three of the metates were unshaped, while three others had minimal edgerounding 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 westcentral 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
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 boulderflat 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
8
0
X
O
O
0
0
10
10
20
30
40
50
LENGTH (cm)
x Slab Metate
o Small Grinding Slab
Figure 6.12 Length and width relationships for slab metates and
small grinding slabs.
60
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.
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
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
e
b
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
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-andone-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
c
a
5
I
10
a Type I
b Type 2
c
a
a
as a
a
1
15
a
a
a
b
b
I
20
I
25
I
30
I
35
I
40
Length (cm)
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
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.
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
d
b
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
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 graygreen 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.
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
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
f
e
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
Figure 6.20 Pitted stones. Length of b is 35.0 cm.
e
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
fill, one was found in the fill of a cremation, and two were
stripping units. The recovery of these whole artifacts from
fill would suggest that they were not particularly valuable
range in time from early to late.
house
found in
pit house
tools. They
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 subrectangular 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 coarsegrained 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,
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
Pestles
Metates
Manos/Handstones
w
a
-o
w
,
C
C
M
u
X
W
T
H
..
x
,
>
,'3
x
■
C
T,
E
C.,
9
L
C./
C.■
C
0.
1-
G
u
F
7
.0
0
C.1
,-,
..c
.0
00
CAD
7
0
04
F
CI)
0
0
0)
' i,,
.2
7
w
•--1
01
0
9
(1.7
CO
C
,,
p
i
H
K,
,
o.--■
,t,
d
.
Site
Number
Feature
Number
Age
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
AZ EE:2:105
71200
Rillito
X
X
,.,
AZ EE:2:105
81
Early
AZ EE:2:107
2
middle Rincon
AZ EE:2:107
5
middle Rincon
AZ EE:2:109
3
middle Rincon
AZ EE:2:113
8
early Rincon
AZ EE:2:113
10100
early Rincon
AZ EE:2:113
154
early Rincon
AZ EE:2:116
2
late Rincon
Total
7
F1
E
0
V
m
0
0
-.
E
.
[..
.
V
W
0
,—i
0)
CO
F
T.
H
T
H
4
1
4
2
2
1
X
2
X
3
1
X
2
1
2
X
X
1
1
2
X
X
1
X
6
2
1
1
X
7
L
0
H
7
1
8
1
2
3
1
2
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 fullsized 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
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 interpretation 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
14
Early
X
6
5
*
AZ EE:2:105
57
Early
X
2
AZ EE:2:105
76
Early
X
3
3
AZ EE:2:117
b
late Rincon
X
5
2
AZ EE:2:117
7
late Rincon
X
4
3
AZ EE:2:117
8
late Rincon
X
4
3
AZ EE:2:129
2001
Late
2
2
Includes a core-hammerstone.
X
1
2
4
1
1
1
2
1
1
5
1
1
4
2
2
4
2
2
2
4
77,
a
a
,C
.c
co
3
-m
a
a
m
.e
m
c
2
a
,-,
0
.c
3
5
C
a
x
0
co
Cache dimensions (m)
1
1.0 by 0.50
(1 artifact 5.5m away
0.45 by 0.45
2
1
2
2
1
3
0.45 by 0.15
3
2
2
3
5
1.0 by 2.0
1
3
2
2
2
2
2.0 by 3.0
4
3
1
1.0 by 2.0
2
2
4
2
0.75 by 0.65
auolS punoiD uei aulTI T 311
AZ EE:2:105
-,
a
,
I
Me dium
Age
1.1
Quar tz Monzon ite
Feature
Number
Quar tz ite
Site
Number
a
u
m
w
s_,
coC
,E,
.,..,0
a
,
...
,
a
-,
m
1-1
E-,0
Pes t les
Material
Type
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 configuration, 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.
659
Table 6.4
DISTRIBUTION OF GROUND STONE ARTIFACTS BY TIME PERIOD
Artifact
Type
Time Period
Early
Late
Manos
Handstones
Hammer-rubbing stones
Polishing stones
Metates
Trough
Basin
Slab
Small grinding slab
Pestles
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Mortars
Tabular knives
Type 1
Type 2
Grooved axes
Tabular abrading stones
Pitted Stones
Stone disks
Subrectangular objects
103
76
21
18
(31.7)
(23.5)
( 6.5)
( 5.6)
51
33
3
6
(35.2)
(22.8)
( 2.1)
( 4.1)
36
18
6
9
(11.1)
( 5.6)
( 1.9)
( 2.8)
24
(16.6)
1
2
( 0.7)
( 1.4)
Total
324
5
7
1
2
(
(
(
(
1.5)
2.2)
0.3)
0.6)
3
3
3
1
(
(
(
(
2.1)
2.1)
2.1)
0.7)
1
4
7
3
4
1
2
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
0.3)
1.2)
2.2)
0.9)
1.2)
0.3)
0.6)
5
1
3
3
2
1
(
(
(
(
(
(
1 (
3.4)
0.7)
2.1)
2.1)
1.4)
0.7)
0.7)
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
— — Late
:2 20
0
10
..
4(§P
•2,c)
4r)
,e
kv6
cpe
„1/40
e1,:l
4
6o"
. 64
a
q°
I
4F
Metates
ti
,
q'
,A,P\
,1/44
4 Tabular 4
knives
4
Pestles
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
1§,
\
6
c4.sP° (4.,44
.641'
4:`
.44
'84
0
ne
s,-q"
F
Metates
ee et'
6c
4,,4*
x-
4e. ,64
mto:
043
•c
F
Pestles
4
w os-
4'
\°at
4P. 60?
0' 41'
4) ;,, 4 0,46'
Tabular 4
knives
Figure 6.22 Distribution of ground stone artifacts by site type.
,1
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 fourto-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 twohouse 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
2a)
30-
ar
20-
10 -
....
.......
AP
ee
cP
Q0a
,
ia
o
cfs
F
e5
e,1'
.5)
c,
03'°
C
4:0
qb
v.A.e,
86
e
,61.
4
.
o
, 1/49
c2
•c.•
41be
C63-
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-
facts. However, the uses of many artifacts, such as stone disks, hammerrubbing 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
of artifacts best described as disposable. Along with
slabs and slab metates, these artifacts exhibit light
thought to have been used briefly and then discarded.
probably task specific tools, rather than a formalized
represent a class
small grinding
wear. They are
They were
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 Alan Ferg
Table 7.1
NONUTILITARIAN GROUND STONE ARTIFACTS BY SITE
A Z EE: 2: 78
AZ E E: 2: 76
cr,
.1'
4--■
N
N
2
ri
r
1
Flush, one-line borders
N
N
2
3
5
Blanks (?)
2
Drilled blanks
2
3
1
7
1
1
2
1
1
1
4
1
3
2
2
1
1
1
Unworked Pieces
1
Stone Bowls
Plain
Decorated
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
3
3
4
1
6
1
6
Slab Bowls
1
Unworked Slabs
1
Paint Pestles
1
Paddle or Effigy Fragment
1
2
3
1
1
1
2
1
4
1
Turquoise
Unworked pieces
Pendants or blanks
2
2
1
4
3
6
1
Beads
3
1
Worked pieces
Steatite
Overlay
Beads
1
1
4
4
1
1
38
39
Argillite Bird Pendant
1
Phyllite pendants or earrings
1
2
2
Unidentified Stone Beads
1
1
2
16
2
2
1
1
Unidentified objects
Total
16
2
Slate Objects
Rods or Blanks
Disks
0
5
1
1
1
0
0-1
NNNINN
6
Small, outlined mixing areas
Finger Rings
Finished
Overlay
c,
N
0
1
1
Flush, elaborate borders
0
NNNNNNNNN
d d d d d <4 <4 d d
4
Raised borders
0
ti
isiWWr=1WWWWW
WWWW{444WWW
Palettes
Blanks
Plain
0
CO
53
2
2
27
1
1
2
24
1
3
1
135
Nonutilitarian Ground Stone 667
a
d
C
b
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
Age Assignment
Rillito
1
Rillito or early Rincon
1
Early Rincon
2
Early Period Total
4
Middle Rincon
1
DECORATED
Ra ise dBor ders
PLAIN
1)
.w
m
a)
G
-0
0
4
•..1
M
r--4
W
M
w
u) ,z)
.t
-, 0
R. P1
C)
GN
0 M
$.-1
..
w
in "L"
O
O
,--I
44
co
G<
0
m
G
—1
r--I
•!--1
X
E 'H
CA
z
1
,...-1
M
.1-)
0
H
2
3
2
6
2
1
3
2
10
3
3
Middle or late Rincon
Late Rincon
Late Period Total
Unplaced
Total
1
2
3
2
....._
9
1
1
1
4
1
4
1
1
9
2
...._
7
..._
3
_._
2
__
23
Counts do not include six small fragments which are probably from
plain palettes, but may also be from palette blanks.
The palette illustrated in Figure 7.31, plain on one side, oneline border on the other, is tabulated in this column.
b
a
d
f
e
_
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.
a
e
b
f
d
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
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.
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 rodshaped 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.
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 trialrun 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
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
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
00
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
d
b
11a 1
e
f
g
h
k
I
m
argillite (j), and
Figure 7.7 Turquoise (a-gam, k), phyllite
steatite (1-m) ornaments. Argillite bird (i) is 3.56 cm long.
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.
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
a
0
a
5-,
a
+1
(...)
"0
N
.1—,
•-1
,4,
a)
, -
N
•.-1
4--,
-0
NO
AZ EE:2:76
s.-■
.,—I
J
E
0
a
aE
0
o' 0
a -0
0o
o' E
--,
a
4
2
1
1
1
1
AZ EE:2:77
AZ EE:2:84
(I)
.1.-■
•,—,
0
a
0
N
3
0
5
1
AZ EE:2:113
3
0
a 3
5
X a
---.. 0
0
.1_,
• ■
N
N
2
a
u ^a
rt1
.--,
,--I
,—,
N
0
U
N
"4
1
1
1
1
,--I
a
4-,
0
U
0
H
16
5
1
3
1
1
2
3
1
3
6
16
12
1
1
1
AZ EE:2:129
AZ EE:2:136
2
4
1
1
1
15
,-- ■
,—,
3
1
AZ EE:2:120
0
03 0
X
---. M
a
,
•,-.1 a
1
2
AZ EE:2:116
Total
U X
cc1 1-■
,-1
AZ EE;1:104
AZ EE:2:109
a
.1..J
4-i
0
2
AZ EE:2:105
0
a
Hema t ite,
2:1
J-J
>1 "0
/.4 W
C.) • ■-■
.0
(.7
L imo n ite, g roun d
...
a
Limon ite, u nwor ke d
...
a
,--■
a
1-■
a
Ma ng ane se Ox ide
.0
5
4
1
2
1
1
9
1
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
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.
Laevicardium elatum
Aequipecten circularis
Pecten vogdesi
cf. Spondylus sp.
Olivella dama
Turritella leucostoma
cf. Oliva sp.
Vermicularia sp.
Haliotis sp.
Pinctada mazatlanica
Pteria sterna
unidentified marine
139
13
5
2
6
4
2
1
1
2
1
1
308
Freshwater Shell
Anodonta californiensis
Total
1
486
Shell 691
Table 8.2
Glycymeris sp.
plain bracelet
6
41
fragments
6
1
6
AZ EE: 2: 107
Artifact Type by Species
AZ EE: 2: 10 5
AZ EE: 2: 52
SHELL ARTIFACTS BY SITE
39
21
5
2
carved bracelet fragments
1
"needles"
3
116
3
1
6
4
2
2
"pelican" pendants
3
1
3
reworked pieces
1
2
1
finger rings
whole valve pendants
Laevicardium
geometric pendants
3
1
5
2
2
3
4
bird pendants
reworked perforated valve
worked
6
1
4
1
unworked
Aequipecten
whole valve pendants
2
1
1
pendant
perforated valve
unworked piece
Pec ten
pendant
worked
cf.
Spondylus
bead/pendant
2
2
disk bead lots
Ll
1
1
"toggle"
Olivella
whole shell bead
2
2
2
2
barrel bead
Turritella
whole shell
unworked
cf. Oliva
"cap bead"
Vermetus
nose plug
Unidentified
quadruped pendant
2
pendant
10 2
disk bead lots
13
1
worked
Haliotis
bird pendant
geometric pendant
Pinctada
lizard pendant
Pteria
unworked
Anodonta
pendant
1
Total
1
3 beads;
2
288 beads;
3
14 beads
70
9
6
58
9
35
5
193
692 Alan Ferg
a
d
1
:47.1-1111h1
f
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
In the closing
was asked to carry out
patterns for the area.
theoretical statement,
explained.
months of the ANAMAX-Rosemont Project, the author
a brief analysis of ceramic period settlement
While this is not the place for an extended
some of the ideas behind the study will be
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
obtained by the project.
project members surveyed
area and discovered over
also influenced by the nature of the data
At various times between 1975 and 1981,
roughly 74.5 square kilometers of contiguous
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.
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).
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
Table 9.1
DISTRIBUTION OF SITES BY VEGETATION TYPE
Site
Category
Vegetation Type
Riparian
Mesic
Xeric
Unknown
Total
Unknown Aboriginal
1
180
6
129 (74.1)
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
29 (16.7)
16 ( 9.2)
1
64
38
9
571
2
1
0
5
Ceramic Period
10
2
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
0
1
1
8
3 (11.1)
2 (7.4)
0
27
-1
1
17
18
19
6
22 (81.5)
0
0
0
_
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
87 (96.7)
2 ( 2.2)
1 ( 1.1)
0
90
Rock Pile
or Cl2ster
Sites
( ) = percent of known vegetation types
21 overlaps with other categories
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
Table 9.2
DISTRIBUTION OF SITES BY TOPOGRAPHIC SETTING
Topographic Setting
Site
Category
Ridgetop
Saddle,
Bench,
Terrace
Slope
25 (13.9)
63 (35.0)
Drainage
Unknown
Total
0
180
Unknown Aboriginal
1
1
74 (41.1)
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
337 (59.0)
66 (11.6)
132 (23.1)
36 ( 6.3)
0
571
0
5
Total
18 (10.0)
Ceramic Period
10
0
4
0
1
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
1
0
8
0
27
0
1
1
102
1
673
0
90
17
18
19
6
20 (74.1)
1
10
1
6 (22.2)
0
0
17 (16.8)
13 (12.9)
401 (59.7)
83 (12.4)
145 (21.6)
Rock Pile or
Cluster
81 (90.0)
Sites 2
5 ( 5.6)
4 ( 4.4)
Grand
Total
percent of known topographic settings
2 overlaps with other site categories
1 ( 3.7)
0
64 (63.4)
(
0
7 ( 6.9)
43
(6.4)
0
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 southcentral Arizona, elevation is clearly related to site density, although
the nature of the relationship is not understood. In the CatalinaRincon 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."
