casas grandes - di peso

7/28/2019 Casas Grandes - Di Peso

1/79

A Fallen Trading Center of the Gran Chichimecaby Charles C. Di Peso

John B. RinaldoGloria J. Fenner

Illustrated by Alice Wesche

THE AMERIND FOUNDATION, INC. 1DRAGOONNORTHLAND PRESS 1 FLAGSTAFF

Ti i t ~ r - n l ' ~ t : 1 t J C0l'f0~ . i ~ .. . { J ~ O S O ~ : f l t { L d C O D. f.,' foL 2.2 35 16


2/79

NUMBER 9OF THE AMERIND FOUNDATION, INC., SERIES

Reference volumes 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 contain the detailedsource material and basic scientific data upon which the evaluationsand conclusions in the first three volumes are based.

Copyright 1.974 by The Amerind Foundation, Inc.All Rights Reserved

FIRST EDITION

ISBN 0-87358-D56-7Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 74-8201.8

Composed and Printed in the United States of America


3/79

TABLE OF CONTENTSCHAPTER 1: Introduction to Casas Grandes Bone Artifacts

Changes Through TimePaticipants and CreditsAnalytical Standards and ProceduresCHAPTER 2: Viejo Period Bone Artifacts

lntroductionArtifact ClassificationAwlsCHAPTER 3: Medio Period Bone ArtifactsIntroductionRaw MaterialsManufacturing and Decorative TechniquesArtifacts . Ruin, Unit, and Phase DistributionComparisonsArtifact ClassificationFlakersPlaiting ToolsFine Coi! Basketry AwlsCoarse Coi! Basketry AwlsAwl BlankUnclassified Pointed Too! FragmentsHair OrnamentsSkewersPinsBeadsPendantFinger RingWhistlesRaspsTubesHuman Trophy SkullsWandsLong Bone TrovesDishCarved Effigies .Objects Ornamented with Turquoise MosaicNecklaceMiscellaneous ObjectsMiscellaneous Worked BoneUnclassified ArtifactsCHAPTER 4: Espaoles Period Bone Artifactslntroduction Artifact ClassificationCoarse Coi! Basketry AwlGeneralized Pointed Too!Unclassified Pointed Too! FragmentsCHAPTER 5: lntroduction to Casas Grandes Perishables

Changes Through TimeParticipants and CreditsAnalytical Standards and ProceduresCHAPTER 6: Medio Period Perishable Artifacts

Textiles and Basketry, Mary Elizabeth Kinglntroduction

4444555671012131314182228294046484950505051525355596363646465676970707070107175757575767676

Manufacturing TechniquesThe LoomFiber UseOyesTechniquesCostumeBlanketsSkirtsBreechcloths and Penis SheathsOther GarmentsBeltsLeggingsSandaisHeadgearBagsOrnaments

UseRuin, Unit, and Phase DistributionComparisonsArtifact ClassificationCordageBraidingKnotted NettingMattingBasketsWoven TextilesRaw MaterialsMiscellaneous Perishable ArtifactsWood and CanelntroductionManufacturing and Decorative TechniquesArtifactsRuin, Unit, and Phase DistributionComparisonsArtifact ClassificationHair OrnamentsPendant(?)PahosCeremonial ArrowsAnvilUnclassified Worked FragmentsLeather StripsUnidentified Material

CHAPTER 7: Espaoles Period Perishable ArtifactsArtifact ClassificationCordage

CHAPTER 8: lntroduction to Casas Grandes CommerceChanges Through TimeParticipants and CreditsAnalytical Standards and Procedures

CHAPTER 9: Viejo Period CommercelntroductionTrade CeramicsUpper Little Colorado River DrainageSnowflake Black-on-white . 1Kiatuthlanna-Iike Black-on-white

767678808181838485868888899192929292939393969798104107113113113113114114115115115115115116116118118119119120120120123123123125127127-127133133133


4/79

Puerco Black-on-whiteUpper Gila DrainageReserve Black-on-whiteTularosa Black-on-whiteMimbres ValleyThree Circle Red-on-whiteMimbres Bold Face Black-on-whiteMimbres Classic Black-on-whiteMimbres Polychrome

Rio Grande ValleyThree Rivers Red-on-terracottaLincoln Black-on-redGalisteo Black-on-whiteSan Pedro- Santa Cruz Valleys

Dragoon Red-on-brownRillito Red-on-brownSanta Cruz PolychromeMedanos AreaMedanos Red-on-brownGuasave AreaGuasave-like PolychromeCuliacn AreaAguaruto Exterior IncisedSouth of Tropic of CancerBanco de las Casas IncisedTotoate-like Polychrome

Totoate-like Black-on-whiteUnidentified Pottery WaresUnidentified Red WareUnidentified Red-on -brownUnidentified Black-on-whiteUnidentified Red:on-whiteUnidentified Black-on-redUnidentified PolychromeUnidentified Pattern ScoredUnidentified Hand Drum SherdsTrade Ceramic ArtifactsArtifact ClassificationCeramic Hand DrumsMarine Shell

CHAPTER 10: Medio Period CommerceIntroductionTrade CeramicsCeramic lmportsCeramic Exports

Trade WaresWhite Mountain AreaWhite Mountain Red WareTularosa Black-on-whiteTularosa White-on-redSt. Johns Black-on-red, Sub-glaze VariantPinedale Black-on-redSt. Johns PolychromeSt. Johns Polychrome, Sub-glaze VariantPinedale PolychromeSpringerville PolychromeHeshotauthla PolychromeZui AreaKwakina PolychromeKechipawan PolychromeEastern Middle Gila Drainage _Gila Polychrome Analysis, Ray N. RogersGila PlainGila White-on-redGila Black-on-redGila Black-on-red/ PolychromeTucson Polychrome, Hatched VariantPinto PolychromeGila PolychromeGila Polychrome, Pink VariantTonto Polychrome

Southern ArizonaTanque Verde Red-on-brownTucson PolychromeRio Grande Drainage

133133133133134134134134134135135135135135135136136136136136136136136136137137137137137137137138138138138138138138138139141141141141143143145145145146146146146146146147147147148148148148150150150151151151151!53153154154154154

Galisteo Black-on-whiteChupadero Black-on-white Lincoln Black-on-redEl Paso PolychromeJornada PolychromeMedanos AreaCarmen Red-on-gray

Durango-Guadiana AreaMercado Red-on-creamJalisco AreaTotoate-like Black-on-red, White-on-redCerro Colorado PolychromeRancho Reparo-like PolychromeNayarit Area

Amapa White-on-redEarly Nayarit PolychromeUnidentified Pottery WaresUnidentified PlainwareUnidentified Red WareUnidentified Polished Red WareUnidentified Red-on-br ownUnidentified Black-on-whiteUnidentified Red-on-whiteU nidentified Brown-on-whiteUnidentified White-on-redUnidentified White-on-brownUnidentified White-on-grayUnidentified Black-on-redUnidentified Black-on-brownU nidentified PolychromeUnidentified Black Engraved

Trade Ceramic ArtifactsArtifact ClassificationModeled Spindle WhorlsCeramic Hand DrumMarine Shell ImportslntroductionModern Distribution of Panamic MarineMollusk Species Found at Casas Grandes .Panamic Province Marine shell Trade in MesoamericaShell Species Distribution in the Gran ChichimecaArtifact ClassificationUnworked ShellImported BirdsScarlet Macaw ExportsMining lmportsTurquoiseAlibatesSerpentineChrysotile AsbestosObsidianSepiolite (Meerschaum)ThenarditeDomestic Commerce and Export TradeSaltCopperPaint PigmentsMined Deposit Materials

CHAPTER 11: Tardio Period CommerceSporadic Spanish Contact Phase

CHAPTER 12: Espaioles Period CommerceSan Antonio PhaseMaterials and DesignsTrade CeramicsIntroduction

Summary of the MajolicasMajolicasSan Luis Blue-on-cream MajolicaPuebla Blue-on-white MajolicaTallahassee Blue-on-white MajolicaSan Agustn Blue-on-white MajolicaUnclassified Blue-on-white MajolicaPuebla Lace Polychrome M a j o l i c ~Fig. Springs Polychrome Majolica

155155156156157157158158158158158!5815815915915915915916016016016016016016116116116116-1161161161161161162162162163 .163168170170182183187187188188189189189189189189189190190192192194194194194194195195195197197197198198198


5/79

Ab Polychrome Majolica 198 Cross 2;23Castillo Polychrome Majolica 199 Dough 224Guadalajara Polychrome Majolica 199 lntroduction 224Unclassified Brown-on-white Majolica 199 Artifact Classification 224Unclassified White Majolica 199 Bead 224Glazed Wares 199 Glass 224Spanish Olive Jar, Middle Style 199 lntroduction 224Unidentified Glaze Ware 200 Artifact Classification 225Slipped Wares 200 Beads 225Spanish Burnished Red Ware 200 Goblets 230Aztec Black-on-red 200 "Gin" Bottle Fragment 231Unidentified Pottery Wares 200 Mirror 231Unidentified Plainware 200 S ag 232Late Glazed Wares 200 CHAPTER 13: Functional Classification andHuejotzingo Banded Ware 200 Medio Period Composite Artifacts 235Aranama Polychrome Majolica 200Crude Green-on-yellow Majolica 201 Functional Classification 235Tonal Glazed Ware 201 Composite Artifacts 235Guanajuato Sgraffito 201 Earrings 236Late Intrusive Wares 201 Necklaces 236Blue-on-white Chinaware 201 Bracelets 239Plain White Chinaware 201 Finger Rings 239Oriental (Chinese?) Porcelain 201 Miscellaneous Composites 239

Shell 201 Medicine Man's Kit 240lntroduction 201 Troves 240Artifact Classification 202 Storerooms 240Cross 202 CHAPTER 14: lntroduction to Casas Grandes SubsistenceBone 202 242lntroduction 202 Changes Through Time 242Artifact Classification 202 The American Bison 243Beads 202 Mammalian Remains from Casas GrandesMetals 202 Charmion Randolph McKusick 243Wrought !ron 202 Bison 245Introduction 202 Artifact Usage 245Artifact Classification 204 Participants and Credits 246Knives 204 Analytical Standards and Procedures 246Axes 205Scissors 205 CHAPTER 15: Viejo Period Subsistence 247

Fork 206 Mammal Remains 247Brad-awl 206Hinges 208 Bird Remains 247Nails 208 Plant Remains 247Braces 209 Corn 247Handle or Pull 209 CHAPTER 16: Medio Period Subsistence 248Muleshoe 210Unidentified Objects 211 Fish, Reptiles, and Mammals 248Scrap !ron Workshop Material 211 Fish 250Copper and Copper Alloys 212 Reptiles 250Introduction 212 Mammals 250Artifact Classification 213 Butchering Marks 251Copper Kettle Fragments 213 Horn Cores, Antlers, Claws, and Tails 251Copper Sieve (Colander) 214 Orders 251Copper Spoons 214 Notes on a Collection of Reptile Eones fromBrass Buttons 214 the Casas Grandes Ruins, John S. Applegarth 251Copper Pendant 216 Notes on the Mammalian Collection, Copper Tubular Bead 216 Charmion Randolph McKusick 252Copper Wire 217 Lagomorpha - Hares and Rabbits 252Brass Crotals 217 Rodentia - Rodents 252Brass Medallion 218 Canis sp. - Dogs and Coyotes 252Copper Scabbard Tip(?) 218 Urocyon cinereoargenteus - Gray Fox 252Copper Workshop Material 219 Ursus sp. - Bears 252Lead 219 Procyon lotor - Raccoon 252

lntrodudion 219 Mephitis sp. - S triped and Hooded Skunks 252Artifact Classification 219 Fel idae - Cats 253Musket Ball 219 Odocoileus sp. - Deer 253Cross 220 Antilocapra americana - Pronghorn Antelopes 253Bale Clip (Sea!) 220 Bison bison - American Bison 253Workshop Material 221 Ovis canadensis - Desert Bighorn 253Perishable {\rtifacts 221 Bird Remains 267Textiles 221 Common Turkey 269Introduction 221 The Macaw 272Artifact Classification 221 Mesoamerican Macaw Concepts 273Woven Textiles 221 Gran Chichimecan Macaw Concepts 273Wood 223 The Casas Grandes Avan Report, 1Introduction 223 Charmion Randolph McKusick 273Artifact Classification 223 Discussion of the A vian List 273


