ground stone at gillespie dam site, arizona

Citation:

Adams, Jenny L. 2011 Ground Stone and Other Rock Artifacts Recovered from the Gillespie Dam Site, AZ T:13:18

(ASM). In Archaeology at the Gillespie Dam Site: Data Recovery Investigations for thePalo Verde to Pinal West 500 kV Transmission Line, Maricopa County, Arizona, edited byT. K. Henderson, pp. 109-119. Technical Report No. 2009-06. Desert Archaeology, Inc.,Tucson.

Technical Report No. 2009-06:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction and Research Background, T.Kathleen Henderson

2. Fieldwork Summary and Feature Descrip-tions, T. Kathleen Henderson, SandraWadsworth, and Connie A. Darby

3. Chronology and Occupational Sequence,Tower 49 Staging Area, the Gillespie DamSite, AZ T:13:18 (ASM), T. Kathleen Hen-derson

4. Ceramic Artifacts from the Gillespie DamSite, AZ T:13:18 (ASM), Tiffany Clark andJoshua Watts

5. Flaked Stone Artifacts from the GillespieDam Site, AZ T:13:18 (ASM), Stacy L. Ryan

6. Ground Stone and Other Rock Artifacts Re-covered from the Gillespie Dam Site, AZT:13:18 (ASM), Jenny L. Adams

7. Shell Artifacts from the Gillespie Dam Site,AZ T:13:18 (ASM), Christine H. Lange

8. Faunal Material from the Gillespie Dam Site,AZ T:13:18 (ASM), Tiffany Clark

9. Plant Macroremains from the Gillespie DamSite, AZ T:13:18 (ASM), Michael W. Diehl

10. Archaeopalynology at the Gillespie DamSite, AZ T:13:18 (ASM), Susan J. Smith

11. An Archival Study of AZ T:14:143 (ASM), AHistoric Canal Southeast of Gillespie Dam,Pat H. Stein

12. Geoarchaeology of the Historic Wolfley/GilaBend Canal, AZ T:14:143 (ASM), Gary Huck-leberry

13. Paleoecology of the Historic Wolfley/GilaBend Canal, AZ T:13:18 (ASM), Manuel R.Palacios-Fest

14. Research Summary and Synthesis, T.Kathleen Henderson

Edited by

T. Kathleen Henderson

Contributions by

Jenny L. AdamsElizabeth A. BagwellTiffany C. ClarkConnie A. DarbyMichael W. DiehlT. Kathleen HendersonGary HuckleberryChristine H. LangeManuel R. Palacios-FestStacy L. RyanM. Steven ShackleySusan J. SmithPat H. SteinSandra WadsworthJoshua Watts

Archaeology at the Gillespie Dam

Site: Data Recovery Investigations

for the Palo Verde to Pinal West

500kV Transmission Line,

Maricopa County, Arizona

Technical Report No. 2009-06

Desert Archaeology, Inc.

Hen

ry D

. W

alla

ce

Con

nie

Dar

by

http://www.archaeologysouthwest.org/store/technical-reports/archaeology-at-the-gillespie-dam-site-data-recovery-investigations-for-the-palo-verde-to-pinal-west-500-kv-transmission-line-maricopa-county-arizona-tr2009-6-pdf.html

CHAPTER 6

GROUND STONE AND OTHERROCK ARTIFACTS RECOVERED

FROM THE GILLESPIE DAM SITE,AZ T:13:18 (ASM)

Jenny L. AdamsDesert Archaeology, Inc.

The artifacts described in this chapter were re-covered from the Gillespie Dam site, AZ T:13:18(ASM), during limited excavations that occurred inadvance of the Palo Verde to Pinal West Transmis-sion Line Project. The site is located in the Gila Bendarea, southwest of Buckeye, Arizona, and southeastof where the Gillespie Dam restricts the Gila River.The recovered ground stone artifacts are used toaddress research issues primarily related to site func-tion, subsistence practices, and cultural affiliation.

Prior research in the Gila Bend area has made itclear that even though peripheral to the Phoenix andTucson basins, the area was significant in Hohokamprehistory, as well as in the prehistory of Yumangroups, the Hakataya or Pataya (Doyel 2000; Teague1981; Wasley 1960). An important question to beaddressed with ground stone data concerns identi-ty, specifically technological identity. Technologicalidentity is recognizable in how people designed,made, and used their ground stone tools (Adams2009). Did the Gillespie Dam inhabitants utilize typ-ical Hohokam technologies, or technologies morecommon to Patayan/Hakatayan groups? More isknown about Hohokam technologies than about theother technological traditions, making this questiontricky based on ground stone evidence; however, itis discussed in the final section of this chapter.

