Dating Tom Ketchum: The Role of Chronometric Determinations in Rock Art Analysis

doi: 10.2190/3KRR-Q0AK-QNTH-641Lhttp://baywood.com

NORTH AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGIST, Vol. 13(3) 219-247, 1992

DATING TOM KETCHUM: THE ROLE OF CHRONOMETRIC DETERMINATIONS IN ROCK ART ANALYSIS

MARY M. FARRELL Coronado National Forest

JEFFERY F. BURTON Trans-Sierran Archaeological Research

ABSTRACT

Rock art analysis has been used both to provide insight into prehistoric symbolism and ceremony, and to measure prehistoric interaction and communication. But chronological control, essential to distinguishing functional or social differences from temporal differences, has been difficult to establish. No one method of dating has yet proven completely reliable or applicable. Accelerator mass spectrometer radiocarbon dating, at the Tom Ketchum Cave pictograph site in southeastern Arizona, provides one of the first examples of direct independent dating of rock art. The dates suggest the pictographs may have been created during a time when subsistence patterns were shiftmg from Archaic hunter and gatherer traditions to more agriculture-based subsistence. The Tom Ketchum Cave artists broke from the abstract style more common in the region to represent game animals and hunters, perhaps to ensure success in a disappearing way of life.

This article examines the potentials and problems inherent in the analysis of rock art, and examines a specific pictograph site, Tom Ketchum Cave. First, the role of rock art analysis in suggesting past ideologies and in determining prehistoric boundaries, social integration, and settlement patterns is discussed. Because the utility of any rock art analysis is heavily dependent upon whether the temporal dimension can be controlled, the second section of this article discusses the accuracy and reliability of various rock art dating methods. The third section describes one of the first successful applications of direct radiocarbon dating to pictographs, at Tom Ketchum Cave. Potential problems with the radiocarbon

219

C 1992, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.

220 I FARRELL AND BURTON

dating are outlined, and the results are placed within the context of other data available for the site. Finally, the implications the dates have for rock art analysis, and the prehistory of southeastern Arizona, are considered.

ROCK ART ANALYSIS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL APPUCATIONS

Two related approaches are commonly used in rock art analysis. In one approach, rock art is considered a window to the spiritual or ideational world of past peoples. A second tack is to use rock art "styles" as markers of ethnic or cultural affiliations, interaction spheres, or information exchange. Each approach is discussed in more detail below.

Most studies rely upon ethnographic information to discover symbolism in rock art, and studies of the historic use of rock art provide reasonable models for similar rock art in the protohistoric or late prehistoric periods (Kroeber, 1908; Steward, 1929; Ellis and Hammack, 1968; Vastokas and Vastokas, 1973; Keyser, 1977; Keyser and Knight, 1976). There are numerous. examples. Ellis and Hammack (1968) find parallels between the rock art at the inner sanctum of Feather Cave and ethnographically-documented Pueblo ritual: handprints left at places of prayer show supernatural beings where to direct their blessings; four parallel lines "close" a ceremonial entrance. The cave was interpreted as the prehistoric prototype of current sipapu shrines to Earth Mother and Sun Father. Culturallysignificant symbols and their organization were identified in a study of pictograph panels in North Queensland, Australia (Faulstich, 1986). Hunger (1986) infers the sexual transmission of sacred power from animals to humans through rock art depictions. Hoskinson (1986) defines interconnected areas of solstice markers and petroglyph areas, and uses ethnographic evidence to infer shamanistic origins for the rock art. Further, he postulates the mythic Coyote's role in the creation of rock art. Strange (1989) studies relationships between rock art, ethnography, archaeology, and folk songs to weave poems of a powerful witch, depicted in protohistoric petroglyphs, who watches over the Northwest Coast Indians.