6/79

Domestic Fowl: Common Turkey(Meleagris gallopavo)Captive Birds: Scarlet Macaw (Ara macao)Captive Birds: Military Macaw(Ara militaris)Other Captive BirdsWild BirdsBird Bone ArtifactsPathologyAnomalous FenestraeEggshellsAdditions to the Osteology of the MexicanMacaws and Their Known Status in ArchaeologyClassification of Bird RemainsType 1, Articulated Plaza BurialsType 2, Articulated Burials Below Plaza Pen FloorsType 3, Articulated Room Subfloor BurialsType 4, Remains of Birds Killed AccidentallyType 5, Articulated Btirials With Human RemainsType 6, Headless and Associated BurialsType 7, Miscellaneous RemainsPlant RemainsCorn from Casas Grandes, Hugh C. Cutler andLeonard W. BlakeRaces of Corn Grown at Casas GrandesDiscussion

CottonSquashes and GourdsUncultivated Plant RemainsUnidentified Plant RemainsCHAPTER 17: Tardio Period Subsistence

Plant RemainsCHAPTER 18: Espaoles Period Subsistence

Reptiles and MammalsNotes on the Mammalian Collection,,'";harmion Randolph McKusickEquidae - Horses and Related FormsSus seroja- Domestic SwineOvis aries and Capra hirca -Domestic Sheep and GoatsBos taurus - Domestic Cattle

Espaoles Period Bird RemainsRecent Bird RemainsPlant RemainsCorn, Hugh C. Cutler and Leonard W. BlakePeachCHAPTER 19: lntroduction to Casas Grandes Burials

Changes Through TimeVital StatisticsDeath Ratiosf..ge/Sex RatiosBurial PracticesPit BurialsGrave CoversBody PositionBody OrientationMultiple BurialsGrave FurnitureBurial JypesRoom BurialsType 1 - Subfloor Room Burialsin Sealed Pits4 - Subfl oor Room Burialsin Sealed Tombs . . .Type 11 - Subfloor Room Burialsin Unsealed PitsPlaza BurialsType 3 - Subfloor Plaza Burialsin Sealed PitsType 1 2 - Subfloor Plaza Burialsin Unsealed PitsMiscellaneous Burial Types

273276278279279280280281281283284290296297298300301305308308309310314315315316317317318318318318318318319320320320320321325325325325326327327327328328328329329329329332333333333335335

Type 5 - Secondary Urn Burialsin Surface TombsType 6- Nonsepulchered Secondary Urn BurialsType 7 - Burials Superimposed onOlder, Abandoned ArchitectureType 8 - Human SacrificesType 2- Unburied BodiesType 9 - Accidental DeathsType 13 - Miscellaneous Human BoneType 13 A - Bone from Unsealed Fillor Floor ProveniencesType 13 B - Bone from Sealed FillProveniencesType 13 C- Bone from Trash Constructionof Architectural FeaturesGeneral MorphologyPhysical AppearanceCranial DeformationPathology and DiseaseParticipants and CreditsAnalytical Standards and Proct:dures

CHAPTER 20: Viejo Period BurialslntroductionDemographySubadultsAdultsCranial DeformationGeneral Morphology, Robert A. Be1ifer andThomas W. McKernCranialPostcranialSummaryGrave PitsFuneral FurnitureBody PositionOrientationConvento Phase BurialsPilon Phase BurialsPerros Bravos Phase Burials

CHAPTER 21: Medio Period BurialslntroductionVital StatisticsCrude Death Rateslntracity VariablesPhase DifferentialsAgejSex RatiosMortality RatesAge StructureSex StructureBurial PracticesBody PositionBody OrientationGrave FurnitureNonperishablePerishableCranial DeformationPathology and DiseaseUnit DescriptionsUnit 1, The House of the OvensUnit 4, The Mound of the OfferingsUnit 6Unit 8, The House of the WellUnit 11, The House of the SerpentUnit 12, The House of the MacawsUnit 13, The House of the DeadUnit 14, The House of the PillarsUnit 15Unit 16, The House of the SkullsUnit 18Unit 19Unit 20Unit 21Unit 22Unit 23 o 1

335335335336337337337337337337337337339341341342343343343343343344344344344344344346347347347349350355355355355356357359359359359359361362363364366366368368368371372376380384387396401402405405406406407408


7/79

Central Plaza, The MarketplaceEast PlazaReyes Site No. 1 (CHIH:D:9:13)Reyes Site No. 2 (CHIH:D:9:14)CHAPTER 22: Tardio Period Burial

409 CHAPTER 23: Espaioles Period Burials410 lntroduction410 Burial Descriptions411412 INDEX

The numbering for illustrations in each volume is bipartite. The first number refersto the figure number, while the digi t following the hyphen indica tes the volume. E.g.,Fig. 3-7 is the third figure in Vol. 7.

413413413417


8/79

>

BONE

* ~


9/79

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION TOCASAS GRANDESBONE ARTIFACTS

CHANGES THROUGH TIMEDuring the course of excavations a total of 885 bone artifacts wasrecovered. Four (0.5%) of these were in Viejo Period association, 877(99.1%) belonged to the Medio Period, and four (0.5%) to the SanAntonio Phase of the Espaoles Period.All ofthe Viejo Period spei:imens were utilitarian implements.andincluded a plaiting tool, a coarse coi! basketry awl, and two other awlswith broken tips. These were simply made, undecorated items-threewere spl inter tools and one was a split gro oved too . Two of them weremade of the bones of the popular Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus),which presently inhabits the local mountains.As was true for other artifact categories, the vast majority andgreatest variety of bone artifacts belonged to the Medio Period. Therewere sorne 25 classes of artifacts including utilitarian stone-workingtools and weaving implements; nonutilitarian items of personaladomment, like hair ornaments, beads, and a finger ring; socioreligious paraphernalia ranging from the simple sucking tube of theshaman to such esoteric priestly goods as human trophy skulls, wands,and a trove of over a hundred long bones; and finally, the remnants ofvarious bones in the process of manufacture into finished objects. Bothbird and mammal bones were used, and bone identifcations includedtwo classes, two orders, one subfamily, three genera, 14 species, andfive subspecies. Among the more interesting materials were 20 artifacts

of human bone and 132 of carnivores, including Black Bear (Ursusamericanus), Grizzly Bear (Ursus nelsom), and Mountain Lion (Felisconcolor). The sources for the raw material ranged from the mounta inhabitat ofthe Mule Deer and bears to the open plains ofthe PronghomAntelope (Antilocapra americana) and American Bison(Bison bison).Of sorne interest, too, was the presence of Beaver (Castor canadensis),for its present-day occurrence in northern Mexico represents the"extreme fringe" of its range (Leopold, 1959, p. 381).With the diversity of artifact forms represented, it was notsurprising that the techniques of manufacture were so much morevaried. Still present, though very few in number, were splinter tools,while other artifacts were highly and cleverly worked (see Figs. 8-10-8) and polished to a high gloss. In addition, nota few were decorated byincising, carving, painting, or the addition of pseudo-cloisonn orturquoise mosaic work.No bone artifacts were recovered from the limited Tardo Periodexcavations and only four from the Espaoles Period site. The latterhowever, also produced a trade piece of black painted, carved rosarybeads (see Ch. 12, this volume, p. 202). Like the artifacts of the ViejoPeriod, the indigenous San Antonio Phase specimens wete allutilitarian implements. They included a coarse coi! basketry awl,,ageneralized pointed too!, and fragments of two other pointed tools.One was a mere splinter, two others were well-finished shapedsplinters, and one was a split bone. None ofthemwere identified belowthe leve! of class.In summary, the simpler utilitarian weaving tools continued to beused through all of the three time periods represented, as did splinterand split bone coarse coil awl forms. P laiting tools were present only inthe Viejo and Medio periods, which also saw the use of Mule Deer as araw material. The artifacts of the Viejo and Espaoles periods werevastly simpler, in terms of manufacture, the lack of decoration, andfunction, than were those of the rniddle period. The latter werecharacterized by not only a greater range of utilitarian designs, but alsoby a number of omaments and larger quantity of socio-religiousitems.PARTICIPANTS AND CREDITS

The analysis and classification of Viejo Period bone artifacts wascarried out by John B. Rinaldo, while those of the Medio and

Espaoles periods were done by Gloria J. Fenner, with the guidance ofCharles C. Di Peso. Preliminary ordering and sorting, as well asmeasuring, were done by J ohn Grahm, a Beloit College student .Fenner was lat ter assisted by S usan Glowski, another Beloit student.Identifications of bird bones were made by Dr. Lyndon L. Hargraveand Mrs. C. Randolph McKusick, both then at the SouthwestArcheological Center in Globe, Arizona. Mr. Thomas W. Mathewsbegan the identi fication of animal bone while at the same institution,but over half the mammal bone artifacts were identified by McKusickunder the auspices of her Southwest Bird Lab of Globe. The primaryso urce of information for the human bone artifacts was Mr. Walter H.Birkby, Human Identification Laboratory, Arizona State Museum,and additional information was taken from the Ph. D. dissertation ofDr. Robert A. Benfer, then of the University of Texas AnthropologyDepartment. Under Benfer's direction, Mr. Thomas Ellzey, then agraduate student at the University of Texas, identified, from aphotograph, the bones of the necklace described herein.ANALYTICAL STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES

The over-all dimensions of the bone artifacts have been given asmaximum measurements-length, width, thickness, diameter.Incomplete measurements are designated with a plus(+) sign. The tipsof the Medio and Espaoles Period pointed tools were pressed intoclay to their maximum extent and the impressions thus made weremeasured (see Di Peso et al., 1956, p. 412). No incompletemeasurements were included in group averages.Terrninology employed for pointed bone artifacts (see Fig. 1-8)includes (! ) butt, the base or blunt end, which may be the natur alarticular condyle (head) or highly modified and shaped; (2) shaft, thecentral portian ofthe too!; (3) tip, the pointed end; (4) shoulder, wherethe butt joins the shaft, may be natural or artificially shaped; (5)gro ove, the concave side of the shaft and/ or tip, which may be duetosplitting and may be deepened artificially or almost abraded away.

51-\ ..F

G ~ O V E

1 ....:. '1:f~ }

SI-\OUL.PEI2

surr

Fig. 1-8. Terminology for Pointed Bone Tools.

Following analysis and description of the bone artifacts, computerclassifications were set up to include each of the various typologies.The pointed artifacts were in one program, the unpointed ones inanother. Unfortunately, the former was felt to be one of the leastsatisfactory of the computer programs, partly due to the nature ofsorne of the individual typologies, which were perhaps too limited intheir specific features.The program for pointed tools is illdstrated in Fig. 2-8, while thatused for the unpointed artifacts can be easily explained verbally, as


10/79

2 THE AMERIND FOUNDATION, INC.-CASAS GRANDES-NO. 9-VOL. 8

o HEAD (BUTT) o oOBJECT SHOULDERo MODIFICATION O PROFILE o WIDTH o SECTION o o

01. Flaker OO. Unknown O. Unknown O. Unknown !0. Unknown~ 01. Not l. Not O. Not l . Not l. NotApplicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable'/ 3. Unclassified Awls 0 2 ~ 2. Straight l . Narrow 2. Natur al 2. Naturaln \ )~ 14. Unclassified Too! 03. Whole, 3. Straight or 2. Broad 3. Round/ 3. Natural,Fragments Unmodified n,n,n Rounded Oval Modifiedr;; 0 0 \ !04. Coarse Coi! Awl 1S. Generalized Too! 04. Whole, Slight- 4. Tip Taper 3. Thick 4. Rectanguloid 4. Not~ ly Modified D Shouldered~ rJ o \ 1OS. Awl Blank OS. Whole, S. Butt Taper S. Flattened S. Single Acute~ Modified n ShoulderrJ ~ \(06. Unclassified 06. Y, Split 6, Spatulate 6. Irregular 6. Double Acutep ~ PJ n ShoulderFragment o

1 ~07. Y, Split, 7. Irregular 7. Double ObtuseUnmodified

oShoulder

PJ \;~ 08. Y, Split, Slight- 8. Blunt End 8. Double Convexly Modified Shouldern \109. Pin 09. Y, Split, 9. Pointed End 9. DoubleModified Straight~ ~ S h o ~ d ~10.Wand ~ 10. Split

..

