At the time of this writing Thatcher Rogers  is a PhD student in Anthropology/Archaeology at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque. The GCAS Coinman Grant Award funds helped Thatcher offset some of his transportation and related expenses in traveling from Albuquerque to a small museum in Ohio to investigate an extensive assemblage of artifacts collected from a 50-year-old avocational excavation at the Dutch Ruin (LA8706), a large pueblo site that has suffered irretrievable losses from decades of looting, erosion, and private land use.

Thatcher’s 2018-2019 project is part of his broader dissertation research that examines the economic and societal relationships between the Casas Grandes (Paquimé) culture of northern Chihuahua and the Salado culture of southwestern New Mexico.

Following is Thatcher's September, 2019, progress report on his research. You can also Download it in WORD or Download it in PDF. Thank you, Thatcher!

INVESTIGATING CASAS GRANDES - SALADO RELATIONSHIPS:
THE DUTCH RUIN SITE AND THE UPPER GILA RIVER VALLEY
by Thatcher Rogers
Ph.D. Student
Department of Anthropology
University of New Mexico

INTRODUCTION

Human societies are not closed systems that lack external networks of trade and resource procurement. Anthropological studies have commonly investigated these networks in order to relate distributions of sourced artifacts to behavioral practices by individuals or groups. One particular behavior practice, the control, management, or manipulation of these networks, is a central focus of anthropological investigations into complex societies. That is because the manipulation of networks is a pathway for political elites to gain access to prestige goods that are integral to the maintenance and display of their status. Thus, the identification of prestige goods and their context in past societies is significant for anthropologists.  

The Casas Grandes culture, centered at Paquimé in northwestern Chihuahua, has been suggested to represent a complex polity in the prehispanic Southwest. An important line of inquiry, then, to assess if Casas Grandes was complex is to identify if there existed societal elites. Paquimé is one location with inferred elites; yet, it is debated the mechanisms through which elites may have competed with one another and differentiated themselves from the general populace. Prestige goods represent one of the most archaeologically visible mechanisms and are often easily traceable from production source to deposited location or archaeological context of recovery. This project, generously funded by the Nancy Coinman Grant Award from the Grant County Archaeological Society, investigated the likely “source” of a subset of probable prestige goods found at Paquimé (Salado polychrome pottery vessels and artifacts made from serpentine). This paper summarizes the investigative results and hypothesizes the cultural meanings for prestige good exchange between the Dutch Ruin Site and Paquimé.

CASAS GRANDES-SALADO RELATIONSIPS

A lesser known impetus behind the excavation of Paquimé was the extent to which it was driven by a debate over the age and origin of Salado polychrome ceramics between an established professor (Emil Haury) and his graduated pupil (Charles Di Peso) in the 1950s. Di Peso believed that Salado polychromes were first produced during the A.D. 1100s and emerged in southeastern Arizona or northern Mexico based on a decade of excavation and survey results from projects led by the Amerind Foundation of Dragoon, Arizona. Di Peso was familiar with these projects as he was the Director of the Amerind Foundation and had led several projects. In contrast, Haury’s interpretations on Salado were derived his own dissertation analysis of artifacts from the Hemenway Expedition’s excavations at Los Muertos in the Lower Salt River Valley, and nearly thirty years of investigations at sites in east-central Arizona and position as the Director of the Arizona State Museum and tenured Professor of Anthropology.

The late prehispanic Salado religion or phenomenon has been identified throughout the central and southern Southwest, encompassing geographic areas and overlapping perceived social boundaries between Ancestral Puebloan, Mogollon, and Hohokam archaeological cultures (Crown 1994). Contemporary interpretations of the Salado religion ascribe its development as consequence of interaction between migrant and local communities near the Silver Creek area of east-central Arizona roughly around A.D. 1270 within the context of migrating Kayenta Puebloan, and likely Tusayan, groups from northeastern Arizona into the area (Crown 1994; Lindsay 1987; Mills et al. 1999, 2015). It is not clear how or what mechanisms through which it developed. Kayenta (and Tusayan) individuals have also been identified in migrant communities distinctly set apart from localized, long-term occupants along the Lower San Pedro River valley (Hohokam), in the Safford Basin (Hohokam/Mogollon), and at Point of Pines and other areas throughout east-central Arizona (Mogollon) (Clark et al. 2012; Di Peso 1958; Haury 1958; Mills et al. 1999; Neuzil 2008; Neuzil and Woodson 2014; Rex and Lyons 2019; Woodson 1999). Square kivas with deflectors, Maverick Mountain Polychrome, ceramic perforated plates, and ritual use and interment of birds of prey are archaeological indicators for the presence of Kayenta (and Tusayan) migrants and have been identified in many sites excavated (Clark et al. 2012; Di Peso 1958; Lyons and Lindsay 2006).

Previous analyses of material culture affiliated with the Salado religion indicate that the main mechanism of dispersion was through elaborately decorated ceramic vessels that were frequently locally produced (Crown 1994:21-31). Crown (1994:211-224) termed this phenomenon the Southwestern regional cult and interpreted localized production to indicate that ideas were rapidly spreading between groups across a vast geographic area through feasting events that were both ritually and politically empowered (McGuire 2011). The role of the new Salado religion has been characterized also as a discursive, inclusive means of resolving disputes between migrant and indigenous communities in response to initial and preexisting conflict  (Clark et al. 2012; Crown 1994; Wallace and Doelle 2001). Consequently, the theoretical perspective of Salado as a meta-identity or religion subsuming internal variations was proposed and has proved beneficial for archaeologists to explain the local differentiation of Salado in its material culture manifestations (Clark et al. 2013; Crown 1994; Dean 2000).