Many of these studies note the power of place and the power of imagery (Young, 1989; Schaafsma, 1985:26-262; Ellis and Hammack, 1968; Hudson and Underhay, 1978), and LaPena (1983) sees rock art as giving continued spiritual direction toward humans on earth. Studies that postulate mystical as well as calendrical meanings in rock art are too numerous to recount (e.g., Freeman and Payen, 1983; Hedges, 1986; Jones, 1986; Krupp, 1983; Moore, 1986).

Rock art studies, of course, would be subject to the same problems as any ethnographic analogy (Gould, 1980), and extrapolations into the more distant past would be more tenuous. Results of ethnographic analysis are not always clear-cut. Young (1989) can conclude far more about her Zuni informants' use of prehistoric rock art than about what the rock art meant to its creators. Nevertheless, the approach is intrinsically appealing and satisfying: the ethnographic interweaving

ROCK ART ANALYSIS I 221

of the power of place and the power of imagery can be easily imagined by scientist and hobbyist alike. This insight into prehistoric mindsets is a large part of the popular appeal of rock art, and popular books try to decipher the meaning of particular glyphs (e.g., Martineau, 1973). Even in Paleolithic rock art analysis, where the application of ethnographic analogy has been justly decried as too far removed to allow valid comparisons, there are analyses of rock art that purport to discern human cognitive development (Halverson, 1987).

The second approach follows Wobst's (1977) seminal analysis of style, as it focuses on the role of rock art in inter- and intra-cultural communication. This approach tries to measure prehistoric cultural groups, interaction, and change based on rock art styles. In some sense, style is equated with social groups, whether "cultures," "alliances," "interaction spheres," or simply trade networks. Although the increasingly fme delineations of "culture areas" are no longer of critical concern in archaeology (Speth, 1988), the identification of stylistic (sometimes "cultural") traits is still common in archaeological inquiry. Now, style similarities are used primarily to measure social relationships, heterogeneity, and communication density. For example, the distribution of different material traits, as well as trade items, has been used in the northern Mogollon area to measure the inception and rigidity of the boundary between the Mogollon and Anasazi, as well as to defme interaction networks among the Mogollon (Hantmann, 1984). And, the distribution of ceramics and other traits has been used to measure regional interaction in the Northern Sierra of Chihuahua and southeastern Arizona (Douglas, 1990).

To facilitate this type of analysis in rock art, Schaafsma (1985:246-249) provides a definition of style: form elements, or motifs, form relationships, and other qualities such as expression; technique, subject matter, and material may be included, but are not crucial as the general aesthetic quality. According to Schaafsma, these characteristics have temporal and ethnic or cultural implications, because " ... only a limited number of formal possibilities of graphic expression are exploited by any given culture at any given time" (Schaafsma, 1985:246). Schaafsma (1985:249) recommends a "holistic evaluation based on visual inspection and pattern recognition." As such, rock art styles are not so much defined as intuitively recognized, and consistent classification of styles may be difficult.

Nevertheless, several researchers have successfully applied the equation between rock art style distinctions and social interaction in their interpretations. Weisbrod (1978:1) sees rock art content and style as a result of information exchange, and perhaps as more sensitive indicators of interaction spheres than utilitarian goods (see also Turpin, 1989:263-264). Exemplifying this approach, Turpin (1989) has used abrupt changes in rock art styles to infer cultural discontinuity (in the form of immigration or influence) in an area where other items of material culture suggest stable adaptations to a restrictive arid environment. Further, she infers some social stratification or distinctions from the depiction of


shamans in rock art (furpin, 1989:264). Bettinger and Baumhoff (1982) also marshal rock art evidence in their argument that Numic speakers rapidly supplanted the previous occupants of the Great Basin: superpositioning and deliberate defacement of older panels may have been purposefully done to eradicate evidence of, or subvert the proprietary rights of, the previous inhabitants. In contrast, Vastokas and Vastokas (1973:130) see a continuity of rock art style as evidence for cultural-historical ties between historic and prehistoric peoples in the northeast. Schaafsma and Schaafsma (1974) use rock art to trace the route and timing of the spread of the Kachina cult from the Jornada Mogollon region.

