COCHISE AND MOGOLLON SITES
Pine Lawn Valley
Western New Mexico
PAUL S. MARTIN
JOHN B. RINALDO
ERNST ANTEVS
FIELDIANA: ANTHROPOLOGY
VOLUME 38, NUMBER 1
Published by
CHICAGO NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM
APRIL 29, 1949
COCHISE AND MOGOLLON SITES
Pine Lawn Valley
Western New Mexico
J3 ft
«
3
02
tf
COCHISE AND MOGOLLON SITES
Pine Lawn Valley
Western New Mexico
PAUL S. MARTIN
Chief Curator, Department of Anthropology
JOHN B. RINALDO
Assistant in Archaeology, Department of Anthropology
ERNST ANTEVS
Research Associate, Department of Geology
FIELDIANA: ANTHROPOLOGY
VOLUME 38, NUMBER 1
Published by
CHICAGO NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM
APRIL 29, 1949
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY CHICAGO NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM PRESS
PREFACE
From April to September of 1947, archaeological investigations were conducted in western New Mexico in the Apache National Forest, Catron County. Our nearest town was Reserve, New Mexico, about seven miles to the east. We worked in a valley that we call the Pine Lawn Valley (see map, Fig. 2), which lies between the San Francisco and Saliz Mountains (see Chap. IV).
Our work in the Forest was carried on under a permit issued to Chicago Natural History Museum by the Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture. From Mr. R. B. Ewing, Forest Supervisor, Apache National Forest, Springerville, Arizona, and from Mr. Ray Swapp, Ranger of the Hood Ranger Station, we received co-operation and friendly assistance, for which we wish to express our gratitude.
The 1947 investigations had two phases, one of which was an extensive archaeological survey and the other, intensive digging at several sites.
The purposes of the survey were two-fold: (1) To hunt for non- pottery sites which would yield information concerning early man in America and the ancestral relationships of the SU site; and (2) to search for pottery sites in order to establish a more complete typo- logical sequence. The survey was conducted by Dr. John B. Rinaldo, who covered more than 100 square miles and discovered more than 100 sites. Mr. E. B. Sayles, of the Arizona State Museum, Tucson, joined Dr. Rinaldo for ten days and directed the search for non- pottery sites.
Stone tools belonging to the Chiricahua stage of the Cochise culture were found in the banks of Wet Leggett Canyon (Twp. 7 S., R. 20 W., Sec. 14, 15, and 23, N.M.P.M. Catron County).
Dr. Ernst Antevs, Globe, Arizona, spent a month in the Pine Lawn Valley and determined the dates of these early stone tools. His complete report on the results of his survey and his researches are contained in this monograph (Chap. IV).
Excavations were carried on at four different sites. The name, phase, and location of each is as follows:
8 PREFACE
(1) Promontory site, Pine Lawn phase (N.E. VA sec. 3, T. 8 S., R. 20 W., N.M.P.M.).
(2) Turkey Foot Ridge, Three Circle phase (S.W. M sec. 34, T. 7 S., R. 20 W., N.M.P.M.).
(3) Twin Bridges site, Three Circle phase (N.W. % sec. 26, T. 7 S., R. 20 W., N.M.P.M.).
(4) Oak Springs Pueblo, Reserve phase (same location as Twin Bridges site).
Reports on these excavations are also included herein.
We wish to thank Mr. Stanley Field and Colonel Clifford C. Gregg, respectively President and Director of Chicago Natural History Museum, and the Board of Trustees, for their continuing interest in and appreciation of our field work.
We take pleasure in thanking the members of the camp staff for their co-operation and assistance: Mr. George I. Quimby, Miss Mary Allee, Mrs. Martha Perry, Mr. Leonard G. Johnson, and Mr. W. T. Egan. Again we wish to acknowledge the invaluable help of Mr. E. B. Sayles, Curator, Arizona State Museum, Tucson, Arizona.
Mrs. Mary Crackel, proprietress of Pine Lawn Camp, continued her generous assistance to us and provided us with electric current, water, and milk.
We wish to thank the men who dug for us: Gregorio and Marcos Jiron, Ben Romero, and Ruben and Willy Serna.
Dr. A. E. Douglass, Director of the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, Tucson, Arizona, and his assistants, Dr. Edmund Schul- man and Mr. T. L. Smiley, have undertaken to analyze our tree-ring specimens. Dr. Schulman visited camp and took borings of living trees in the Pine Lawn Valley. These borings will greatly aid in the problem of dating our wood, much of which was excavated during the summer.
Miss Shirley Marshall, of the Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago, traced the maps and charts used in this report.