In contrast to the archaeologically supported establishment of a newfound inclusive religion out of a mixture of groups, the origins of the Casas Grandes religion are poorly understood. The Casas Grandes religion is characterized by the presence of the Mesoamerican ballgame, or a local variant thereof, aviculture, shamanic practitioners, a feathered serpent cult, and a set of water associated rituals (VanPool and VanPool 2015). Whalen and Minnis (2012) argue for the development of a highly stylized, symbolically enriched ceramic type termed Ramos Polychrome to have occurred at around A.D. 1270, and it is likely that around this time the Casas Grandes religion as described emerged fully. This is notably at the same time as the Salado religion was being developed, although few have attempted to link or explore relationships that may have existed between the two in any meaningful manner akin to the kachina-Salado discussion referenced above (cf. Di Peso 1976; Lekson 2000). Discussion regarding the practice of the Salado religion at Paquimé is glaringly absent in a recent overview of religion and ritual practices at Paquimé (VanPool and VanPool 2015).

This lack of theoretical development is peculiar, as Salado and Casas Grandes religions share several major attributes: they both have ceramic traditions that emphasize horned serpents and macaws, utilize the same color palette, and are dispersed throughout a large geographic area with localized differentiation and practice being commonplace (Crown 1994; Di Peso et al. 1974:6; Triadan et al. 2018). One major difference between the two ceramic types is form. Salado polychrome vessels are primarily bowls (70 percent; Crown 1994:46), while Chihuahuan polychrome vessels are overwhelming jars—upwards of 90 percent on some sites (Di Peso et al. 1974:6; Whalen and Minnis 2009). Vessel form is related to visibility of painted motifs and, consequently, accessibility of knowledge about those motifs and their meanings (Mills 2002). Specifically, bowls with limited external decoration, similar to the most frequently identified Salado polychrome vessel found in the study area—Gila Polychrome bowls (Crown 1994; Di Peso et al. 1974:6), indicate limited visibility and access by others, as opposed to jars with external and easily visible decorations (Mills 2002:90). The relationship and cultural meaning between Ramos Polychrome jars and higher visibility and Gila Polychrome bowls and lower visibility has not been explored. Localized differentiation in cultural practices is apparent in how the expression of Salado material culture and behavior in the Tonto Basin is far different than that in the Safford Basin in terms of architecture, burial practices, and social organization, similar to how Casas Grandes material culture and behavior is distinctly different from the southern zone compared to the area around Paquimé (Dean 2000; Kelley et al. 2017; Neuzil 2008).

Salado-Casas Grandes relationships have been explored briefly in four locations: the Dutch Ruin site (Lekson 2002), the Black Mountain site (LA 49) (Putsavage 2015); the Kuykendall site (AZ FF:2:2 [ASM]) (Mills and Mills 1969; Douglas 2014), and the Slaughter Ranch site (AZ FF:11:21 [ASM]) (Mills and Mills 1971; Douglas 2014). The latter three locations, however, have been subject to only passing discussion of Salado-Casas Grandes relationships, partially due to the low frequency of Chihuahuan polychromes or in the case of the Black Mountain site a recent publication and need for future exploration and development. Lekson (2000:278) notes that Gila Polychrome bowls and Escondida Polychrome, a Casas Grandes emulate of Salado polychromes, bowls identified in Chihuahua and north into southwestern New Mexico are characterized by a distinctive flared-rim that is rarely noted elsewhere (Crown 1994:Table 4.5). Di Peso’s excavations at Paquimé produced a total of 915 whole vessels, 57 of which were typed as Gila Polychrome, three as Tonto Polychrome, and 63 as Escondida Polychrome (Di Peso et al. 1974:6:77, 240-242; Di Peso et al. 1974:8:148-152; Lekson 2000:282).

THE DUTCH RUIN SITE (LA 8706)

The Dutch Ruin site (also called the Fortenberry site, LA 8706, MNA 8974, NM Y:5:1 [ASM], RS-4) was a substantial prehispanic village located near modern day Redrock, New Mexico in the Upper Gila River Valley. A reconnaissance survey of the area by C. Burton Cosgrove and Hattie Cosgrove in 1929 first identified Dutch Ruin; however, further archaeological investigation did not occur until excavations by the landowner Nanbell “Dutch” Fortenberry and advocational archaeologist Gladys Bennett between 1963 and 1968.

Fortenberry and Bennett (1968) made a map of the excavated rooms and Steve Lekson produced a synthetic site map as part of a 1974 Redrock Valley survey project (Figures 1, 2). No detailed nor recent map of the site has been undertaken and it is probable both natural erosion and modern looting damage significant portions of the site (Lekson 2002). For instance, Lekson notes that by the survey of 1974 several portions of the site had been impacted as use for a levee and ditch system that predated the Fortenberrys, foundations for several possible Civilian Conservation Corps camp headquarters and ranch buildings, and standard illegal excavations.

Figure 1. Dutch Ruin excavation plan map (Lekson 2002:Figure 2.1).

 

Figure 2. Dutch Ruin sketch map by Lekson from 1974 survey (ARMS Site File LA 8706).

 

Archaeological survey of Dutch Ruin estimated at least 200 rooms arranged in several attached roomblocks with internal plazas, although Lekson (1978) found it difficult to produce a robust room count due to site damage. Lekson consequently estimated a conservative 150 rooms. Lekson (2002) suggested Dutch Ruin was occupied primarily during the Cliff Phase (A.D. 1300-1450), with evidence for an earlier Transitional/Classic Mimbres (A.D. 900-1130) component present.

Archaeological materials recovered at Dutch Ruin site provide the opportunity to directly explore a significant Salado-Casas Grandes relationship. Excavations at Dutch Ruin recovered five complete Casas Grandes polychrome vessels including one human effigy and a Paquiméan human figure with all the trappings of what has been termed a ‘shaman-elite’ (Lekson 2002:10,27; VanPool and VanPool 2015). Lekson (2000:283-284; 2002:70,73) strongly argues for a direct and profound relationship to have existed between the inhabitants of Dutch Ruin and Paquimé itself based on the effigy and Dutch Ruin’s location at the sole known prehispanic quarry for serpentine. Serpentine was notably recovered at Paquimé, located approximately 280 km away, in excessively high quantities (114.7 kg) than any other site in the Southwest, yet excavations at other Casas Grandes sites have not identified serpentine (Di Peso et al. 1974:8:188; Lekson 2000). This led Lekson (2000:283-292) to suggest there existed a unique economic relationship between the two sites. While Lekson’s summary of the site is robust and thoughtful, there are recently proposed research questions that can be explored through the Dutch Ruin site assemblage. These include how serpentine procurement relates to Casas Grandes elites, how external relationships are founded between Salado and Casas Grandes communities, and how newer chronologies and research in the Safford Basin challenge or change our understanding of Dutch Ruin and the late prehispanic Upper Gila River Valley.