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
Elevation
Site
Category
Up to
4400
44014800
1
48015200
52015600
5601
And up
Unknown
Total
Unknown Aboriginal
1
2
2
1
(
1.3)
61
(
0.9)
40 (36.4)
65
0
88
0
3
4,
5,
8
6
1
(
7
Total
(38.6)
89 (56.3)
15
(
9.5)
1
( 0.6)
12
180
(59.1)
3
(
2.7)
1
( 0.9)
9
119
(60.7)
56 (38.6)
1
( 0.7)
0
5
150
11
(47.8)
12
(52.1)
0
3
26
2.8)
11
(30.6)
12
(33.3)
12
(33.3)
0
2
38
0
15
(25.9)
34 (58.6)
9
(15.5)
0
0
58
226
(41.9)
31
571
4 ( 0.7)
268
(49.6)
0
40 (
7.4)
2
( 0.4)
Ceramic Period
10
12,
0
13
1
(
5.0)
14
0
17
0
18
1
(
3.7)
1
5
16 (42.1)
16
(59.3)
0
2
22
19 (50.0)
3
(
7.9)
0
1
39
0
0
1
8
3.7)
0
0
27
0
0
1
1
5 (
5.2)
0
5
102
7.0)
36
673
1
90
4
9 (33.3)
0
1
(
0
(42.3)
Grand
Total
6 ( 0.9)
267
(42.9)
317
(49.8)
48 (
Rock Pile or
Cluster
Sites 2
I
21
(23.6)
46
(51.7)
21
in feet
overlaps with other site categories
( ) = percent
5
5.0)
41
1
0
(
2.1)
1.1)
0
1
2
(
0
(65.0)
Total
2
(
13
3
0
19
(25.0)
4
49 (50.5)
(23.6)
2
( 0.3)
0
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 onequarter 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,
Table 9.4
SITE LOCATIONS AND DISTANCE TO PERMANENT SPRINGS
Distance to Nearest Permanent Spring
1 - 2 km
2 - 3 km
3 - 4 km
0 - 1 km
2
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
Area in km
* 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.
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 understandably 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
III
IV
I
II
1.3
21.3
18.2
4.8
20.5
0.9
7.5
Percent of Project
Area
1.7
8.6
24.4
6.5
27.5
1.2
10.1
Number of Sites*
2
45
29
4
4
Percent of Sites
2.4
53.6
34.5
4.8
4.8
Area in km 2
V
VII
VI
0
0
* Class 12 - 19 sites of known location; components of sites have been
combined.
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
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.
5200
DRAINAGES WITH MANY SITES
4.5%
5000
5.9%
• 4.2%
4800
*
i SOUTH CANYON
2.7%
3.0%
• 2.5%
.
DAVIDSON
CANYON
4600
5200
130,
77,
105
79
Mouth
End of Study Area
*
2.6%
109
5000—
107
106
4800—
a)
3.2%
*
H
y 3.4
BARREL
2.3%
129 84
4600-
• 2.0%
120
76
CANYON
•
2.3%
116
1.3%
122 113
1.5% *End of
Study Area
z
0
DRAINAGES WITH SOME SITES
2.3% OAK TREE CANYON
5200—
.9 % *
4.5%
A • 2.5°/n.i NORTH OAK TREE CANYON
5000—
1.9%
H
End of Study Area
End of Study Area
5200
4.2%
3.4%
5000
McCLEARY CANYON
3.6%
480
2.5%
4600
* Sites ore between stors
• Change in grode
H Head of drainage
•
Sites
1.7%*
Junction with Barrel Canyon
.
I
I
I
2
MILES
I
3
Figure 9.1 Site location plotted against stream gradient for drainages
in the Rosemont area.
I
4
5600
Head
DRAINAGES WITH NO SITES
5400
H
5600
5400—
5200—
——
5600 Head
z
0
.1 5400
_J
5200
Mouth of West Side Fork,
Sycamore Canyon -North
Start of
Study Area
5000—
Gentlest gradient along
stream within study area
3.4%
Hanna Dam Canyon
(End of Study Area)
4800—
(End of Study Area)
Sycamore Canyon-North
4. 5%
4600—
3.4%
2.5%
4400—
I
I
2
0
'
Mulberry Canyon
(End of Study Area
I
3
MILES
Figure 9.2 Stream gradients for drainages lacking sites in the
Rosemont area.
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
—
C.
\
1.- -- ' s'
•
.
•
/
TN I
(
‘..- — ..". ■
'•'
• '
s
...
S
/
<I
N.......'
'1
♦
•
t 012 ‘..
t , t
I
i
Sites
N.
.....o
o
I
l
oiti
) (1.
'6:c,3
i
O'
Mt
I
q ,(
.4. _ __ Drainages with
3.5`)/0 gradient
0
♦
\
(11 '.
Drainages with
<3.5% gradient
•
' ' :.s % • ......
\ \..,
i
j
11
•
/
I
I
1
I
1
%
..". ... ... N
%,......
...•
k
••
•
,4 .00,6I7
1 \6
, nY 0
• ..,
h olV .0
• ...°
%, SO •" *".4
..... ,.•
oc
•
•
♦
'...t‘
CN
CN
•
t
•0
t
•
• •
•
Si
Cony°0 0
q
on
•
0
6no Dom 6 °
•
•
/6
•
•
• •
•
• oa
•
•
•
,
Noah
•
'Oak
Tree
•
0
on-6
0/
•
oc% • •
ei\
Kilometers
.65
• Co
ConYon
•
No
r 0
co_
Study Area Boundary
Figure 9.3 Distribution of Class 12 through 1.9 sites with respect to stream gradient.
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
Area in km
2
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 ANAMAXRosemont 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.
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—
44%
3600—
3.4%
4.8%
3200—
3
30%
4.9%
38/
' 1.9%
• 3.4 %
3D%
2800—
1.6%
Continues
2400
0
2
Junction with
Bear Canyon
3
4
5
1
6
MILES
Figure 9.4 Site location plotted against stream gradient for three canyons in the Catalina Mountains.
suJ al l ud q u aw a rp l as
4000—
PIMA
CANYON
722
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 information (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
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 treering 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
Site Number and
Feature Descri tion
Associated Pottery
and Estimated Date
Date at 95%
Confidence
Level ( A.D.)
Date at 63%
Confidence
Level ( A.D.)
Best Fit
Interval
NO DATE POSSIBLE
AR001
AZ EE:2:76; hearth (008001)
in Feature 8 pit house
mid-Rincon,
A.D. 1000-1100
AR002
AZ EE:2:77; hearth (001001)
mid-Rincon,
A.D. 1000-1100
700-1340
AR004
AZ EE:2:105; hearth (081001)
early-mid Rincon,
circa A.D. 1000
820-1450
AR003
AZ EE:2:105; hearth (081009)
early-mid Rincon,
circa A.D. 1000
NO DATE POSSIBLE
AR005
AZ EE:2:106; hearth (002001)
late Rincon/early
Tanque Verde,
A.D. 1175-1225
NO DATE POSSIBLE
AR006
AZ EE:2:106; hearth (006002)
late Rincon,
A.D. 1100-1200
NO DATE POSSIBLE
AR007
AZ EE:2:109; hearth (002001)
mid-Rincon,
A.D. 1000-1100
AR008
AZ EE:2:116; hearth (001001)
late Rincon/early
Tanque Verde,
A.D. 1175-1225
AR009
AZ EE:2:129; hearth (002005)
early Rincon,
A.D. 900-1000
1000-1180
1130-1180
1000-1330
1040-1140
1120-1170
1040-1090
NO DATE POSSIBLE
940-1410
1000-1340
1200-1250
UOT S SIID ST(1
AE-Mag
Lab #
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
Feature Description
Associated Pottery
and Estimated Date
A-3300
primary cremation on floor of
Feature 2 pit house; carbonized
pyre member(?); Juglans major
A-3561
Date
(B.P.)
Date
(A.D.)
Calibrated*
Date (A.D.)
no temporally
diagnostic
associations,
A.D. 500-1225
720 + 50
1230 + 50
1225 - 1340
AZ EE:2:106, Feature 2 pit
house; carbonized wall or roof
member found on floor;
Quercus sp.
late Rincon/early
Tanque Verde,
A.D. 1175-1225
870 + 50
1080 + 50
1035 - 1255
A-3562
AZ EE:2:105, Feature 71200 pit
house; carbonized unidentified
structural member found on
floor; Juniperus sp.
Rillito,
A. D. 700-900
1070 + 50
880 + 50
870 - 1050
A-3559
AZ EE:2:76, pit house Floor 1
of Feature 8; carbonized wall(?)
post fragment in place in
posthole; wood genus unknown
Rillito or
earlier,
A. D. 900 or
1070 + 70
880 + 70
770 - 1190
A-3891
AZ EE:2:76, pit house Floor 4 of
Feature 8; outermost preserved
rings (immediately below those
submitted as A-3560) of the in
situ uncarbonized butt of the
middle main roof support post;
Juniperus sp.
mid-Rincon,
A. D. 1000-1100
1250 + 60
700 + 60**
600 - 910
A-3560
AZ EE:2:76, pit house Floor 4 of
Feature 8; outermost preserved
rings of the in situ uncarbonized butt of the middle main
roof support post; Juniperus sp.
mid-Rincon,
A. D. 1000-1100
1360 + 60
590 + 60**
465 - 870
A-3558
AZ EE:2:129, basal levels of
cultural material on west side
of north end of Trench 13; charcoal fragment; wood genus unknown
no clear ceramic
associations;
probably associated
with Archaic chipped
stone pre-A.D. 500
1550 + 190
400 + 190
Lab #
* from Klein and others 1982
** anomalous dates with respect to stratigraphic and ceramic information
55 - 795
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. 11751225), 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. 11501200 (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, identifiable 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
Caiiada
del Oro
Ceramic Styles
ID I U 0100
3
-c
o
-6
(..)
Rincon
Red-on-Brown
0
5,
.._
cn
Rillito
Red-on-Brown
c
o
c.)
C
Sedentary
CC.
"Early" Rincon
Red-on-Brown
<
CP
5+
&-)
-
Middle
Rincon
Late Rincon
Class ic
Tanque Verde
Tucson
Ceramic 1 ypes
Cafada del Oro
Rillito
Early
I
a3
a)
5,
(45
c
0
0
c
ii
o
"Middle" Rincon
Red -on-Brown
"Late" Rincon
Red-on- Brown
Tanque Verde
Red-on-Brown
a:
0
._
0
0)
c)
r
..)
Tanque Verde
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.
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 interpretations 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 functionally 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-bysite 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.
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
a
.7)
Site Number
ci)
4
Chipp e d Sto ne
FREQUENCIES OF ARTIFACT CLASSES AT THE ROSEMONT HABITATION SITES
(I)
a o
a
•1 a
s-,
cc o
a
•,-■ cn
•-■
,--I .6J
7-1 CID
.6.J
.,-1
-1
-,-1
1.1
1-1
4-1
a
0
.,-i -0
4-1 0
a s
0 0
-,
-1
0
a
5-t
0
0 s
Z Q.)
.0
CA
0
I:0
4.)
0
H
-0
0
a
-1
G
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
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
Middle
AZ EE:2:77
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
10
More Than 10,000 Artifacts
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Ground Stone (Percent)
Figure 10.2 Artifact assemblage composition for investigated sites.
100
UOT SSWOsTa
20
Less Than 1,000 Artifacts
70
30
10
From 1,000 to 3,500 Artifacts
•
80
20
100
0
•
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
109
•
106
•
122 ,•104
•116
17
84•
•I20
4007
•I29
I
50
100
150
11
350
200
250
300
Figure 10.3 Average artifact densities within structures at investigated
sites.
UOT SSIIDSTa
Average Artifact Density / m 3
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 contemporaneous 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
53
14
1
9
2
AZ EE 2:105
28
4
53
25
11
7
AZ EE:2:113
12
2
105
43
24
28
2
10
1
21
13
2
2
1
4
AZ EE:2:77
8
AZ EE:2:107
5
AZ EE:2:109
4
AZ EE:2:120
3
AZ EE:1:104
2
AZ EE:2:106
4
AZ EE:1:116
3
AZ EE:2:117*
2
AZ EE:2:122
2
Total
96
1
6
1
1
23
In huma t ions
ro
Pr imary Crema t ions
Co
u
Crem a t ion Dep os its
0
Ba ll c our ts
3.4
5
1
1
1
4
1
1
4
4
1
6
4
2
14
9
3
1
1
1
10
3
6
2
2
3
5
4
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
10
2
3
3
15
262
112
51
40
2
2
2
1
7
*Some of the extramural features tabulated are probably not part of the habitation site.
1
12
11
7
5
1
52
1
22
3
UOT S STIOSTG
AZ EE:2:129*
5
Cac hes : Groun dStone
1
1
3
Borrow Pits
S la b- L ine d Pits
1
16
AZ EE:2'84
Pos t ho les
Roc k- L ine dPits
2
AZ EE:2:76
Stone P la t forms
Roc k C lus te rs
Pit Ho uses
Roas t ing Pit- Hear t hs
NUMBERS OF FEATURES BY TYPE FOR ALL HABITATION SITES
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
Site
Number
Ratio of Extramural
Features to Structures
Number of
Structures
Number of
Extramural
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
AZ EE:2:76
4.4
17
74
AZ EE:2:77
4.4
9
40
AZ EE:2:129
1.0
4
42
AZ EE:2:107
1.2
5
6
AZ EE:2:109
1.0
5
5
AZ EE:2:120
0.6
7
4
AZ EE:2:122
1.5
2
3
AZ EE:2:106
1.2
5
6
AZ EE:1:104
1.0
2
2
AZ EE:2:117
2
0
AZ EE:2:116
3
0
Mixed
1
Middle
Late
2
a group of 10 postholes was counted as 1 extramural feature
excludes noncontemporaneous extramural features
2
750 Alan Ferg
o Early Rincon and Earlier
• Middle Rincon
• Late Rincon /Early Tongue Verde
104
116
117
•
0
109
129 1
106
•
120 •,b 122
76
rr
1050
• •• •
O•
2
4
84
0
113
0
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
752 Alan Ferg
Table 10.6
ATTRIBUTES OF EXCAVATED STRUCTURES
AZ EE:2:105
Rillito
AZ EE:2:76
10 1
8 2a
8 2b
AZ EE:2:105 71200
F
F
+
+
F
+
+
22.4
+
W
+
3+
3.4
W
F
14
5
W
6 1
W
7 1
F
+
25.2
2+
-
+
-
+
24.6
o f Ma in Pos ts
70
145
+
0+
2+
+
3
+
+
-
W
3.4
1
-
W
10.9
0+
-
41
W
18.7
0+
12.5
0
340
-
I
+
+
+
1
2
80
0
293
0
1
-
33
+
1+
F
-
-
24
1+
F
W
6.7
1
+
-
10
W
12.8
0
+
+
15
W
16.3
0
25
F
88
W
91
W
13.2
1
113 6300
W
12.4
1
6200
W
11.8
2
limited-use structure
** F=fragmentary; W=whole
I=inner sill
0=outer sill
En tryway P it
-
+
38
F
26
7.8
18.7
10300
1
-
+
20.4
F
0
23.8
W
10200
+
2
71
+
-
0
2
+
W
W
-
271
10 2
*
30
AZ EE:2:113 6100
29
+
-
3
20
+
+
F
W
Number o f Step s
1
3
+
Rillito/early Rincon
7 1
AZ EE:2:76
*
AZ EE:2:84
1
....
4
W
50 1
E ,
0 .
0
.
. .
.
20.4
3
9
Above—Gr oun d
z
W
29
Excava te d
C
0 0
72
27 1
AZ EE:2:105
Plas tere d
Numbe r o f F loor P its
rg
8.9
•
+
8 1
*
16
AZ EE:2:105
a
25
10 1
Colonial
AZ EE:2:76
a
Floo r Groo ve
Fe a ture Numbe r
Site Numbe r
Canada del Oro
AZ EE:2:76
14
Entryway
Hearth
Floor
+
-
+
0
78
-
4
+
3
+
2+
+
-
-
2
2
22
Discussion 753
Table 10.6, continued
Hearth
V
C
.