CONTENTS
PAGE
List of Illustrations 13
List of Tables 15
I. General Remarks 17
Problems 20
II. Archaeological Survey in the Reserve Area 21
Method 22
Classification of Sites 23
Summary 25
III. Excavations, by George I. Quimby 26
Wet Leggett Site . 26
Promontory Site 27
Twin Bridges Site 29
Oak Springs Site 30
Turkey Foot Site 32
Back-Filling of the Excavations 33
IV. Age of Cochise Artifacts on the Wet Leggett 34
Place and Mode of Occurrence of the Artifacts 34
Geomorphology 34
Modern Climate 38
Vegetation and Fauna 43
Beds and Stratification 43
Conditions of Erosion and Deposition and Climatic Significance of
Beds 48
Role of Plant-and-Soil Mantle 48
Modern Channel Erosion and Deposition 49
Old Channel Erosion and Deposition 50
Old Channel Filling 52
Soil-forming Processes 54
Summary 55
Stratigraphic Occurrence of the Artifacts 55
Climatic History and the Age of the Cochise Artifacts 56
9
10 CONTENTS
PAGE
V. Archaeology of the Wet Leggett 58
Artifacts 59
Affiliation of the Wet Leggett Artifacts 60
Manos .• 66
Metates 68
Projectile Point 72
Blades 72
Gravers 72
Flake Knives 74
Scrapers 76
Choppers 78
VI. Description of Architectural Details 81
Pine Lawn Phase 82
Promontory Site 82
Pit-house A 82
Pit-house B 86
Pit-house C 90
Pit-house D 94
Pit-house E 98
Three Circle Phase 102
Turkey Foot Ridge Site 102
Pit-house A 102
Pit-house B 106
Twin Bridges Site 110
Pit-house A 110
Pit-house B 114
Pit-house C 118
Pit-house D 122
Reserve Phase 126
Oak Springs Pueblo 126
VII. Artifacts 130
List of Artifacts , . 130
Discussion 130
Methods of Manufacture 131
Ground and Pecked Stone Tools 131
Chipped Stone Tools 132
Worked Shell 133
Bone Tools 133
Clay Artifacts 133
Functions of Artifacts 134
Comparison with Artifacts of Different Horizons 136
Manos 143
CONTENTS 11
PAGE
Rubbing Stones 148
Pestles 150
Metates 152
Small, Metate-like Grinding Stones 156
Worked (Piki?) Slabs 158
Mortars 160
Stone Dishes 160
Polishing Stones 162
Hammerstones 164
Choppers 164
Abrading Stone 166
Pipes 166
Hoes 166
Projectile Points 168
Drills 168
Knives 170
Scrapers 172
Bracelet 176
Awls 176
Bone Die 176
Worked Human Bone 176
Data on Identifiable Unworked Bone Fragments 176
Worked Sherds 178
Animal Effigy 178
VIII. Pottery 184
Pine Lawn Phase 184
Three Circle Phase 184
Reserve Phase 188
Relationships of Principal Pottery Types in Mogollon Sites in
Western New Mexico 190
Deductions from Graph (Fig. 71) 198
Comparison of Abajo Red-on-Orange and Mogollon Red-on-Brown 202
IX. Report on the Burials 205
X. Synthesis . . 207
Summary 207
Survey 207
Excavations 207
Inferences 209
Summary 219
Results 221
Estimated Dates for Pine Lawn Valley 221
Bibliography 223
Index 229
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
TEXT FIGURES
PAGE
1. Restoration drawing of Oak Springs Pueblo, Reserve phase . . Frontispiece
2. Map showing location of Pine Lawn Valley, New Mexico 16
3. Sketch of Pine Lawn region 35
4. Locations of sites and profiles on Wet Leggett 36
5. Panoramic view of Wet Leggett 37
6. Arroyo bank at Locus B, Wet Leggett Canyon 44
7. Location of artifacts at Locus B 45
8. Somewhat idealized north-south profile of beds at Locus B, with strati-
graphic position of artifacts. Areal location of artifacts is shown in
figure 7 46
9. Profiles of beds exposed in arroyo walls of Wet Leggett Canyon ... 47
10. Sequence of beds, climatic history, and age of Cochise artifacts .... 49
11. Gradient of Wet Leggett Valley from Locus A to Pine Lawn 50
12. Metate in situ at Station K, Wet Leggett Canyon 61
13. Manos, Wet Leggett Canyon 67
14. Metate from Station K, Wet Leggett Canyon 69
15. Metate in situ at Station F, Wet Leggett Canyon 70
16. Metate in situ at Station F, Wet Leggett Canyon 71
17. Blades, projectile point, and gravers, Wet Leggett Canyon 73
18. Flake knives, Wet Leggett Canyon 75
19. Scrapers, Wet Leggett Canyon 77
20. Choppers and a scraper, Wet Leggett Canyon 79
21. Map of Promontory site 80
22. Plan and sections of Pit-house A, Promontory site 83
23. Pit-house A, Promontory site 85
24. Plan and sections of Pit-house B, Promontory site 87
25. Pit-house B, Promontory site 89
26. Plan and sections of Pit-house C, Promontory site 91