During the limited excavations at the GillespieDam site, 91 ground stone and other stone itemswere recorded (Appendix B, this volume). The arti-facts were recovered from 11 pithouses, 1 cobble-walled structure, 2 extramural pits, 1 rock concen-tration, 1 trash mound, and the sheet trash thatcovered the site (Table 6.1). Fifty-one percent of theitems were from the floor, interior features, or floorfill of the pithouses, and are considered associatedwith the occupations of those structures. Another13 percent were within the roof and wall fall depos-its of the structure, and these may have been part ofthe occupation. A technological approach was usedin the analysis, and the artifact types were definedin accordance with Adams (2002). This approach isconsistent with other projects conducted by Desert

Archaeology, Inc., personnel, and creates a databasesuitable for comparisons across large portions of Ar-izona. Attributes are consistently quantified relativeto artifact design, primary and secondary uses, wearamounts, the activities in which the items were used,and the rock types from which they were manufac-tured (Table 6.2). Artifacts and supporting documen-tation are curated at the Arizona State Museum(ASM).

The assemblage was classified into 17 artifacttypes, pigment, raw material, fire-cracked rocks, anda category of fragments too broken to recognize ar-tifact type (Table 6.3). The artifact discussion here isbased on the activities in which the tools were used,including processing, manufacturing, and procure-ment, with an additional paraphernalia categoryconsisting of pieces used more esoterically than theother tools (see Table 6.2). Also of interest are thepieces that were used in more than one activity.Together, these items provide insights into the dai-ly lives of a sample of village occupants.

FOOD-PROCESSING ACTIVITIES

Food-processing activities appear to be well rep-resented in the ground stone assemblage, with near-ly 25 percent classified as manos, metates, or pestles(Table 6.4). Most (70 percent) of the food-processingtools, however, are broken and barely half (51 per-cent) were found in contexts associated with the oc-cupation of pithouses. If food-processing activitiesoccurred in the pithouses, most of the whole food-processing tools had been removed from the exca-vated pithouses. Tools could have been left in othercontexts within the Gillespie Dam settlement, or theymay have been removed for use at other settlements.Interestingly, the movement of two tools across thesite has been documented by refitting efforts.

Pieces of a broken metate were recovered frompithouse Features 42 and 71, which were roughly22 m apart. One piece was in an interior pit in Fea-ture 71, and the other was on the floor of Feature 42.

110 Chapter 6

Table 6.1. Features from which ground stone items wererecovered at the Gillespie Dam site, AZ T:13:18 (ASM). Feature Type

Feature Number Count

Pithouse 8 11 12 18 15 8 16 9 17 3 28 4 32 5 42 4 43 1 55 2 71 2 Cobble structure 2 5 Extramural pit 5 1 75 2 Rock concentration 22 2 Trash mound 1 4 Sheet trash 0 10 Total 91

The pieces fit closely together as if recently broken,and they belong to a large, vesicular basalt metate.Impact fractures along the broken edges are proba-bly the result of intentional destruction, and the piec-es may have been purposefully placed in disparatecontexts (Figure 6.1a). The metate was heavily used,with a trough that had been widened once to in-crease efficiency. A whole trough mano, also madefrom vesicular basalt, was found on the floor of Fea-ture 42 (Figure 6.1b). The whole mano and the bro-ken metate were undoubtedly compatible, althoughnot having the complete trough width makes thisan assumption. If they were compatible tools, this isthe only clear evidence uncovered during the cur-rent excavation of grinding activities within a pit-house. The mano had been moderately used andtogether, the vesicular tool set would have been ex-tremely efficient, capable of producing high-quali-ty flour (Adams 1999).

The only other whole food-processing tools re-covered were two manos and a pestle. One manoand the pestle are further described with other arti-facts from pithouse Feature 16. The second mano isbroken into two pieces (Figure 6.2), and like the me-tate previously described, the pieces were found indifferent contexts. One piece was in the fill of a smallextramural pit, Feature 75, and the other was in thefill above pithouse Feature 8. The two pieces are illfitting, probably from having been separated andweathered in different contexts. These pieces were

Table 6.2. Specific attributes of the ground stone assem-blage from the Gillespie Dam site, AZ T:13:18 (ASM). Variables No. Percent Context

Pithouse fill 7 8 Pithouse roof/wall fall 12 13 Pithouse floor fill 23 25 Pithouse floor 11 12 Interior featuresa 13 14 Structure fill 5 5 Extramural pit 3 3 Rock concentraion 2 2 Trash 6 7 Sheet trash 9 10 Subtotal 91 99

Condition Broken 40 45 Whole 49 55 Subtotal 89 100

Burn Heat-cracked 5 6 No 76 86 Yes 7 8 Subtotal 88 100

Design Expedient 43 74 Strategic 14 24 Incomplete 1 2 Subtotal 58 98

Wear Light 18 28 Moderate 35 54 Heavy 7 11 Unused 5 8 Subtotal 65 101

Use Single 32 52 Multiple 10 16 Redesigned 5 8 Destroyed 2 3 Recycled 2 3 Unused 10 16 Subtotal 61 98

Sequence Concomitant 8 47 Sequential 9 53 Subtotal 17 100

Note: Indeterminate, not applicable, and unidentified values not included, making subtotals vary; percentage totals vary due to rounding error. aIncludes pits, hearth, and postholes.