,
M
,
i1,
-F'
a
c
0
Z
Rillito/early Rincon,
continued
AZ EE:2:113 10400
F
11
W
17.6
5
-
+
12
W
18.1
4,
-
+
83
W
18.5
2+
86 *
W
4.5
1
AZ EE:2:129
1
AZ EE:2:105
11
W
13
F
1
74
AZ EE:2:76
AZ EE:2:77
AZ EE:2:105
AZ EE:2:129
2
F
U
1
1
F
1
2
F
6
2
F
7
2
W
W
87
0 "0
55
-
+
2
25
2
5
0
+
-
-
+
0
116
2
29
69
U
356-
U
+
+
17.3
5,
13.5
1+
2?
14
93
4
3.4
0
10.0
I
-
+
2
95
W
18.7
3+
-
+
2
9
90
W
3.5
U
+
-
0
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
-
2
110
2
W
16.3
2+
1
W
a
26.3
2+
-
W
+
9.1
1
-
U
W
8.0
W
10.4
1
4
W
8.1
0
31
W
13.9
0
44
W
W
56 '
81
limited-use structure
+
-
2
2
— F=fragmentary; W , whole
-F
+
3
3
105
Iinner sill
0=outer sill.
.
.
U
+
W
71001
cm
0+
10
Early/middle Rincon
AZ EE:2:76
7
AZ EE:2:77
16.5
U
W
+
0
F
2
o
0 0
U
W
60
C
0
0
,
U
9.6
3
50
AZ 5E:2:113
F
W
o
z
0
G
z
U
8
12
<11
Num ber o fMa in Pos ts
W
C
3
0
CV
-G
En tryway Pit
O
-0
-0
Abo ve Gro un d
-0
,
it
Exca va te d
Con dit io
0
Num ber o fStep s
Entryway
0
0
F loor Num ber
Fea ture Num be r
Site Num ber
Floor
70
+
21
-
2
1
17
+
-
0
342
+
+
2
4
1
-
356
2+
4.3
1?
24.6
7+
0
8
754 Alan Ferg
Table 10.6
Canada del Oro
AZ EE:2:76
AZ EE:2:105
Rillito
AZ EE:2:76
w
8.9
1
F
20.4
8
2a
F
8
2b
F
10
1
25
10
AZ EE:2:105 71200
4
Numbe r o f Ma in Pos ts
tn
0 C .
to
Z =
En tryway Pit
P.
3
0
Numbe r o f Step s
0
ti
Abo ve— Groun d
-o
Exca va te d
•
O
Entryway
P las tere d
z
Hearth
Numbe r o fF loor Pits
0
Floor Gr oove
Site Number
Fea tu re Number
Floor
0
3
AZ EE:2:105
la
1
22.4
-
3
2
3.4
29
14
7.8
5
W
25.2
6
1
W
7
1
F
AZ EE:2:105
113
W
2
W
+
+
0
-
2
-
+
2+
-
+
-
+
0+
+
24.6
2+
+
18.7
3
20.4
W
3.4
1
-
10.9
0+
-
41
14
18.7
0+
+
1+
+
12.5
0
F
14
10200
F
10300
F
1
1
26
340
I
-
+
2
80
0
293
0
1
1
+
-
70
145
33
-
+
1+
+
+
24
F
1
W
6.7
1
10
W
12.8
0
15
W
16.3
0
25
F
88
W
91
W
13.2
1
6300
W
12.4
1
6200
14
11.8
2
* limited-use structure
F=fragmentary; W=whole
1=inner sill
0=outer sill
-
+
14
1
0
+
38
6100
+
30
AZ EE:2:76
7
AZ EE:2:84
3+
23.8
50
71
+
+
w
F
1
9
AZ EE:2:113
1
F
14
10
W
271
16
27
W
0 -0
29
W
3
8
o
W
m
20
72
Colonial
AZ EE:2:76
C
0
-
0
78
+
-
4
+
2+
+
+
-
3
2
2
22
nnin
1
El q 1
rn
p
o
4
4
n q 1n ,
I
2
m 1111
q
14
I
i
115
16
FLOOR AREA IN M 2
4
n n 1-1
,n nn in
17
18
11
19
, EH
20
21
p
22
nn
23
24
1
26
FLOOR AREA IN M 2
late Rincon /early Tongue Verde
middle Rincon
0 early Rincon and earlier
proposed boundaries between
structure types
Figure 10.5 Types and temporal associations of structures plotted by floor area.
UOT SST1 3STa
16
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
support posts (Fig. 10.6), three possible structure types
(1) all of the 3.4 to 5.9 square meter structures with no
uprights; (2) all single central post structures; and (3)
with three major posts. The remaining structures with no
two major posts crosscut several of the size classes.
major roof
stand out:
major
all structures
major posts or
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
0
4-
O Structure lacking
entryway
0 Structure locking
conclusive
entryway data
ei) Structure with
"=--1
' floor groove
3(2) Structure with
plastered hearth
cn
Structure with i-u)
(': unplastered
0
`-' hearth
a_
Structure
1--0 lacking hearth cc
0 2_
Structure locking a_
a.
conclusive
hearth data
cn
i _ 7 Estimated
u_
0
occupancy
0
ct
4-6
PIT HOUSES
O
OCDOO
1-3
r
ol
1 0 o oi,/ 0
1
io 0 0 i 0 0 0
1 o o c.Dol
1
PIT HOUSES
4-6
_
UNKNOWN-
00
() C):
2
4
6
00
00 0 O00 00
Oo
0
4
10
7
6-7
LIMITED USE
STRUCTURES
0
oe
3-5
0
0 06 00)
0-
o,
00000ki5
oo
1
7
OC)C1 001
o 000 os
c
0
NUM BE R OFMAIN
6-7
4-6
uoT s sno sTa
with
C) Structure
entryway
12
14
1
16
IB
20
FLOOR AREA (m2)
Figure 10.6 Architectural attributes of structures.
22
24
26
28
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
a
Structural Member
ti
Main Post, 1 of 1
2
1
1 of 2
10
2
1 of 3
1
Wall Post
20
0
a
0
Cercoca rp us
0
0.
a
u
u
Prosop is j u li flora
la
Jug lans m aj or
a
"Un known A "
WOOD IDENTIFICATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL MEMBERS IN PIT HOUSES AT THE ROSEMONT SITES
Total
N
3
1
13
1
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
4
2.8
45.1
Possible Cremation Pyre
(inside house)
1
Unknown
Total
3
22
27
11
1
N
70
44
17
3
%
49.3
31.0
12.0
2.1
1
1
1
64
3
2
2
1
142
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 relative 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 (limiteduse) 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 2 77
Feature -4
AZ EE 1.104
Feature -1
•
AZ EE 2 77
Feature-56
•
a
O Hearth
• Posthole
O Other feature
C
Meters
I
0
2
••I
• • • •
•• •
AZ EE 2 77
Feature -31
d
•
. 0 ••
AZ EE 2 76
Feature -7
e
AZ EE 2 105
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
•
early/middle Rincon phase
Rillito (?) phase
AZ EE 2:76 • Feature 29
AZ EE•2:77 • Feature - 3
middle Rincon phose
late Rincon phose
-
AZ EE 1 . 104
AZ EE . 2 . 107 • Feature-5
0 Hearth
• Posthole
0 Pit
• Wood beam
Ca Rock
3002 Feature number
wb Wood beam
cf
m
Complete flake
Flake
Hommerstone
Mono
5
Sherd
Feature -1
Meters
0
2
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 cooccurrence 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 0 01 0
0
•
1002
•
Unexcavated
•
G
CA
Posthole
Hearth
Rock
1001 Feature number
c
Core
0 Metate
rp
s
Retouched piece
.0
0
2
U
c
Meters
0
0
I
Sherd
Figure 10.10 Examples of limited-use structures.
2
Table 10.8
ATTRIBUTES OF LIMITED-USE STRUCTURES AT ALL SITES
+
?
-
1
6.7
round
10.12
+
+
0
4.4
subrectangular
late Rincon
10.13
+
+
1(+)
5.4
oval
middle Rincon
3 . 35
7
7
7
0
4.5
round
10.12
-
-
Wa ll Pos t ho les
Fea tur e Number
-
15
0
-
13
8
AZ EE:2:8
1
1
1
bone awl, 2 bones,
1 sherd 2 flakes
metate(?)
-
5
AZ EE:2:10
1
1
0
metate, sherds,
hammerstones
+
0
AZ EE:2:120
8-2
1
0(?)
-
-
0(?)
-
-
0
•-■
AZ EE:2:113
86
0
3
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
middle Rincon
10.12
-
AZ EE:2:77
56
0
1(?)
hammerstone
-
2
-
4.3
round
early or middle Rincon
10.9
-
subrectangular
Ca8ada del Oro
3.8
3.35
AZ EE:2:76
AZ EE:2:120
16
7
0
0
0
-
0(?)
0
3.4
0
-
-
0
0
5.9
round
middle Rincon
1 sherd (?)
**
na
-
23
15
3.4
oval
Colonial 7
10.13
-
6(+)
0
3.5
oval
early Rincon
10.13
na
na na
na
na
round?
early Rincon or earlier
3.11
na
na 6
0(?)
na
unknown
middle Rincon
3.3
AZ EE:2:105
30
1
3
AZ EE:2:105
AZ EE:2:105
AZ EE:2:120
90
99
8-1
2
na
na
?
na
na
roasting pit-hearths, possibly intrusive
not applicable
-
?
?
?
?
?
?
-
+
?
?
-
-
?
?
?
?
?
-
-
+
?
?
-
-
-
7
9
9
7
-
-
?
7
7
7
'7
U OT SSTI OST(I
+
?
-
3
Floor Artifacts
Bas ke tma king
-
3.20
1(?)
1
a.
Chi ldb ir t h
3.16
early Rincon
3
7
=
E lder ly Hous ing
early Rincon
round
60
AZ EE:2:113
$4
0
50
a
Ritua l Se c lus ion
round
7.0
AZ EE:2:105
P.
YJ
$.4
Swea t Lo dg e
Br us h K itc he n
3.4
Site Number
a
L
Fig ure Re fer e nce
Age
F loor Pos t ho les
Shape
Pe rmanen t Ha bita t ion
Possible Functions
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 Rock
0
2
1001 Feature number
h
Flammerstone
s Sherd
0
Meters
0
1
2
Figure 10.11 Examples of limited-use structures.
2
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 proscriptions 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 orientation 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: 160162), 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
▪
Discussion 773
Table 10.9
A
Site Number
z
Or ien ta t io n
R i dg e S lop e
0
Ri dg e Widt h (m )
)4-4
Or ie n ta b le Houses
PIT HOUSE ORIENTATION AND RIDGE SLOPE DATA BY SITE
0
w
w
oD
0
c(S (1) -0
U
•
(C)
(24
......,
AZ EE:2:105
16
60
234
3.0
271-145
AZ EE:2:113
7
50
105
6.5
5-110
AZ EE:2:76
8
30
69
9.0
1-70
AZ EE:2:77
5
25
35
2.9
342-17
AZ EE:2:106
4
25
24
2.2
24-48
AZ EE:2:116
3
25
17
5.0
42-59
AZ EE:2:129
3
25
78
1.7
352-70
AZ EE:2:107
4
20
86
8.0
307-33
AZ EE:2:120
2
20
1
2.1
13-14
AZ EE:1:104
2
20
84
2.1
8-92
AZ EE:2:109
4
18
57
0
AZ EE:2:117
1
25
6.3
AZ EE:2:84
1
20
0
AZ EE:2:122
1
20
0
341-38
105 0
60^
50^
• 113
40c
•
•° 30 —
• 76
rc
106 77
•
116••
E
3
E
0
20
120
•129
104 .•
•
N. No of House Pits
• — 7-16
• — 4 -5
• — 2-3
109
10 —
1
30
60
90
1
120
1
150
1
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, rightangle 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;
Close, facing entryways unacceptable;
Pit house 2 facing winds unacceptable
Seperation of facing entryways
acceptable;
Pit house 2 facing upslope and possibly
intruding cemetery area unacceptable.
•d
Entryway orientations acceptable;
Pit houses 2 and 3 facing winds
unacceptable.
Entryway orientations acceptable;
Orientation to winds acceptable.
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 2109
EE 2107
EE 2.113
270°
.0°
—190°
270°
ISO°
MO°
EE 2.105
EE 2 120
EE,2106
EE2 , 77
270°
90°
M*
100 °
EE 1 104
EE 2.116
270°i-
EE•264
0°
EE2 117
EE.2.122
90°
270 °
-->
D ∎ rectJon of ridge long axis
EOrber hOuSe
LOter houSe
--- Both earl. Ond toter houSee
270°
90°
2
Two house ,some direction
0°
Magnet, north
0°
Figure 10.14 Relationships of pit house entryway orientations and
ridge orientations. Sites are grouped roughly by time.
0°
778 Alan Ferg
had priority over which aspects of the cultural environment is unclear.
Another weak point in this speculation is the postulated "arc" arrangements 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 attributable 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
Permanent Habitation Area
Ridge Alignment
(upslope-downslope)
Trash Slope
Location"
SW - NE
AZ EE:2:76
cremations: downslope, NE edge
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
inhumations: downslope, NW edge
S - N
E, N, W
AZ EE:2:77
cremations:
S - N
E, N, W
AZ EE:2:107
cremations: downslope, N edge
inside at E edge
inhumations:
SSE - NNW
E, E, W
S - N
E, E, W
downslope, N edge
AZ EE:2:109
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
* Slope listed first has highest concentration of trash.
UOT S ST1D STa
Site Number
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
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
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-onred 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
E m
o
.._o 4-4
o
E O
.--1-1
C.r) ■-1
o
1-4
O 0
x
Ps1
cn Z
$.4
H
To ta l
To ta l
De cora te d S he r ds
To ta lS her ds
INTRUSIVE CERAMIC COUNTS COMPARED WITH TOTALS OF DECORATED SHERDS AND ALL SHERDS
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
AZ EE:1:104
—
26 2
—
26.8 2
—
—
26
97
214
Intrusives
;..1
co
E
z
co
00
•-I
(n
w
—14.., .,--1>
o
w 0
o $4
W
P-1
CO
o
w
co
0
0
2
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
53 3
73
—
60
1,218
2,557
Early Rincon or earlier
AZ EE:2:84
8.5
26
—
26
305
619
256
2,921
8,167
9
222
2,694
15,667
11
225
2,573
8,452
—
8
408
1,069
AZ EE:2:113
8.8
144
AZ EE:2:105
8.2
186
8.8
186
2.0
8
Mixed
AZ EE:2:76
AZ EE:2:129
3
68
3
27
3
28
—
3
44
3
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
4.9
4.0
17.2
100.0
99.1*
100.0
100.0
N = 225
N = 224*
N = 256
N = 60
Trincheras
Total
* 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 proportionately 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: 212213; 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
-o
a
JJ
a
a
4.,
cn
no
c
-,--1
,--4
a
a
0
fetuses/infants
C
3
o
0
..0
.--1
a
.1.1
o
P
M ixe d w it h
Crema t ion
-o
a
x
CREMATIONS
Ex te n de d- -
adults/adolescents
1
2
secondary deposits
Inve r te d Urn
INHU TIONS
o
E4
primary
c
3
—4
0
4-1
1
late Rincon
2
1
2
2
2
early Rincon
1
4
2
3
10
1
1
Rillito
Canada del Oro
2
unknown
1
1
Total
6
6
1
2
2
2
3
17
4
4
2
2
1
9
5
1
1
3
10
2
3
2
1
8
2
7
3
3
11
2
2
3
2
1
2
N=23 (22 interments), or approximately 30 percent of all burials
N=51 (53 deposits), or approximately 70 percent of all burials
1
6
25
13
5
2
13
7
50
uo Ts sn osTa
middle Rincon
794 Alan Ferg
Table 10.14
CREMATION DATA
0
0
Pu*
0W
u A E
W
1, >,
wz
OF
5
Site Number
Associated Vessels
Other Associated
Artifacts
Age of
Individual
unworked hematite ?
adult
IU
Rillito red-on-brown
4001
U
Rillito red-on-brown jar
4002
P
plain ware jar
AZ EE:2:76 1
subadult
sandstone slab cover
Rincon red-on-brown, Style A bowl ?