27. Pit-house C, Promontory site 93
28. Plan and sections of Pit-house D, Promontory site 95
29. Pit-house D, Promontory site 97
30. Plan and sections of Pit-house E, Promontory site 99
31. Pit-house E, Promontory site 101
32. Plan and sections of Pit-house A, Turkey Foot Ridge site 103
13
14 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
PAGE
33. Pit-house A, Turkey Foot Ridge site 105
34. Plan and sections of Pit-house B, Turkey Foot Ridge site 107
35. Pit-house B, Turkey Foot Ridge site 108
36. Map of Twin Bridges site 109
37. Plan and sections of Pit-house A, Twin Bridges site Ill
38. Pit-house A, Twin Bridges site 113
39. Plan and sections of Pit-house B, Twin Bridges site 115
40. Pit-house B, Twin Bridges site 117
41. Plan and sections of Pit-house C, Twin Bridges site 119
42. Pit-house C, Twin Bridges site 121
43. Plan and sections of Pit-house D, Twin Bridges site 123
44. Pit-house D, Twin Bridges site 125
45. Plan and sections of Oak Springs Pueblo 127
46. Oak Springs Pueblo, looking north at Rooms A, B, C, and F 128
47. Oak Springs Pueblo, showing details of masonry and doorway between
Rooms A and B 129
48-50. Manos 145-147
51. Rubbing stones 149
52. Pestles: a-d, multifaced type; e, angular type 151
53. Trough type metate, trough open at one end only 153
54. Trough type metate, trough open at both ends 154
55. Trough type metate and mano in situ, Pit-house B, Turkey Foot Ridge
site 155
56. Small, metate-like grinding stones 157
57. Worked slab 159
58. Stone dishes and mortar 161
59. Polishing stones 163
60. Hammerstones and choppers 165
61. Tubular pipes, hoe fragment, and abrading stone 167
62. Drills and projectile points 169
63. Knives (miscellaneous types) 171
64. Biface and random flake scrapers 173
65. Large random flake scrapers 174
66. Keel-shaped and end scrapers 175
67. Bone and shell artifacts 177
68. Animal effigy fragment and worked sherds 179
69. Pottery sherds: a, Abajo Red-on-Orange; column b, San Lorenzo Red-on-
Brown; column c, Mogollon Red-on-Brown; column d, Three Circle
Red-on- White; column e, Mimbres Bold Face Black-on-White . . . 185
70. Pottery sherds: a, Reserve Black-on-White; b, Mimbres Neck Corru-
gated; c, Incised Corrugated; d, Reserve Fillet Rim; e, Smudged
Decorated 189
71. Chart showing relationships of principal pottery types in Mogollon
sites, western New Mexico 192-193
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 15
PAGE
72. Pottery: a, San Francisco Red barrel-shaped jar from Pit-house B,
Turkey Foot Ridge site; b, Alma Plain jar from Pit-house B, Turkey Foot Ridge site; c, San Francisco Red bowl from Pit-house A, Prom- ontory site; d, Reserve Smudged bowl from Oak Springs Pueblo burial 197
73. Pottery: a, San Francisco Red barrel-shaped jar from Pit-house A,
Promontory site; b, Alma Plain globular jar from Pit-house D, Twin Bridges site; c, Incised stone bowl from Pit-house D, Twin Bridges site; d, Alma Plain pitcher from Pit-house B, Turkey Foot Ridge site. All miniatures 199
74. Pottery: a, Alma Neck Banded wide-mouthed jar from Pit-house B,
Turkey Foot Ridge site; b, San Francisco Red globular jar from Pit- house A, Promontory site 200
75. Wide-mouthed jars: a, Alma Plain, from Pit-house B, Turkey Foot
Ridge site; b, Alma Plain, from Pit-house D, Twin Bridges site; c, Alma Scored, from Pit-house C, Twin Bridges site; d, Alma Scored, from Pit-house B, Turkey Foot Ridge site 201
76. Jars from Pit-house D, Twin Bridges site: a, Alma Plain; b, Three Circle
Red-on-White 203
77. Burial 3 in situ, Room B, Oak Springs Pueblo 206
78. Chart showing the development of traits in the Mimbres Branch . 210-211
LIST OF TABLES
1. Temperature and growing season 39
2. Precipitation in inches 39
3. Frequency of occurrence of artifacts in pit-houses 180-183
4. Sherd analysis, Pine Lawn phase 186
5. Sherd analysis, Three Circle phase 190-191
6. Sherd analysis, Reserve phase 194-195
7. Sherd analysis, summary of all sites 204
8. Distribution of house features at SU site . . . ; 216-217
MONTICELLO O
BLANOING O
1928-29 EXCAVATIONS
LOWRY RUIN 1930-34 1938 EXCAVATIONS
MEXICO
Fig. 2. Map showing location of Pine Lawn Valley, New Mexico.