Ground Stone and Other Rock Artifacts Recovered from the Gillespie Dam Site, AZ T:13:18 (ASM) 111

not intentionally broken apart, and their secondarydeposition was almost certainly a natural process.

Three food-processing tools were recovered fromFeature 16, but along with a blank, their associationwith the pithouse was more likely related to manu-facturing than to food processing. The blank and twotrough manos were recovered from the same interi-or pit, Feature 16.06. Each was made from a differ-ent rock type. The vesicular basalt mano is well usedand broken, while the quartzite mano has one usedand one newly manufactured surface (Figure 6.3a).The blank was originally manufactured from sand-stone and was intended to be a mano, although itbroke before completion, and the fresh break wasaltered for use as a pestle (Figure 6.3b). Neither themano nor the pestle was ever used. However, a used,quartzite pestle was found in the fill just above thefloor. It has two newly manufactured surfaces onopposing sides, which were probably intended foruse against a trough metate (Figure 6.3c). With bothnewly manufactured and newly modified food-pro-

cessing tools recovered from Feature 16, it appearsthat grinding tools were made and modified bysomeone who lived there. Other manufacturing ev-idence recovered from Feature 16 is discussed in asubsequent section.

Even though there is little direct evidence fromthe current assemblage for the importance of foodprocessing at the Gillespie Dam site, it was appar-ently important enough to require tool manufacture.Most of the food-processing tools were made fromreadily available vesicular basalts that could havecome from nearby basaltic mesas, Woolsey Peaksome 24 km to the southwest, or any of the drainag-es from these sources. All the metate fragments arevesicular basalt, but a few manos are quartzite, rhy-olite, or sandstone. Only trough manos and metateswere found at the Gillespie Dam site; unfortunate-ly, none of the metate fragments are completeenough to determine if they were open or ¾-troughdesign. Open trough metates are a hallmark of Ho-hokam food-processing technology (Adams 2002:120-127, 2009; Haury 1976:281), and an educatedinterpretation made here is that an open trough wasalso the design choice made by the Gillespie Damfood processors.

GENERAL PROCESSING ACTIVITIES

Other processing activities are represented bythree whole handstones and a broken netherstone.Pigment processing is evident by one broken hand-stone and four pieces of ground pigment (see Table6.4). The whole handstones and the netherstonecould have been used for processing any food ornonfood substance, although their use-wear was toolight to be more specific. One handstone and thenetherstone were associated with postholes in pit-house Feature 12, and they may have been recycledinto other purposes. The other handstones were as-sociated with fill in extramural features (see Appen-dix B).

Ground pieces of rock hematite were found inthe fill deposits of the cobble-reinforced adobe struc-ture, Feature 2, and in pithouse Feature 42. Four piec-es with at least one surface flattened from beingworked against a flat, smooth surface were recov-ered (Figure 6.4). The resultant red (Munsell Values10R 4/4 and 10R 4/6) powder would have been veryfine grained. No pigment-covered netherstones wererecovered to add to the interpretation of the process.

The broken polisher found in a pithouse interiorpit, Feature 16.06, has red pigment (Munsell Value10R 4/4) on the broken surface that was not as-sociated with its polishing activities. The roughnessof the broken surface would have been useful for

Table 6.3. Ground stone artifact types from the Gillespie Dam site, AZ T:13:18 (ASM). Artifact No. Percent Blank 1 1 Chopper 1 1 Figurine 1 1 Flake 1 1 Geometric 4 6 Hammerstone 6 9 Handstone 6 9 Lapstone 3 4 Mano 9 13 Maul 1 1 Metate 6 9 Netherstone 3 4 Ornament 3 4 Pecking stone 2 3 Pestle 2 3 Polisher 19 28 Tabular tool 1 1

Subtotala 69 98 Unidentified 12 13 Fire-cracked rock 1 1 Pigment 6 7 Raw material 3 3

Subtotal 22 24 Grand Totalb 91 Note: Percentage totals may not equal 100 due to round-ing error. aPercentage of subtotaled artifacts. bTotal and percentages of entire assemblage.

112 Chapter 6

powdering already processed hematite or naturalearthy hematite, and does not fit the use-wear onthe ground pieces of rock hematite.

MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES

Items involved in manufacturing activities con-stituted the largest percentage of the assemblage (44percent); this included tools used in more than onemanufacturing activity and raw material procuredfor eventual manufacture (Table 6.5). Pieces of rawmaterial included unmodified chalcedony from thefloor fill of pithouse Feature 15, an unmodified mal-achite fragment in sheet trash, and flakes of vesicu-lar basalt that were probably remnants from themanufacture of food-processing tools in the roof/wall fall deposits of pithouse Feature 12. Manufac-turing tools included 17 polishers, 2 pecking stones,6 hammerstones, 1 chopper, 1 tabular tool, 1 nether-stone, and 3 lapstones. Only one of the 17 polishershas use-wear consistent with pottery polishing; itwas found in the floor fill of pithouse Feature 12.The others could have burnished plaster or some

Table 6.4. Contexts in which food-processing activities are represented by ground stone artifacts from the Gillespie Dam site, AZ T:13:18 (ASM).

Activity Context No. Percent Features Artifacts Comments Food processing Pithouse floor 3 17 8, 42a Manos, metates – Pithouse interior feature 5 28 16.06a, 55.02 Manos, metates 1 of 2 from 16.06

multiple use Pithouse floor fill 2 11 16a, 17 Pestles – Pithouse roof/wall fall 2 11 12, 71 Metates – Pithouse fill 2 11 8, 71 Manos 1 from 71 multiple use Exterior pits 1 6 75a Mano – Structure fill 1 6 2 Metate – Rock concentration 1 6 22a Mano – Trash 1 6 1 Metate –

Subtotal 18 5 whole food-processing tools

General processing Pithouse interior features 2 18 12.03a, 12.16 Handstone,

netherstone –

Exterior pits 1 9 75a Handstone – Rock concentration 1 9 22a Handstone Multiple use Sheet trash 1 9 11a Handstone – Pigment processing Pithouse roof/wall fall 1 9 42a Ground pigment – Pithouse interior features 1 9 16 Handstone Handstone multiple

use Structure roof/wall fall 2 18 2a Ground pigment – Structure fill 2 18 2a Ground pigment –

Subtotal 11 9 whole items aLocation of whole artifacts.

Figure 6.1. Vesicular basalt food grinding tools from theGillespie Dam site, AZ T:13:18 (ASM): (a) intentionallybroken metate with refit pieces recovered from two pit-houses, Features 42 and 71; arrows indicate intentionallybroken edge (Field Number 288, Catalog Number 2007-311-73); (b) compatible mano recovered from pithouse Fea-ture 42 (Field Number 289, Catalog Number 2007-311-71).

ab

0 5 cm


0 5 cm

Figure 6.2. Broken mano with two pieces recovered fromdifferent contexts, the Gillespie Dam site, AZ T:13:18(ASM) (Field Number 207, Catalog Number 2007-311-74).

other relatively hard surface, but most were not usedenough to create distinctive use-wear. Interesting-ly, a polisher was associated with almost every pit-house that contained ground stone. The rock typesselected for polishers included individual pieces ofandesite, basalt, diabase, rhyolite, sandstone, as wellas multiple pieces of granite and quartzite. Theirselection was probably not based on their rock typebut rather, for their water-worn (smooth) surface.

Polishers were associated with almost every con-text of pithouse Feature 8, in the fill, floor fill, andone on the floor. Other manufacturing evidence as-sociated with Feature 8 includes one hammerstonein the fill and another in floor fill, along with a lap-stone. The lapstone is a thin, flat rock, with a sur-face that was used to abrade small hard objects andthat would have been useful for manufacturing or-naments (Figure 6.5). The hammerstones have im-pact fractures from hard percussive tasks and wouldhave been useful for the manufacture of large stoneitems such as food-processing tools.

Even though there was evidence in pithouse Fea-ture 16 of newly manufactured or refurbished food-processing tools, no percussive tools such as thosein Feature 8 were found there. Instead, the othermanufacturing tools recovered from Feature 16 in-cluded one polisher in the same interior pit as theblank and the modified manos, and another polish-er in the fill just above the floor. A netherstone re-covered from a posthole, Feature 16.02, also couldhave been used in manufacturing other items, or itmay have been recycled for architectural support.