Rincon red-on-brown, Style A jar ?
plain ware miniature jar ?
5
Rillito red-on-brown bowl
adult
subadult
Weight
(grams)
531
60
127
3
158
shell bracelet fragment
shell pendant fragment
16003
P
22
p
32
U
35
P
44
U
Rincon red-on-brown jar
Rincon red-on-brown, Style B bowl
45
P
46
-
2 plain ware vessels ?
shell bracelet fragment,
48
47
U
plain ware jar
Santa Cruz red-on-buff bowl
271
49
P
51
U
52
P
122 shell disk beads
2
53
P
11 plain ware sherds
6
64
492
Caffada del Oro red-on-brown bowl
131
1 red-on-brown bowl sherd
5 plain ware jar sherds
shell bead/pendant
infant (1-2 yr.)
50
17
30
382
Rincon red-on-brown, Style A jar
54
P
1 shell disk bead
adult
299
55
e
1 shell disk bead
1 retouched piece
adult
177
56
U
Cafiada del Oro red-on-brown jar
plain ware miniature jar
plain ware miniature bowl
4 shell disk beads
infant (1-3 yr.)
L. elatum fragment
57001
P
64
P
65
P
68
P
AZ EE:2:77 22
P
2 red ware bowl sherds
plain ware jar
2 plain ware jar sherds
3 core-hammerstones
10 rocks
45
139
adult
151
subadult
4
subadult ?
4
1
23001/ P
52
40
U
Rincon red-on-brown, Style B bowl
Sacaton red-on-buff bowl
44003
P
Galiuro (?) red-on-brown bowl
7
Sacaton red-on-buff bowl
54
adult ?
879
34
3
-
•
Discussion 795
Table 10.14, continued
CREMATION DATA
0
0
1.
.1.J
ME
W 0
Z
5.
Site Number
AZ EE:2:84
1+
7
a,
M
C
S
1. ›.
U E
U
Associated Vessels
Other Associated
Artifacts
plain ware jar
Rincon red-on-brown, Style A bowl
AZ SE:2:105 28
neonate
unworked hematite ?
41013 51
Age of
Individual
subadult
Weight
(grams)
7
154
adult
59
830
U
Ca8ada del Oro red-on-brown jar
4 rocks around pit lip
adult
7001
U
Rincon red-on-brown, Style B jar
red-on-brown bowl
plain ware jar
red-on-brown bowl
bowl awl/hairpin
adult
1378
7002
U
Rincon red-on-brown, Style B jar
bone awl/hairpin
5 shell bracelets
Glycymeris pendant
1 or 2 shell pendants
adult
869
plain ware bowl
local slate palette
adult
112
80
subadult
AZ EE:2:113 1
4
7001
63
P
29
62
unworked gypsum ?
1 Sacaton red-on-buff
sherd ? mixed with rocks
IU
Sacaton red-on-buff
Rincon red-on-brown, Style A 2 bowls ?
quartz crystal ?
plain ware bowl ?
IU
plain ware seed jar
bighorn humerus (proximal
fragment)
flake ?
70
80
Galiuro red-on-brown bowl
plain ware jar
81
U
Trincheras Purple-on-red
Rillito red-on-brown bowl
partial plain ware jar
whole (?) plain ware jar
83015 -
plain ware bowl ?
84
IU
107001 P
red-on-brown bowl ?
147
IU
plain ware jar
160/
164
P
Galiuro red-on-brown bowl
Rincon red-on-brown, Style A bowl
AZ EE:2:120 8001
P
9
AZ EE:2:122 2001
49
Pecten valve pendant
projectile point ?
10
adult
290
adult
infant
472
22
adult
154
adult
377
child (6-7 yr.)
107
child
4
adult
185
core
5 red-on-brown sherds ?
5 plain ware sherds ?
298
child (2-6 yr.)
PC
P = pit; U = urn (bowl or jar); IU = inverted urn
adult
11
859
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.
i
e
95-"4
•
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 rockcovered 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
Feature
Number
Age of
Individual
AZ EE:2:52
1
adult
AZ EE:2:76
21
fetus/neonate
AZ EE:2:76
46
adult
F
AZ EE:2:76
56
adult
F?
Sex
Age
F?
Position
Orientation
Grave Goods
Temporal Placement
Rocks
Cover Fill
flexed
SW*-NE
2 "toggles"
?
S-N
partial jar,
40-50
seated
S-N
-
50+
flexed
NE-SW
1 shell pendant
35 shell disk beads
Canada del Oro
(see F.56 cremation)
Canada del Oro
-
flexed
NW-SE
124 shell disk beads
Canada del Oro
-
early/middle Rincon
+
plain ware cover
AZ EE:2:76
56
infant
1-2
AZ EE:2:76
67
child
5-6
AZ EE:2:77
1003
fetus/neonate
extended?
ENE-WSW
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
AZ EE:2:105
51
fetus/neonate
AZ EE:2:107
9
adult
M
35-50
flexed
E-W
bone hairpin,
AZ EE:2:107
10
adult
F?
25-35
seated
SW-NE
2 shell pendants
AZ EE:2:107
15
young adult
F
16-19
flexed
NNW-SSW
seated
SE-NW
(see F.51
AZ EE:2:113
2
adult
M
50-60
AZ EE:2:113
3
adult
M?
40+
AZ EE:2:113
15
adult
F
40-50
cremation)
handstone
Canada del Oro
middle Rincon
middle Rincon
seated
SW-NE
16
adult
M
40-50
seated
W-E
AZ EE:2:113
25
adult
M
35-45
kneeling
W-E
AZ EE:2:113
52
adult
M
50+
seated
SW-NE
AZ EE:2:113
53
adolescent
13-16
flexed
S-N
AZ EE:2:113
72
adult
AZ EE:2:113
165
child
AZ EE:2:113
165
adult
kneeling?
F?
* head to this direction for left entries in this column
+ = present
- = absent
-
middle Rincon
AZ EE:2:113
5
+
metate
?
+
?
+
+
+
UOT SST1OSTQ
Site
Number
800 Alan Ferg
b
•
14, 113
URI AL
= FS 2
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
Ea r ly Tanq ue Ve r de
La te R inco n
O4
M i dd le Rin con
0
Ea r ly Rincon
Excavated
Site Number
Ca na da de l Or o
ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF PIT HOUSES AND LIMITED—USE STRUCTURES
BY TIME PERIOD
a
0
Large
AZ EE:2:105
6/0
1
10/2
12/2
32
3/0
3/0
3/0
5/0
3/1
Medium
AZ EE:2:76
4/1
AZ EE:2:77
AZ EE:2:113
1/0
6/0
AZ EE:2:129
2/0
16
9
14
6/1
2/0
1/0
4
1/0
Small
4
3/1
AZ EE:2:84
AZ EE:2:106
3/1
AZ EE:2:107
5/0
5
AZ EE:2:109
4/1
5
AZ EE:2:116
1/0
AZ EE:2:117
AZ EE:2:120
2/0
2
7
2
2
2/0
Unexcavated Sites
11
19
Total Structures
2
3
2/0
AZ EE:1:104
Total Pit Houses
2/0
3/4
AZ EE:2:122
1
5
1/0
6/2
24/10
12/2
14/0
70
37
43
21
21
152
180
pit houses/limited—use structures
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
Floor Area in m
Minimum
Maximum
Average
Period or
Phase
Sample
Size
Colonial
12
7.8
25.2
17.9
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
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
Middle Rincon
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
•(.1) Pt
Q
50
50
rt 0
40
40
I—'
rt
(D
0- Pt
0
C
Gt
r
I—.
(1)
11
rt
Abso lute Nu mbe r
H.
H. crQ
0 0
frt
CD
CD
2a a3 irew 80 8
60
30
20
ft) Cr)
10
0
frh (1g
rt
"0 0
rt r1"
Caiiada del Oro
O pu
G 0
Caiada del Oro
Rillito/Early Rincon Middle Late Rincon
Rincon / Tanque Verde
Rillito/Early Rincon Middle Late Tanque
Rincon Rincon Verde
CI) (1,
Cf) (1,
Cr'
n
rt
H. CD
5
ro o
rt
frt
H. fD
a
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
.
• o
(.1)
co
B
0
rt
(1)
-0
0
Pa
rt
0
CaFiada del Oro
Rillito
Early Middle Late Rincon
Rincon Rincon /Tongue Verde
Caiiada del Oro
Rillito
Tanque
Middle Late
Early
Rincon Rincon Rincon Verde
113
113
•
113
.
•
129
105
105•
0
84
105e
• 77
76•
76 •
76 •
early RINCON
RILLITO
CANADA DEL ORO
122
129
129
117
•
• 77
• 116
• 116
(
EE 1:104
• 120
• I06
0 106
• I07
• 109
middle RINCON
late RINCON
early TANQUE VERDE
Figure 10.18 Distribution of habitation sites by time period in the Rosemont area. Dot sizes
reflect relative site size.
UOT S ST13STa
76 ■6
76*
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 multiplecourt 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
Period or
Phase
2
Pit House floor Area (m )
Other Sites
AZ EE:2:105
8.9
Canada del Oro phase
20.4
Rillito phase
22.4
Colonial period
25.2
24.6
18.7
23.8
7.8
12.5
Rillito/early Rincon phase
20.4
10.9
18.7
13.2
9.6
16.5
12.8
16.3
12.4
11.8
17.6
18.1
18.5
Early Rincon phase
17.3
13.5
10.0
18.7
16.1
13.9
13.5
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 overexploitation 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 twopit 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 occupation 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 paleoenvironmental 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 ANAMAXRosemont 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 whitetailed 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
Taxon
Burning 2
% N
1
MNI(max)
MNI(min)
leporid, gen. et sp. indet.
jack rabbit or cottontail
3
+
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
+
Neotoma albigula
white-throated wood rat
1
+
0
1/1
Urocyon cinereoargenteus
gray fox
1
+
0
1/1
22
5
8
38
2/0
4
+
1
25
2/1
artiodactyl, indet.
deer, pronghorn or bighorn
cervid, indet.
0/0
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.
832 Margaret Glass
Elements
Taxon
1
Burning 2
MNI(max)
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
Appendix A 833
Elements
Taxon
Burning 2
N
%
1
MNI(max)6
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
Urosaurus dorsalis
tree lizard (?)
442
4
unidentified large mammal
Site Total
1
1/1
1
444
1
2
3
as an independent unit
using only bone from features
4
from flotation
834 Margaret Glass
Table A.3
Taxon
Lepus californicus
black-tailed jack rabbit
Elements
1
N
7.
Burning 2
Z N
MNI(max)
MNI(min)
10
18
1
Sylvilagus sp.
cottontail
5
10
0
artiodactyl, indet.
deer, proghorn or bighorn
6
11
2
33
0/0
Odocoileus spp.
1
2
1
100
1/0
O. cf. O. hemionus
mule deer
5
10
0
white-tailed deer
5
10
1
proghorn or bighorn
1
2
0
10
18
5
50
8
15
1
13
5
10
5
100
unidentified animal
1
2
0
Excavated Total
Recovered from flotation
Site Total
2
10
7/2
4/2
1/1
20
5/1
1/1
53
2
55
3
Appendix A 835
Table A.4
Elements
Taxon
Burning,
70 4
1
MNI(max)
MNI(min)
Lepus californicus
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
2
6
0
24
68
2
Site Total
35
8
2
3 MNI(max) = minimum number of individuals determined for each feature
3 MNI(min) = minimum number of individuals for the site as a whole,
836 Margaret Glass
Table A.5
Taxon
Elements
1
%
N
Burning 2
% N
MNI(max)
MNI(min)
24
+
6
25
0/0
Lepus alleni
18
+
6
33
8/3
Lepus californicus
343
9
72
20
39/11
Sylvilagus sp.
cottontail
149
4
39
26
24/10
rodent, indet.
1
Spermophilus variegatus
rock squirrel
0/0
14
2
14
8/4
small sciurid indet.
3
1
33
3/1
Thomomys sp.
pocket gopher
3
Thomomys bottae
Vally pocket gopher
2
Perognathus sp.
pocket mouse
1
large Dipodomys sp.
kangaroo rat
small Dipodomys sp.
kangaroo rat
+
0
2/0
0
2/1
+
0
1/1
23
+
0
1/1
3
+
0
1/1
1
Appendix A 837
Elements
Taxon
1
Burning 2
MNI(max)4
MNI(min)
Neotoma sp.
wood rat
7
0
carnivore, indet.
5
1
canid, gen. et sp. indet.
fox, dog, wolf, or coyote
1
0
1/0
Canis sp
dog, wolf, or coyote
4
0
3/1
gray fox
8
Felis sp.
mountain lion or jaguar
2
Lynx rufus
bobcat
artiodactyl, indet.
3/0
37
3/1
+
1
50
2/1
1
+
0
175
5
94
53
4/0
14
70
1/0
61
62
1/2
8
1
12
4/1
37
12
32
10/2
20
Odocoileus sp.
97
white-tailed deer
+
20
3
cervid, indet.
O. cf. O. hemionus
mule deer
+
4/2
2
1/1
1
2
3
838 Margaret Glass
Taxon
pronghorn
Elements
1
N
%
43
Ovis canadensis
bighorn
3
6
pronghorn or deer
bighorn or deer
1
+
+
Burning
2
N
%
MNI(max)
MNI(min)
16
37
7/2
2
100
2/1
4
66
1/0
15
+
9
60
0/0
4
+
4
100
0/0
594
17
214
36
0/0
unidentifed large mammal
1093
31
579
52
0/0
571
16
214
37
0/0
62
1
18
29
3339
95
may include human
Mammal Total
Buteonine
1
+
0
0/0
Buteo sp.
2
+
0
0/0
Buteo jamaicensis
red-tailed hawk
2
+
0
2/2
7
0
2/0
Buteo swainsoui
Swainson's hawk
2
1
2/1
2
Appendix A 839
Elements
Taxon
N
Aquila chrysaetos
golden eagle
1
Callipepla sp. or
Cyrtonyx montezumae
quail
1
Cyanocitta stelleri or
Aphelocoma coerulescens
Steller's Jay or Scrub jay
1
raptor, indeterminate
%1
Burning
%
N
MNI(max)
MNI(min)
1/1
0
1/1
+
0
1/1
2
+
0
1/0
bird, unid.
1
+
0
0/0
Aves Total
20
0
1/1
Pituophis melanoleucus Daudin
bullsnake
1
Crotaphytus collaris Say
collared lizard
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
1/1
0
2
840 Margaret Glass
Taxon
Elements
1
%
N
Burning 2
% N
Terrapene ornata
ornate box turtle
7
0
MNI(max)
MNI(min)
1/1
22
Unidentified Animal
Excavation Total
Flotation Total
Site Total
2
85
4
0
3466
28
+
3494
Appendix A 841
Table A.6
Taxon
Elements
1
N
%
Burning 2
MNI(max)
MNI(min)
38
1
10
7
+
0
Lepus californicus
373
15
46
12
42/15
Sylvilagus sp.
cottontail
105
4
14
13
22/1
rodent, indet.
3
rock squirrel
7
small squirrel indet.
1
Thomomys sp.
pocket gopher
7
Sigmodon sp.
coton rat
1
Neotoma sp.
wood rat
9
0
carnivore, indet.