16
I. GENERAL REMARKS
During the summer of 1947, we pursued our study of the archae- ology of the Pine Lawn Valley. Specifically, our efforts were directed toward solving several problems that are directly concerned with the origin and development of the Mogollon culture. We sought information that would help us understand the relationship of the Mogollon culture, as manifested in our area, to that culture as it existed in other parts of New Mexico and Arizona.
In our classifications, pottery (when present) is the most im- portant item because it is the most sensitive criterion that we know of at present. Most of the stone implements are also helpful (espe- cially in the Cochise horizon) in setting up our taxonomic groupings, although some tools (polishing stones, hammerstones) are not useful because they are not specialized enough in shape or time. In our area, bone tools and likewise pit-houses are also helpful in our scheme in a limited way, especially when used in conjunction with pottery and stone tools.
Thus it will be understood by the reader that the "Mogollon culture" is an invention of several archaeologists and is used here to describe houses, pottery, and tools that seem to be different in form from those found in ruins called "Anasazi" or "Pueblo." When we speak of the "Pine Lawn phase" we refer to an interval of time (ending about a.d. 500) and to specific pottery types, bone and stone tool types, and house forms, all of which we have deliberately and arbitrarily set up as classifications. From these, it is hoped to reconstruct the history of our region and to humanize our researches. We are not interested merely in presenting measurements or classi- fications; we hope to go beyond them. For that reason, we separate our observations and data from our conjectures and each section is carefully labeled so that the student will not go astray.
A resume- of the taxonomic entity called the Mogollon culture is perhaps in order. In dealing with this subject, we place the Mimbres phase as a late development of the Mogollon classification.
In 1907, Hough published a report on the antiquities of the upper Gila and Salt River valleys in Arizona and New Mexico. He not only conducted an archaeological reconnaissance over a large area,
17
18 PINE LAWN VALLEY, WESTERN NEW MEXICO
but he also did some digging. Near Luna, New Mexico, only seventeen miles distant from Pine Lawn Valley, he discovered several pit-house villages. The pottery was mostly "fragments of coarse brown undecorated pottery" (Alma Plain?) and only a few fragments of "a peculiar creamy white ware with red-brown linear decoration." (Three Circle Red-on- White?) In several places (pp. 9, 25, 26) Hough suggests that the tribes formerly inhabiting the upper Gila-Salt River region "were distinct from the tribes of the neigh- boring regions and sprang from an original local source," and that the developments in sculptural forms pointed to southern influences. In other words, Hough recognized that the cultures of the upper Gila regions were different from those centering around Gallup and northward from there; and it must be remembered that the earliest sites that he saw we would now probably put in the Three Circle phase, and the latest ones in the Tularosa phase.
Bradfield carried on excavations for several years in Mimbres Valley, and dug pit-houses as well as surface rooms. He felt that a "detailed study of the earliest periods of Mimbres cultural develop- ment will reveal interesting facts in the early period of Pre-Pueblo culture in the Southwest not yet thoroughly understood." (Brad- field, 1927, p. 559.) Whether Mr. Bradfield ever changed his mind about the ancestry of the Mimbres culture is not known, as he died before his final report had been completed.
The Cosgroves (1932, p. 113) stated that Mimbres origins were unknown to them, although in the same report Kidder (p. xix) im- plied that from the point of view of the San Juan nucleus the Mimbres culture was peripheral. Kidder also stated in the same place that the Gila, and perhaps also Chihuahua, must be reckoned with as the theater of a development perhaps quite independent. Kidder's point of view was not unreasonable in 1932 because at that time only late Mogollon-Mimbres sites had been studied. It now seems fairly certain to us that the Mimbres culture is a "mixture" of the Mogollon and Anasazi assemblages.
Gladwin (1934, pp. 221-227) briefly described the "Mogollon branch," which he had named the preceding year. So far as we know, Gladwin was the first to name and mention the Mogollon culture as such.
Haury made the first published report on this subject (1936a, b). Here for the first time the Mogollon culture was set forth as a taxonomic entity that was different from the Anasazi and Hohokam classifications.
GENERAL REMARKS 19
Many words both for and against the idea have been poured forth since the date of that publication. Those opposed to a Mogollon entity have rarely had much actual contact with Mogollon sites and materials. Every Mogollon expert with whom we have talked readily admits that Anasazi influences were strong in the Mogollon area after about A.D. 700. After studying our data and materials from four seasons' work in the Pine Lawn Valley, we are convinced that we are not chasing a phantom. It seems evident to all who have worked in the Mogollon area, including Nesbitt (Martin, 1940, p. 10), that Mogollon culture is a valid concept that corresponds to a reality. Enough work has been done now in the Mogollon area to show that we never shall have many traits to work with. The Mogollon culture, as we conceive it, is simple, relatively poor, and has only a few cultural traits: pottery, tools of bone and stone, and houses. If we arrive at any conclusions about the materials in ques- tion, we shall have to squeeze them out of the four traits just men- tioned. It is possible that later work, in caves especially, may disclose more traits.