f11~ .. ~ 11. No Heade n follows: The four categories coded were object, shape, bone, andmodification. Fifteen types of objects were included, 01 beads, 02pendant, 03 finger ring, 04 whistles, 05 rasps, 06 tubes, 07 trophy skulls,12. Unclassified 12. Modified 08 long bone trove material, 09 dish, 10 carved effigies, 11 an artifactAwl Tips or Missing ornamented with mosaic work, 12 a necklace, 13 miscellarieousobjects, 14 miscellaneous worked bone, and 15 unclassified artifacts.Shapes were coded in a double column system whereby the secondnumber was dependent u pon the first, specifically for the tubul ar, longand narrow, and representative artifacts. Unknown shapes were codtldas 00 sha es not a licable to the t olo ies as 10 unsha ed as 20 andP PP YP g P ,Fig. 28. Computer Program Key for Pointed Bone Tools. artifacts with only slight modification of the natural shape of the bone


11/79

FENNER-INTRODUCTION TO CASAS GRANDES BONE ARTIFACTS 3....o SHAFT o TIP o oo o o DECORATION o MATERIALo MODIFICA TION o PROFILE SECTION END o SECTIONO. Unknown 00, Unknown OO. Unknown O. Unknown O. Unknown OO. Unknown1. Not 01. Not 01. Not l. Not l. Not 01. Not O. NotApplicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable Applicable2. Wbole 02. Wavy 02. Round/ 13. Flattened, 2. Blunt, 2. Round 02. Undecorated l . Boneif0 Serpentne Rounded Oval Grooved Roundedo o ~ u o3. Split 03. Tight 03. Round/ 14. Centavo- 3. Blunt, 3. Round/ 03. Decorated 2. AntierSerpentine Rounded Oval, convex Squared Rounded Oval or PreparedUngrooved ~ u for Decorationo o 004. Y, Split 04. Straight 04. Round/ 1S. Grooved 4. Blunt, 4. Rectanguloid 04. Painted 3. Ulna

rm 1 Rounded Oval, PointedShallow Groove CbD vu o __,. ~o o---S. Split OS. Tip Taper OS. Round/ 16. Hollow S. Beveled S. Concavo- OS. Carved~ Rounded Oval, u convex~ Grooved " V ~Q)CJ 0:::!} ' d i . A ~6. Shaped 06. Double 06. Rectanguloid 17. Irregular 6. Convex- 06. Roughened'''"''"

T o p o ~ convexo o ~ ijl7. Splinter 07. Curved 07. Rectanguloid, 7. Irregular 07. Mosaic

~ V Ungrooved o08. Narrow 08. Rectanguloid, 08. IncisedShallow Groove \$/09. Bread 09. Rectanguloid, 09. DiscoloredGrooved ~:J .10. Large 10. Flattened 10. Roughened,Diameter " " ' ' " " ~' ) ,,11. Small 11. Flattened,Di ame er Ungrooved

) as 30; tubular artifacts were 40, with detailed features coded as 41 (very( short (ring), 42 short and narrow, 43 short and broad, 44 long andnarrow, 45 long and broad;,_rectangular objects were 50, tabular ones12. Flattened, 60; long and narrow (solid) bone artifacts included 71 rounded and 72Shallow faceted; while representaive effigies were 81 anthropomorphic and 82Groove zoomorphic. Coding for the type of bone from which these artifactswere made included Ounknown, l not applicable, 2 skull, 3 long bone,c:-=:=J 4 rib, 5 scapula, 6 mandible, 7 tooth, and 8 appendage. Modificationswere coded as O unknown, l not applicable, 2 split, 3 perforated, 4channeled, 5 cut / sawed, 6 ground, 7 sawed/ cut and ground, 8 scraped,

or 9 polished.


12/79

4 THE AMERIND FOUNDATION, INC.-CASAS GRANDES-NO. 9-VOL.

CHAPTER 2

VIEJO PERIODBONE

ARTIFACTSINTRODUCTION

Four bone awls believed to be personal tools primarily used forweaving were recovered from Viejo Period contexts. These were sortedout into splinter awls-those with the end opposite the point brokenoff roughly-and a single awl with the shaft hol!owed out lengthwise,thus emphasiz ing the gutter-like groove. These tools were then furthe rsubdivided n the basis of the shape of the tip.With the possible exception of the grooved bone awl, they were toounspecialized in form for elose comparison. However, and in general,both types had a wide distribution throughout the Gran Chichimeca.Consequently, their significance was primarily a local one of their usein the Viejo Period 'culture.

ARTIFACT CLASSIFICATIONAwls

UseNo direct evidence was recovered as to the use of the bone awls atthe Convento site. These were probably personal tools, as one was

found with a buria l (Burial54). By analogy these implements were usedin weaving basketry and for punching holes in leather. Di Peso (DiPeso et al., 1956, pp. 412-413) has determined on the basis of certainkinds of wear on the points that those tips round in cross-section wereused in weaving coiled baskets, those with a flat tip for twilled basketsor plaiting. Although the series from the Convento site was too smallfor accurate comparison, they appeared to correspond to three types:(1) a splinter type of awl witha stout shaft and short, sharp tip polishedonly three millimeters of its length, which appeared suitable for makingholes in hides. (2) Another splinter with a thin delicate shaft and a tip ofsmall diameter which was rounded in cross-section; the extreme tip wasbroken off. This corresponded to the type used to make fine coiledbaskets. (3) A specimen with a beveled, flattened tip which was likethose used for plaiting.Manufacture

These awls were made from fragments of limb bones ground downon a coarse abrasive material, such as sandstone or pumice, which leftscratches on the shafts. The points were then sharpened and polishedon a stone of finer texture.Classification

The four bone awls of the Viejo Period were divided into twocategories, splinter (Type I) and grooved (Type II) awls. None ofthemwere wel!-made, the grooved awl being the best finished. This awl, anincomplete specimen, had a rounded point. It was at least 13.7 cm. inlength and 1.8 cm. in width; the thickness was 1.5 cm. Two ofthe threesplinter awls had round points, the third a flat point. The two completespecimens were 9.2 cm. and 9. 7 cm. in length; the width of the threespecimens ranged from 1.0 cm. to 1.5 cm., the thickness from 0.4 cm. to0.6 cm. One was found with Pilon Phase Burial 54.

AWLS. 4 SPECIMENS.TYPE 1 - SPLINTER AWLS. 3 SPECIMENS. FJG. 38/1.No. L. W. Th. Material Provenlence Remar

.......... cm ............. .

CG/2930 9.2 1.2 0.6 Mammalla sp.; large adult House T, Fill Flatpoint.CG/2935 7.5+ 1.0 0.4 Artiodactyla sp.; metapodial House S, Fill Round3-4, par! of shaft; adu lt point.CG/3143 9.7 1.5 0.5 Odoco f leus hemionus; Rmeta- "Burial 54 Raundtarsal 3-4, port of proximal point.head, shaft; medium adultTYPE 11 - GROOVED AWL. 1 SPECIMEN. FIG. 3-B/2.CG/2870 13.7+ 1.8+ 1.5 o. hemlonus; R metacarpo) 34, Hause A, Fill Raundport of distal shoft; Jorge point.young adult; mole

DistributionAlkali Ridge (Brew, 1946, p. 243, Figs. 176-181)Cahone Canyon (Martn, 1939, pp. 426, 430, Fig. 123)Williford Sites (Martn, 1938, p. 256)Johh Milis Site (Peckham, 1963, p. 109, Fig. 48 a-e)Shabik'eschee Village (Roberts, 1929a, pp. 127-128, PI. 19-23)Tseh So (Brand el al., 1937, p. 94, PI. 18)Red Mesa Sites (Gladwin, 1945, PI. 32)White Mound Village (/bid., p. 26, PI. 19 d-g)Vernon (Martn and Rinaldo, 1960a, pp. 88-90, Fig. 52)Bear Ruin (Haury, 1941, pp. 113-114, Fig. 40 a-h)Starkweather Ruin (Nesbitt, 1938, p. 107, PI. 48 a-e)Reserve Phase Sites (Martn and Rinaldo, 1950b, p. 492, Fig. 189)Nantack Village (Breternitz, 1959a, pp. 51, 66, Fig. 42)Crooked Ridge Village (Wheat, 1954, p. 160, Fig. 58)Turkey Foot Ridge Site (Martn and Rinaldo, 1950a, p. 350, Fig. 133)Mogollon Village (Haury, 1936b, p. 48, PI. 20)Snaketown (Giadwin el al., 1937, p. 154, PI. 125)Harris Village (Haury, 1936b, p. 76, PI. 34)San Simon Village (Sayles, 1945, p. 57, PI. 53)Apatzingn (Kelly, 1947, pp. 111-112, 114, Fig. 65 a, PI. 18 a)Tlamimilolpa (Linn, 1934, pp. 132-133, Figs. 249,262. Carbon-14dates indicate that thsite was occupied earlier than the beginni9g date of the Viejo Period.)Xolalpn (/bid., p. 157, Figs. 328-329)Kaminaljuy (Kidder el al., 1946, p. 153, Fig. 66 a)


13/79

CHAPTER 3

MEDIO PERIOD

BONE ARTIFACTSINTRODUCTION

Sorne 877 bone and antier artifacts are herein listed for the MedioPeriod. While the majority of these were fragmentary specimens andunidentifiable as to the type cif too! or ornament, there was still aconsiderable variety of objects.Raw Materials

A total of 837 of the 877 bone artifacts was identified (see Fig. 4-8);excluded were field discards, missing specimens, and those retu rned toMexico before study began. Birds accounted for 4.5% (38) of theartifacts, mammals for 95.3% (798), and one was either (0.1 %). Birdsunidentified beyond Aves sp. made up about a fifth of these bones(21.1 %), while the remainder were classified to the species or subspeciesleve!. Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis) accounted for the greatestnumber of bird bone artifacts, with ten or 26.3%, while Golden Eagle(Aquila chrysaetos) was second with nine or 23.7%. Following thesewere Common Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo, 15.8%), Canada Goose

"';..'!l:


14/79

6 THE AMERIND FOUNDATION, INC.-CASAS GRANDES-NO. 9-VOL.

coi! basketry awls, and the awl blank. Ornaments encompassed thehair orna ments, skewers, pins, beads, the pendant, and the finger ring,while the socio-religious group was made up of whistles, rasps, tu bes,human trophy skulls, long bone trove material, a dish, the carvedeffigies, objects with turquoise mosaic, and the necklace. Also includedin the latter group were a number of other artifacts that were recoveredfrom what were considered to be socio-religious proveniences, such asthe Unit 16 trove material. These were a plaiting too!, coarse coi!basketry awls, unclassified pointed too! fragments, hair ornaments,skewers, and miscellaneous objects and worked bone. The results ofthis compilation for certain groups of bone, was as follows (bird,bird/ mammal, and mammal percentages are based on the total atthebottom; percentages below mammal are based on the mammal total):

UTILIT ARIAN NONUTILITARIANPersonal Adomment Socio-religiousBird 23 22.5'7c 14 4.4'7c 37 8.8'7.Blrd/Mamma1 1 1.0')'. 1 0.2')'.Mammal 147 100.0'7. 78 76.5'7o 303 95.6'7c 381 90.9')'.Human 1 0.7'7. 1 1.3')'. lB 5,91J'c 19 5.0')'.Camivore 1 0.7'7c 1 1.3')'. 128 42.2'7c 129 33.9"JcArtiodactyl 111 75.5"/o 39 50,0'7c 98 32.3'7c 137 36.0?'aTotal 147 102 317 419