Evidence for manufacturing activities includedpolishers in the fill of pithouse Feature 12; one wassecondarily used as a core chopper. The flakes fromlarge tool manufacture in the roof/wall fall depos-its have been previously noted, and were probably

remnants of mano or metate manufacture. A quartz-ite chopper also in the roof/wall fall deposits wouldhave been useful for roughening the surfaces ofmanos and metates, and the use-wear is compatiblewith impact to such surfaces. A broken lapstone wasalso found in the roof/wall fall deposits. The tex-ture of the igneous rock from which the lapstonewas made was originally rough enough to abrade,although the opposing side was used enough tosmooth or burnish. Most of these manufacturing-related items were probably not associated with theoccupation of Feature 12, and, as mentioned previ-ously, one polisher in the fill near the floor is theonly one recovered from the site with use-wear most

0 5 cm

a

b

c

Figure 6.3. Newly manufactured and refurbished food-processing tools recovered from pithouse Feature 16, theGillespie Dam site, AZ T:13:18 (ASM): (a) trough manowith a newly manufactured surface (Field Number 531,Catalog Number 2007-311-66); (b) unfinished mano andpestle (Field Number 537, Catalog Number 2007-311-65);(c) pestle redesigned with two new mano surfaces (FieldNumber 529, Catalog Number 2007-311-67).

114 Chapter 6

similar to pottery polishing. A broken maul foundin one of the postholes, Feature 12.16, may have bro-ken during manufacture. A rock found in a secondposthole, Feature 12.03, may have been collected foreventual use as a handstone, but ultimately, theyappear to have been architectural supports in thepithouse.

Near or on the floor of pithouse Feature 28 werea tabular tool, a lapstone, and a hammerstone sec-ondarily used as a handstone. The tabular tool is anarrow, relatively thick piece of phyllite, with mul-tiple edges used for slicing, two of which also hadnotches (Figure 6.6). One edge had two deep notch-es, and another edge had one much smaller notch.The notches are V-shaped, with use-wear from some-thing thin and soft worked through them. Such use-wear might result from stretching sinew strands orpreparing fibers for basketry. The slicing might befrom slicing sinew or fiber strands. One edge wasground smooth for comfortable handling. The gneisslapstone and the diabase hammerstone/handstonewere probably used for manufacturing somethingmade of stone.

Stone manufacturing activities were also evidentwith other hammerstones found on and near the floorof pithouse Feature 15, as well as a polisher second-arily used as a core found near the floor. The ham-merstones were made from rhyolite and quartzite.

A pecking stone found in a pitin pithouse Feature 32 was used forlight percussive strokes in manu-facturing something made fromstone, perhaps shaping or rough-ening the surfaces of grinding sur-faces. It was made from an igne-ous rock. A polisher in the fill nearthe floor was used too lightly torecognize use-wear. Earthy hema-tite recovered from the floor mayhave been raw material collectedfor eventual processing into redpigment (Munsell Value 10R 3/4),but there was no evidence for pig-ment processing within the pit-house.

Other recovered items wereunfinished or unused, and are ev-idence of what was manufacturedat the Gillespie Dam site, includ-ing the mano blank, redesignedmano, maul, and mano that mayhave broken during manufacture,all mentioned before. A cylinderground to shape from a piece ofrhyodacite (Figure 6.7) was recov-ered from the fill above extramu-ral surface Feature 23. There is no

use-wear to indicate it was ever used. Two personalornaments, a bead and a pendant made from chryso-prase, also have no evidence of wear. These piecescould have been manufactured at the site using anyof the recovered lapstones (Figure 6.8). Both werefound in sheet trash, and exterior workspace is a like-ly location for their manufacture.

Evidence for manufacturing activities at the Gil-lespie Dam site is strong, and particularly interest-ing is evidence for the manufacture and refurbish-ing of food-processing tools and the lack of evidencefor pottery manufacture. The latter may be account-ed for by the removal of easily transported pot pol-ishers by people moving their manufacturing activ-ities to other locations at the Gillespie Dam site or toanother settlement altogether. Evidence for orna-ment manufacture is sparse, with the single beadand one pendant manufactured from green chryso-prase. However, tools that could have been used inornament manufacture were recovered, so the ac-tivity may have been more common than is evidentfrom this assemblage.

PARAPHERNALIA

In addition to the two personal ornaments man-ufactured at the Gillespie Dam site, six other items

0 2 cm

a b

cd

Figure 6.4. Pieces of hematite that were ground to make powder for redpigment, the Gillespie Dam site, AZ T:13:18 (ASM): (a-c) three pieces recov-ered from cobble-reinforced adobe structure Feature 2 (Field Number 797,Catalog Number 2007-311-59); (b) one piece recovered from pithouse Fea-ture 42 (Field Number 386, Catalog Number 2007-311-72).


Ta

ble

6.5

. C

onte

xts i

n w

hich

man

ufac

turin

g ac

tiviti

es a

re re

pres

ente

d by

gro

und

ston

e an

d ot

her s

tone

art

ifact

s fro

m th

e G

illes

pie

Dam

site

, AZ

T:13

:18

(ASM

). A

ctiv

ity

Con

text

N

o.