METHODOLOGY

The few materials collected from the advocational excavations at Dutch Ruin are currently housed at the Northern Arizona Museum in Flagstaff, Arizona, the Arizona State Museum in Tucson, Arizona, the Amerind Museum in Dragoon, Arizona and the Johnson-Humrickhouse Museum in Coshocton, Ohio. Collections at the three Arizona museums are small sherd assemblages to employ in future typological identifications, with the Northern Arizona Museum holding the largest collection of the three and the most archival documents. The Johnson-Humrickhouse Museum has the largest collection, with nearly all photographed material from Dutch Ruin curated. The collection was donated to the Johnson-Humrickhouse Museum in 1974 by Edna Mae Kelly; it is assumed she purchased the collection from the Fortenberrys between 1968 and 1973. The Johnson-Humrickhouse collection was investigated by Steve Lekson in 1998 in a brief two-day visit and was published by him in 2002.

The reanalysis of the Dutch Ruin site artifact collections curated at the Johnson-Humrickhouse Museum had three primary research objectives: to create a detailed reporting and analysis for vessels, to update existing information and typology, and to contextualize the Dutch Ruin site in terms of recent hypothesizes regarding rituality and elitism at Paquime. The reexamination of archaeological assemblages can update existing information, reevaluate proposed hypotheses and interpretations, and foster new interpretations and comparisons to results from other and more recent investigations. I conducted research between June 3 and 6, 2019 at the Johnson-Humrickhouse Museum in Coshocton, Ohio with assistance and approval of Jennifer Bush, Director of the Johnson-Humrickhouse Museum.

I typed, described, and photographed any artifacts labeled as from Dutch Ruin. I typed and described ceramic artifacts based on standard practices and drawing on my experience as ceramic analyst for the Office of Contract Archeology and prior excavation and laboratory analysis of sites and assemblages from southern New Mexico, central and southern Arizona, and northern Chihuahua. I was able to successfully identify all 74 vessels definitively from Dutch Ruin or dating to the same time period. I also measured complete and fragmentary ceramic vessels for height, width, rim thickness, and rim and orifice diameter. The objectives for ceramic analysis were to update Lekson’s typology, provide more detailed morphometric measurements, produce higher quality photographs, and produce detailed descriptions. I typed and described all lithic artifacts based on my excavation and laboratory analysis experience and analyzed projectile points following the protocol employed in a recent article I co-authored (Loendorf et al. 2019). The objectives for analysis of the lithic assemblage were to fully document the serpentine artifacts, gather morphometric data on projectile points, and sort out natural rocks from the collection. Removal of rocks with no cultural modification from the assemblage would assist the Johnson-Humrickhouse Museum with storage and management. Lastly, while I do not have formal faunal analysis experience, I have excavated human and animal remains in various stages of preservation and taphonomy. The objective for faunal analysis was to identify if internal record statements for possible javelina and human teeth are supported. These statements were based on initial documentation of the assemblage from the 1963 to 1968 excavations and Steve Lekson’s rapid overview.

RESULTS

The Johnson-Humrickhouse Museum Dutch Ruin collection was investigated and analyzed to broaden our understanding of Dutch Ruin. The various artifact categories and the results of analysis are described here separately with a synthetic discussion presented later. All objects that were available to Lekson were investigated, as were some that he was not able to view in his short visit. The consulted archival documentation did not contribute significantly to the results, although they do present the necessary data for in-site contextualization also discussed by Lekson (2002).

Ceramic Artifacts

Seventy-four ceramic vessels were analyzed. I did not have access to the same images referenced by Lekson (2002) that included images of 10 vessels that are not a part of the Johnson-Humrickhouse Museum collection. It is probable that all the types are the same or similar. Two key differences between Lekon’s typology and mine are that I employed the newer Salado polychrome typology developed by Lyons (2004) and Neuzil and Lyons (2005) and I more accurately termed red-slipped types (e.g., Playas Red, Cloverdale Corrugated). Neither of these results impact statements made by Lekson, although the occurrence of Cliff Polychrome narrows the chronology and indicates Dutch Ruin was inhabited primarily during the late fourteenth century into the fifteenth century. Furthermore, my typing of Mimbres vessels as all within the variation of Styles II and III support Lekson’s assertion for an underlying Classic Mimbres component. The kill holes described by Lekson are all present, although some are more difficult to definitively identify than others based on other damage to the vessel base, the process of reconstruction, and missing sherds.

 

Table 1. List of ceramic vessels from Dutch Ruin analyzed by Lekson (2002) and as part of this project.