6
1
17
0
Lepus alleni
Canis sp.
dog, wolf, or coyote
26
0/0
3/1
0
1/0
+
0
4/2
+
0
1/1
0
5/4
+
1/1
6/3
16
1/0
5/0
1
2
3
842 Margaret Glass
Burning
2
%
N
MNI(max)
MNI(min)
Taxon
Elements
l
N
gray fox
8
Perognathus sp.
pocket mouse
2
+
0
2/ 2
small fox, indet.
1
+
0
0/0
artiodactyl, indet.
+
3
37
25
3/1
4/0
118
5
30
cervid, indet.
10
+
1
Odocoileus sp.
59
2
29
49
3/4
O. cf. O. hemionus
mule deer
13
+
3
23
6/2
white-tailed deer
19
5
26
6/2
pronghorn
35
7
20
9/ 4
Ovis canadensis
bighorn
1
7
pronghorn or deer
bighorn or deer
+
1
+
+
1/0
1
1/1
0
1/0
17
+
4
2
+
0
23
1/0
0/0
1
3
Appendix A 843
Taxon
Elements
N
%1
Burning 2
N
%
MNI(max)
MNI(min)
small mammal
447
19
99
22
1/0
large mammal
635
27
177
28
0/0
266
11
74
27
0/0
73
3
50
68
0/0
may include human
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
....
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
2
3
844 Margaret Glass
Elements
Taxon
Phyronosoma solare
regal horned lizard
1
1
Burning 2
% N
MNI(max)
MNI(min)
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
Excavation Total
Flotation Total
Site Total
18
0
2314
31
2345
1
2
Appendix A 845
Table A.7
Elements
Taxon
Burning 2
% N
1
MNI(max)
MNI(min)
Lepus californicus
3
Sylvilagus sp.
cottontail
1
0
1/1
Thomomys sp.
pocket gopher
1
0
1/1
gray fox
1
2
66
1/1
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.
4
4
100
1/0
O. cf. O. hemionus
..._
mule deer
1
+
1
100
1/1
64
21
3
5
52
17
22
42
17
6
3
18
Site Total
+
1
301
3
Table A.8
Elements
71
N
2
AZ EE'2.106
MNI(max)/
Burning
N
MNI(min)3
11
50
Elements
N
%I
1
2
6
0
50
2/1
6
1
AZ EE!2:120
Burning
MNI(max)/
%2 MNI(min) 3
N
17
0
1
17
1
1
17
0
17
1
33
0
Elements
N
%1
AZ EE:2,116
Burning
MNI(max)/
N
7. 2 MNI(min) 3
100
1/1
1
13
0
1
13
0
4
50
0
1
13
0
1/1
1/1
Sylvilagus sp.
cottontail
Artiodactyl, indet.
deer, pronghorn, or bighorn
Elements
N
%I
1/0
Lepus californicus
L. alleni
AZ EE:2,107
Burning
MNI(max)/
N
% 2 MNI(min) 3
SSETO
Taxon
100
1/1
1/1
Cervidae
deer
Odocoileus cf. O. hemionus
mule deer
25
0
1/1
white-tailed deer
Unidentified small mammal
2
11
0
Unidentified large mammal
11
61
11
6
0
Mammal, size indeterminate
2
100
1
25
SITE TOTAL
18
100
1/1
0
Sceloporus clarki
spiny lizard
4
I percent of site 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
6
lare alUN
AZ EE 2 06, AZ EE-2.107, AZ EE.2 120, AND AZ EE.2.116 FAUNAL REMAINS:
8
1/1
Table A.9
AZ EE:1:104, AZ EE:2:52, AZ EE:2:79, AND AZ EE:2:109 FAUNAL REMAINS:
AZ EE:1:104
Elements
N
%1
Burning
N
AZ EE:2:52
MNI(max)
MNI(min)
Elements
N
7. 1
Burning
.42
N
AZ EE:2:79
MNI(max)
MNI(min)
Elements
N
%I
Lepus californicus
black—tailed jack rabbit
Sylvilagus sp.
cottontail
1
100
0
Unidentified small mammal
1
100
1
100
Unidentified large mammal
Unidentified animal
SITE TOTAL
1
1
AZ EE:2:109
MNI(max)
MNI(min)'
6
0
1/1
6
0
1/1
1
6
0
1/1
2
11
0
12
67
8
1
6
0
1/1
pronghorn
Burning
N
%2
18
Elements
%1
1
100
Burning
N
0
MNI(max)/
MNI(min) 3
1/1
67
1
1 percent of site total
3 MNI(max) = minimum number of individuals determined by feature
v. xTpuaddv
MNI(min) = minimum number of individuals for the site as a whole, using only bone from features
848 Margaret Glass
Table A.10
DISTRIBUTION OF IDENTIFIED AND UNIDENTIFIED BONE AMONG SITES
Site
Number
Total
Bone
Number (%) of Bones
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 graybrown 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
Appendix A 851
100
% R EPR ESENTATION
80
60
40
20
CR M
ST V RI
I
F TI
Fl CaT SC H RA U MP PH
ELEMENTS
Figure A.1 Representation of gray fox elements.
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 opportunistically. 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 archaeological 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
Ca lcaneum
W
a
m
W
W
m
.....4
=
o
a,
m
.1-/
W
z
1
61
2
82
1
53
1
1
4
13
20
1
13
1
2
2
7
2
Small Dipodymys
Neotoma sp.
1
44 1
42
2
2
1
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
31
6
20
10
8
14
1
8
2
18
1
1
1
23
3
Sigmodon sp.
4
0
H
11
11
1
Perognathus sp.
Large Dipodymys
,-.4
4J
5
2
1
Total
$4
w
11
11
Thomomys sp.
ca
I—I
r--1
CU
•ri
..0
1
4
Note: superscripts indicate the number of fragmentary elements (less than 50%)
10
2
1
88
xTp ua ddy
Small sciurid
Innom ina te
4
Ve r te bra
Rodent
Mandi ble
Taxon
Iso la te d too t h
ELEMENT REPRESENTATION OF RODENT TAXA FROM
AZ EE:2:76, AZ EE:2:105, AND AZ EE:2:113
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
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
Total
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 kilocalories 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 contributions 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
DIGESTIBLE ENERGY AVAILABLE FROM LAGOMORPH AND ARTIODACTYL TAXA
FROM AZ EE:2:76, AZ EE:2:105 AND AZ EE:2:113
Available Kilocalories2
a.)
>
•,- 1
4-J
al
0
X
...-,
a
4.-i
1-) ,-i
.4 --,
OD •
Taxon
a3 ,--1
a 0 w
X 3 ,---
—,
w „o
0
i3--,'
ai
u)
..0
•r.,
.--i
.,,,..-,
X
a S-■ al
..--,
al
w W-4
W 0 U
•-I
la) W
,r)
0
.-4
,-,)
..--4
.--i
..
C■I
••
C ,,I
—4 W
al
,-- ∎ W
cc!
+.0
f---..
0
CV
••
X
w
;.Q
U N
w
0 N
x<
x <
u-1
c_)
N
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
952.6
70
1,400.3
2,800.6
14,003.0
12,602.7
31,806.4
69,680.8
68,974.3
165,937.0
343,874.0
Sylvilagus sp.
Lagomorph Total
—
Odocoileus sp.
56,700.0
72.2
85,968.5
O. cf. O. hemionus
68,040.0
72.2
103,162.3
103,162.3
103,162.3
206,324.6
45,360.0
72.2
68,774.8
68,774.8
137,549.6
137,549.6
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
352,127.1
659,052.4
1,084,569.8
Artiodactyl Total
'values taken from Bayham (1982)
2 based on minimum number of individuals
Note: 1 lb = 453.6g; 100g. meat = 210 kilocalories
ss ui p l aa aa vw
Table A.13
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
2
2
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
% REP RES EN TATION
80
60
40
20
M RI
I
F TI CA SC H RA U MP PH
ELEMENT REPRESENTATION-Lepus sp.
100
% REP RESE NTATI ON
80
60
40
20
I
M RI
T
I
I
I
I
I T I
I
I
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 Margaret Glass
% REPRESENTATION
80
60
40
20
M ST V RI I F TI CA A SC H RA U MP PH
ELEMENT REPRESENTATION- Lepus sp.
% REPRESENTATI ON
100
80
60
40
20
M ST V RI I F TI CA A SC H RA U MP PH
ELEMENT REPRESENTATION- Sy/vi/opus sp.
%REPR ESEN TATION
Appendix A 863
M ST V RI I F T CA SC H RA U MP PH
ELEMENT REPRESENTATION—Lepus sp.
`Yo R EPRESEN TATIO N
80
60
40
20
M ST V RI I F T CA SC H RA U MP PH
ELEMENT REPRESENTATION—Sy/vi/opus sp.
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 representation 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
°/0 E LEME N TR EP R ESEN TATION —Lepus sp.
Appendix A 865
.2
.6
.8
1.00
°A3 ELEMENT REPRESENTATION — Sy/w/agus sp.
r=.8, y=.85x-.0I
Figure A.5 Comparison of Lepus and Sylvilagus element representation
at AZ EE:2:105.
866 Margaret Glass
• SC
% ELEMENT REPR ESENTATION— Lepus sp.
1.00—
.8—
.6• CA
.4-
•H
•RA
•F
.2-
.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 underrepresentation 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
.30 -
65
.20 -
0
w
}—
SSTO
_
Ln
301E 2IEN
.40 -
•Sc
CO
....1
<
.7.)
0
CT)
.10 -
w
ct
0
-
-
.10 -
-
I
.30
1
-.20
I
-.10
I
0
I
.10
.20
1
.30
1
.40
1
.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
2r 60
1--
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 fiberwrapped 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
°/0 RE P RESE N TATI ON
80
60
40
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 postdepositional 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 distribution 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 postdepositional processes structuring the faunal record. With respect to
postdepositional activity, special note must be taken of the relationship 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
%ELE ME NTSFUS ED
o
ve
80
LL
z
60
■
o°.
1
40
LL
20
2
I
2
3
3
AGE GROUPS
FUSION GROUPS
Lepus sp.
Lepus sp.
%EL EM E N TSFUS ED
100
80
IL
z
60
o
0
40
o
U)
20
LL
I
2
FUSION GROUPS
Sylvilogus sp.
3
I
2
3
AGE GROUPS
Sylvilagus sp.
Figure A.10 Fusion groups and age groups for leporids at AZ EE:2:105.
Appendix A 875
100
EL EMEN TSFUSED
ax
80
U_
z
60
o
x
40
U_
20
z
2
I
2
3
3
AGE GROUPS
Lepus sp.
FUSION GROUPS
Lepus sp.
% ELEM EN TS FUS ED
100
Ox
UJ
80
U)
U_
z
60
1
40
U.1
U)
U_
20
z
a2
1
2
FUSION GROUPS
Sylvilagus sp.
3
2
3
AGE GROUPS
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 interpretation. 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
(CERV) V
(CERA
(THOR) V I
(THOR) V
(THOM
RI-
(WW1)
(LUMB) V
1
I -
F-
(DI)
F-
(DI)
(PR)
in
Ti -
ELEM ENTS
(DI)
F
(PR)
TI -
(DI)
(DI)
TI
SCH
H-
A
CA
T
SC
(PR) RA
(DI)
TI
CA
ELEM E
T-
SC
(PR)
(PR)
H
(01)
(DI)
H
H
(PR) RA
(PR) RA
RA
F
(DI)
A
CA
(DI)
(PM
(PR) TI
A-
(PR)
F
ELE ME NTS
(PR)
(PR) T1
vr1.11.
RI
RI
(LUMB) V
ss ei o l a xe B.z. -eysi
(CERV) V -
(DI)
RA
(DI) RA -
(PR)
U-
(PR)
(PR)
(DI)
U-
(DI)
(DI) U
(PR) MP
(PR) MP
(PR) W
(DI)
(DI)
(DI)
C-
MP
PH
MP
PH
20
40
b0
% REPRESENTATION
Figure A.12
80
100
MP
PH
20
40
60
REPRESENTATION
Figure A.13
80
100
20
40
60
80
% REPRESENTATION
Figure A.14
Figures A.12-A.14 Artiodactyl element representation at AZ EE:2:76, 105, and 113, respectively.
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
882 Margaret Glass
.80 -
% ELEMENT REPR ESEN TATI ON
60 -
40-
••
20- •
• ••
•
•
•
•
••
•
10
1
16
1.2
11
14
BONE DENSITY
r=.63
Figure A.15 Comparison of artiodactyl element representation and bone
density at AZ EE:2:105.
.80 -
%ELEMENTREPRES ENTATI ON
.60 -
.40-
.20
• •
•
• •
•
•.
•
110
1.2
•
I
I
1.4
1.6
BONE DENSITY
rr .26
Figure A.16 Comparison of artiodactyl element representation and bone
density at AZ EE:2:113.
Appendix A 883
1.00
FRAGMENTATION
80 -
60
40
.20
RI
TI
A CA T SC H RA U
C MP PH
ELEMENTS
FRAGMENTATION
Figure A.17 Fragmentation indices of artiodactyl elements at AZ EE:2:105.
TI A CA T SC H RA U
C MP PH
ELEMENTS
Figure A.18 Fragmentation indices of artiodactyl elements at AZ EE:2:113.
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 interpretation 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
pit houses from AZ EE:2:105, and three pit houses from AZ
Table A.16 gives numbers and percentages of bird bones in
number of bones for each site, and in the number of bones
or below, the order level.