Haury named and defined three distinct non-Puebloan phases that were earlier than the Mimbres phase. He asserted that the early stages of the culture called Mogollon were neither Anasazi nor Hohokam (our work in a still earlier phase of the Mogollon cul- ture completely supports Haury's views of 1934) ; that the separate- ness of the Mogollon concept had much to recommend it; and that the "mixture" of Anasazi and Hohokam traits about A.D. 900, com- bined with the original Mogollon traits, produced what is known as the Mimbres phase.
Nesbitt (1938) excavated, in the Pine Lawn Valley, some houses belonging to the San Francisco and Three Circle phases. He now agrees with our hypotheses concerning the Mogollon culture, al- though at that time (1938) he stated that the Mogollon culture, as currently known, did not represent a new basic pattern.
Haury (1940) again attacked the Mogollon problem by excavating a series of houses in the Forestdale Valley, in east-central Arizona. The significance of the Bear Ruin (in the Forestdale Valley) lies in the nature of the cultural traits, which show a blending and hybridiz- ing of Mogollon and Anasazi elements. It seemed to Haury that the Bear Ruin represented a local and marginal aspect of the Mogollon culture and that its individuality was intensified by mixture with the Anasazi culture.
As a result of his studies at the Bear Ruin in the Forestdale Valley, Haury advanced the hypothesis that the Mogollon culture
20 PINE LAWN VALLEY, WESTERN NEW MEXICO
was an independent entity and that it may have been the under- pinning for later and higher cultural groups.
In 1941, Haury dug twenty- three pit-houses in the Bluff site (Haury, 1942), Forestdale Valley, Arizona. The pottery and tools from this site show unmistakable marks of relationship with the SU site (Martin, 1940, 1943; Martin and Rinaldo, 1947) and are classified as Mogollon. Furthermore, this is the first "pure" Mogollon site to be dated (early portion of the fourth century A.D.). Interestingly enough, the traits found were more or less what Dr. Haury had guessed would turn up in an early Mogollon site.
The most recent significant information pertaining to the Mogol- lon problem is presented by Sayles (1945) in a report on excavations in the San Simon Valley. There he found a cultural development that parallels the development in the Mimbres branch in pottery, in architecture, and, to some extent, in stone tools. The pottery and houses of his earliest phase, Penasco (formerly referred to by some archaeologists as "Cave Creek phase"), are similar in many respects to those of the Pine Lawn phase. The Mogollon develop- ment as described by Sayles for the San Simon district is complete, whereas in the Mimbres branch (exemplified by Mogollon 1:15, Harris, Starkweather, and SU sites; Haury, 1936a; Nesbitt, 1938; Martin, 1940, 1943; Martin and Rinaldo, 1947) there are some gaps. Sayles can demonstrate a complete taxonomic sequence from earliest Cochise times through to the Encinas phase, which is roughly equiva- lent to the Mimbres or Reserve phase.
PROBLEMS
When the Mogollon concept was announced a decade ago, there was much controversy over its validity. As now may be seen, there is a growing body of evidence to support the Mogollon hypothesis.
While there are yet many problems to cope with, we now feel that the taxonomic concept of a Mogollon culture is better estab- lished. As a result of our four seasons' work in New Mexico, we believe that the argument concerning the separateness of the Mogol- lon culture is largely an academic one, in view of the large amount of data on hand. Details are lacking, but a few important land- marks have been pointed out, some of which appear in this report; for example, the relationship of the Mogollon culture to the Cochise complex; the simplicity of the earlier phases; the complete sequence of the San Simon branch; the trends in pottery development (which differ from the traditions of the Anasazi and the Hohokam) ; and the related trends in stone tools and in architecture.
II. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY IN THE RESERVE AREA
In accordance with the plans of the Chicago Natural History Museum Expedition, Dr. Rinaldo was sent out to New Mexico in April, 1947, to conduct an archaeological survey in the Reserve area with the primary purpose of locating any stage earlier than Pine Lawn phase, and any non-pottery horizon; and the secondary purpose of finding a large series of pottery-bearing sites which would present enough data to permit us to set up a complete local typo- logical sequence. On the basis of Haury's Mimbres Valley excava- tions for Gila Pueblo farther to the south, and Nesbitt's excavations of the Starkweather Ruin to the east, it had been assumed that the Red-on-Brown sequence would hold in the Pine Lawn Valley between the two localities; nevertheless it seemed absolutely necessary to investigate the local sequence in greater detail because the area lies so close to the consistently occurring Black-on-White sequence to the north and especially because no pottery of the Mogollon Red- on-Brown type had been found on the surface or in the excavations in the Pine Lawn Valley up to that time.