Vessel No.	Lekson Type ID	Lekson Comments	Rogers Type ID	Vessel Form
1	Gila Polychrome	Holes in rim (suspension)	Gila Polychrome	Submarine Jar
2	Gila Polychrome		Gila Polychrome	Bowl
3	Gila Polychrome		Pinto Polychrome	Bowl
4	Gila Polychrome	Kill hole	Cliff Polychrome	Bowl
5	Corrugated Smudged		Reserve Indented Corrugated Smudged	Bowl
6	Chupadero Black-on-white		Chupadero Black on white	Pitcher Jar
7	Tucson Polychrome	Kill hole	Tucson Polychrome	Bowl
8	Gila Polychrome		Gila Polychrome	Jar
9	Ramos Polychrome		Babicora Polychrome	Jar
10	Ramos Polychrome		Ramos Polychrome	Effigy Jar
11	Red-slipped Corrugated	Cloverdale?	Playas Red Corrugated	Jar
12	Plain Brown	Alma Plain?	Mogollon brownware smudged	Jar
13	Gila Polychrome		Gila Polychrome	Seed Jar
14	Mimbres Black-on-white, Style III	Cover bowl over bead jar (33)	Mimbres Black on white, Style II	Bowl
15	Red-slipped Tooled	Playas? Kill hole	Cloverdale Corrugated Smudged	Bowl
16	Chupadero Black-on-white		Chupadero Black on white	Pitcher Jar
17	Alma Scored (?)		Mogollon brownware plain	Bowl
18	El Paso Polychrome		El Paso Polychrome	Jar
19	Gila Polychrome		Cliff Polychrome	Bowl
20	St. Johns Polychrome	Deaccessioned, also labeled X-5	St. Johns Polychrome	Bowl
21	Chupadero Black-on-white		Chupadero Black on white	Pitcher Jar
22	Red-slipped Tooled	Playas? Cremation urn	Playas Red Incised	Jar
23	Red-slipped	Playas?	Playas Red	Jar
24	Tucson Polychrome	Cover bowl for cremation	Tucson Polychrome	Bowl
25	El Paso Polychrome	Cremation urn	El Paso Polychrome	Jar
26	Gila Polychrome		Gila Polychrome	Jar
27	Gila Polychrome	Kill hole	Cliff Polychrome	Bowl
28	Mimbres Black-on-white, Style II/III	Miniature	Mimbres Black on white, Style II	Bowl
29	Plain brown	Kill hole	Mogollon brownware plain	Bowl
30	Gila Polychrome	Kill hole	Cliff Polychrome	Bowl
31	Tucson Polychrome	Kill hole	Tucson Polychrome	Bowl
32	El Paso Polychrome	Kill hole	El Paso Polychrome	Bowl
33	Plain brown	Suspension lugs, contained otolith beads	Mogollon brownware plain	Seed Jar
34	Gila Polychrome	Burned	Gila Polychrome	Bowl
35	Red slipped jar	Salado Red	Mogollon brownware smudged	Jar
36	Red-slipped corrugated		Playas Red Corrugated	Jar
37	Red-slipped Incised	Playas?	Playas Red Incised	Jar
38	Tucson Polychrome	Kill hole	Tucson Polychrome	Bowl
39	Gila Polychrome	Kill hole	Cliff Polychrome	Bowl
40	Plain brown		Mogollon brownware plain	Bowl
41	Gila Polychrome	Kill hole	Cliff Polychrome	Bowl
42	Gila Polychrome		Cliff Polychrome	Bowl
43	El Paso Polychrome		El Paso Polychrome	Jar
44	Tonto Polychrome	Kill hole	Tonto Polychrome	Bowl
45	Plain brown	Alma Plain?	Mogollon brownware plain	Jar
46	Mimbres Black-on-white, Style II		Mimbres Black on white, Style II	Scoop
47	Polished brown		Playas Red	Jar
48	Tucson Polychrome		Tucson Polychrome	Bowl
49	Gila Polychrome	Kill hole?	Cliff Polychrome	Bowl
50	Gila Polychrome	Kill hole	Gila Polychrome	Bowl
51	Red-slipped	Contained gastropods, stones	Playas Red	Bowl
52	El Paso Polychrome		El Paso Polychrome	Bowl
53	Chupadero Black-on-white		Chupadero Black on white	Pitcher Jar
54	Red-slipped Corrugated	Cloverdale?	Mimbres Fully Corrugated	Jar
55	Tucson Polychrome or Maverick Mountain Polychrome		Maverick Mountain Polychrome	Bowl
56	Ramos Polychrome (?)	Badly restored, repainted	Villa Ahumada Polychrome	Effigy Jar
57	Villa Ahumada Polychrome		Villa Ahumada Polychrome	Jar
58	Indented corrugated		Mimbres Fully Corrugated	Jar
59	Wingate Black-on-red (?)	Kill hole	Wingate Black on red	Bowl
60	Plain brown		Mogollon brownware plain	Jar
61	Gila Polychrome	Kill hole	Cliff Polychrome	Bowl
62	Playas Red		Playas Red	Bowl
63	Red-slipped Corrugated	Cloverdale?	Playas Red Corrugated	Jar
64	Playas (?) Red-slipped		Mogollon brownware smudged	Jar
66	Red-slipped Cord-impressed	Playas?	Playas Red Cordmarked	Jar
67	Red Mesa Black-on-white		Red Mesa Black on white	Pitcher Jar
68	Mesa Verde Black-on-white or  Magdalena Black-on-white		Magdalena Black on white	Mug
69	Plain Brown		Mogollon brownware plain	Bowl
70	Indeterminate Type	Not observed (Might be X-10)	Tucson Polychrome	Bowl
71	Ramos Polychrome		Ramos Polychrome	Bowl
72	Cibola whiteware black-on-white		Cibola whiteware	Ladle
73	Cibola whiteware black-on-white		Escavada Black on white	Scoop
74	Mimbres Black-on-white, Style I		Mimbres Black on white, Style II	Scoop
75	N/A		Mimbres Black on white, Style III	Bowl sherd

 

Lithic Artifacts

Forty projectile points were identified and analyzed as part of this project. Corner, basal, and side notched, corner notched, and triangular projectile points were all encountered. These types broadly correspond to time periods from the Middle/Late Archaic (4500 B.C. – A.D. 200), Mimbres Classic (A.D. 1000-1130), and late prehispanic period (A.D. 1200-1500). It is also likely that some of the projectile points be date to Apache occupation of the area. The Archaic points likely were picked up and brought from Archaic Period sites.

Table 2. Measurements and description of reported obsidian projectile points. Objects No. 1-32 have accession number 74O17, while 33-46 do not have accession numbers and were loosely placed in the museum display case.