On a smaller scale, the identification of petroglyphs as trail markers and maps (Wallace and Holmlund, 1986:147; Gortner, 1989) can delineate a "system" of sites used contemporaneously by a single interrelated group. Such work identifies at least portions of integrated settlement systems with far more precision and accuracy than would be possible using artifact similarities, topographic barriers, or ethnographic extrapolations.

Yet, there are two inherent problems with attempts to equate style with social interaction. One is the subjective nature of style identification implicit in Schaafsma's definition. Indeed, Schaafsma (1985:249-252) laments that the concept is not rigorously applied; if style is applied too broadly it becomes meaningless as a diagnostic tool, losing any cultural and temporal associations. For example, one widely-cited style, Great Basin Abstract, has been considered so broad as to be fictitious (Hedges, 1982).

The second problem in measuring social groupings with rock art is the difficulty in determining if observed variability is due to functional or temporal differences, rather than the absence of interactions across space (cf. Binford and Binford, 1969; Bordes and de Sonneville-Bordes, 1970; Plog, 1980; Sackett, 1977, 1990). For example, a "style" may not show persistence or regularity throughout a people's range; some rock art may reflect limited special use, such as some ceremonial function. The temporal dimension is even more critical; poor chronological control can result in the identification of artificial similarities or differences in rock art styles. For example, contemporaneity must be demonstrated frrst, before either functional distinctions or degree of social interaction could be inferred.

Therefore, to realize the potential of rock art to provide evidence for the exploration of information exchange, the temporal dimension must be controlled. Of the methods that have been developed to provide temporal information for rock art, none is universally applicable or routinely accurate, as discussed below.

ROCK ART DATING

Several methods have been employed to date rock art, summarized by Weisbrod (1978) and Schaafsma (1985) and delineated in more recent studies (e.g., Dorn, 1983, 1984; Dorn and Whitley, 1983; Dorn et al., 1990). As Weisbrod (1978:2)


notes, at the heart of most rock art dating schemes is stylistic analysis. But style, by itself, cannot give either a relative or absolute date. Dates are often assigned where temporally-diagnostic artifacts are associated with a style, making single component sites particularly valuable. In instances where styles are superimposed, at least a relative dating sequence can be determined (Bilbo and Sutherland, 1982; Schaafsma, 1980, 1985; Turpin, 1989; Weisbrod, 1978; for examples specific to southern Arizona see Ferg, 1979; Wallace, 1983). Relative time measures make use of geologic evidence (Weisbrod, 1978:4); for example, rock art high on a cliff may have once been accessible via dunes, and paintings lower on the cliff, within the scars left by the dune, are accessible later (Schaafsma, 1985:242). Other geological evidence, such as superpositioning of speleothems, provides overlywide brackets or depends on intrinsically controversial dating and is therefore more problematic.

Subject matter sometimes provides terminus post quem dates. For example, the depiction of items known to have been introduced at certain times, such as horses or the bow and arrow, can provide maximum ages. As Weisbrod (1978) notes, temporally diagnostic artifacts cannot usually be assumed to provide end dates, since heirloom or curated items may be represented, as has been documented in the Great Basin (Thomas and Thomas, 1972).

Attempts at independent dating of rock art include lichenometry, cation-ratio measurements of desert varnish, and radiocarbon assays. Lichenometry was developed in the Arctic, where cold is the most limiting factor. There, growth is most dependent upon the number of warm seasons, in tum equivalent to the number of years. However, in warmer climates, sunlight, moisture, and the vagaries of initial lichen colonization can greatly affect lichen growth, limiting lichenometry's usefulness as an independent dating tool (Bradley, 1985:112-118).