EE:2:76, seven
EE:2:113.
the total
identified at,
Table A.16
NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES FOR BIRD BONES FROM ALL SITES
AZ EE:2:76
Total bird bone
3
Percentage of all bone
0.6
Total identified
below order level
3
Percentage of all bone
identified below order
2.7
AZ EE:2:105
20
0.5
17
1.6
AZ EE:2:113
7
0.1
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 postdepositional 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
Number
Feature
Number
AZ EE:2:76
7
AZ EE:2:84
15
AZ EE:2:105
AZ EE:2:113
nonfeature
5
13
41
71
81
6
7
52
152
AZ EE:2:116
2
Taxon
Element
Urosaurus dorsalis
dentary
Terrapene ornata
hypoplastron
Crotalus atrox
Crotaphytus collaris
Pituophis melandencus
Gopherus agassizi
Cnemidophorus burti
Terrapene ornata
vertebra
dentary
vertebra
carapace
dentary
carapace
Crotalus atrox
Crotalus scutulatus
Crotalus scutulatus
Crotalus scutulatus
Phrynosoma solare
Masticophis sp.
vertebra
vertebra
vertebra
vertebra
crania
vertebra
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
be considered to
exception may be
AZ EE:2:113. The
contain any taxa
remains just described, indicate that most of them can
be modern and natural intrusions. One possible
a burned C. atrox vertebra from Feature 6 at
herpetofauna recovered from excavations does not
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)
Description
Feature 169
Total length from condyle
process to Infradentale
115.6(L)
Length: angular processInfradentale
116.0(L)
Length from indentation
between condyle and angular
process-Infradentale
110.7(L)
Specimen
Feature 60 Feature 12
Length: condyle-aboral border 110.0(L)
of canine alveolus
Length from indentation
between condyle and angular
process-aboral border of
canine alveolus
96.9(L)
Length: angular process-aboral
border of canine alveolus
110.0(L)
Length: aboral border of M
alveolus-aboral border of
canine alveolus
66.5(L)
67.2(R)
Length of cheektooth row, P I M3, measured along alveoli
62.3(L)
64.5(R)
Length of cheektooth row, P l M3, measured along alveoli
58.1(L)
60.0(R)
Length of molar row, along
alveoli
30.2(L)
31.2(R)
Length of premolar row, P l P
measured along alveoli
4'
33.0(L)
33.2(R)
37.3(R)
894 Margaret Glass
MANDIBLE MEASUREMENT OF CANIS FAMILIARIS
SPECIMENS FROM AZ EE:2:113
(MEASUREMENTS SELECTED FROM VON DEN DRIESCH [1976])
Feature 169
Description
Specimen
Feature 60
Feature 12
Length of premolar row, P 2measured along alveoli
P
4'
28.0(L)
19.0(R)
32.3(R)
Length of carnassial at
cingulum
19.0(L)
18.7(R)
22.0(R)
20.5(L)
Breadth of carnassial at
cingulum
7.7(L)
8.0(R)
9.2(R)
8.4(L)
17.5(L)
18.0(R)
21.5(R)
19.4(L)
Length of carnassial alveolus
Length of M 2 at cingulum
7.5(L)
7.7(R)
8.9(R)
Breadth of M 2 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
3.7(L), 3.9(R)
3
at cingulum
Greatest thickness of body
of jaw below M 1
10.8(L)
9.8(R)
Height of vertical ramus: base
of angular process-Coronion
49.3(L)
Height of mandible behind M 1 ,
on lingual side at right
angles to basal border
21.5(L)
22.4(R)
Height of mandible between
P and P 3 , on lingual side
at right angles to basal
border
17.8(L)
17.8(R)
19.4(R)
20.8(R)
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)
Description
Feature 169
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
Nonfeature
2
Feature Number
8
10
27
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
Modified Bone
1
0
3
0
1
0
5
Total
3
3
4
4
1
3
17
Artifact Type
29
Total
898 Margaret Glass
Table A.21
Artifact Type
Awl/hairpins
No n fea tu re
BONE ARTIFACT FREQUENCIES, AZ EE:2:105
Feature Number
5
2
6
7
9
10
35
41
50
71
87
11
5
1
3
1
3
2
15
4
2
Antler flakers
3
3
Bone Tubes
3
Miscellaneous
Modified Bone
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
Total
6
3
13
10
3
4
2
1
88
47
2
4
4
10
7
6
3
91
co
0,
29
4
0
1
18
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
Feature Number
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
52
Awl/hairpins
4
2
1
8
2
3
3
1
Tube Fragments
2
Artifact Type
4
80
83
1
86 154 205
5
3
1
2
2
Flat, Spatulate Tools
Miscellaneous
Modified Bone
2
Total
2
6
2
1
4
2
18
34
9
1
2
Total
2
3
7
10
1
2
1
1
2
5
3
1
55
VxT p ua ddV
Non fe a tu re
Co n tex ts
BONE ARTIFACT FREQUENCIES, AZ EE:2:113
900
Margaret Glass
Table A.23
SUMMARY OF BONE MODIFICATIONS, AZ EE:2:76
Number
Taxon
Element
Modification
Lepus californicus
tibia
awl
1
Artiodactyl
metatarsal
metapodial
humerus
awl
abraded, cut
tube
1
1
1
Cervid
antler
flaker
1
Ovis canadensis
metatarsal
awl/hairpin
1
Large Mammal
long
long
long
long
bone
bone
bone
bone
awl/hairpin
tube
notched
abraded
3
2
1
1
long bone
long bone
long bone
awl/hairpin
beveled tip
abraded
2
1
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
Taxon
Element
Modification
mandible
drilled
1
Artiodactyl
metapodial
metatarsal
tibia
tibia
awl/hairpin
awl/hairpin
hairpin
tube
7
4
1
1
Cervid
antler
flaker
4
Odocoileus cf. O. virginianus
metatarsal
tibia
femur
awl/hairpin
hairpin
tube stock
1
1
1
Deer or Pronghorn
metatarsal
radius
awl/hairpin
awl/hairpin
2
1
Small Mammal
long bone
long bone
long bone
awl/hairpin
tube
abraded
4
1
1
Large Mammal
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
unidentified
unidentified
awl/hairpin
tube
cut
abraded
cut
notched
22
11
7
2
1
1
Total
Number
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
Taxon
Element
Modification
Lepus californicus
tibia
awl
1
Artiodactyl
metapodial
metapodial
metapodial
metacarpal
tibia
awl/hairpin
tube
polished
awl/hairpin
abraded
4
1
1
1
1
Odocoileus cf. O. hemionus
femur
tibia
tube
abraded
1
1
femur
tube
1
metatarsal
metapodial
awl/hairpin
awl/hairpin
1
1
Ovis canadensis
humerus
tube
1
Deer or Pronghorn
metatarsal
matatarsal
femur
awl/hairpin
polished
tube
1
1
1
Small Mammal
long bone
awl/hairpin
2
Large Mammal
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
long bone
unidentified
awl/hairpin
tube
fleshing tool (?)
abraded
cut
cut
gouging tool (?)
abraded
long bone
awl/hairpin
Total
Number
22
4
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
55
Appendix A 903
Table A.26
SUMMARY OF BONE MODIFICATIONS FROM SMALL SITES
Site
Number
Feature
Number
Taxon
Element
Modification Number
AZ EE:2:52
1
mammal
unidentified
pendant?
1
AZ EE:2:77
1
large mammal
large mammal
small mammal
long bone
long bone
long bone
awl/hairpin
tube fragment
tube/ring
1
1
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.
hemionus
deer or
pronghorn
metatarsal
hairpin
1
metapodial
awl/hairpin
1
long bone
awl/hairpin
1
1
large mammal long bone
large mammal long bone
awl/hairpin
pendant
2
2
6
cervid
flaker
7001
AZ EE:2:129 nonfeature large mammal
Total
antler
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
a
e
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
Site Number
AZ EE:2:76
AZ EE:2:105
Feature
Number
Classification
O. cf. 0. virginianus
metatarsal
awl
large mammal
long bone
6
large mammal
long bone
7
deer or proghorn
10
Width
Thickness
2.3
2.3
awl/hairpin
2.3
2.2
awl/hairpin
3.1
2.5
radius
awl
3.4
3.0
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
tibia
Hairpin
4.7
2.6
87
small mammal
long bone
awl/hairpin
4.0
2.3
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
metapodial
awl
2.8
2.6
artiodactyl
metapodial
awl/hairpin
3.6
4.0
154
154
AZ EE:2:107
Element
6
29
71200
AZ EE:2:113
Taxon
9
7001
small mammal
long bone
awl/hairpin
2.8
1.6
O. cf. O. hemionus
metatarsal
Hairpin
4.4
4.6
deer or proghorn
metapodial
awl/hairpin
3.4
3.0
* measured 5 mm from tip (mm)
Appendix A 907
6.0—
5.0—
WIDTH5mm FRO MTI P
•
4.0—
1
•
3.0—
• 0
•
2.0—
• Small Mammal
0 Awl
■ Hairpin
• Awl /Hairpin
1 .0 —
I
1.0
1
2A0
I
3.0
1
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 awlhairpins. 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
R
(,)
cr,
N
N
N
N
4-1
W
41
41
W
W
W
41
W
41
N
<4
N
d
N
d
N
<4
N
d
r--
0.
0
o
N
N
N
N
W
47
41
W
W
W
N
N
d
N
<4
<
Taxon
0,
.0
C
R
C
R
C
Lepus cf. alleni
R
C
1
Lepus cf. californicus
1
Sylvilagus sp.
1
20
R
...-4
o
C
R
C
c,..]
R
C
14
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
9
cervid
4
3
Odocoileus sp.
7
33
artiodcyl
1
O. cf. hemionus
2
O. cf. virginianus
2
1
1
2
Ovis
2
6
1
3
4
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
pronghorn or de r
1
1
1
1
7
3
1
16
16
2
bighorn or deer
small mammal
7
large mammal
3
1
?Human
1
bird
2
C
1
4
Neotoma sp.
canadensis
R
1
Canis sp.
ss ei o l aa u 2.1 -ew
INSTANCES OF RODENT(R) AND CARNIVORE(C) GNAWING WITHIN TAXA AND SITES
1
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
-0
a
a
,.,
o
a
o
-a
warn-,
E
a
a
—
a
0
0
0
3
M
-,
a
0-1
(14
2
105
54
3.40
70
48
20
76
37
2.00
68
32
22
84
19
1.65
63
10
10
2
113
40
2.32
48
38
2
129
26
2.06
38
2
2
31
19
77
34
2.05
47
26
s.
a
11
1.87
27
18
18
9
2.19
10
25
15
5
107
16
1.94
50
6
6
81
6
6
109
16
2.29
31
6
6
12
12
117
19
1.58
21
11
1.86
18
1.05
40
122
5
1.33
20
9
Note: Percent of samples containing
0
,.,
,..,
o
0
.
7:3
.
• 4
P-■
a
o
<C
4
2
u
•,
1,
3
6
13
3
2
8
3
20
5
a
..a
a
2
106
104
w
a
a
co
2
3
120
116
E
a
—
U
a
o
.
a
a
o
a
>,
--,
,..
Gra ss Stems
Agricultural Weeds
2
25
4
4
10
2
3
2
2
3
31
11
17
4
16
30
11
26
5
5
15
5
6
12
6
5
6
6
5
18
9
5
31
3
5
5
16
25
10
8
20
54
8
11
8
8
11
20
24
26
9
26
12
10
5
25
6
10
18
5
10
6
5
6
8
27
9
5
50
6
19
6
16
6
32
9
20
20
11
18
27
40
20
40
Table B.2
WOOD CHARCOAL AND LAND SNAILS FROM THE ANAMAX-ROSEMONT PROJECT SITES
..=
0
Wa lnu t
Jun ip er
Piny on
o
1
11
1
co
.-■
m
.
C
w
0
cf,0co
m
.4
a
,
,
t
0
0.
I
t
1
I
1.1
C
4-1
,-,
,
-
0
0
,f,
f.,
1
1
0
m
,
m
m
1...
4.:
.
0
..
,
.-0
C
m
a
m
0
z
45
6
1
1
113
25
1
1
1
1
17
6
2
13
9
a
f,
0
1
1
1
3
1
33
84
4650
186
34
4
113
4620
604
31
9
33
1
3
21
2
1
129
4665
225
9
6
11
50
1
4
16
2
1
77
4810
834
20
3
1
36
4
1
4
1
1
120
4945
220
20
20
48
4
1
1
1
3
106
5035
231
29
14
36
6
1
1
2
107
5065
256
24
109
5245
257
17
1
117
4795
200
2
116
4908
219
5
104
5190
158
9
122
4644
74
11
5
2
2
19
2
1
1
1
31
1
37
1
19
1
41
16
87
4
5
21
1
39
26
2
30
Note: Percent of wood charcoal, mean number of snails per sample
1
27
1
11
2
1
7
3
..,
a
.
w
17
0
..
0.9
6.5
14.0
0.6
0.7
0.1
12.6
1.9
0.1
35.3
2.3
0.1
5.8
0.1
0.5
4.4
0.5
0.2
11
23.4
0.3
1.9
0.5
5
6.8
0.3
0.1
1
1
1
m
'"
a
27.0
1
2
1
62
43
1
1
,
2
13
606
1
-5
4
2
864
4900
E
m
..--
0
„..,
.
JD
-■
..--,
„o
m
,L,
9
4790
76
m
u
.