The first observation to be mentioned is that all of the utilitarianimplements were made of mammal bone, while the majority of birdbone was used for ornaments. Fu rther, three-quarters ofthe utilitarianartifacts were made of artiodactyl bone. Deer, in fact, accounted for29.3% of these tools, and this was overwhelmingly Mule Deer(Odocoileus hemionus). The only two implements that did not fit thispattern were made of human and Mountain Lion bone; both werecoarse coi! basketry awls. In contrast to the tools, half of the mammalbone ornamen ts were made of artiodactyl bone; again, M u!e Deer waspredominant. Unfortunately, however, 37 of the 78 mammal boneswere not identified beyond the leve! of Mammalia sp. One of the hairornaments was made of Grizzly Bear (Ursus nelsoni), and the pendantwas made of human bone, while one of the beads was mammal bone.While over 95% of the socio-religious artifacts were made of mammalbone, the unusual feature about these was that most of these werecarnivores, including both Black (Ursus americanus) and Grizzly Bear,Mountain Lion (Felis concolor), and Bobcat (Lynx nifus). The highestpercentage of human bone for any ofthe three groups was also in this. category. Looking at these occurrences another way and using thesame totals as those above, 90.0% of the human bone was in the socioreligious category, with only 5.0% in each ofthe other two; 98.5%of thecarnivore bone was in the same group, with 0.8% in each of the others;and 44.8% of the artiodactyl bone was used for utilitarian artifacts,15.7% for ornamen ts, and 39.5% for socio-religious paraphernalia.A compilation of bone identifications by unit also resulted in sorneconcentrations of certain kinds of bone or parti cular species (see Fig. 5-8). In Unit 14, for example, were 19 of the 38 bird bones (50.0%), while13 of the 20 human bone artifacts (65.0%) were recovered from Unit16, as was the vast majority of the carnivores, 128 of 132 artifacts(97.0%). Mule Deer had its highest counts in Units 16 and 8, while thegreatest number of Pronghorn Antelope artifacts was also recoveredfrom Unit 16. The main reason for the numerous bone artifacts in U nit16 was the presence of an amazing trove of bone in Room 23-16, whichincluded such esoteric items as the six human trophy skulls and over ahundred long bones. When upper story walls collapsed, a number ofthe artifacts tumbled into the adjacent Room 22-16, where they werelisted as Trove l. This trove accounted for 249 of the bone artifacts(28.4%), and included a plaiting too!, six coarse coi! basketry awls, 70unclassified pointed too! fragments, two hair ornaments, four skewers,the six trophy skulls, 42 wands, 109 long bones, a carved effigy, fourmiscellaneous objects, and four pieces of worked bone. As mentionedabove, certain species were concentrated in Unit 16, and specifically inthis trove, including 100% ofthe Ursus sp. (3), 97.9% ofthe Black Bear(92), 92.3% of the Grizzly Bear ( 12), 89.5% of the Mountain Lion ( 17),and 50.0% of the human (1 O) and the Lesser Sandhill Crane (1) bones.Other identifications for this trove were Mammalia sp. (49),Artiodactyla sp. (31), Mu!e Deer (21), Whitetail Deer (Odocoileusvirginianus, 3), P ronghorn Ante! o pe (7), and Bovinae sp. ( 1). lt mightbe of interest to note that a mnimum fauna! count of this troverevealed the presence of at least 32 Black Bear (27 long bones, 5 otherartifacts) , seven Grizzly Bear ( 4 long bones and 3 othe r artifacts), andeight Mountain Lion (8 long bones).

Specie sAves sp.Unit

Branta canadensisB. canadensismoffitticf . Chen hyperboreaA quila chraesytosA. chraesytos orGrus canadensis tabida -Meleagris gallopavoGrus canadensiscanadensisG, canadensis tabidaAve s/Mammalia sp ,Mammalia sp ,Hamo sapiensLepus sp .Castor canadensisCamivora sp.Ursus sp .Ursus americmusUrsus nelsonlFe is concolorLynx rufusArtiodactyla sp .Odocoileus sp . 1 -Odocoi!eus hemlonus 3 -Odocolleus virginlanus 1 -o. virginianus cf .couesiAntilacapra americanaBavinae sp.Ovis canadensisO. canadensis cf .mexicanaBison blson

11 12 13 14

1 - 1 -

71108 7 16 422 -

1 -1 -1 -1 -49 5 101 124 6 133 - 1 -

241141124

Central Ea16 19 20 22 Plaza Pla

1 -11

1 -67 4 - 1713 -

13931219 -47 2 - 10130 4 15 1 - -1811

1 -Total'7

6 10 24 205 19 29 47 120 317 13 1 2 380.7 1.2 2.9 24.6 2.3 3.5 5.6 14.4 38.0 1.6 0.1 0.2 4.6 0

Fig. 5-8. Unit Distribution for Medio Period Bone Artifact ldentificatio(F orty unidentified artifacts are excluded.)

Manufacturing and Decorative TechniquesPrimary manufacturing techniques observed among the boartifacts-or deduced on the basis of finished shapes-includsplintering, splitting, and sawing. The first was accomplished smashing or battering a long bone to obtain small, narrow fragmenwhich were further worked to complete the too! (see Fig. 6-8/Splitting was done by sawing a long bone along its length (see Fig.8/2). Sawing, on the other hand, was used no t only to obtain a piece

bone the desired size, but to further shape objects by cutting irregularities along edges, parts of condyles, or the like (see Fig. 6-8/Further shaping of objects was accomplished by abrading. Tmajority of the Medio Period bone artifacts gave sorne evidenceabrading in the form of minute scratches and/ or smoothed facetsthe surfaces of the specimens. This manufacturing technique wobserved in a number of stages from rough shaping to a smoofinished surface (see Fig. 6-8/ 4).

Burnishing or polishing was a finishing technique that appearedbe relatively limited in use, althoug h severa! of the artifacts were bapitted. Preservatio n was necessarily a factor in the ob servation of ttechnique on any object. (See Fig. 6-8/5.) Other manufacturtechniques were perforating and notching. All perforations wdrilled instead of being cut out (see Fig. 6-8/ 6). Notching waccomplished by partially sawing through bone in a series of short c(see Fig. 6-8/7). (Also see Figs. 7-9-8.)Severa! decorative techniques were observed on the bone artifacand sorne of them were processes also used in manufacture. Carvwas seen on a few objects, most notably two human effigies whfacial features were carved in Iow relief by removing the compact boin one case and by cutting into it, but not through it, in the other (Fig. 10-8/ 1). Another example of Iow relief was found on a fspecimens in the form of nonrepresentational patterns (see Fig. 8/ 1).Irrcising was also used to make simple geometric designs (see F10-8/2), as well as to delineate an area to be covered by pseucloisonn or mosaic. Such pat terns were en ire! y rectilinear. N otchwas used to ornament objects by modifying their outlines. Brnotches were used to give sorne hair ornament s a serpentn e form althei r lengths (see Fig. 10-8/ 3). While most ofthe perforations incluas examples of decorative techniques were not ornamental, they wno t thought to be necessaryto the use ofthetools as, for example, haare necessary for whistles. These perforations were also drilled instof being cut out (see Fig. 10-8/ 4).While severa! specimens of different types had remnants ofpaint, only one was painted with a recognizable design (see Fig. 8/ 5). The pain t was in all cases red. Additio nal objects had small aofunidentif ied green (pseudo-cloisonn?) and green copper stains,most of these merely indicated proximity to the materialdiscolored them.


15/79

FENNER-MANUFACTURING AND DECORATIVE TECHN1QUES 7

Abrading was utilized in ornamentation by pseudo-cloisonn andmosaic to roughen the surface of the area to be so decorated in arder topro vide better adhesion (see Fig. 10-8/ 6). Only two examples ofpseudo-cloisonn work were found (see Figs. 551-7/2, 10-8/7). Whilefragmentary, the material had original! y covered the butt of the skewerIike a knob. Four examples of the use of turquoise tesserae wererecovered, three done on f!at surfaces (see Fig. 10-8/ 8) and onecovering a condyle. The butts of severa! objects were discolored,indicating that sorne material had once adhered to them. Nearly al! ofthese stains were reddish-brown.Artifacts

A total of 114 (13.0%) specimens were classified as objects ofpersonal adornment. These included 55 hair ornaments, 17 skewers, afinger ring, a pendant, 24 beads, 13 pins, and three pegs. I t is possiblethat sorne of these items, part icular! y the hair ornaments, skewers, andpins, might have been used for more practica! activities that requiredpiercing tools.Weaving tools included !59 (18.1 %) specimens-23 plaiting tools,35 fine coi! basketry awls, 90 coarse coi! basketry awls, one awl blank,and ten awl fragments unclassified as to type. I t is likely that many ofthese implements were used for chores other than making mats andbaskets. The plaiting tools, with their flattened tips (see Fig. 11-8/ 1),could have been used in smoothing operations. The fine coi! basketryawls, having smaller, more sharply pointed tips, would have beenuseful for making small hales or rents in materials other than thoseused in basketry, and a variety of use wear was observed on their tips(see Fig. 11-8/ 2). I t is even more Iikely that the coarse coi! basketryawls were used for multiple activities. Not only was there more thantwice the number of these tools than any of the other types of awls, bu ttheir tips and shafts had a grea ter variety of use wear (see Fig. 11-8/ 3).Sorne 322 (36.7%) bone artifacts were classified as socio-religiousobjects. These included 15 rasps, two whistles, 57 wands, three carvedeffigies, 12 tubes, six trophy skulls, a dish, two objects ornamentedwith turquoise mosaic, a painted rib, a necklace, 84 unclassifiedpointed too! fragments, 111 long bones, five skewers, the same numberof miscellaneous worked bone, eight coarse coi! basketry awls, fourmiscellaneous bone objects, two each of hair ornaments andunclas'sified artifacts, and one plaiting too!. I t was thought that few ofthese specimens could have been categorized as secular tools, with theexception of the last seven types of artifacts mentioned, along with thewhistles, used for hunting cal!s, and the bone and mosaic specimens,which might have been items of personal adornment. Of particularnote were the numerous and varied specimens found in the Unit 16trove, already discussed.Relatively few of the tools were u sed for stone chipping. These weresix (0.7%) bone and antier flakers.Thirteen (1.5%) pieces of miscellaneous worked bone were placedin abone working category, as being workshop material in the processof manufacture.A total of 263 (30.0%) bone specimens were not given a functiona1classification. The great majority-238 items-were parts of pointedbone tools or ornaments. While most of these were short segmentsofshafts, they were counted individually, although it was thought thatmany which shared proveniences carne from the same too1s.Additional mending was not possible, nor were there any mendsamong these and classified implements. Of the remainder of theunclassified tools, sorne were too fragmentary to identify; others wereunique, sorne being scrap or raw materials, perhaps; and additionalspecimens.were 1ost or discarded in the field and could no t be studied.These included 16 miscellaneous objects and nine unclassified artifacts .

Fig. 6-8. Medio Period Btme Manufacturing Techniques.(Note l . Splintering, CG/66670, Type VI fine coil basketry awl;2. Splitting, CG/5684, Type lA miscellaneous bone object; 3.Sawing, CG/3794, Type IIA plaiting tool, CG/6930, Type IIAplaiting tool, CG/7994C, Type VII miscellaneous .bone object;4. Abrading, CG/5727, awl bh1nk, CG/1195, Type VIIC coarsecoil basketry awl, Uc/540U, Type VIIF coarse coil basketryawl, CG/6934, Type lA wand; S. Burnishing, CG/6052, TypeIVC ilait ing tool; 6. Perforating,


16/79

8

21,2 CM,

1

THE AMERIND FOUNDATION, INC.-CASAS GRANDES-NO. 9-VOL.

5

3

24.9 CM

6Fig. 7-8. Medio Period Bone Working and Utilization.(Note l. Ursus americanus R radius, Type lA wand, CG/69342. U. americanus R ulna, Type lA wand, CG/6948; 3, U. americanus L radius, Type lA wand, CG/6958; 4. U. americanus Rhumerus, Type lA wand, CG/6941; S. Ursus sp . R scapula, Typ

IV miscellaneous worked bonq, CG/6996; 6. U. americanus Rfibula, long bone trove, CG/69650.)


17/79

FENNER-MANUFACTURING ANO DECORATIVE TECHNIQUES

21

4Fig. 8-8. Medio Period Bone Working and Utilization.

(Note l. Ursus americanus R femur, Type V wand, CG/6927;2. Antilocapra americana L tibia, Type lB wand, CG/6945; 3.A. americana L metacarpal 3-4, Type IB2 plaiting too!, CG/-3957; 4. Castor canadensis 1 incisor, Type V miscel!aneousobject, CG/2199; S. Odocoileus hemionus R humerus, Type IBmiscellaneous object, CG/6944.)

3

9

19. 8 CM.

i5. 5 CM.'


18/79

10 THE AMERIND FOUNDATION, INC.-CASAS GRANDES-NO. 9-VOL. 8

6. 8 CM.