 

Point No.	Projectile Point or Artifact Form	Wt	L	Base W	Max Thick.	Blade L	Notch H	Notch W
1	Basal notched	1.2	22.41	11.12	5.70	19.19
2	Triangular	0.3	14.56	13.63	3.01
3	Triangular	0.3	14.23	8.82	2.47
4	Triangular	1.4	24.70	11.95	5.14
5	Side Notched	0.7	21.27	9.83	3.04	15.30	4.48	6.78
6	Triangular	0.7	19.55	10.20	3.82
7	Basal lobed	0.7	19.83	12.87	4.44	16.09
8	Basal notched	0.2	15.82	9.59	2.01	14.06
9	Basal and side notched	0.4	19.74	7.51	1.91	13.20	5.35	8.08
10	Side Notched	0.6	19.94	10.98	3.16	14.20	4.45	7.67
11	Triangular	0.4	20.77	9.64	2.33
12	Triangular	0.3	14.59	10.19	3.50
13	Side Notched	0.2	14.11	7.04	2.27			5.34
14	Concave base	0.2	15.10	8.02	2.00
15	Side Notched	0.3	14.80	9.13	7.24	14.61		5.12
16	Triangular	0.2	14.67	5.97	1.53
17	Basal notched	0.2	13.14	6.70	2.21	10.46
18	Serrated	0.5	14.69	9.80	3.31
19	Fragment	0.5	14.98	10.13	3.04	8.58	5.83	7.63
20	Basal notched	0.3	13.29	10.69	1.60	8.28
21	Side Notched	0.2	14.34	8.05	3.13	11.44	3.46	6.63
22	Side Notched	0.1		9.31	1.75		3.59	6.87
23	Side Notched	0.5	15.56		3.76	12.12		4.71
24	Triangular	0.2	12.59	8.70	2.49
25	Biface	2.0
26	Biface	1.2
27	Drill	0.4
28	Drill	0.5
29	Drill	0.2
30	Modified flake	0.3
31	Bifacial modified flake	0.6
32	Bifacial modified flake	0.9
33	Side Notched	1.1	18.38	14.12	3.93	12.13	4.04	11.1
34	Side Notched	0.8	23.68	9.11	3.42	16.64	4.01	6.10
35	Corner Notched	0.6	16.48	8.92	4.01	12.02	3.68	7.78
36	Basal Notched	0.2	14.15	9.40	1.58	12.07
37	Triangular	1.1	21.42	12.74	5.18
38	Triangular	1.4	25.04	15.52	5.40
39	Basal notched	0.6	21.28	11.17	2.91	19.70
40	Stemmed	2.5	25.30	12.45	5.87	16.41		12.29
41	Triangular	0.8	19.76	8.26	5.01
42	Triangular	0.6	23.01	4.94	3.08
43	Triangular	0.5	16.67	12.74	2.15
44	Triangular	1.0	19.42	13.78	3.19
45	Side Notched	1.6	27.41	13.13	3.89	21.33	5.98	9.05
46	Triangular	1.9	36.67	10.05	3.85

 

There were a variety of other lithic artifacts, including manos, mortars, three-quarter grooved axes and mauls, stone bowls, hammerstones, shaft straighteners, awl sharpeners, palette fragments, and paint and pigment grinders. Many of the lithic artifacts from Dutch Ruin did not have any modification or use wear to warrant a label of “culturally modified/used” and consequently were recommended deaccessioned from the Johnson-Humrickhouse Museum.

 

Table 3. Types and comments on other, non-ornamental lithic artifacts in assemblage.

ID No.	Artifact Type	Comments/Raw Material
74O19	Natural	Obsidian
74O19	Flake	Obsidian
74O19	Flake	Quartz
74O19	Natural	River pebble
74O19	Natural	River pebble
74O19	Natural	River pebble
74W2	3/4 grooved axe	basalt
74W3	Hammerstone	Rarely used, battering one end
74W4	Bowl	Basalt
74W5	3/4 grooved axe	Basalt
74W6	3/4 grooved axe	Basalt
74W7	Axe	Fully grooved
74W9	Shaft Straightener	Likely started off as axe, then shaft straightener
74W10	Mortar	Single hole
74W11	Discoidal	Squared piece, rounded on both ends
74W12	Unknown	Fully grooved volcanic
74W13	Full Grooved Axe	Basalt
74W14	Bowl	volcanic
74W15	Bowl	Stone bowl
74W16	Metate	Slab metate single side
74W17	3/4 grooved axe	Basalt
74W18	Mano	Two handed mano
74W19	Shaft Straightener	single groove and ground base
74W20	Axe	Double groove axe preform
74W21	Unknown	Grinding implement on inside
74W22	Bowl	tuff
74W23	Mano	Lightly ground base (test mano, failed)
74W24	Bowl	tuff
74W25	Shaft Straightener	Tuff material
74W26	Polishing stone	Polish on one edge
74W28	Anvil	flat base
74W29	Anvil	flat base
74W30	Mano	Light polished/ground base
74W31	Cobble	Fossilized material, no use, natural erosion
74W32	Shaft Straightener	single groove
74W33	3/4 grooved axe	Basalt
74W34	Cobble	River cobble, no obvious wear
74W35	Bowl	Stone bowl; grooved base
74W36	Cobble	River cobble, no obvious wear
74W37	3/4 grooved axe	Basalt
74W38	Core	Quartz core with several flakes removed
74W39	Palette	Fragment of Hohokam palette, incised design along one edge
74W40	Cover Stone	Hole ground in top
74W41	Cover Stone	Hole ground in top
74W42	Anvil	flat base
74W43	Hammerstone	Chert/solicified sandstone material with flake scars
74W44	Mano	Possible mano
74W45	3/4 grooved axe	Axe from other site?
74W46	3/4 grooved axe	Basalt
74W47	Cobble	River cobble, no obvious wear
74W48	Cobble	River cobble, no obvious wear
74W49	Cobble	River cobble, no obvious wear
74W50	Cobble	River cobble, no obvious wear
74W51	Cobble	River cobble, no obvious wear
74W53	Bowl	Stone bowl
74W54	Painted Cobble	Red, black, and yellow paint outlined
74W55	Bowl	Stone bowl
74W56	Full Grooved Axe	Basalt
74W57	3/4 grooved axe	Basalt
74W58	Mano	Tuff?
74W59	Scraper	Red chert flake with side retouch
74W60	Mano	two sided
74W61	Shaft Straightener	Single groove
74W62	Shaft Straightener	Grooved
74W63	Discoidal	Ground hole started on both sides
74W64	Flake	Chert core debris
74W65	Pipe	Cloudblower pipe preform
74W67	Mano	Small red mano with grinding wear on one side
74W68	Core fragment	Chert
74W69	Flake	Chert flake debris
74W70	One Sided Slab Metate	Cracked in half, sandstone
74W71	Discoidal	Modified shape on both ends
74W72	Cobble	River cobble, no obvious wear
74W73	Mano	Pumice
74W74	Cobble	River cobble, no obvious wear
74W75	Cobble	River cobble, no obvious wear
74W76	Cobble	River cobble, no obvious wear
74W77	Mano	Paint mano, some red
74W78	Cobble	River cobble, no obvious wear
74W79	Cobble	River cobble, no obvious wear
74W80	Cobble	River cobble, no obvious wear
74W81	Tested Cobble	Starter holes both sides, likely test mortar/disk
74W82	Paint mano	Hematite traces on base
74W83	Cobble	River cobble, no obvious wear
74W84	Discoidal	Modified shape on both ends
74W85	Pipe	Pink Tuff Cloudblower
74W86	Cobble	River cobble, no obvious wear
74W87	Paint Palette	Red and yellow ground residue
74W89	Cobble	River cobble, no obvious wear
74W88	Awl sharpener
74W90	Cobble	River cobble, no obvious wear
74W91	Cobble	River cobble, no obvious wear
74W93	Cobble	River cobble, no obvious wear
74W94	Cobble	River cobble, no obvious wear
74W94	Unknown	Shallow groove area and line groove on sides finger hold formed; awl?
74W96	Cobble	River cobble, no obvious wear
74W97	Cobble	River cobble, no obvious wear
74W99	Polishing stone	Possible polishing stone, no real evidence
74W100	Cobble	River cobble, no obvious wear
74W101	Polishing stone	Rhyolite?
74W102	Celt	Basalt
74W103	Shaft Straightener	volcanic
74W104	Bowl	Tuff
74W105	Anvil	Tuff
74W106	Celt	Grabbo
74W107	3/4 grooved axe	Basalt
74W108	3/4 grooved axe	Basalt