C
5
105
.-,
au
w
-,
G
.,
1
19.7
2
1
6
3
4
12
4
19.3
16.0
3
28.0
qx TP u a ddv
m
o
..c
m
z
Oco t i llo
Number o ffragm e n ts
Land Snails
Chaparral
Conifer
Appendix C
POLLEN ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENTS FROM HOHOKAM
SITES IN THE ROSEMONT AREA
Robert S. Thompson
Department of Geosciences
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
Archaeological Samples
Modern
Pollen Type
TREES, SUCCULENTS, AND SHRUBS
Acacia
Celtis
Cupressaceae
Cylindropuntia
Ephedra trifurca-type
Juglans
Pinus
Prosopis
Quer cus
cf. Rhus
COMPOSITAE
Ambrosia-type
Artemisia
Tubulifloreae
OTHER TERRESTRIAL
Eriogonum
Gramineae
Leguminosae
Surface
F7*
F8*
F8
F8
0.5
0.5
6.5
0.5
1.0
0.0
3.0
0.0
9.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
5.0
0.0
12.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
5.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
17.5
2.0
12.0
40.0
3.0
7.0
4.5
0.0
2.0
2.8
0.0
4.7
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
28.0
0.0
9.0
6.0
0.0
0.0
9.0
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.5
2.4
0.0
9.0
0.0
+
79.0
0.0
0.0
80.4
0.0
0.0
95.6
0.0
TAXA
INDETERMINATE
CULTIGENS, DISTURBANCE PLANTS, AND WEEDS
0.0
Zea
15.0
Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthus
0.0
Nyctaginaceae
SUM
CONCENTRATION/GRAM (X1000)
200
200
200
214
23.0
207
58.0
Appendix C 923
Table C. 1, continued
AZ EE:2:76
F27
F48
F16001
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.0
0.9
4.4
0.0
2.9
2.6
0.0
4.4
1.4
0.0
4.6
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
2.0
0.5
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.0
2.8
8.8
1.4
6.9
0.0
Zea
93.5
0.0
Nyctaginaceae
0.5
77.9
0.5
0.0
71.9
0.0
0.5
84.3
0.5
Pollen Type
Acacia
Celtis
Cupressaceae
Cylindropuntia
Juglans
Pinus
Prosopis
Quercus
cf. Rhus
COMPOSITAE
Ambrosia-type
Artemisia
Tubulifloreae
OTHER TERRESTRIAL
Eriogonum
Gramineae
Leguminosae
F16002
TAXA
INDETERMINATE
SUM
215
00.3
204
19.9
228
79.8
216
25.9
EE:1:104
AZ EE:2:77
Pollen Type
Fl
F4*
F12
Mod
Acacia
Celtis
Cupressaceae
Cylindropuntia
Juglans
Pinus
Prosopis
Quer cus
cf. Rhus
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
9.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.5
0.0
10.6
0.5
COMPOSITAE
Ambrosia-type
Artemisia
Tubulifloreae
3.3
0.0
0.9
19.0
4.0
31.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
10.1
0.5
10.1
OTHER TERRESTRIAL TAXA
Eriogonum
Gramineae
Leguminosae
0.0
7.0
0.0
11.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.5
27.5
0.5
INDETERMINATE
1.7
22.9
7.8
0.0
73.1
0.0
0.0
13.8
0.0
0.5
Zea
69.3
0.0
Nyctaginaceae
SUM
215
25.8
0.0
7.5
22.5
200
201
13.2
218
Appendix C 925
AZ EE:2:105
Modern
Surface
F44
0.2
0.4
26.9
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.4
1.7
12.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
3.0
0.0
5.5
0.9
9.0
2.4
0.0
18.1
0.4
0.0
2.5
2.6
0.0
2.2
Eriogonum
Gramineae
Leguminosae
1.1
22.6
0.9
0.5
5.9
0.0
0.0
3.4
0.0
0.0
3.9
0.0
INDETERMINATE
10.0
9.3
3.4
8.2
Pollen Type
Acacia
Celtis
Cupressaceae
Cylindropuntia
Juglans
Pinus
Prosopis
Quercus
cf. Rhus
COMPOSITAE
Ambrosia-type
Artemisia
Tubulifloreae
Zea
0.0
6.4
Nyctaginaceae
0.0
SUM
469
61.6
0.0
57.1
0.5
205
11.2
F81014
0.0
77.9
0.4
231
55.4
F30001
0.0
84.9
0.4
238
15.6
Table C.1, continued
AZ EE:2:106
AZ EE:2:107
Pollen Type
F4
Mod
Acacia
Celtis
Cupressaceae
Cylindropuntia
Juglans
Pinus
Prosopis
Querc us
cf. Rhus
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.9
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
23.7
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.9
0.9
22.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.8
0.0
6.4
0.0
15.3
3.6
0.4
7.6
2.9
0.0
4.8
0.5
3.4
0.0
0.0
17.4
0.4
0.5
8.6
0.0
45.3
15.2
13.9
Zea
0.0
23.6
Nyctaginaceae
0.0
0.0
6.3
0.0
64.6
COMPOSITAE
Ambrosia-type
Artemisia
Tubulifloreae
Eriogonum
Gramineae
Leguminosae
INDETERMINATE
SUM
203
42.6
224
78.4
F2001
0.0
0.0
209
175.6
Appendix C 927
AZ EE:2:113
Modern
Pollen Type
Surface
F8
F8
F12004
Acacia
Celtis
Cupressaceae
Cylindropuntia
Juglans
Pinus
Prosopis
Quercus
cf. Rhus
0.0
0.0
26.2
0.0
0.0
1.9
1.1
4.4
12.6
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
COMPOSITAE
Ambrosia-type
Artemisia
Tubulifloreae
8.1
0.0
1.9
0.4
0.0
7.8
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.5
0.0
4.8
Eriogonum
Gramineae
Leguminosae
1.9
2.1
0.0
0.0
8.6
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
3.4
0.0
INDETERMINATE
6.3
3.5
3.3
3.4
0.0
78.1
0.0
0.0
95.2
0.0
0.0
84.1
0.0
Zea
0.0
11.8
Nyctaginaceae
0.4
SUM
271
1138.2
256
190.8
210
16.0
207
32.2
AZ EE:2:113
Pollen Type
F6
F7
F12
F86
F108
Acacia
Celtis
Cupressaceae
Cylindropuntia
Juglans
Pinus
Prosopis
Que rcus
cf. Rhus
0.0
0.5
2.3
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.0
COMPOSITAE
Ambrosia-type
Artemisia
Tubulifloreae
1.9
0.0
3.2
1.0
1.0
4.7
1.4
0.0
5.5
1.3
0.0
1.3
1.9
0.0
0.9
Eriogonum
Gramineae
Leguminosae
0.5
7.4
0.0
0.5
1.9
0.0
0.0
2.7
0.0
0.0
4.5
0.0
0.0
3.7
0.0
INDETERMINATE
4.6
4.2
2.7
5.8
4.7
Zea
0.0
0.0
86.5
75.9
Nyctaginaceae
0.0
0.0
0.0
84.9
0.0
0.0
84.4
0.0
0.0
86.4
0.5
SUM
216
23.8
215
10.2
219
470.4
224
64.2
214
36.2
Appendix C 929
AZ EE:2:113
F154
F159
Acacia
Celtis
Cupressaceae
Cylindropuntia
Ephedra trifurca type
Juglans
Pinus
Prosopis
Quercus
cf. Rhus
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
COMPOSITAE
Ambrosia-type
Artemisia
Tubulifloreae
3.4
0.0
1.9
1.5
0.5
2.9
0.0
0.0
4.1
2.0
0.0
3.9
Eriogonum
Gramineae
Leguminosae
1.5
1.0
0.0
0.0
3.9
0.0
0.0
4.1
0.0
0.0
5.9
0.0
INDETERMINATE
3.4
6.3
5.5
6.4
0.0
Zea
84.5
Nyctaginaceae
0.5
0.0
82.0
0.0
0.0
84.1
0.5
0.0
79.8
0.0
SUM
207
36.2
205
F205
F86001
Pollen Type
220
71.1
203
47.4
AZ EE:2:116
EE:2:117
EE:2:120
EE:2:122
F2001
Mod
F2
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.1
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
16.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.0
1.4
0.0
3.5
0.0
1.6
0.4
0.0
2.5
2.5
0.0
0.5
9.6
0.0
5.0
7.4
0.0
14.4
5.3
0.5
12.5
0.0
21.3
0.0
0.4
3.4
0.0
0.0
13.2
0.5
0.0
12.3
0.0
0.0
15.8
0.5
0.0
26.4
1.4
4.3
3.4
17.2
33.9
20.8
13.5
Zea
0.0
0.0
8.7
84.9
0.4
Nyctaginaceae
0.0
0.0
63.7
0.0
0.0
27.1
0.0
0.0
30.2
1.0
0.0
36.1
0.0
Mod
F2001
Acacia
0.0
0.0
Celtis
39.4
Cupressaceae
Cylindropuntia
0.0
0.0
Juglans
0.0
Pinus
1.2
Prosopis
0.0
Quercus
18.9
cf. Rhus
0.4
COMPOSITAE
Ambrosia-type
Artemisia
Tubulifloreae
Pollen Type
Eriogonum
Gramineae
Leguminosae
INDETERMINATE
SUM
254
152.4
238
55.4
Fl
204
218
202
208
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
Pollen Type
Agave
Ephedra
viridis-type
Fraxinus
Populus
Rosaceae
Salix
cf. Vitis
Cannabis
Caryophyllaceae
Cleome
Convoluaceae
Cyperaceae
Erodium
cicutarium
Eschscholtzia
Euphorbia
Gilia-type
Ipomea
Labiatae
Ligulifloreae
Mentzelia
Phlox
Polygonaceae
Solanaceae
Trilete Spores
Umbelliferae
Verbena
Yucca
SiteFeature
SiteFeature
SiteFeature
113-F8
(0.4)
113-F6
116 Mod
105 Mod
105 Mod
76 Mod*
105 Mod
105 Mod
116-F2001
105 Mod
116-F2001
117-F2001
(0.5)
(0.4)
(0.2)
(0.2)
(1.0)
(0.2)
(0.2)
(0.3)
(0.2)
(0.3)
(0.5)
104 Mod
105 F44
76 Mod*
104 Mod
104 Mod
120 Mod
77-F4
104 Mod
105-F44
120 Mod
76-F8*
117-F2001
116-F2001
113-F8
76-F7*
(0.5)
(0.5)
(1.0)
(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.5)
(2.0)
(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.4)
(0.4)
(0.5)
122-F2
(0.5)
116-F2001
(0.4)
107
104
113
113
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
(0.4)
(0.5)
(0.4)
(0.4)
116 Mod
(0.4)
104 Mod
(0.5)
116-F2001
(0.3)
10-F44
(1.0)
116-F2
(0.3)
76-F7
(4.0);
76-F8
(1.0)
116-F2
(0.3)
122-F1
(0.5)
105-F44
104 Mod
(0.5)
(0.5)
113-F12
(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)%
Table C.3
SUMMARY OF SAMPLES WHICH LACKED SUFFICIENT POLLEN
FOR ANALYSIS
SiteFeature
76-F25002
76-F69
76-F52
76-F8
76-F17
76-F56
76-F8
77 Mod*
77-F1005
77-F56
77-F13
77-F40
77-F16002
77-F32
84-F6
104-F1
104-F2
105-F57
105-F74
106-F5
106-F7
106-F7
106-F7004
106-F7
106-F6
106-F3004
107-F5
107-F1001
107-F5
109-F3001
109 Mod
109-F5002
109-F7
109-F4001
109-F5001
Sum
27
7
9
50
8
4
2
0
70
0
14
24
78
12
40
33
1
3
1
22
13
3
8
17
3
6
11
1
3
5
0
0
0
0
0
Percent
Chenopodiaceae
18.5
42.9
22.2
46.0
50.0
25.0
42.9
21.4
37.5
53.8
33.3
55.0
30.3
100.0
9.1
23.1
33.3
12.5
23.5
16.7
45.5
100.0
40.0
-
Concentration
Percent
Per Gram
Indeterminate
59.3
42.9
66.7
54.0
50.0
50.0
100.0
34.3
78.6
50.0
38.5
50.0
35.0
27.3
86.4
76.9
33.3
75.0
70.6
66.7
83.3
45.5
100.0
60.0
-
Mod=modern surface sample, *=analyzed by Suzanne K. Fish.
4500
1200
1500
26,100
1200
800
300
0
5700
0
1000
4000
6200
2000
1700
13,900
500
500
200
30,800
3900
600
600
7100
1300
1300
900
10
300
1100
0
0
0
0
0
Appendix C 933
SUMMARY OF SAMPLES WHICH LACKED SUFFICIENT POLLEN
FOR ANALYSIS
SiteFeature
109-F2
109-F6
113-F52
116-F2
116-F2
116-F2
116-F2
116-F1
117-F11
117-F3
117-F1002
117-F10
120-F3001
120-F4
120-F1
120-F5
120-F2
129-F2001
129-F2002
129-F1002
129-F6
129-F8
129-F1
Sum
Percent
Chenopodiaceae
5
4
16
63
0
0
26
9
0
9
5
3
1
0
0
0
0
3
9
5
6
0
1
56.3
25.4
23.1
22.2
11.1
100.0
33.3
40.0
-
Percent
Concentration
Indeterminate
Per Gram
60.0
50.0
12.5
44.4
19.2
33.3
66.7
80.0
33.3
100.0
66.7
40.0
66.7
100.0
800
600
4000
5200
0
0
2200
1900
0
2500
1400
500
400
0
0
0
0
500
2000
1200
1400
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.
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
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 developmental 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
Number
AZ EE:2:76
Feature
Number
1
4001
4002
5
16003
22
32
35
44
45
51
52
53
54
55
56
57001
64
65
68
AZ EE:2:77
Age of
Individual
Sex
adult
subadult
adult
subadult
Weight
(g)
531
60
127
3
158
64
492
131
50
17
382
2
6
299
177
45
139
151
4
4
1-2 years
adult
adult
1-3 years
adult
subadult
subadult ?
22
23001/52
40
44003
54
adult ?
1
7
879
34
3
AZ EE:2:84
7
neonate
7
AZ EE:2:105
28
41013
51
80
subadult
adult
adult
subadult
AZ EE:2:107
7001
7002
adult
adult
AZ EE:2:113
1
4
7001
29
adult
154
59
830
49
F ?
1378
869
63
112
10
938 Kurt Dongoske
Table D.1, continued
Site
Number
AZ EE:2:113,
continued
AZ EE:2:120
AZ EE:2:122
Feature
Number
Age of
Individual
Weight
Sex
(g)
62
70
80
81
83015
84
107001
147
160/164
adult
185
8001
9
2-6 years
298
11
2001
adult
adult
adult
adlut
adult
6-7 years
child
290
F ?
M ?
M ?
472
154
377
107
4
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
Number
Age
Years
Sex
Position
F ?
flexed
AZ EE:2:52
1
AZ EE:2:76
21
fetus/neonate
46
adult
(40-50)
F
flexed
56
adult
(50+)
F ?
flexed
56
infant
(1-2)
67
child
(5-6)
AZ EE:2:77
AZ EE:2:105
1003
fetus/neonate
44004
fetus/neonate
7022
51
AZ EE:2:107
AZ EE:2:113
adult
infant
(mixed in with F.56 urn cremation)
flexed
extended ?
extended ?
(0-6 mos)
extended?
fetus/neonate
(mixed in with F.51 urn cremation)
9
adult
(35-50)
M
flexed
10
adult
(25-35)
F ?
flexed
15
young adult
(16-19)
F
flexed
2
adult
(50-60)
M
seated
3
adult
(40+)
M ?
15
adult
(40-50)
F
16
adult
(40-50)
M
25
adult
(35-45)
M
kneeling
52
adult
(50+)
M
seated
53
adolescent
(13-16)
72
adult
165
child
165
adult
seated
flexed
kneeling
(5)
F
?
Qx-rpuaddv
Site Number
Appendix D 937
Table D.1
Site
Number
AZ EE:2:76
AZ EE:2:77
Feature
Number
1
4001
4002
5
16003
22
32
35
44
45
51
52
53
54
55
56
57001
64
65
68
Age of
Individual
Sex
adult
subadult
adult
subadult
Weight
(g)
531
60
127
3
158
64
492
131
50
17
382
2
6
299
177
45
139
151
4
4
1-2 years
adult
adult
1-3 years
adult
subadult
subadult ?
22
23001/52
40
44003
54
adult ?
1
7
879
34
3
AZ EE:2:84
7
neonate
7
AZ EE:2:105
28
41013
51
80
subadult
adult
adult
subadult
AZ EE:2:107
7001
7002
adult
adult
AZ EE:2:113
1
4
7001
29
adult
154
59
830
49
F ?
1378
869
63
112
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 osteocallous 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
Hymenolepidae
Railietina ssp. ?
Elden Pueblo
Elden Pueblo
Antelope House
(Hevly and others 1979)
(Hevly and others 1979)
(Reinhard 1983b)
Nematoda (Roundworms)
Ascaris lumbricoides
Trichuris treichiura
Unkowspeci
Strongyloides stercoralis
Trichostrongylus ssp.
Enterobius vermicularis
Acanthocephala (Thorny
headed worms)
Moniliformes clarki
(Reinhard 1983b)
(Reinhard 1983b)
(Reinhard 1983b)
(Reinhard 1983b,
in press)
Inscription House? (Fry and Hall 1974)
(Fry and Hall 1974)
Antelope House
Inscription House? (Fry and Hall 1974)
(Samuels 1965)
Mesa Verde
(Stiger 1977)
Mesa Verde
(Fry and Hall 1975)
Antelope House
(Reinhard, in press)
Salmon Ruin
(Reinhard, in press)
Elden Pueblo
Inscription House (Reinhard, in press)
Elden Pueblo
Elden Pueblo
Elden Pueblo
Antelope House
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 mesicadapted 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
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.
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
Pollen Type
Cheno-Am
Poaceae
Low spine composite
High spine composite
Brassicaceae
Eriogonum
Feature 15
SN16
SN18
Feature 16
SN12
SN14
121*
2
3
129*
2
2
105*
1
1
2
111*
1
4
1
Feature 52
SN6
114*
1
3
2
1
* Individual grain counts are lumped with aggregate counts and the
presence of aggregates indicated by an asterisk.
1
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
Fifteen archaeomagnetic samples were recovered on the ANAMAXRosemont 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 SaltGila 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,"
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:
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 SaltGila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project, Vol. VIII: Material
Culture," edited by Lynn S. Teague and Patricia L. Crown.
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
Bone frequencies and attritional processes. In For Theory
1977
Building in Archaeology, edited by Lewis R. Binford, pp. 77113. 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:
Bond, Richard
Eating habits of falcons with special reference to pellet
1936
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.
Esquema de la Historia de la Cultura Trincheras. In "Sonora:
1976
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.
The Cerro Colorado Site and pit house architecture in the
1962
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.
Incipient domestication of mustards in northwest Mexico. The
1979
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:
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.
Desert plants, habitat and agriculture in relation to the
1981
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.
Variability in Ceramic Manufacture at the Chodistaas Site,
1981
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):
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.
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):
1983a Reach 4 specialized activity sites. Part 3 of "Hohokam
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
An archaeological investigation of AZ BB:13:146, a small
1982
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:
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.
Independent dating in archaeological analysis. In Advances
1978
in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. I, edited by
Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 257-314. New York: Academic Press.
Deaver, William L.
Some Notes on Tucson Basin Pottery: Color Scheme Variations
1982
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
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
Coyote Creek, Site 01: A Methodological Study of a
1975
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.
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:
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:
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.