1

Ruin, Unit, and Phase DistributionAII the bone was recovered from the main ruin of CHIH:D:9: 1,with none from the smaller Medio Period components atCHIH:D:9:13 or CHIH:D:9:14.The unit distribution of bone artifacts at Paquim is Iisted in Fig.12-8. The 12 units that lacked such mafer ial were 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 1O, 15, 17,18, 21, 23, and the South Plaza. The unclassified fragments of pointedtools were the most common type of bone artifact recovered fromseven units that had more than ten specimens (8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, andthe Central Plaza) and were the second most frequent artifact in oneother (Unit 6). Coarse coi! awls were the second most numerous boneartifacts in six areas (Units 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 16) and the mostfrequent in one (Unit 6). Hair ornaments carne in third in Units 6, 8,

and the Central Plaza, and second in Unit 19. In contrast to these unitsand artifacts, Unit 4 had its highest count in beads, followed by twospecimens classified as a long bone trove, while Unit 16 produced along bone trove with mere artifacts than any other class, with bonewands in third place. From Unit 16, in fact, carne more bone artifactsthan were in any othe r unit at the si te, a total of321, or 36.6%. Most ofthis carne from the trove airead y mentioned. Unit 8 accounted for 215

4Fig. 9-8. Medio Period Bone Working and Utilization.(Note l . Felis concolor L fibula, Type II effigy, CG/7894; 2Ursus americanus L tibia, Type I ffigy, CG/6727; 3. U. amricanus L femur, Type I effigy, CG/8210; 4. Homo sapiens ma

dible, Type II object ornamented with mosaic, CG/6876.)

bone artifacts, 24.5% of the Medio Perio d total, while Unit 14 was thirwith 124, or 14.1 %. These were the three majar habitation areas of thsite, which produced most of aii of the arti{acts.The 606 artifacts that were phase associated accounted for 69. 1%the total of these Medio Period objects. Sorne of the artifacts haspecific phase assignment, while others were from proveniences thcould have been either of two phases-Buena F/ Paquim anPaquim/ Diablo (see Fig. 13-8). Thirty-seven artifacts were recoverefrom Buena F Phase association (6.1%), 12 were Buena FPaquim (2.0%), only five were Paquim (0.8%), 15 were PaquimDiablo (2.5%), and 537 were from the Diablo Phase (88.6%).Coarse coi! awls accounted for the highest number of artifacts the Buena F Phase, with 21.6%, and were the third most numeroclass in the Diablo Phase, with 10.2%. Fragments of unclassifiabpointed tools were second most numerous in the early time block, wi18.9%, and were the most frequently occurring artifacts in the laphase, with 33.3%. Hair ornaments were third most numerous in thBuena F Phase. Elements of long bone troves accounted for tsecond highest proportian of Diablo avtifacts; with 20. 7%, while wanwere fourth, with 9.5%. Each of the five Paquim Phase artifacts feinto a different class of artifacts.


19/79

FENNER-RUIN, UNIT, ANO PHASE DISTRIBUTION 11

Fig. 10-8. Medio Period Bone Decorative Techniques.(Note l. Carving, CG/6727, CG/8210, Type I carved effigies,CG/37S7, Type. I hair ornament; 2. Incising, CG/6634, TypeIIA plaiting tool, CG/2380, Type IIIC hair ornament; 3. Notching,Uc/S27B, Type IIB hair ornament; 4. Perforating, CG/6944,Type IB miscellaneous object, CG/39S7, Type IB2 plaitingtool; S. Painting, CG/1343, Type I hair ornament; 6. Abrad-ing, CG/4428, Type IIIB hair ornament, CG/8298, Type IVBhair ornament; 7. Pseudo-cloisonn, CG/6821, Type IB skewer;8. Mosaic, CG/687S, Type II ornamented bone object.)

Fig. 11-8. Wear Facets on Medio Period Bone Weavers' Tools.(Note l. CG/1332, Type IA plaiting tool; 2. CG/1704, Type IIB plaiting tool; 3. CG/1192, Type IVA plaiting tool; 4. CG/7820, Type !fine coilbasketry awl; S. CG/2367, Type IIIA fine coil awl; 6. CG/17S7, Type IV fine coil awl; 7. CG/804S, Type VB fine poil awl; 8. CG/2608, TypeIV coarse coil basketry awl; 9. CG/S844, Type VIIA1 coarse coil awl; 10. CG/7846, Type VIIA1 coarse coil awl; 11. CG/8003, Type VIIA1coarse coil awl.)


20/79

12 THE AMERIND FOUNDATION, INC.-CASAS GRANDES-NO. 9--'-VOL. !5

UNIT 4 6 8 11 12ARTIFACTS T % T % T % T % T % T %Flakers 1 16.7 2 33.3Plaiting Tools 2 8. 3 7 29.2 - 2 8. 3Fine Coi! Awls 5.7 3 8. 6 4 11.4 8. 6 1 2. 9Coarse Coi! Awls 4 4.1 7 7.1 21 21.4 5. 1 6 6. 1Awl BlankUnclassified Pointed

Too! Fragments 4 1.2 132 41.0 6 1. 9 12 3. 7Hair Ornaments 4 7. 0 16 28.1 3 5. 3Skewers 8 36.4 1 4. 5Pins 7. 7 7. 7 1 7.7Beads 6 25.0 1 4. 2PendantFinger Ring 100.0WhistlesRasps 6.7 2 13.3 4 26.7Tube s 8. 3 16.7 8. 3Trophy SkullsWands 4 7.0 1.8Long Bone Troves 2 1. 8Dish 100.0Carved Effigies 33.3Objects Ornamented with

Turquoise MosaicNecklace 100.0Miscellaneous Objects 2 8. 3 29.2 312.5Miscellaneous Worked Bone

Bone 2 11.1 2 11.1 5. 6Unclassified Artifacts 4.8 3 14.3 4 19.0 2 9. 5 4. 8TOTAL 8 0. 9 11 1.3 31 3. 5 215 24.5 21 2. 4 30 3. 4Fig. 12-8. Unit Distribution of Medio Period Bone .4rtifacts at CHIH:D:9:1.

Buena F/ Paquim/PHASE Buena F Paquim Paquim Diablo DiabloARTIFACTS .T % T % T % T % T %Flakers - - - - - - - - 4 0.7Plaiting Tools - - - - - - '1 6.7 12 2.2Fine Coil Awls 4 10.8 1 8.3 - - 2 13.3 8 1.5Coarse Coil Awls 8 21.6 2 16.7 1 20.0 3 20.0 55 10.2Unclassified Pointed Too!Fragments 7 18.9 7 58.3 1 20.0 3 20.0 179 33.3Hair Ornaments 5 13.5 1 8.3 - - 2 13.3 20 3.7Skewers 1 2.7 - - 1- - - - 11 2.1Pins 2 5.4 - - - - - - 8 1.5Beads 1 2.7 - - - - - 21 3.9Whislles - - 1 - - - - - - 1 0.2Rasps 1 2.7 1- - 1 20.0 - - 8 1.5Tubes 2 5.4 - - - - 1 6.7 4 0.7Trophy Skulls 1 - - - - - - 6 1.1Wands 1 2.7 - - - - - 51 9.5Long Bone Troves 1- - - - - - - 111 20.7Dish - - 1 20.0 - - -Carved Effigies 1 - - - - - - - 2 0.4Objects Ornamented WithTurquoise Mosaic - - - - - - - - 1 0.2Necklace - - - - - - - 1 0.2Miscellaneous Objects 2 5.4 - - - - - 12 2.2Miscellaneous Worked Bone 2 5.4 1 8.3 - - - 9 1.7Unclassified Artifacts 1 2.7 - - 1 20.0 3 20.0 13 2.4TOTAL 37 . 99.9 12 99.9 5 100.0 15 100.0 537 99.9Fig. 13-8. Phase Distribution of Medio Period Bone Artifacts from CHIH:D:9:1.

ComparisonsThe survey of the selected list of comtemporary sites for boneartifacts that were equivalen! to Medio Period types was a frustratingchore, and the results were not often certain. This was dueto the factthat detail was not usually complete enough in the illustrations and

written descriptions to determine whether the criterial on which theCasas Grandes types were based were present in the comparativematerial The distribution lists, therefore, are often of a tentativenature. Detailed citations for comparative material are in the followingdescriptive sections. It should be pointed out that artifacts that werenot, or did no t appear to be, similar to the objects described andillustrated in the sections that follow were not included in thedistribution Iists, with the exception of sorne ornamental items andtrophy skulls.One ofthe Iatter exceptions was the group ofhair ornaments, whichwere quite limited in their occurrence. Types 1, III, IV, and VIII of theCasas classification were the only objects for which similar exampleswere found, and they had a generally south central distribution in thesouthwestern United S ates, in addition to their possiblc presence atGuasave. Carved Mountain Sheep horns were found on objects at the

T

4113

18612

1555

Central East13 14 16 19 20 22 Plaza Plaza% T '7o T '7o T % T '7o T '7o T '7o T % Total '7o16.7 1 16.7 1 16.7 6 100.116.7 3 12.5 6 25.0 24 100.02. 9 6 17.1 8 25.0 2.9 - 1 2.9 5 14.3 - 35 100.213.3 19 19.4 15 15.3 1. 0 1 1. 0 - 4 4. 1 2 2. 0 98 99.91 100.0 1 100.0

5.6 35 10.9 91 28.3 5 1. 6 - 0. 3 17 5. 3 1 0. 3 322 100.110.5 13 22.8 5 8. 8 3 5. 3 5 8. 8 2 3. 5 57 100,14. 5 2 9. 1 7 31.8 1 4.5 2 9.1 - 22 99.9

15.4 6 46.2 1 7. 7 7.7 - 13 100.116 66.7 1 4.2 - 24 100.11 100.0 1 100.01 100.02 100.0 2 100.06.7 5 33.3 1' 6. 7 6. 7 15 100.18. 3 1 8.3 2 16.7 8.3- 16.7 1 8. 3 12 99.96 100.0 6 100.01. 8 2 3.5 48 84.2 1. 8 - 57 100.1109 98.2 111 100.01 100.02 66.7 3 100.0

2 100.0 - 2 100.01 100.04 16.7 7 29.2 4 . 2 - 24 100.1

5. 6 5 27.8 7 38.9 18 100.123.8 3 14.3 1 4. 8 4 . 8 - - 21 100.1

6. 3 124 14.1 321 36.6 13 1.5 0.1 2 0.2 39 4.4 6 0.7 877

Swarts Ruin and the Grewe Si te. It was not possible to determine thepresence of butt roughening on comparative specimens, so thatadditional hair ornaments could have been overlooked.Skewers also had a limited distribution, but it was probable thatboth Types 1and II were present. It was unknown whether the paucityof comparable objects was dueto an actual rarity of skewers or the Iackof illustrative and descriptive detail.Bone rings hada wider distribution, from the Tsegi Canyon on thenorth to Gleeson in the south. The majority ofthe sites, however, wereIocated in the south central portian of the Arizona-New Mexico Iandarea. Those specimens which appeared t o be most similar to those fromCasas were from the Tsegi, Foote Canyon, Swarts Ruin, and Gleeson.Bone pendants were few in number, and none were strictlycomparable to the Casas Grandes example, bu t were widely distributedin the American Southwest.Bone beads had a broad and fairly heavy distribution. While mostof these were equivalen! to the Types I and II tubular beads, a specimenwhich was somewhat similar to the flat, rectangular Type II I bead wasfound at Aztec, W Ruin. This group of artifacts was also noted forZape.Pins had a generally northern concentration in the area. While itwas difficult in sorne cases to determine the cross sections, both typesseemed to be represented. This group was also present at Cojumatln.While having a broad distribution, plaiting tools seemed to clusterin the north central and the south central portions of the AmericanSouthwest. The northern group extended from the Mesa Verde area toPueblo del Arroyo, and the southern one from Carter Ranch Pueblosoutheastward to the Swarts Ruin. Most of the examples wereprobably equivalen! to the Casas Types 1and II, and no plaiting too!butt fragments (Type V) were found in the descriptions or illus trations.Fine coi! basketry awls were difficult to determine on the basis ofmany of t.he illustrations. However, the result nonetheless showed thatthey had a very broad and general distribution. Types that appearedmost often throughout the area were 1, II, III, and VI. Coarse coi!basketry awls were found atan e ven greater number of si tes and hadanequally wide dist ribution in the sites studied. Types 1, 11, 111, V, and VIIwere the most numerous. This type of too! was also present atCojumatln and probably al Culiacn.Awl blanks were described only for Aztec, E Ruin. It probablywould not have been possible lo determine the presence of these objectsfrom photograplis alone, which may account for this Iimitedoccurrence.Rasps, too, were Iisted for one site, University Indian Ruin. TheType 1 scapula rasp was the only example found.Whistles were more widespread, mainly in a broad northern arewith a couple of centrally located examples. Least similar to the CasasGrandes specimens were severa! found 1at Lowry Ruin, Ridge Ruin.and Carter Ranch Pueblo.