Several earlier archaeological surveys had been conducted in the Reserve area but none of them was intensive enough to fulfill the purposes outlined for the present survey. The earliest archaeological survey in the Reserve area was made by Walter Hough for the Bureau of American Ethnology, which published the report of his findings in 1907 (Bulletin 35). However, this very extensive survey over- lapped our own only in the Tularosa River and Apache Creek drainages and did not touch upon the Leggett, Saliz and SU Canyon drainages most intensively surveyed this year; nor did Hough explore the reaches of the San Francisco River from Reserve up to The Box, where the river turns west toward Luna — another area explored this year.
In 1931 Dr. Emil Haury and Russell Hastings, both then asso- ciated with Gila Pueblo, visited the major and more accessible sites in the vicinity. Finally, in 1941, Brigham A. Arnold conducted a very intensive archaeological reconnaissance survey of two relatively small areas situated in the Leggett Canyon drainage (Martin,
21
22 PINE LAWN VALLEY, WESTERN NEW MEXICO
1943, pp. 252-263). Although these surveys described numerous sites of the Reserve and Tularosa phases and a few of the Pine Lawn phase, there were no sites that might be placed with any probability in the Georgetown or San Francisco phases and very few of the Three Circle phase, thus leaving an unexplained gap in the local sequence.
The area covered most intensively by the present survey extends from the Starkweather Canyon west to the head of Wet Leggett and Lost Springs canyons and south from Luna Mountain down the main Leggett drainage to the junction of Saliz and Leggett canyons. Somewhat less intensively the area down Saliz Canyon to the San Francisco River and the area up the San Francisco River from Re- serve to The Box and east to Apache Creek, including the Largo Canyon and Tularosa River drainages, was examined. Finally, such terrain features as cienagas and deep arroyos showing cut banks in the area north to Spur Lake and south to Cliff were examined with a view to finding evidences of early man. Mr. E. B. Sayles of Arizona State Museum and Dr. Ernst Antevs were partners at different times in the search for evidences of early man. What was found of this nature was due to their great knowledge, experience, and assistance. Before the excavation season started, Mr. Ruben M. Serna acted as local guide and assistant, and his intimate knowledge of local roads, trails, springs and terrain was very helpful.
METHOD
The rugged mountainous character of the terrain, the great size of the area to be covered, and the time allotted for the purpose did not permit investigation of the entire area on foot. A light truck was used wherever possible beyond the Pine Lawn Valley. The usual procedure was to drive the truck to a particular known group of ruins, or an area around a spring or cienaga to be explored; then a systematic search was made from there on foot. On discovering a site, we made a collection of pottery and artifacts, and entered on a card the pertinent geographical data (terrain, vegetation, etc.) and archaeological data (dimensions of ruin, probable number of rooms, pottery and artifact types, etc.). When feasible, we made a sketch map of the site on the back of the card. The pottery and artifacts were then put in a sack and tagged with the site number in sequence. At camp the sherds and artifacts were washed, counted and classified and the additional data gained therefrom was entered on the cards, which were then edited and typewritten. These cards are on file at Chicago Natural History Museum.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 23
CLASSIFICATION OF SITES
The sites found were grouped into five classifications: (1) non- pottery sites, (2) sherd areas and pit-house sites yielding only plain ware, (3) combined pueblo and pit-house sites, (4) small pueblo sites, and (5) large pueblo sites.
One non-pottery site yielding stone artifacts only was found by Mr. E. B. Sayles and Dr. Rinaldo early in the season. This was named the Wet Leggett site because of its location in the banks of the Wet Leggett arroyo. This site is described in another section of this report.
The plain ware sites might be classified as sites of the Pine Lawn phase. These sites were both plain ware sherd areas (without house depressions), and sites with noticeable, round, depressed areas that are almost certain to mark the location of pit-houses. The pottery found on such sites was Alma Rough, Alma Plain, and the early variety of San Francisco Red. Three of these sites seemed to be unusual in location and in having stone "walls," and these differences were thought to be possibly significant. They were all located on top of high, steep-sided, flat- topped mesas, one end of which was crossed by three or more "walls" or linear piles of lava boulders. In two cases these "walls" appeared to block off the least accessible end of the mesa, as if they were meant for crude fortifications. One of these sites on a mesa opposite Apache Creek is mentioned by Hough (Site 107, "Wall," p. 74, 1907), although his report de- scribes only one wall and makes no mention of the pottery types to be found there. Another site of this type (the Promontory site), was excavated during the course of the season and the prognosis that it belonged to the Pine Lawn phase proved to be correct. The excavations at this site are described in pages 81 to 101. At least a dozen sites of the Pine Lawn phase yielding only plain wares are known in the Reserve area. They range in size from the large SU site, which was a village of thirty or more houses, to small sherd areas showing but a single noticeable house depression.