 

Serpentine

Serpentine artifacts included four polished and shaped rectangular pieces, one large piece of mostly unmodified serpentine, and three potential effigies that may represent fetishes in the forms of a coyote/wolf, a turtle, and a partially formed stepped cloud/possible bear. One polished and shaped piece had incised chevrons incised on opposing sides. All polished and shaped fragments were rectangular and all relatively small, with an average thickness of 1.8 cm.

 

Table 4. Serpentine artifacts.

ID No.	Description	Wt.	L	W	T
74W27	Polished and shaped	129	8.5	4.2	1.8
74W52	Polished and shaped, modified with incised design on two sides	54.3	4.8	2.8	2
74W66	Polished and shaped	54.1	6.1	2.8	2.2
74W95	Slightly modified fragment	63.2	4.7	5.7	2.2
74W98	Polished and shaped serpentine blank	36.5	4.6	3.4	1
DISPLAY	Effigy	2.3	15.3	14.0	-
DISPLAY	Effigy	3.7	26.9	11.2	-
DISPLAY	Effigy	3.2	18.0	15.2	-

 

Ornaments

Several ornament types were encountered in the collection, including worked sherds, strung bilobe shell beads, strung Conus tinklers, large bivalve shell with turquoise mosaic inlay, argillite, turquoise, and other stone beads, and complete and fragmentary Glycimeris bracelets. There were 9 shell/stone necklaces, 24 Glycimeris shell bracelets, and 12 shell or shell fragments including one shaped into a waterfowl. Turquoise tesserae on the mosaic numbered 77 and were comprised primarily of worked turquoise pendant fragments, although turquoise was also present on several of the beads and necklaces. Nearly all ornaments had been restrung and thus future analysis of how they were constructed is problematic. Furthermore, it is unclear if they represent actual individual ornament objects or were constructed from more dispersed artifacts by the excavators in the field. Lekson (2002:14) is convinced that the mosaic is accurate based on field notes that indicated there were markings on the shell that enabled direct matching in its reconstruction.

 

Table 5. Ornamental artifacts.

ID No.	Material	Object Type	Comments
DISPLAY	Ceramic	Disk	Worked Mimbres sherd
74O10	Shell	Necklace	Bilobe beads
74O14	Shell	Necklace	Conus/Slate
74O15	Shell	Necklace	Unknown/Shell/Slate
74O16	Shell	Bracelet	Glycimeris
74O18	Shell	Pendant	Unknown
74O18	Shell	Pendant	Unknown
74O18	Shell	Pendant	Unknown
74O18	Shell	Pendant	Unknown
74O21	Shell	Bracelet	Glycimeris
74O4	Shell	Necklace	Shell with turquoise attached
74O7	Shell	Necklace	Shell and stone bead necklace
74O9	Shell	Necklace	Shell with turquoise necklace
DISPLAY	Shell	Ornaments	Various, turquoise attached
DISPLAY	Shell	Bracelet	Glycimeris
DISPLAY	Shell	Necklace	Tinklers and stone
DISPLAY	Shell	Necklace	Shell, fragments
74O18	Stone	Pendant	Unknown
74O5	Stone	Bracelet	Argillite?
74O6	Stone	Necklace	Unknown
74O8	Stone	Necklace	Argillite?
DISPLAY	Stone	Beads	Assorted turquoise, serpentine? and shell
DISPLAY	Stone	Pendant	Turquoise

 