21/79

FENNER-COMPARISONS AND FLAKERS

While none of the three wands found in the literature were exactly!ike Casas wands, the two from Ridge Ruin might be classified as Type specimens, while the questionable example from Spur Ranch mighthave been a Type III wand. I t is possible tha t these objects hada widerdistribution than was indicated, but that comparable artifacts were notfound dueto a lack of illustrationa and/ or descriptions. Or they mayha ve more often been made of wood at other sites.A bird's head from Cojumatln was the only example of effigiescarved from bone. However, it was of interest that the Type II animaleffigy was exactly duplicated at Hawikuh. The dating ofthis specimen,however, was not given.Bone tu bes were found at numerous si tes over a broad area. Theywere similar to Types l and l i at Casas, primarily the former group, theshorter tubes. An example was also found at Cojumatln.Guasave was the only one ofthe list ofcompara i ve sitesto producetrophy skulls, though these were used as burial offerings, unlike theCasas Grandes skulls. A number of Mesoamerican sites of variousperiods have, however, produced additional skulls, almost always inburials.The long bone trove of Unit 16 was apparently unique. Dishesmade from human crania were not found at any of the contemporarycomparative sites, although occasional specimens of "cups" or "cutbrain cases" have been found elsewhere in Mesoamrica.Bone with turquoise mosaic was found at Pueblo Bonito. As withsorne of the other comparative material, these specimens were not likethose from Casas, but were included to illustrate the distribution of thetechnique.Flaking tools had a very broad distribution. Most of them wereantier tools (Type II), but objects identified as bone flakers (Type I)were also observed. The latter might have been more frequent but dueto descriptions as other objects (e.g., punches) were not classifiableaccording to the Casas' Grandes typology. An antier flaker was alsofound at Cojumatln.Of the miscellaneous bone objects, comparabl'e specimens werefound for the Type I split long bones in the Mesa Verde area. Another,from Spur Ranch, appeared to be similar but it was not possible todetermine from the illustration whether or not it actually was split.Another object, from Carter Ranch Pueblo, was analogous in form butshowed use as a beamer. No painted ribs (Type II) were found,although the practice of painting bone was present in the Ridge RuinWinona Village area, where nine Prairie Dog mandibles painted redand blue or green were found.In summary, those bone objects which were found to be mostwidely and generally distributed were beads, fineand coarse coi! awls,tubes, and flakers. Also having a wide distribition, though not at asmany sites, were rings, whistles, and trophy skulls. Pins and plaitingtools, and possibly hair ornaments, had somewhat concentratedoccurrences, while bone pendants had a wide but sparse incidence.Objects with a very limited occurrence were skewers, awl blanks, rasps,wands, carved effigies, dishes, bone with turquoise mosaic, andmiscellaneous objects.

ARTIFACT CLASSIFICATION

FlakersUse

These tools were thought to ha ve been used in the manufacturing ofchipped stone implements, and have been found in association witharrow-making kits (Di Peso el al., 1956, p. 494). The tip of one of theantier specimens was beveled on one side.Manufacture

The complete bone specimen was made by sawing and splitting along bone shaft and abrading it to a blunt tip. In addition, the condyleand cut edges of the shaft were ground down. The other bone fragmentwas incomplete, consisting of only the tip, which was ground. Theantie r flakers were also fragmentary, non e ofthem having the butt end.Evidence of modification appeared to have been the result of use.Classification

Type l flakers (2, 33.3% ) were made of bone. They weresubdivided into two groups: Type IA, a specimen with a complete,slightly modified condyle, and Type lB, a tip fragment. The former was

13

11.1 cm. in length, 2.8 cm. in width, and 2.3 cm. in thickness. lt wasidentified as White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus). The latterwas 5.5 cm. in remnant length, 1.1 cm. in remnant width, and 0.9 cm. inremnant thickness. It was an unidentified artiodactyl bone.The Type l i flakers (4, 66.7%) were made of antier tines; tips wereblunted and worn. They ranged from 4.0 cm. to 15.1 cm. in remnantlength; one was 0.9 cm. in remnant diameter; and the rema inder rangedfrom 1.4 cm. to 2.3 cm. in remnant width, and 1.0 cm. to 1.9 cm. inremnant thickness. Al! were deer (Odocoileus sp.).

FLAKE RS. 6 SPECIMENS.TYPE 1 - BONE FLAKERS, GROOVED SHAFT. 2 SPECIMENS.TYPE lA (01.04.1.0.1.1.1.01.15.1.1.01.1) - WHOLE HEAD, SLIGHTLY MODI-FIED. 1 SPECIMEN. FIG. 14-8/1.No. L. w. Th. Material Provenience

.................... cm ....................

CG/815 11.1 2.8 2.3 Odocoileua vir j j inianus; Plaza 2-6, FillL radios, distal head,part of shaft; largeadult; mole

TY PE lB (01.00. 1.0. l. 1.1.01. 15. 1.1.01.1) - TIP FRAGMENT. 1 SPECIMEN.FIG. 14-8/2.CG(b)/394C 5.5+ l. 1+ 0.9+ Artiodactyla sp.; L Rm 42-8, Flaor

metatarso! 3-4, part ofshaft near proximal head;medium adult

TYPE 11 (01.01.1.0.1.1.1.01.02.1.1.01.2)- ANTLER TINE FLAKERS. 4 SPECIMENS. FIG. 14-8/3 (CG/5198).CG/2078A 5.3+ 1.7+ 1.1+ Odocoi leus sp . Rm 21C-8, FloorCG/5198 15.1+ 2.3+ 1.9+ Odocoileus sp . Rm 29C-14, Fi 11Diam.CG/6575 4.0+ 0.9+ Odacoileus sp. Rm 10-16, Floar

w.Uc/550 4.8+ 1.4+ 1.0+ Odocoileus sp. Rm 17-13, Flaar

DistributionSimilar artifacts were not found in Viejo Period association. TheMedio Period specimens, al! from CHIH:D:9: 1, had the following ruindistribution:

lA lB l l Total %Unit 6 1 1 16.78 2 33.313 1 16.714 1 16.716 1 16.71The Type lB flaker and three oftheType Il examples werefrom D iabloPhase association.


22/79

14 THE AMERIND FOUNDATION, INC.-CASAS GRANDES-NO. 9-YOL. 8

The sites in this distribution Iist and those following are foroccupations more or less comtemporary with the interval of timerepresented by the Medio Period-that is, they fall somewherebetween A.D. 1060 and A.D. 1340.Lowry Ruin? (Martin, 1936, p. 71, Fig. 25 b)Mesa Verde, Site 34 (O'Bryan, 1950, p. 88, PI. 38 d)La Plata, Site 39 (Morris, 1939, PI. 113 a)La Plata, Site 41 (/bid., PI. 107 o-q, 113 e)Aztec, E Ruin (Richert, 1964, p. 21, PI. 33 a-b)Kin Kletso (Vivian and Mathews, 1965; p. 98)Pueblo del Arroyo (Judd, 1959, p. 133)Na1akihu (King, 1949, p. !01)Ridge Ruin-Winona Village (McGregor, 1941, p. 233)Carter Ranch Pueblo (Martin et al., 1964, p. !02, Fig. 44 b,e)Showlow Ruin? (Haury and Hargrave, 1931, p. 25, Fig. 4 g)Kinishba (Cummings, 1940, p. 65, Fig., p. 66 upper)Higgins Flat Pueblo (Martin el al., 1956, pp. 117, 118-119, Figs. 62 1-m, 63 g,i)Foote Canyon Pueblo (Rinaldo, 1959, pp. 264, 270, Fig. 117 b-f)Los Muertos (Haury, 1945a, p. 160, Fig. 99 o-p)Grewe Site (Woodward, 1931, p. 20)Mattocks Ruin (Nesbitt, 1931, p. 93, PI. 40 i-j)Swarts Ruin (Cosgrove and Cosgrove, 1932, pp. 59-61, Fig. 8 d-f)Spur Ranch (Hough, 1914, pp. 34, 35, Fig. 67)

Ventana Cave (Haury et al . 1950, pp. 379, 387, Figs. 88 a-d. 90 a-e)University 1ndian Ruin (Hayden, 1957, p. 171)Tres Alamas (Tuthill, 1947, p. 66, PI. 36 j-k)Gleeson Site (Fulton and Tuthill, 1940, p. 40)San Cayetano (Di Peso et al., 1956, p. 504, Fig. 73, PI. 133 a2)Cojumatln (Lister, 1949, p. 84, Fig. 36 n)

Plaiting ToolsUse

These tools, which had blunt or relatively blunt tips with flattenedcross sections, were thought to have been used primarily in themanufacture of plaited basketry (see Kissell, 1916, p. 156), of whichthere were severa! examples at Casas Grandes (see pp. 98-104). Four(16. 7%) ofthese objects had polished tips, while another hada tip thatwas smooth and slightly beveled on one side (4.2%). Four otherplaiting tools had wear facets-two with a single facet on each side(Type lA, Fig. 11-8/1), two with a facet on one side (Types lll, IVA,Fig. 11-8/3), and one with severalfacets (Type IIB, Fig. 11-8/2). Ofthell (45.8%) tools with minute wear scratches on thetip, one had random

CO.A.k!SE COIL. BONE .A.WL. FINE COIL. BONE .A.WL.CG/1237 CG/29

Fig. 15-8. At Least Three Types of IVeaving Tools IVere Use,d to Make Baskets and Mats.(N o e fine and coarse coi! basketry aw ls and plaiting too!.)


23/79

FENNER-PLAITING TOOLS

scratches (Type lA, 9. l %); five had scratches ata 45 angle to the longaxis of the too! (Types IBl, IB2, IIC, IVA, IVB, 45.5%); one the lattertype of scratches in addition to lo"ng scratches above the tip followingthe long edges of the too! (Type IB2, 9.1 %); three had scratches at rightangles to the long axis (Types IIA, 2; IVB; 27.3%), and one hadscratches that curved from a right angle orientation to almost parallelwith the long axis (Type IIA, 9.1%). One plaiting too! hadmanufacturing scratches on the tip which were also observed on therest of the implement, and three had missing tips. The Type IIC too!had numerous random scratches on the broken flat section ofthe midshaft and on the butt, suggesting use in a scraping operation.Manufacture

The Type IA plaiting tools were made by sawing and grinding theshafts of ulnae to form a tapering, blunt-tipped shaft. The naturalarticular heads were not modified.Fourteen plaiting tools were manufactured by using the combinedtechniques of splitting, sawing, and grinding. The remainder of theType I tools and the Typ e II specimens utilized a natural condyle, theshaft being split, sawed, and ground fo r most of its length. The butt ofthe Type IBI specimen was abraded on one side and was otherwiseunmodified. Two of the Type IB2 tools were half split the en ire length,including the butt. One was hollowed a short distance into the lowerpart of the butt, on the gro o ved side of the shaft. The gro ove of thesecond was smoothed to sorne extent, though not channeled, and thebutt was highly abraded. The thir d specimen of this type was half splitto the distal condyle, which was cut down on the dorsal side (seeCT.G/3957; Figs. 8-8/3, 10-8/4). Theventral, medial, and lateral sides ofthe head were highly abraded and burnished, while the upperremaining part of the dorsal side was abraded and decorated withincised lines. Further, the head was perforated laterally and vertically.There were also traces of red paint on the butt.

Abundant sawing scratches were evident on the concave side onone of the Type IIA plaiting tools, as well as on the butt of the convexside (see Fig. 6-8/3 , CG /3794), which resulted in a natural perforationof the butt. The top of the head was sawed off straight (ata right angleto the long axis), and there were traces of red paint on the upper third ofthe too!. The butt was missing on the othe r three specimens of this type,though the shafts were all half split (see Fig. 6-8/ 3, CG /6930). One wasdecorated with an incised design on the convex surface of the shaft, andthe tip was cut down to a lower leve!, that is, it was offset in longitudinalcross section (see Fig. 10-8 /2, CG /6634). A remnant of an incised !in ebelow the break on another of these tools suggested that the butt hadbeen incised or that the head of the long bo ne had been cut off. TheType IIB plaiting too! was finished by burnishing. The butt wasmissing, bu t had either been half split like the shaft or had been cut off.The gro ove of the Type IIC example was channeled and the shaft wascurved; the butt was missing.