The second grouping of sites consisted of those with both pueblo ruins and pit-house depressions. We located eight sites falling in this category. The pueblo ruins on such sites were for the most part small, containing probably less than seven rooms. The pottery types found were Alma Plain, San Francisco Red, Three Circle Neck Corrugated, Reserve Smudged, Reserve Black-on- White, and Three Circle Red-on-White. However, two of these sites gave evidence of a longer time span of occupation by the presence of a
24 PINE LAWN VALLEY, WESTERN NEW MEXICO
number of Tularosa Black-on-White and Upper Gila Corrugated sherds along with the Three Circle Red-on-White and Three Circle Neck Corrugated sherds. This assemblage of wares indicates a possible time span of occupation from Three Circle phase times to the Tularosa phase. Two pit-houses on one of these sites (Turkey Foot Ridge) were excavated and are described in another section (pp. 102-108).
A third and larger grouping was that of small pueblo ruins. These were characterized by masonry ruins containing from two to seven rooms, and by the following pottery types: Alma Plain, San Francisco Red, Three Circle Neck Corrugated, Incised Corrugated, Reserve Smudged and Reserve Black-on-White. There were no kiva depressions associated with many of these sites. Thirty-four such small ruins were found. With two exceptions, which were sites on which Tularosa Black-on-White and Upper Gila Corrugated pottery was found in some quantity, all of these sites are believed to belong to the Reserve phase. One pueblo of this type (Oak Springs Pueblo) was excavated during the season and is described in this report (pp. 126-129).
A fourth grouping of pottery sites is that of large pueblos con- taining from eight to twelve rooms. The pottery types characteris- tically associated with such sites in the Reserve area are as follows: Alma Plain, San Francisco Red, Upper Gila Corrugated, Mimbres Neck Corrugated, Reserve Smudged, Tularosa Black-on-White, Reserve Fillet Rim, Reserve Polychrome, and occasional intrusive Black-on-Red types (Puerco and Wingate Black-on-Red). Fre- quently large rectangular kiva depressions are associated with such ruins; others are surrounded by walls, grouped around plazas in an orderly fashion, or show other signs of community planning and activity. These are the ruins that were featured in Hough's report and are to be found most frequently along the larger permanent watercourses such as the San Francisco and Tularosa rivers. Those most easily accessible to the main roads and the towns have been badly pitted by pottery hunters. A few small obsidian triangular arrowpoints were found on such sites, as well as some tiny disk beads and an arrowshaft smoother. Such artifacts appear to be characteristic of the later sites.
Fragments of troughed metates with one closed end were found on sites of all categories. Rectangular manos were found on both pueblo and pit-house sites. Basin-type metates were found only on sites of the Pine Lawn phase.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 25
SUMMARY
During the spring of 1947 an archaeological survey was con- ducted in an area within a fifteen-mile radius of Reserve, New Mexico, in order to find a non-pottery site yielding evidence of early man in America and to fill in gaps in the local sequence of pottery phases not revealed by the previous surveys and excavations in the Pine Lawn Valley.
A non-pottery site was discovered that shows evidence of early man, and cave sites of some promise were also discovered. The sixty-seven pottery sites visited and described fall into four categories representative of different culture phases: (1) Plain ware sherd areas and pit-house sites probably of the Pine Lawn phase, repre- sented by twelve sites; (2) combined pit-house and pueblo sites yield- ing Three Circle Red-on-White and Reserve Black-on-White pottery, probably of the Three Circle and Reserve phases, represented by eight sites; (3) small pueblos of less than seven rooms containing Reserve Black-on-White pottery and probably of the Reserve phase, represented by thirty-four sites; (4) large pueblos with more than seven rooms and a rectangular kiva and with Tularosa Black-on- White pottery, of the Tularosa phase, represented by thirteen sites. No Mogollon Red-on-Brown pottery was found on the surface in the Pine Lawn Valley proper although a large pit-house village of the "small pueblo and pit-house" grouping, partially excavated during the season, revealed some Mogollon Red-on-Brown pottery in the houses. This site appears to give promise that the Red-on- Brown sequence found at Mogollon 1:15 and Starkweather will hold for the Pine Lawn Valley as well.
III. EXCAVATIONS
BY
George I. Quimby
During the 1947 field season Chicago Natural History Museum's archaeological expedition to the Southwest undertook excavations at five sites in Pine Lawn Valley of western New Mexico. Labor, obtained locally, consisted of five young men of Spanish-American tradition, who rendered excellent service. Tools and techniques used in the excavation of these sites were so similar to those described by Braidwood (Martin, 1943) that they need not be described here. In the following pages, the excavations are described briefly by site.