Faunal Objects

Faunal materials analyzed consisted of shell (discussed in Ornaments section) and 74O20, a box filled with “unstrung necklace of different size teeth, some drilled some not. Includes human, javelina, and ungulate teeth, javelina husks” according to the Museum’s catalog. Examination of the faunal remains concurred with several parts of this description; namely, that most of the faunal remains were drilled to be strung on a necklace, that others were not drilled and were merely either cached together in the past or collected and cataloged together, and that ungulate teeth were present. No examined faunal remains came from a human or a javelina based on comparison with published manuals on archaeological tooth identification. Remains from a javelina would been highly interested, as javelina are widely considered to not be present in the Southwest until, at earliest, the sixteenth century.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the results from my analysis compare favorably with those reported by Lekson (2002). While this may seem to indicate the additional study was not warranted, crucial additional data and higher quality photographs were collected. The newly collected data await future integration and contextualization following more recent archival research and ceramic assemblage analysis I have undertaken. Shell and ornamental artifacts from Dutch Ruin demonstrate a remarkable variety of materials, jewelry forms, and crafts that exceed beyond nearby Cliff Phase villages such as Ormand Village and Solomonsville (Tyberg 2000; Wallace 1998). The ceramic vessel assemblage at Dutch Ruin is interesting for three reasons: 1) there were no Tonto Polychrome jars as would be otherwise expected, 2) there is a clear Cloverdale Corrugated bowl that is typically geographically restricted to Animas Phase communities, and 3) the Chupadero Black on white pitchers are unusually small and clearly originated from Jornada Mogollon communities in the Salinas region. The vessels also primarily came from burial contexts and directly associated with secondary-interred cremations. While this patterning is consistent with other contemporaneous Upper Gila and Safford Basin mortuary practices (Woodson et al. 1999), the occurrence of kill holes is highly unorthodox in a post-Mimbres context. “Killed” ceramic vessels in association with burials do occur in southern New Mexico and were found at Point of Pines. This patterning is not consistent with Casas Grandes burial practices and thus remain a “northern” Mogollon burial pattern in extremely low frequencies during the late prehispanic period.

Lastly, Lekson’s conclusions regarding Dutch Ruin as the source of Paquimé serpentine have not yet been definitively demonstrated in terms of geochemical sourcing, although that remains a future avenue of research. His assertions of a unique relationship between the two sites, although it is currently unable to be demonstrate, is highly likely and I concur with many of his statements. Furthermore, Dutch Ruin no longer stands out as the only site north of the contemporary border to have a Casas Grandes ceramic effigy. Records three substantial Animas Phase villages suggest at least three complete human effigies existed: Pendleton Ruin, Culberson Ruin, and an unnamed village near Cloverdale, New Mexico (ARMS Site Files; Rogers 2019). Thus, it is possible that these communities may have acted as middle-merchants between Paquimé and Dutch Ruin, although again few to no serpentine has been found on any Animas Phase village. These questions will be investigated as part of my dissertation research.

Future investigations into Salado and Casas Grandes relations will incorporate additional sites, datasets, and various perspectives. Three research questions that I am currently and will continue to pursue are how Casas Grandes-Salado relationships are constructed at Animas Phase villages and between those villages and Salado sites, what is the social meaning and function of Escondida Polychrome, and why is there a stark difference between Salado cultural traits at Paquimé and at other large Casas Grandes villages. Future investigations will also need to contend with several issues identified in Dutch Ruin; namely, isolated collections with limited documentation, excavation data from damaged sites investigated before contemporary excavation methods had been introduced, and integrating variable survey data.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research project owes a significant acknowledgement to Steve Lekson for the initial publication on the site, repeated referencing and expansive contemplation of its importance, and support to me in the project planning stages. Steve has provided repeated commentary, interpretations for thought, and research questions for inquiry. The Johnson-Humrickhouse Museum and its director, Jennifer Bush, were tremendous facilitators and partners in the process of this project. Funding for this project was provided through the Grant County Archaeological Society 2019 Nancy Coinman Grant Scholarship and I thank their President Kyle Meredith and other officers, Board of Trustees, and all members for their support. Lastly, I thank my advisor, Emily Jones, for her constant support during the grant proposal writing stage and as an advocate for my numerous research projects and interests.

 

REFERENCES CITED

Clark, Jeffery J., Deborah L. Huntley, J. Brett Hill, and Patrick D. Lyons

2013    The Kayenta Diaspora and Salado Meta-Identity in the Late Precontact U.S. Southwest. In The Archaeology of Hybrid Material Culture, edited by Jeb J. Card, pp. 399-424. Paper No. 39. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois.

 

Clark, Jeffery J., Patrick D. Lyons, J. Brett Hill, and Stacey N. Lengyel

2012    Of Migrants and Mounds in the Lower San Pedro Valley, A.D. 1200-1450. In Migrants and Mounds: Classic Period Archaeology of the Lower San Pedro Valley, edited by Jeffery J. Clark and Patrick D. Lyons, pp. 345-405. Anthropological Papers No. 45. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson, Arizona.

 

Crown, Patricia L.

1994    Ceramics and Ideology: Salado Polychrome Pottery. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

 

Dean, Jeffrey S.

2000    Introduction: The Salado Phenomenon. In Salado, edited by Jeffrey S. Dean, pp. 3-16. Amerind Foundation New World Series No. 4. Amerind Foundation, Inc., Dragoon, Arizona and University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

 

Di Peso, Charles C.

1958    The Reeve Ruin of Southeastern Arizona: A Study of a Prehistoric Western Pueblo Migration into the Middle San Pedro Valley. Amerind Foundation Technical Report No. 8. Amerind Foundation, Inc., Dragoon, Arizona.

1976    Gila Polychrome in the Casas Grandes Region. The Kiva 42(1):57-63.

 

Di Peso, Charles C., John B. Rinaldo, and Gloria J. Fenner

1974    Casas Grandes, A Fallen Trading Center of the Gran Chichimeca, Volume 6 Ceramics and Shell. Amerind Foundation Report No. 9. Amerind Foundation, Dragoon, Arizona and Northland Press, Flagstaff, Arizona.

1974    Casas Grandes, A Fallen Trading Center of the Gran Chichimeca, Volume 7 Stone and Metal. Amerind Foundation Report No. 9. Amerind Foundation, Dragoon, Arizona and Northland Press, Flagstaff, Arizona.

1974    Casas Grandes, A Fallen Trading Center of the Gran Chichimeca, Volume 8 Bone, Economy, Burials. Amerind Foundation Report No. 9. Amerind Foundation, Dragoon, Arizona and Northland Press, Flagstaff, Arizona.

 

Douglas, John E.

2014    Social Identity and Change at Ceramic Period Settlements in and Near Far Southeastern Arizona. In Between Mimbres and Hohokam: Exploring the Archaeology and History of Southeastern Arizona and Southwestern New Mexico, edited by Henry D. Wallace, pp. 323-348. Anthropological Papers No. 52. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson, Arizona.