15

The Type III tools were shaped splinters manufactured by splitting,sawing, and grinding. One was finished by burnishing.The Type IV specimens were tips from plaiting tools, allmanufa ctured by splitting, sawing, and grinding. The single Type IVCtoo! was finished by burnishing (see Fig. 6-8/5).The Type V fragment was a plaiting too! butt which was half splitand lacked the condyle.Classification

Type I plaiting tools (7, 29.2%) retained the na tural head of the longbone and had tips rectangulo id in cross section. They were divided intothree subgroups based on the modification of the condyle. Type IA (3)specimens were made of ulnae, the heads of which were not modified;tips of these tools were blunt. The dimensions of the two completespecimens and the complete measurements of the incomplete too!ranged from 9.2 cm. to 9.3 cm. in length (the third specimen had afragmentary length of 10.8 cm.), 3.1 cm. to 4.2 cm. in maximum width,1.7 cm. to 2.3 cm. in maximum thickness, 0.9 cm. to 1.3 cm. in tipwidth, and 0.2 cm. to 0.4 cm. in tip thickness. The bones were fromMule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus), White-tailed Deer (Odocoileusvirginianus), and Pronghorn Antelope (Antilocapra americana). Thehead of the single Type IBI too! was slightly modified and the tip waspointed; it was from a Pronghorn Antelope (A. americana). It was 9.0cm. long, 2.7 cm. wide, 1.8 cm. thick, and hada tip 0.3 cm. wide and 0.2cm. thick. The condyles of the Type IB2 examples (3) were modified bysplitting andf or abrading; they also had pointed tips. Measurementsranged from 9.5 cm. to 14.7 cm. in length, 2.0 cm. to 2.7 cm. in width,1.7 cm. in thickness, 0.4 cm. to 0.5 cm. in tip width, and 0.2 cm. to 0.4cm. in tip thickness. Twowere Pronghorn Antelope (A. americana).The Type 11 plaiting tools (6, 25.0%) had condyles which werehighly modified or missing, and the en tire too! was half split along itslength or remnant length;tips were rectanguloid in cross section.Subdivisions of this group were based on the shape of the tip and theshaft. Type IIA specimens (4) had flat rounded tips and shafts whoseedges were tapering toward the ti p. Only one was complete. I t was 19. lcm. in length, 1.6 cm. in width, 0.6 cm. in thickness, 0.7 cm. in tip width,and 0.2 cm. in tip thickness. Complete tip measurements for all fouraveraged 0.7 cm. in width and 0.3 cm. in thickness. All were PronghornAnteJo pe (A. americana). The Type IIB too! hada shaft straight almostto the flat, pointed ti p. While overall measurements were incomplete,the tip was 0.6 cm. in width and 0.5 cm. in thickness. It was identified asMule Deer (O. hemionus). The incomplete Type IIC plaiting too! hada channeled groove, curved shaft, and flat, round ed tip which was 0.8cm. in width and 0.5 cm. in thickness. The bone was Mountain BighornSheep (Ovis canadensis).

The Type III tools (2, 8.3%) were shaped splinters with rounded tipswhich were 0.5 cm. and 0.6 cm. in width and 0.3 cm. and 0.4 cm. inthickness. The bones were unidentified artiodactyls.


24/79

l6 THE AMERlND FOUNDATION, INC.-CASAS GRANDES-NO. 9-VOL.

TYPE 1- PLAITING TOOLS WITH COMPLETE HEADS, TIP RECTANGULOID CROSS SECTION. 7 SPECIMENS.TYPE lA (02.02.1,0.1.1.1.01.01.2.1.01.3)- ULNA PLAITING TOOLS, BLUNT TIPS. 3 SPECIMENS. FIG. 16-8/1 (CG/1736).---- Ti p ----No. Length Width Th. Width Th. Material Provenience Remarks------------------- cm. -------------------

CG/1332 10.8+ 4.2 1.9+ 0.9 0.4 Odocoileus hemionus R ulna, Rm 10A-8, Fillproximal head, part of shaft; largeadult; moleCG/1736 9.2 3.1 1.7 1.0 0.2 Odocoi/eus virginianus L ulna, Rm 1OB-8, Fi 11proximal head, part of shaft; mediumadult; mole?CG/7798 9.3 3.4 2.3 1.3 0.4 Antilocapra americana L ulna, Rm 30-16, Floor Aproximal head, part of shaft; mediumimmature; mole?TYPE lB- GROOVED LONG BONE PLAITING TOOLS. 4 SPECIMENS.TYPE 161 (02.04.1.0.1,1.1.01.15.4,1.01.0)- SLIGHTLY MODIFIED HEAD, POINTED TIP. 1 SPECIMEN. FIG. 16-8/2.CG/1980 9.0 2.7 1.8 0.3 0.2 A. americana; L metacarpal 3-4,distal head, part of shaft; mediumadult; female?

Rm (Plaza} 19-8, Fill

TYPE IB2 (02.05.1.0.1.1.1.01.15.4.1.01.0)- MODIFIED HEAD, POINTED TIP. 3 SPECIMENS. FIG. 16-8/3 (CG/3957, CG/4722).CG/3957 9.8 2.0 1.7 0.5 0.4 A. americana L metacarpal 3-4, part Plaza 2-13, F loor A Hales drilled laterally,distal head, shaft; medium adult; vertically through head; sawedmale? decoration, traces of redpaint.CG/4427 9.5 Mexica Bur. 43-13, Rm 3-13 02.06.1.0.1.1.1.01.15.4.1.01.0CG/4722 14.7 2.7 1.7 0.4 0.2 A. americana R radius, part Rm 16-14, Floorproximal head, shaft; large adult;mole?

TYPE 11 - SPLIT LONG BONE PLAITING TOOLS, HIGHLY MODIFIED OR MISSING HEADS, TIP RECTANGULOID CROSS SECTION.6 SPECIMENS .TYPE IIA (02.12.1.0.1.1.4.05.01,2.4.01.0)- PLAITING TOOLS WITH FLAT, ROUNDED TIP, NATURAL TAPERING SHAFT.4 SPECIMENS. FIG. 17-8/1 (CG/3794, CG/6634).CG/2569 17.3 1.4 0.8 0.8 0.5 A. americana L metatarsal 3-4, part Rm 1-12, Floor A Butt missing.of distal neck shaft; medium adultCG/3794 19.1 1.6 0.6 0.7 0.2 A. americana R metacarpal 3-4, part Rm 7-, 8-13, Fill Butt flat with square end, per-of shaft; medium adult forated; traces of red pa int.CG/6634 15.6+ 1.6+ 0.6+ 0.7 0.2 A. americana L? femur, part of Rm 15716, Fill Butt missing; incisedsha-ft; small immature decoration.CG/6930 17.8+ 1.8+ 0.7+ 0.5 0.1 A. americana R femur, part of shaft; Rm 23-16, Fill, Trove Butt missing.medium adultAverage: 18.2 1.5 0.7 0.7 0.3TYPE IIB (02.06.1.0.1.1.4.04.01.4.4.01.0)- PLAITING TOOL WITH FLAT, POit-lTED TIP, STRAIGHT SHAFT. 1 SPECIMEN. FIG. 17-8/2CG/1704 13.4+ 1.1+ 0.6+ 0.6 0,5 O. hemionus; metacarpal 3-4, distal Rm 17B-8, Floor Fill Butt sawed off or missing; tipbeveled from several angles.nd, central shaftTYPE IIC (02.00.1.0,1,1.4.07.01.2.4.01.0)- CHANNELED PLAITING TOOL WITH FLAT, ROUNDED TIP, CURVED SHAFT.1 SPECIMEN . FIG. 17-8/3.CG/6635 21.3+ 2.5+ 1.1+ 0.8 0,5 Ovis canadensis R tibia, part of Rm 15-16, Floor Butt missing.shaft, proximal neck; mediumadult; female?

TYPE 111 (02.01.1.0.1.1.6.01.01.2.1.01,0)- SHAPED SPLINTER PLAITING TOOLS, ROUNDED TIP. 2 SP!:CIMENS.CG/2317C 15,8+CG/5845 9.5+

FIG. 17-8/4 (CG/2317C).0.7+ 0.5+ 0,5 0.3 Artiodactyla sp.; metapodial 3-4, part Rm 25C-8, Floor Fill Butt missing.of shaft adu lt 10,7+ 0.6+ 0,6 0.4 Artiodactyla sp,; metapodial 3-4, part Plaza 4-14, Floor Butt missing.of shaft; adult


25/79

FENNER-PLAITING TOOLS

Plaiting too! tips were classified as Type IV (8, 33.3%) andsubdivisions were based on tip shape and shaft and tip cross sections.Type IVA tips (4) were pointed, and both shaft and tip were concavoconvex in section. Tips ranged from 0.6 cm. to 0.7 cm. in width,averaging 0.6 cm., and 0.3 cm. to 0.4 cm. in thickness, averaging 0.3 cm.Three of the Typ e IV A tools were unidentified artiodacty l bones, onewas Mule Deer (0 . hemionus). Blunt tips were grouped as Type IVB(2); they had shafts concavo-convex in section and tips rectanguloid insection. Tips ranged f rom 0.8 cm. to 0.9 cm. in width and 0.3 cm. to 0.4cm. in thickness. One was Mule Deer (O. hemionus), the otherMammalia sp. The Type IVC tip, !nade from an artiodactyl bone, wasrounded while the shaft and tip were concavo-convex in section. Thetip was 0.5 cm. in width and 0.2 cm. in thickness. The single Type IVDfragment hada tip convex-convex in sectionand theshaft was thoughtto have been the same. The end of the tip was missing.

The single butt fragm ent was classified as Type V ( 4.2%). It was flatalong its length; the butt was rounded in shape. Width was 1.6 cm. Itwas made from a Pronghorn Antelope (A. americana) bone.

TYPE IV - PLAITING TOOL TIPS. 8 SPECIMENS.TYPE IVA (02.00.1.0.1.1.1.01.14.4.5.01.0)- POINTED TIPS SHAFT & TIP CONCAVO-CONVEX CROSS SECTION.4 SPECIMENS. FIG. 18-8/1 (CG/1192).---- Tip ----No. Length Width Th. Width Th. Material Proven ience Remarks------------------- cm. -------------------

CG/909 3.0+ 1.2+ 0.5+ 0.7 0.3 Artiodactyla sp.; metapoidal 3-4, part Plaza 2-6, Fillof shaft; adultCG/1192 7.9+ 1.6+ 0.9+ 0.6 0.4 O. hemionus; L femur shaft; large Rm 6B-8, Fillyoung adult; male?CG/1893 2.0+ 0.8+ 0.4+ 0.6 0.3 Artiodactyla sp.; metapodial 3-4, part Plaza 2-6, Water Pitof shaft; adult 4-6, Level CCG/7824A 7.0+ 1.1+ 0.6+ 0.6 0.3 Artiodactyla sp.; metapodial 3-4, part Rm 31-16, Fillof shaft; adu ltAverage: 0.6 0.3TYPE IVB (02.00.1.0.1.1.1.01.14.2.4.01.0)- BLUNT TIPS; SHAFT CONCAVO-CONVEX CROSS SECTION, TIP RECTANGULOID CROSSSECTION. 2 SPECIMENS. FIG. 18-8/2 (CG/79940).CG/3676CG/79940 6.5+7.7+ 1.1+ 0.6+1.2+ 0.7+ 0.9 0.3 Mammalia sp.0.8 0.4 O. hemionus; R tibia,.tibialcrest; adult

Rm 1-13, FillRm 45-14, Floor

TYPE IVC (02.00.1.0.1.1.1.01.14.2.5.01.0)- ROUNOEO TIP; SHAFT & TIP CONCAVO-CONVEX CROSS SECTION 1 SPECIMEN. FIG. 18-8/3.CG/6052 9.1+ 1.2+ 0.5+ 0.5 0.2 Artiodactyla sp.; metapodial3-4, part Rm 4-16, Floorof shaft; adultTYPE IVD (02.00.1.0.1.1.1.01.00.0.6.01.0)- CONVEX-CONVEX TIP (& SHAFT?) CROSS SECTION. 1 SPECIMEN. FIG. 18-8/4.CG/2234E 5.7+ 1.4+ 0.7+ Mammalia sp.; large young adult Rm 18C-8, Fill End of tip missing.TYPE V (02.00.1.0.5.1.1.01.10.0.0.01.0)- BUTT FRAGMENT, FLAT ALONG LENGTH. 1 SPECIMEN. FIG. 18-8/5.CG/3581 11.7+ 1.6 0.6+ A. americana; L tibia, part ofshaft; medium adult Plaza 5-12, Fi 11

17


26/79

18 THE AMERIND FOUNDATION, INC.-CASAS GRANDES-NO. 9-VOL. 8Distribution

Tools classified for use in plaiting and corresponding to Mediotypes were not found in Viejo Period context, although one splinter awl(CG/2930) may have been used for this activity. The Medio Periodspecimens, al! from CHIH:D: 9: 1, had the following unit distribution:Unit 6 8 12 13 14 16Type lA 2 1IBI 1IB2 2