WET LEGGETT SITE
The Wet Leggett site presented a special problem of excavation that never was solved. The question was where to excavate.
Chiricahua (Cochise) type artifacts exposed by erosion were scattered along the banks of Wet Leggett arroyo for about two miles. In many instances the artifacts were in situ and only partly exposed by erosion. These artifacts were unevenly distributed throughout the upper 100 cm. of a gray alluvial deposit that was extremely hard and compact. On top of the gray alluvial deposit was another alluvial stratum of ashy, dark-gray silt varying in thick- ness from a few centimeters to about one meter, although in some places erosion had completely removed this stratum.
Preliminary examinations of upper Wet Leggett arroyo dis- closed two concentrations of artifacts in situ. These areas were designated Locus A and Locus B (fig. 4) and excavations were undertaken at both places.
At Locus A it was planned to excavate in terms of ten-centimeter levels within two-meter squares. The grid system, however, was abandoned when it was discovered that location stakes could not be driven into the hard gray silt. It was then decided to explore Locus A by means of test trenches in which levels and positions of artifacts would be taken by instrument. Accordingly several trenches were begun, but even with the use of heavy picks the
26
EXCAVATIONS 27
progress of the excavation was extremely slow. In some instances the pick merely bounced off the hard silt; in others, the point of the pick penetrated the gray silt only a few centimeters. At best the silt was picked out in small clods that were then broken up.
The difficulty of excavation and the absence of artifacts led to the abandonment of Locus A after two days of digging. Attention was then directed to Locus B, where the^ame procedure was repeated. In addition, tongues of land at the junction of the main and tributary arroyos were cut down. Again no artifacts were forthcoming, and the excavation was slow and very difficult. With mining equipment and techniques it might have been possible to undertake exploratory trenching in a satisfactory manner, but such a thing was out of the question. Therefore, the archaeological investigation of Wet Leggett was carried out in the following way:
Artifacts exposed by erosion but still in situ in the steep walls of the arroyo were photographed. Then these artifacts were removed, with the aid of a geologist's hand-pick. As each specimen was removed, a metal surveying stake was driven into the hard gray silt to mark the position of the artifact. A catalogue description of the artifact was written in pencil on a paper tag, which was then fastened to each location stake. Then the location and elevation of each artifact was determined by instrument and plotted on the traverse map of the arroyo. No hearths, house structures or other evidence of actual dwelling area was found in the course of these investigations.
At both Locus A and Locus B faces were cut by mattock in the banks of the arroyo so that clear profiles would be available for study by Dr. Ernst Antevs. Dr. Antevs also examined the location of each specimen found in situ and made profiles of all significant strata in the vicinity of a given artifact, usually before the artifact was replaced by a marker stake.
The conditions prevailing at the Wet Leggett site call for a long- term plan of investigation. It was decided, therefore, to examine the site during each future field season and to collect and record the locations of additional specimens exposed by erosion. If, at some future time, hearths, dwellings, or other evidence of specific, localized habitation is found, excavation of that locus will be under- taken despite the hardness of the silt.
PROMONTORY SITE
The Promontory site, although confined to the top of a mesa, was extensive and contained numerous shallow depressions mani-
28 PINE LAWN VALLEY, WESTERN NEW MEXICO
festing former pit-houses. Pottery sherds and stone artifacts col- lected in abundance from the surface of the site were types charac- teristic of the Pine Lawn phase. This phase was well known from the exhaustive investigation of the nearby SU site in previous years. Consequently, it did not seem advisable to excavate completely another large site of the Pine Lawn phase. It did, however, seem worth while to sample the promontory site in an attempt to find out: (1) if the entire occupancy of the site were in the Pine Lawn period; (2) if occupancy of a somewhat inaccessible mesa had any cultural significance discoverable by archaeological techniques; and (3) if there were observable temporal and spatial variations within the Pine Lawn phase.
With these objectives in mind five pit-house depressions were selected for excavation. This selection was made in an attempt to obtain a reasonably adequate sampling of the site. The distribution of the excavated houses (fig. 21, map of Promontory site) shows that most of the site was tested in terms of this selection.
It seemed preferable, as far as possible, to test the site by means of complete excavation of a few selected pit-houses rather than by indiscriminate test trenches in a large number of pit-houses. The data thus obtained by complete excavation would be more com- parable with data obtained in previous seasons as well as with data from other sites excavated during the current season. By maintain- ing the quantitative and qualitative standard already established, all of the data — past, present, and future — could be more easily manipu- lated in the laboratory analyses and interpretations.
The method of excavation was the same as that used previously at the SU site. This method has been described by Braidwood (Martin, 1943); consequently it will only