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: 19701972. 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,
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
The Colorado Plateaus: Cultural dynamics and
1979
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
Analysis of shell from the Baca Float sites. In "Excavations
1977
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:
968 References
Ferg, Alan
Shell from Gu Achi. In "Excavations at Gu Achi, a
1980
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 SaltGila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project, Vol. VI: Habitation
Sites on the Gila River," edited by Lynn S. Teague and
111
Patricia L. Crown. Arizona State Museum L2
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,
Ferg, Alan, and Amadeo M. Rea
Prehistoric bird bone from the Big Ditch Site, Arizona.
1983
Journal of Ethnobiology 3(2): 99-108.
Fish, Paul R.
Prehistoric land use in the Perkinsville Valley. The Arizona
1974
Archaeologist 8: 1-36.
Fish, Suzanne K.
An Analysis of Pollen Samples from Three Sites in the
1981
Rosemont Area, Santa Rita Mountains. MS, Cultural Resource
Management Division, Arizona State Museum, University of
Arizona, Tucson.
Franklin, Hayward H.
Excavations at Second Canyon Ruin, San Pedro Valley, Arizona.
1980
Arizona State Museum Contribution to Highway Salvage
Archaeology in Arizona 60. Tucson: University of Arizona.
Franklin, Hayward H., and W. Bruce Masse
The San Pedro Salado: A case of prehistoric migration. The
1976
Kiva 42(1): 47-56.
Fraps, Clara Lee
Tanque Verde Ruins. The Kiva 1(4): 1-4.
1935
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
Foundation.
1938
Archaeological notes on Texas Canyon, Arizona. Contributions
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
970 References
Gasser, Robert E.
Flora resources--flotation studies. In "The Palo Verde
1981
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
Drought Correlated Changes in Two Prehistoric Pueblo
1975
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.
Preface. In "The San Simon Branch, Excavations at Cave Creek
1945
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
Excavations at Snaketown: Material culture. Medallion Papers
1937
Gladwin, Winifred, and Harold S. Gladwin
The Red-on-Buff Culture of the Papagueria.
1929
1933
Some Southwestern pottery types: Series III.
Papers 13. Globe, Arizona: Gila Pueblo.
Medallion Papers
Medallion
Goodyear, Albert C.
Hecla II and III: An interpretive study of archaeological
1975
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
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
972 References
Gregonis, Linda M., and Lisa W. Huckell
1980 The Tucson Urban Study. Arizona State Museum Archaeological
Gregonis, Linda M., and Karl J. Reinhardt
1979 Hohokam Indians of the Tucson Basin. Tucson: University of
Arizona Press.
Gregory, David A.
Defining variability in prehistoric settlement morphology.
1975
Fieldiana: Anthropology 65: 40-46. Chicago: Field Museum.
1983
Excavations at the Siphon Draw Site (AZ U:10:6). Part 1 of
Arizona Project, Vol. IV: Village Sites on Queen Creek and
Siphon Draw," edited by Lynn S. Teague and Patricia L. Crown.
Gregory, David A., and Alan Ferg
A Research Design for the Investigation of Ceramic Period
1982
Sites in the ANAMAX-Rosemont Land Exchange Area. MS,
Cultural Resource Management Division, Arizona State Museum,
Guthe, Carl Eugen
Pueblo Pottery Making, a study at the village of San
1925
Ildefonso. Papers of the Southwestern Expedition 2. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Haag, William G.
An osteometric analysis of some aboriginal dogs. University
1948
of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology 8(3). Lexington:
University of Kentucky.
Haas, Jonathan
The Ushklish Ruin, a Preliminary Report on Excavation of a
1971
Colonial Hohokam Period Site in the Lower Tonto Basin,
Central Arizona. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona,
Tucson.
Hall, E. R., and K. Kelson
The Mammals of North America. New York: Ronald Press.
1959
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.
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.
Gypsum Cave, Nevada. Southwest Museum Papers 8. Los
1933
Angeles: Southwest Museum.
Hastings, James R., and Raymond M. Turner
The Changing Mile: An Ecological Study of Vegetation Change
1965
With Time in the Lower Mile of an Arid and Semiarid Region.
Haury, Emil W.
Roosevelt 9:6: A Hohokam site of the Colonial period.
1932
Medallion Papers 11. Globe, Arizona: Gila Pueblo.
1936a Some southwestern pottery types: Series IV. Medallion Papers
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.
Excavations, 1940, at University Indian Ruin. Southwestern
1957
Monuments Association Technical Series 5. Globe, Arizona.
Hesse, Brian
Bias in the zooarchaeological record: Suggestions for
1982
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
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:
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
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.
1984a The Archaic occupation of the Rosemont area, northern Santa
Rita Mountains, southeastern Arizona. Arizona State Museum
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:
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
976 References
Jelinek, Arthur J.
Form, function, and style in lithic analysis. In Cultural
1976
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
Jewelry of the Prehistoric Southwest. Santa Fe and
1978
Albuquerque: School of American Research and University of
New Mexico Press.
Johanson, Gunnar
Age determination from human teeth. Odontologisk Revy
1971
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
1963
The Trincheras culture of northern Sonora. American
Antiquity 29(2): 174-186.
Johnson, Paul C.
Archaeological Fauna from the Big Ditch Site. MS, Arizona
n.d.
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:
Kappell, Wayne
Irrigation development and population pressure. In
1974
"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.
The functions of Paleolithic flint tools. Scientific
1977
American 237(5): 108-126.
Kelly, Isabel T.
Letter and progress report. Item 13 in "Correspondence
1937
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.
References 977
Kelly, Roger E.
The Socio-Religious Roles of Ball Courts and Great Kivas in
1963
the Prehistoric Southwest. MS, master's thesis, Department
Kidder, Alfred V.
The Artifacts of Pecos. New Haven: Yale University Press.
1932
Klein, Jeffrey, J. C. Lerman, P. E. Damon, and E. K. Ralph
Calibration of radiocarbon dates: Tables based on the
1982
consensus data of the workshop on calibrating the radiocarbon
time scale. Radiocarbon 24(2): 103-150.
Kornfeld, Marcel, and Steven Chomko
Pre-Shoshonean Rodent Utilization. Paper presented at the
1983
48th annual meeting, Society for American Archaeology,
Pittsburgh.
Krogman, Wilton M.
The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine. Springfield:
1962
Charles C. Thomas.
Kurten, Bjorn
On the variation and population dynamics of fossil and recent
1953
mammal populations. Acta Zoologica Fennica 76: 1-122.
Lange, Richard C.
Steatite: An analysis and assessment of form and
1982
distribution. In "Cholla Project Archaeology, Vol. I:
Introduction and Special Studies," edited by J. Jefferson
Reid. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 161(1):
Lawrence, Barbara
Post-cranial skeletal characteristics of deer, pronghorn, and
1951
sheep-goat with notes on Bos and Bison. Reports of the
Awatovi Expedition, Peabody Museum 4. Cambridge: Harvard
University.
Lechleitner, R. R.
Sex ratio, age classes, and reproduction of the black-tailed
1959
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.
Cremated human remains from the Cashion Site. In "The Palo
1981
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
The Vertebrates of Arizona. Tucson: University of Arizona
1964
Press.
Lowe, Charles H.
The vegetation and flora of the Sycamore Canyon area and
1981
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
Fishes, amphibians, and reptiles of the Rosemont site. In An
1977
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
Fish, amphibians and reptiles of the Sycamore Canyon area and
1981
Deering Spring area in the Santa Rita Mountains, Arizona. In
An Environmental Inventory of the Rosemont Area in Southern
E. Lendell Cockrum, pp.79-94. Tucson: University of Arizona.
McAllister, Shirley Powell, and Fred Plog
Small sites in the Cheylan Drainage. In "Limited Activity
1978
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.
Winona and Ridge Ruin, Part 1: Architecture and material
1941
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
Flora and vegetation of the Rosemont area. In An
1977
of Arizona.
References 979
McPherson, Gale, and David E. Doyel
Ground stone assemblages from sites in Dead Valley. In
1980
"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:
Martin, Paul S.
The S.V. Site: Excavations at a Mogollon Village, western New
1943
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.
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,
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.
Scatological origin of microvertebrate fossil accumulations.
1974
Science 185: 349-350.
980 References
Merbs, Charles F.
Cremated human remains from Point of Pines, Arizona: A new
1967
approach. American Antiquity 32(4): 498-506.
Miksicek, Charles H.
Hohokam nutrition: Archaeobotanical evidence from
1982
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
1984b Historic desertification, prehistoric vegetation change, and
Hohokam subsistence in the Salt-Gila Basin. Part 2 of
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:
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.
The Role of the Puchtecha System in Hohokam Exchange. MS,
1981
doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, New York
University, New York.
Nesbitt, Paul H.
Starkweather Ruin: A Mogollon-Pueblo Site in the upper Gila
1938
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
Statistical package for the social sciences. New York:
1975
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.
A study of bone artifacts from Grasshopper Pueblo, AZ:P:14:1.
1979
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
The Birds of Arizona. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
1964
Phillips, David A., Jr.
Social implications of settlement distribution on Black Mesa.
1972
In "Archaeological Investigations on Black Mesa: The 19691970 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
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
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
Albuquerque: Center for Anthropological
Studies 1: 119-133.
Studies.
982 References
Plog, Fred
Explaining culture change in the Hohokam Preclassic. In
1980
"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.
Stylistic Variation in Prehistoric Ceramics: Design Analysis
1980
in the American Southwest. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Raab, Mark L.
AZ AA:5:2: A Prehistoric Cactus Camp in Papagueria. Journal
1973
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
1983
Once a River, Bird Life and Habitat Changes on the Middle
Gila. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Reinhard, Karl J.
The Cortaro Phase in the Tucson Basin: A Reevaluation. Paper
1982
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,
1983b Parasitological and Dietary Analysis of Antelope House
Coprolites, 1983. MS, Western Archaeological and
Conservation Center, Tucson.
Stongyloides stercoralis in the prehistoric Southwest.
In
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
Diet and parasitism at Dust Devil Cave, Utah. American
In
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.
43(3-4): 231-252.
The Kiva
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
Fieldiana:
Late Mogollon pottery types of the reserve area.
1956
Anthropology 36(7): 149-187. Chicago: Field Museum.
Roberts, Frank H. H., Jr.
Archeological remains in the White Water District, eastern
1940
Arizona, Part II: Artifacts and burials. Bureau of American
Ethnology Bulletin 126. Washington: Government Printing
Office.
Rodgers, James B.
The Fort Mountain Complex, Cave Buttes, Arizona. In "Limited
1978
Activity and Occupation Sites: A Collection of Conference
Papers," compiled and edited by Albert E. Ward.
Roth, Edward L.
Mammals of the Rosemont region. In An Environmental
1977
Inventory of the Rosemont Area in Southern Arizona, Vol. I:
Rouse, Irving
The classification of artifacts in archaeology.
1960
Antiquity 25(3): 313-322.
American
Rozen, Kenneth C.
Lithic analysis and interpretation. In "The AEPCO Project,
1979
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 8 4 References
Rozen, Kenneth C.
Patterned associations among lithic technology, site content,
1981
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.
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
A supplemental inventory of the birds of the Rosemont area.
1981
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:
Russell, S. M., G. S. Mills, and J. R. Silliman
An inventory of the birds of the Rosemont area. In An
1977
of Arizona.
Sackett, James R.
The meaning of style in archaeology: A general model.
1977
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
Parasitological study of long-dried fecal samples. American
1965
Antiquity 31(2): 175-179.
Sauer, Carl 0., and Donald Brand
Pueblo sites in southeastern Arizona. University of
1930
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
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.
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
Archaeological survey in the eastern Tucson Basin: Saguaro
1983
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.
Archaeological investigations at Las Fosas (AZ U:15:19): A
1983
Classic period settlement on the Gila River. Part 5 of
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.
1984 Hohokam architecture and site structure. Part 2 of "Hohokam
Project, Vol. IX: Synthesis and Conclusions," edited by Lynn
S. Teague and Patricia L. Crown. Arizona State Museum
Sowls, Lyle
Reproduction in the Audubon cottontail in Arizona.
1957
of Mammology 38(2): 234-243.
Journal
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 GlobeMiami 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.
Amphibians and Reptiles of Western North America. New York:
1954
McGraw-Hill.
Steen, Charlie R., L. M. Pierson, V. L. Bohrer, and K. P. Kent
Archeological studies at Tonto National Monument, Arizona.
1961
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.
Anasazi Diet: The Coprolite Evidence. MS, master's thesis,
1977
Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder.
Sullivan, Alan P., III
Prehistoric Settlement Variability in the Grasshopper Area,
1980
East-Central Arizona. MS, doctoral dissertation, Department
Swanson, Earl H., Jr.
An Archaeological Survey of the Empire Valley, Arizona. MS,
1951
master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of
Arizona, Tucson.
Szuter, Christine R.
The Interpretation of Rodent Bones from Hohokam Sites. Paper
1982
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 SaltGila 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):
Tagg, Martyn D.
Archaeological Testing at the Abused Ridge Site
1983
(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:
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
988 References
Teague, Lynn S., and Anne R. Baldwin
1978 Painted Rock Reservoir Project Phase 1: Preliminary survey
and recommendations. Arizona State Museum Archaeological
Teague, Lynn S., and Patricia L. Crown
Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project Archaeological
1981
Data Collection Studies and Supplemental Class 3 Survey:
1980-1981 Annual Report. Tucson: University of Arizona.
Teague, Lynn S., and Frank Hull
Project management. In Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona
1982
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.
Teiwes, Helga, and Gary P. Nabhan
Tepary beans, O'odham farmers and desert fields. Desert
1983
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
The Tres Alamos Site on the San Pedro River, southeastern
1947
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.
Walker, Noel P., Jr., and Ann S. Polk
1973 Archaeological survey of the Apache-Twin Buttes and PantanoWhetstone 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
Wallace, Henry, and James Holmlund
The Classic Period in the Tucson Basin. Paper presented at
1982
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 WestCentral New Mexico. MS, doctoral dissertation, Department of
Weber, Edward J.
The Inca's ancient answer to food shortage. Nature
1978
272(5653): 486.
Weed, Carol S., and Albert E. Ward
The Henderson Site: Colonial Hohokam in north-central
1970
Arizona, a preliminary report. The Kiva 36(2): 1-12.
Wheat, Joe Ben
The Mogollon culture prior to A.D. 1000. Memoirs of the
1955
Society for American Archaeology 10.
Wheat, Joe Ben, James C. Gifford, and William W. Wasley
Ceramic variety, type cluster, and ceramic system in
1958
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. 224254. 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
Snaketown revisited: A partial cultural resource survey,
1981
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
Arizona State
Hohokam ballcourts and their interpretation.
1983
Museum Archaeological Series 160. Tucson: University of
Arizona.
Withers, Arnold Moore
Excavations at Valshni Village, Papago Indian Reservation.
1941
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.
Prehistoric stone implements of northeastern Arizona: Reports
1954
of the Awatovi Expedition 6. Papers of the Peabody Museum of
American Archaeology and Ethnology 34. Cambridge: Harvard
University.
References 991
Zahniser, Jack L.
Late prehistoric villages southeast of Tucson, Arizona and
1966
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.

HOHOKAM HABITATION SITES IN THE NORTHERN SANTA RITA

Transcription

Similar documents

Zanies $5.00 Coupon (Version 2)

Pat Ambrosic, Level I Trainer

Arcosanti - tylertopics.com

King Copper - Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum

ACMF-CPSA So AZ Regional Symp 03-02-12

Want to work at the Ballpark for Arizona Diamondbacks Home Games?

Caduceus Cellars Dos Ladrones 2012

No Work, All Play!

Biography - Triple Double Band

Arizona Daily Wildcat - University of Arizona