I 3 2 1IIA 1 2IIBIIC 1I l 3I l iIVA 2IVBIVCIVD 1.IV 2 2 2V

Total 2 7 2 4 3 6% 8.3 29.2 8.3 16.7 12.5 25.0Plaiting tools from proveniences that could be assigned to a specificphase, or questionably to either of two phases, had the followingtemporal distrubution:

Type IAIB2IIAIIBIICl i iIVAIVBIVC

Total

Paquim/Diablo

Mesa Verde, Site 499 (Lister, 1964, Table 15)

Diablo132112

12

Mesa Verde, Site 34 (O'Bryan, 1950, p. 87, PI. 35 a-b, 36 f, left)La Plata, Site 39 (Morris, 1939, p. 123, PI. 109 d)La Plata, Site 41 (!bid., PI. 109 a-b)Hubbard Site (Vivian, 1959, p. 58, Fig. 47 lower right)Pueblo Bonito (Judd, 1954, p. 146, PI. 34 w-x)Pueblo del Arroyo (Judd, 1959, PI. 37 h-i,q)Nalakihu (King, 1949, p. 104, Fig. 75 h)Big Hawk Valley, N.A. 6IBI(W. Smith, 1952a, pp. 138-142, Fig. 48 a, upper)Carter Ranch Pueblo (Martin et al., 1964, p. 101, Fig. 45 upper)Canyon Creek Ruin (Haury, 1934, PI. 75 b, d-e)Higgins F lat Pueblo (Martin et al., 1956, p. 117, Figs. 621-m, 63 a)Starkweather Pueblo (Nesbitt, 1938, p. 107, PI. 48 k)Foote Canyon Pueblo (Rinaldo, 1959, pp. 264-265, Fig. 115 b,h)ARIZ:W:10:51, Point of Pines (Wendorf, 1950, p. 77, PI. 13 d)Cameron Creek Village (Bradfield, 1931, PI. 95, No. 502)Swarts Ruin (Cosgrove and Cosgrove, 1932, p. 58, PI. 66 c-d)Spur Ranch (Hough, 1914, p. 34, Figs. 59-60)University lndian Ruin (Hayden, 1957, p. 170, PI. 39 e)

Fine Coi! Basketry AwlsUse

While these implements were thought to have been used primarilyin the manufacture of fine coi! basketry, they could have also beenutilized in the making of othe r objects where it was necessary to have atoo! capable of making a small perforation. Measurements were madeof the sizes of hales made when tips were pressed into clay to thefurthest extent of the tip, that is, the maximum penetration of thefunctional part of the too!. Nineteen hales (6l.Yff,) were 0.3 cm. indiameter (Type 11, 3; lilA, 3; IV, 1; VA, 1; VB, 6; VD, 5); three (9.71/i,)were 0.4 cm. in diameter (Type 1, 1; VB, 1; VD, 1); six (19.4%) were0 .3

cm. in width and 0.2 cm. in thickness (Type IIIB, 1; VC, 1; VI, 3); andthree (9.7%) were 0.4cm. in width and 0.3 cm. in thickness (Type VC, 2;VI, 1).Additional data on use carne from a study of wear scratches on thetips (see Fig. 11-81 4-7). Thirteen (39.1 %) ofthe intact tips were smoothand/ or polished, although one of these had what probably were usescratches above the tip at a 45 angle to the long axis of the too . Thesespecimens included four awls each of Types VB and VD, and one eachof Types I (Fig. 11-8/ 4), Il , lilA (Fig. 11-8/ 5), IIIB, and VC. One oftheType VB awl tips hada slightly "nibbled" appearance on one edge (seeFig. 11-8/7). Fourteen other tips (40.0%) had use scratches which wereata 90 angle to the long axis (1, 7.1 %; Type lllA); parallel and at a 45angle to the long axis on the tip and abo ve it on the shaft ( 1, 7.1 %; TypeVD); parallel to the long axis (1, 7.1%; Type VD); at 45 angles indifferent directions on the tip and just abo ve it ( 1, 7.1 %; Type VB);parallel and at a 45 angle on the tip only (1, 7.1 %; Type VI); ata 45angle to the lon g axis in two facets (Fig. 11-8/6; 1, 7.1 %; Type IV); anda ta 45 angle w itho ut use facets (8, 57%; Types VA, 1; VB, 1; VC, 2;VD, 1; VI, 3). One awl (2.9%; Type lilA) had scratches ata 45 anglejust above the tip, while three others (8.6%; Types I l, 2; VD, 1) hadmanufacturing scratches on the tip as well as the rest of the too . Fourtips (11.4%; Types I, 1; IIIC, 2; VB, 1) weremissing or notavailableforstudy, although one of these had what appeared to be use scratchesparallel to and at a 45 angle to the long axis on the lower fifth of theshaft. In addition, the awl with the use facets on the tip had a slightbevel on the concave side of the butt and random scra:tches on theconvex side, both of which appeared to be the result of use.Manufacture

Two tools were manufactured by sawing and grinding (Type I). Theshafts of long bones had been shaped to points while the remainingheads were abraded.The majority of tools were shaped by the processes of splitting,sawing, and grinding. The Type II awls had been halfsp lit the length ofthe too!, the remaining section of the head being abraded. One of theseawls had a perforated butt, the hole having been drilled laterally fromboth sides; the natural grooves of the condyle were also emphasized byabrasion. The majority of the remainder of these awls were shapedsplinters made by sawing and grinding a long bone splinter to thedesired form. The Types II I and IV awls retained part of a condylewhich, however, was highly abraded. The butt of the Type IV specimenwas spatulate. The fragmentary Type V awls included examples withhalf split shafts (Types V A, VB, VC) and shaped splinter shafts (TypeVD). An incompletely sawed line on one of the Type VB fragmentssuggested that the condyle had been cut off or that there was a gro oveor incised decora tion on the upper shaft.The fo ur Type VI awls were irregular splinters of bone, one end ofwhich had been abraded toa point (see Fig. 6-8/1, CG/6667D).Classification

Type I fine coi! basketry awls (2, 5.7%) had butts formed of thecomplete condyle, which had been slightly modified by abrading.Shafts were split and the tips had round cross sections. One bone wasidentified as White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus), the othe r wasreturned to Mexico befare study.Both head and shaft of the Type II awls (3, 8.6%) were half split,and the bu tts were abraded as in the case of the Type I specimens. Tipswere round in cross section. Maximum dimensions for these tools werea length of 12.0 cm., a width of 1.8 cm., a thickness of 1.3 cm., and thetip diameters were 0.3 cm. All were Mule Dee r (Odocoileus hemionus).Type III awls (6, 17.1 %) were shaped splinter implements withgrooved shafts. While the natural head had not been cut off, it washighly modified by sawing and abrading. The butt of one specimen wasmissing but the too! was included n this group as the remnant part wassimilar to complete examples. Subdivisions were based on tip crosssections which were round (Type IIIA, 3), rectanguloid (Type IIIB, 1),

or undetermined (Type IIIC, 2). Only two of the Type IIIA awls werecomplete, and these ranged from 4.5 cm. to 5.4 cm. in length, 1.0 cm. to1.4 cm. in width , 0.4 cm. to 0.7 cm. in thickness, and the tips were 0.3cm. in diameter; Two were Mule Deer, one Ma mmalia sp. The Type111 B awl was at least 16.3 cm. long, w hile the larger of the Type 111 Cawls hada remnant length of 13.2 cm. anda width and thickness of 1.4cm. and 0.7 cm. respectively. All of the Type lllB and lllC awls weremade from the bones of Pronghorn Antelope (Antilocapraamericana).


27/79

FENNER-FINE COIL BASKETRY AWLS

FINE COIL BASKETRY AWLS . 35 SPECIMENS TYPE 1(03.04.1.0.1.1.4.01.01.1.2.01.0)- AWLS WITH COMPLETE HEAD, SLIGHTLY MODIFIED; SPLIT SHAFT, TIP ROUND CROSSSECTION . 2 SPECIMENS . FIG . 19-8/1 (CG/7820).

No.

CG/29CG/7820

-------- Ti p ---------Length Width Th. Diam. Width Th. Material---------------------- cm. -----------------------

12.5 1.7 1.57 0+ 2.3 1.4 0.4 - Mexico- Odocoileus virginianus; R metacarpo!3-4, distal head, part of shaft; small;female

Provenience

Mound 1-1, FillRm 31-16, Fill

Remarks

Tip missing.

TYPE 11 (03.08.1.0.1.1.4.01.01.1.2.01.0)- AWL WITH HALF SPLIT HEAD, SLIGHTLY MODIFIED; SPLIT SHAFT, TIP ROUND CROSSSECTION . 3 SPECIMENS . FIG.. 19-8/2 (CG/2378, CG/6306, CG/8113C),

19

CG/2378 5.0+ 1.8 1.3 0.3 - Odocoileus hemionus; L metacarpo! 4, Central Plaza, Pit 3, Ti p missing; buttdistal head, part of shaft; small adult; ST-2, Leve! 1 perforated.female?CG/6306 5.7 1.6 1.2 0.3 - O. hemionus; R radius, praxima 1 head, Rm 12-16, Fillpart of shaft; medium adultCG/8113C 12.0 1.4 0.8 0.3 - O. hemionus; L metacarpo! 3-4; part Rm 33-8, Fillof shaftTYPE 111 - SHAPED SPLINTER AWLS WITH HEAD HIGHLY MODIFIED OR LACKING; GROOVED SHAFT.. 6 SPECIMENS .TYPE lilA (03.12.1.0.1.1.6.01.13.1.2.01.0) - TIP ROUND CROSS SECTION . 3 SPECIMENS . FIG.. 20-8/1 (CG/1651, CG/2367, CG/5731).CG/1651 13.3+ 1.2 0.7 0.3 - O. hemionus; R metatarso! 4, part Bur. 2-1, Rm 3-1af proxima 1 head, shaftCG/2367 5.4 1.0 0.4 0.3 - Mammalia sp. Central Plaza, Pit 3CG/5731 4.5 1.4 0.7 0.3 - O. hemionus; L metatarso! 4, part Rm 42-14, Fillof proximal shaft; large?TYPE IIIB (03.12.1.0.1.1.6.01.14.1.4.01.0)- TIP RECTANGULOID CROSS SECTION . 1 SPECIMEN . FIG . 20-8/2.CG/3600 16.3+ 1.2+ 0.6+ 0.3 0.2 Antilocapra americana; R metacarpo!3-4, part of shaft; small immature Plaza 6-12, Floar S

Tip missing.

Butt missing.


28/79

20 THE AMERIND FOUNDATION, INe.-eASAS GRANDES-NO. 9-VOL. 8

TYPE IIIC (03.12.1.0.1.1.6.01.14.1.0.01.0)- TIP CROSS SECTION UNDETERMINED (FRAGMENTARY). 2 SPECIMENS .FIG. 20-8/3 (CG/8048).-------- Ti p ---------No. Length Width Th. Diam. Width Th. Material Provenience---------------------- cm. -----------------------

CG/3410 8.7+ 1.2 0.7 A. americana L metatarso! 3-4, part Rm 38-11, Fillof shaft near distal head; adult; female?CG/8048 13.2+ 1.4 0.7 A. americana; R metatarso! 3-4, part Central Plaza, Pit 7of distal head, shaft; Jorge youngadult; mole?The Type IV awl (2.9%) was a shaped splinter with an ungroovedshaft of rectanguloid cross section. The butt was similar to Type IIIspecimens in being a highly modified condyle; the bone was anunidentified artiodactyl. The tip cross section was round. This awl was18.0 cm. long, 2.5 cm. wide, 0.5 cm. thick, and had a tip 0.3 cm. indiameter.Fragmentary fine coi! basketry awls which lacked the butt wereclassified as Type V (19, 54.3%). Subdivisions were based on themanufacture of the shafts and the cross sections of the tips. The TypeVA example had a shaft which was partly half split, the upper sectionbeing intact. The tip was round in cross section and 0.3 cm. in diameter.

The remnant lengths ofthe Type VB awls (7) were en ire! y half split; tipcross sections were round. All tips but one were0.3 cm. in diameter; onewas 0.4 cm. and one was sent to Mexico City before detailed study.Type ve awls (3) also had half split shafts, while the tips wererectanguloid in section. Two tips measured 0.4 cm. by 0.3 cm. while onewas 0.3 cm. by 0.2 cm. Shaped splinter fragments were classified asType VD (8). Tips were round in section. All but one was 0.3 cm. in tipdiameter, one was 0.4 cm., and two were incomplete. Identificationsfor bones from which the Type V a

casas grandes - di peso

Documents