 

Fortenberry, Nanabell and Gladys Bennett

1968    Potsherd Study at the Dutch Ruin. Manuscript on file at the Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

 

Haury, Emil W.

1958    Evidence at Point of Pines for a Prehistoric Migration from Northern Arizona. In Migrations in New World Culture History, edited by Raymond H. Thompson, pp. 1-8. Social Science Bulletin No. 27. University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.

 

Kelley, Jane H., Joe D. Stewart, Richard D. Garvin, and David A. Phillips, Jr.

2017    Thoughts on the Southern Zone. In Not so Far from Paquimé: Essays on the Archaeology of Chihuahua, Mexico, edited by Jane H. Kelley and David A. Phillips, Jr., pp. 166-175. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah.

 

Lekson, Stephen H.

1978    Settlement Patterns in the Redrock Valley of the Gila River, New Mexico. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Eastern New Mexico University, Portales.

2000    Salado in Chihuahua. In Salado, edited by Jeffrey S. Dean, pp. 275-294. Amerind Foundation New World Series No. 4. Amerind Foundation, Inc., Dragoon, Arizona and University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

2002    Salado Archaeology of the Upper Gila, New Mexico. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No. 67. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

 

Lindsay, Alexander, Jr.

1987    Anasazi Population Movements to Southeastern Arizona. American Archaeology 6(3):190-198.

 

Lyons, Patrick D.

2004    Cliff Polychrome. Kiva 69(4):361-398.

 

Lyons, Patrick D. and Alexander Lindsay, Jr.

2006    Perforated Plates and the Salado Phenomenon. Kiva 72(1):5-54.

 

McGuire, Randall H.

2011    Pueblo Religion and the Mesoamerican Connection. In Religious Transformations in the Late Pre-Hispanic Pueblo World, edited by Donna M. Glowacki and Scott Van Keuren, pp. 23-49. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

 

Mills, Barbara J.

2002    Acts of Resistance, Zuni Ceramics, Social Identity and the Pueblo Revolt. In Archaeologies of the Pueblo Revolt: Identity, Meaning, and Renewal in the Pueblo World, edited by Robert W. Preucel, pp. 85-98. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

 

Mills, Barbara J., Sarah A. Herr, and Scott Van Keuren (editors)

1999    Living on the Edge of the Rim: Excavations and Analysis of the Silver Creek Archaeological Research Project, 1993-1998, 2 volumes. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series No. 192. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

 

Mills, Barbara J., Matthew A. Peeples, W. Randall Haas, Lewis Borck, Jeffery J. Clark, and John M. Roberts

2015    Multiscalar Perspectives on Social Networks in the Late Prehispanic Southwest. American Antiquity 80(1):3-24.

 

Mills, Jack and Vera Mills

1969    The Kuykendall Site. El Paso Archaeological Society Special Report No. 6. El Paso Archaeological Society, El Paso, Texas.

1971    The Slaughter Ranch Site: A Prehistoric Village near the Mexican Border in Southeastern Arizona. The Artifact 9(3):23-52.

 

Neuzil, Anna A.

2008    In the Aftermath of Migration: Renegotiating Ancient Identity in Southeastern Arizona. University of Arizona Anthropological Paper No. 73. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

 

Neuzil, Anna A. and M. Kyle Woodson

2014    The Safford Basin and Aravaipa Creek: A Cultural Melting Pot of the Ancient Past. In Between Mimbres and Hohokam: Exploring the Archaeology and History of Southeastern Arizona and Southwestern New Mexico, edited by Henry D. Wallace, pp. 349-400. Anthropological Papers No. 52. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson, Arizona.

 

Neuzil, Anna A. and Patrick D. Lyons

2005    An Analysis of Whole Vessels from the Mills Collection Curated at Eastern Arizona College, Thatcher, Arizona. Technical Report 2005-001. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

 

Putsavage, Kathryn J.

2015    Social Reorganization in the Mimbres Region of Southwestern New Mexico:  The Classic to Postclassic Mimbres Transition (A.D. 1150 to 1450). Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado—Boulder, Boulder, Colorado.

 

Rex, Gerald and Patrick D. Lyons (editor)

2019    The Davis Ranch Site: A Kayenta Immigrant Enclave in Southeastern Arizona. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

 

Rogers, Thatcher A.

2019    Late Prehispanic Chihuahuan Influence and Interaction in the Borderlands.  In 20^th Biennial Jornada Mogollon Conference Proceedings, edited by George O. Maloof, III. El Paso Museum of Archaeology, El Paso, Texas.

 

Triadan, Daniela, Eduardo Gamboa Carrera, M. James Blackman, and Ronald L. Bishop

2018    Sourcing Chihuahuan Polychrome Ceramics: Assessing Medio Period Economic Organization. Latin American Antiquity 29(1):143-168.

 

VanPool, Christine S. and Todd L. VanPool

2015    Religion and Cosmology in the Casas Grandes World. In Ancient Paquimé and the Casas Grandes World, edited by Paul E. Minnis and Michael E. Whalen, pp. 83-102. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

 

Whalen, Michael E. and Paul E. Minnis

2001    Casas Grandes and its Hinterland: Prehistoric Regional Organization in Northwest Mexico. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

2009    The Neighbors of Casas Grandes: Excavating Medio Period Communities of Northwest Chihuahua, Mexico. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

 

Tyberg, Joel J.

2000    Influences, Occupation, and Salado Development at the Solomonsville Site. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder.

 

Wallace, Laurel T. (editor)

1998    The Ormand Village: Final Report on the 1965-1966 Excavation. Archaeology Notes No. 229. Office of Archaeological Studies, Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

 

Woodson, M. Kyle

1999    Migrations in Late Anasazi Prehistory: The Evidence from the Goat Hill Site. Kiva 65(1):63-84.

 

Woodson, M. Kyle, Thomas E. Jones, and Joseph S. Crary

1999    Exploring Late-Prehistoric Mortuary Patterns of Southeastern Arizona and Southwestern New Mexico. In Sixty Years of Mogollon Archaeology, edited by Stephanie M. Whittlesey, pp. 67-79. SRI Press, Tucson.

 

/s/ webmaster