Perc

ent

Feat

ures

A

rtifa

cts

Com

men

ts

Man

ufac

turin

g Pi

thou

se fl

oors

4

10

8a, 1

2, 2

8a

Polis

her,

ham

mer

ston

e, la

psto

ne

Ham

mer

ston

e m

ultip

le u

se

Pi

thou

se in

terio

r fea

ture

s 2

5 12

, 16a

M

aul,

neth

erst

one

–

Pi

thou

se fl

oor f

ill

9 21

8a

, 12a

, 15a

, 16a

, 28,

32

Polis

hers

, ham

mer

ston

es, h

ands

tone

s, la

psto

ne, t

abul

ar to

ol

Ham

mer

ston

es m

ultip

le

use

Pi

thou

se ro

of/w

all f

all

5 12

12

a , 15

, 43

Polis

hers

, lap

ston

e M

ultip

le u

se to

ols

Pi

thou

se fi

ll 4

10

8a, 1

7 H

amm

erst

one,

pol

ishe

rs, p

ecki

ng st

one

Ham

mer

ston

e m

ultip

le u

se

Ex

terio

r pits

1

2 5

Han

dsto

ne

–

Ex

tram

ural

surf

ace

3 7

11a ,

23

Polis

hers

, ham

mer

ston

e –

Stru

ctur

e fil

l 1

2 2a

Po

lishe

r –

Tras

h 1

2 68

a Po

lishe

r –

Po

ttery

man

ufac

ture

Pi

thou

se fl

oor f

ill

1 2

12a

Polis

her

–

Ston

e m

anuf

actu

re

Pith

ouse

inte

rior f

eatu

e 1

2 32

a Pe

ckin

g st

one

–

Pi

thou

se fl

oor

1 2

15a

Ham

mer

ston

e –

Pith

ouse

roof

/wal

l fal

l 2

5 12

a C

hopp

er, f

lake

–

Extr

amur

al su

rfac

e 2

5 23

a Bl

ank,

bea

d U

nuse

d

Non

-feat

ure

1 2

0a

Pend

ant

Unu

sed

Raw

mat

eria

l Pi

thou

se fl

oors

1

2 32

Ra

w p

igm

ent

–

Pi

thou

se in

terio

r fea

ture

s 1

2 12

U

nuse

d m

ater

ial

–

Pi

thou

se fl

oor f

ill

1 2

15

Unu

sed

mat

eria

l –

Tras

h 1

2 1

Raw

pig

men

t –

42

31 w

hole

tool

s a L

ocat

ion

of w

hole

art

ifact

s.

116 Chapter 6

probably used by someone for personal or ritual rea-sons were recovered (Figure 6.9; Table 6.6). The spe-cific function of four of the artifacts is not obvious,as they are natural shapes with use-wear likely frombeing handled. Two small pebbles came from thefill and the floor fill of pithouse Feature 12, and mayhave been collected for their natural shapes. One isa basalt disk, and the other a quartzite sphere (seeFigure 6.9a-b). A small figurine fragment was recov-ered from the floor fill of the same pithouse. Thefragment may be the tail of a lizard manufacturedfrom phyllite (see Figure 6.9c)

The two other naturally shaped pieces are a rect-angular piece of argillite with use-wear from han-dling recovered from the fill of pithouse Feature 16,and a thin, tabular piece of quartzite recovered fromthe floor of pithouse Feature 17. This second piece

is T-shaped, and is worn along the edges where itwas held. The sixth piece of paraphernalia is a bro-ken disk bead made from chrysocolla; it was recov-ered from the floor fill of pithouse Feature 32. Use-wear in the hole is interpreted as evidence it wasstrung and worn before it broke.

DISCUSSION

The ground stone assemblage recovered from asmall portion of the Gillespie Dam site was analyzed

and described in terms of the ac-tivities represented at the settle-ment. The purpose here was to con-tribute to the research topicsoutlined in the Treatment and DataRecovery Plan (Henderson 2007b).Who lived at the Gillespie Damsite, what activities were conduct-ed there, and how were those ac-tivities conducted? On a largerscale, the Gila Bend area has beenviewed by some as initially periph-eral to the Phoenix Basin Hohokamcore but ultimately emerging as aHohokam mini-core area (Doyel etal. 2000:131). Patayan material cul-ture has also been identified in thearea, but few Patayan sites are

0 5 cm

Figure 6.5. Lapstone possibly used for manufacturingsmall items, the Gillespie Dam site, AZ T:13:18 (ASM).(Note the smooth area of use-wear in the center of thesurface; recovered from the floor fill of pithouse Feature8 [Field Number 576, Catalog Number 2007-311-60].)

0 3 cm

Figure 6.7. Unfinished object recovered from sheet trash,Feature 23, the Gillespie Dam site, AZ T:13:18 (ASM) (FieldNumber 235, Catalog Number 2007-311-68).

Figure 6.6. Tabular tool with multiple edges, the Gillespie Dam site, AZT:13:18 (ASM). (Note the notches indicated by the arrows; recovered fromthe floor fill of pithouse Feature 28 [Field Number 728, Catalog Number2007-311-70].)

0 3 cm


0 1 cm

ab

Figure 6.8. Locally manufactured personal ornaments, theGillespie Dam site, AZ T:13:18 (ASM): (a) unused pendantrecovered from unprovenienced sheet trash (Field Num-ber 760, Catalog Number 2007-311-58); (b) unused beadrecovered from trash above extramural surface Feature 23(Field Number 234, Catalog Number 2007-311-69).

0 2 cm

ab

cd

Figure 6.9. Small personal items, the Gillespie Dam site,AZ T:13:18 (ASM): (a-b) natural shapes recovered fromthe fill and floor fill of pithouse Feature 12 (Field Num-bers 478 and 490, Catalog Number 2007-311-61 and Cata-log Number 2007-311-62); (c) figurine fragment recoveredfrom the floor fill of pithouse Feature 12 (Field Number487, Catalog Number 2007-311-63); (d) hand-worn pieceof argillite recovered from the roof/wall deposits of pit-house Feature 16 (Field Number 333, Catalog Number2007-311-64).

known or have been excavated. Therefore, currentunderstanding of what to expect is limited (Dart etal. 1989:54; McGuire 1982:218-222).

Nothing in the ground stone assemblage fromthe Gillespie Dam site was recognizable as distinct-ly representative of either Hohokam or Patayan/Hakatayan material culture. The vesicular basaltfood-grinding tools, the inference of open troughmetate designs, and the broken phyllite figurine arethe only evidence for an interpretation of Hohokamground stone technologies at the settlement. Opentrough metates, ¾-groove axe heads, and potteryanvils (typical Hohokam material culture) have beenfound in association with Chino phase (A.D. 1025-1200) settlements of the Prescott Branch Patayan(Euler and Dobyns 1962:80), and only shallow ba-sin metates, no axe heads, and no pottery anvils werefound in association with the Cerbat Branch Patayan(A.D. 700-1150) (Euler 1963:83).

Before a distinction can be made betweenPatayan and Hohokam ground stone technologies,there needs to be more excavation and analysis ofPatayan settlements, and many questions need tobe answered. For example, does the difference be-tween Patayan and Hohokam material culture ex-tend beyond ceramic types? What types of metateswere used by Patayan food grinders, and were theyinfluenced by Hohokam technologies? Are the arti-fact similarities between the Hohokam and Prescott

Patayan real, or were there Hohokam living amongthe Prescott Patayan? What does it mean if there areno differences between the Hohokam and Patayannon-ceramic material culture? Unfortunately, theanalysis of ground stone and other rock artifactsfrom the Gillespie Dam site may have raised morequestions than answers about who lived in the GilaBend area.

The area surrounding the Gillespie Dam site isgeologically diverse, with Woolsey Peak and scat-tered mesas with basalt outcrops, and the PaintedRock Mountains with quartzite and sandstone de-posits and smaller intrusive volcanic rocks scatteredthroughout. The dissecting drainages that feed intothe Gila River move rocks a considerable distancefrom their sources, making a wide variety of rocktypes readily available to the Gillespie Dam site

118 Chapter 6

inhabitants (Table 6.7). Most of the rocks selectedfor tools, especially for the manufacturing tools, wereprobably acquired from the riverbeds and arroyos.The larger food-processing tools may have been pro-cured from bedrock outcrops of basalt. Such pro-curement could have occurred during hunting orgathering trips.

A few pieces of paraphernalia were made fromrocks found in local drainages, such as the naturallyshaped geometrics of quartzite and basalt. Thephyllite, chrysocolla, and argillite pieces requiredlonger trips or extra-village social connections to ac-quire. The argillite probably came from the ChinoValley near Prescott (Mark Elson, personal commu-nication 2008), and an unfinished piece made fromrhyodacite may have also come from the Prescottarea. The source for the chrysoprase personal orna-ments is more difficult to determine. Chrysoprase isa type of chalcedony, and although small pieces maybe locally available in the streambeds, well-knowndeposits are also found in the Miami-Globe area(Carlos Lavayen, personal communication 2008).Similarly, two pieces of unworked green chalcedo-ny could have been local acquisitions, or they couldhave come from larger sources in the Sauceda Moun-tains. Even if they came from the Sauceda Mountains,however, the procurement of chalcedony noduleswould have been easily accomplished during anyhunting or gathering activity.

The locations of settlements along the Gila Riverhave been proposed as having been instrumental inthe movement of goods in and out of the PhoenixBasin (see references cited in Doyel 2000:125). Littlein the current ground stone assemblage can be usedto support this. Most of the rock types exploited areavailable within 24 km of the Gillespie Dam site, andwere probably collected from the active drainagesthat feed from the nearby hills into the Gila River.Only the phyllite, argillite, and rhyodacite may havebeen acquired by trade. The unused bead and pen-dant made from chrysoprase may have been traded

in, but small pieces of this chalcedony derivativemay have been collected from the riverbed or ar-royos. Further, the presence of tools that could havebeen used in the manufacture of the ornamentsmakes it seem reasonable to conclude that they werelocally manufactured.

The ground stone assemblage is best suited todiscussing the research issue related to site function.Food-processing activities were undoubtedly impor-tant, but most of the tools used in those activitieswere likely removed by the departing inhabitants,or they were later scavenged by others for use else-where, leaving little evidence for where the toolswere used, or of their specific design. Yet evidencewas recovered that indicates food-processing toolswere manufactured at the Gillespie Dam site. Mostof the ground stone items recovered were involvedin manufacturing activities of some sort, althoughnot obviously of pottery. They were the tools usedin manufacturing other stone items, or were the un-finished or remodeled tools themselves. However,nothing from the excavated contexts suggests theywere the locations of specialized tool production orof tools produced specifically for export. Thus, theground stone and other rock artifacts from the Gil-lespie Dam site provide some insight into the basicdomestic activities that occupied the inhabitants ona daily basis.

Acknowledgments

As with all the reports that I write for DesertArchaeology, Inc., many people worked to make itpossible for me to analyze the artifacts and writethe reports. Thanks are due Laboratory Director, LisaEppley, and her crew, as well as Publications Man-ager, Emilee Mead, and her crew. Also thanked areCarlos Lavayan for his rock type identifications andfor providing geological information, and RobCiaccio for photography.

Table 6.6. Contexts from which paraphernalia were recovered at the Gillespie Dam site, AZ T:13:18 (ASM). Context No. Percent Features Artifacts Comments Pithouse floor 1 17 17a Geometric – Pithouse floor fill 3 50 12a, 32 Figurine, geometric, bead – Pithouse fill 1 17 12a Geometric – Pithouse roof/wall fall 1 17 16a Geometric – 6 4 whole items aLocation of whole artifacts.


Table 6.7. Summary of rock types and possible sources for items used in various activities identified at the Gillespie Dam site, AZ T:13:18 (ASM).

Activity Artifact Type Rock Type Possible Sources Food processing Manos Vesicular basalt Woolsey Peak, nearby mesas Sandstone Painted Rock area Rhyolite Riverbed, arroyos Quartzite Riverbed, arroyos Metates Vesicular basalt Woolsey Peak, Sauceda Mountains Pestles Diabase Riverbed, arroyos Quartzite Riverbed, arroyos Processing Handstones Sandstone Painted Rock area Granite Riverbed, arroyos Granodiorite Riverbed, arroyos Quartzite Riverbed, arroyos Tuff Riverbed, arroyos Netherstone Vesicular basalt Woolsey Peak, Sauceda Mountains, nearby mesas Volcanic Riverbed, arroyos Pigment Hematite Clanton Hills area Manufacture Hammerstones Andesite Woolsey Peak Diabase Riverbed, arroyos Granite Riverbed, arroyos Quartzite Riverbed, arroyos Rhyolite Riverbed, arroyos Chopper Quartzite Riverbed, arroyos Flake Vesicular basalt Woolsey Peak, nearby mesas Lapstones Gneiss Riverbed, arroyos Igneous Riverbed, arroyos Rhyolite Riverbed, arroyos Pecking stones Igneous Riverbed, arroyos Volcanic Riverbed, arroyos Polishers Andesite Riverbed, arroyos Basalt Riverbed, arroyos Diabase Riverbed, arroyos Granite Riverbed, arroyos Quartzite Riverbed, arroyos Rhyolite Riverbed, arroyos Sandstone Riverbed, arroyos Volcanic Riverbed, arroyos Tabular tool Phyllite Nonlocal Unfinished Rhyodacite Precott area Unused Chrysoprase Riverbed, arroyos Raw material Chalcedony Sauceda Mountains Malachite Painted Rock area Paraphernalia Geometrics Basalt Woolsey or Bunyan Peaks Quartzite Riverbed, arroyos Argillite Chino Valley Bead Chrysocolla Painted Rock area Figurine Phyllite Nonlocal Note: Rock type and source identification courtesy of Carlos Levayen.

ground stone at gillespie dam site, arizona

Documents