The cation-ratio technique holds great promise for dating petroglyphs, as well as rock surfaces in general. As Dom and others (1990:21, 22) explain, rock varnish is a dark, thin accretion of manganese and iron-oxides, clay minerals, and minor and trace elements that adhere to rock surface. The formation of varnish is catalyzed by manganese-oxidizing bacteria; the manganese and iron-oxides cement the clay to the surface. Researchers have tried to use various properties of rock varnish to estimate age, with Grant (1967:4) and Wallace and Holmlund (1986) focusing on relative darkness, Turner (1963) on thickness, and Bard (1979) on the concentration of manganese. As Dom and Whitley (1984:309) point out, these are controlled not so much by age as by microenvironmental factors affecting manganese-concentrating microorganisms. Desert dust, acidity from lichens, decaying organic matter, or acid rain can reduce the manganese in varnish (Dom and Whitley, 1984:311-312). Most useful in determining relative dates of petroglyphs within a single site, patination is subject to too many factors to be a reliable age indicator across sites.

The developers of cation-ratio dating techniques avoid this problem by precisely measuring the ratio of specific trace elements in the varnish. In this method,


relative age is determined by the ratio of quick-leaching elements (such as potassium and calcium) to slow-leaching elements (like titanium). Absolute dates are calculated by interpolating rates from the cation ratios of surfaces of known age, as determined either by potassium argon dating, tandem accelerator dating (presumably of the dead manganese-concentrating microorganisms) or historic surfaces of known age. Methods have been developed to measure ratios of the flrst varnish layer deposited. Overlying varnish is removed, under magnification, and fmally a thin layer next to the unpatinated rock is physically scraped from a rock surface for the calibration determination. Because up to a square meter of rock surface is needed for the sample, it is collected away from petroglyph areas to avoid excessive alteration of rock art areas.

Uniformitarianism must be assumed for the rate of accumulation. However, several factors can influence the rate, and therefore the accuracy of the inferred dates. First, the initial colonizing of a rock surface by manganese-fiXing bacteria depends upon the deposit of soil by wind in surface irregularities (Dorn and Whitley, 1984:119), which could differ between pecked (petroglyph) and unpecked areas. Second, other factors may cause--discontinuities in patination even on a millimeter or centimeter scale (Dom, 1984:767-768); even small discontinuities may be detrimental in measuring cation ratios of small petroglyph elements. Third, Dorn (1984) indicates that cation ratios are also affected by past climatic changes, with differences in aeolian alkalinity affecting rates. The method's sensitivity to the alkalinity in airborne dusts, which bodes well for discerning past climatic fluctuations, also currently limits the method's utility. If these factors are not uniform across both the calibration sample and the petroglyph sample, the rates could be different. Further, if the rate itself is not linear, it may be difflcult to determine without several samples of different ages, all necessarily from the same microenvironmental conditions. The greatest limitation of cationratio dating, however, stems from the restricted applicability. Because the process of patination is slow and small samples are easily contaminated, the process does not work well for petroglyphs less than 1,000 years old (Dorn et al., 1990:33), or even 4,000 years old in some locales (Dorn and Whitley, 1984:317).

Radical revisions of dates for rock art styles, and by extrapolation the beginning of human occupation in areas based on cation-ratio dating (e.g., Dorn et al., 1990) may not warrant uncritical acceptance at this time. Nevertheless, proponents are pursuing research in several parts of the Western United States and may reflne the technique to increase its accuracy and applicability.

Radiocarbon dating has been of only limited use in rock art studies to date, most often applied to spatially-associated materials at rock art sites. An elaborate but clever scheme has been used to date relatively recent rock art in South Africa. Figures had been painted on a scar left by a fallen slab; the slab was found in the cave floor sediments immediately below a stratum radiocarbon dated to 235 % 80 years B.P. The researchers reasoned that the scar had been exposed sometime before that date, and therefore the pictures were painted within the last three


centuries (Singer and Wyman, 1%9:508). This inference assumes, of course, that the radiocarbon-dated stratum was deposited soon after the slab fell, and that there exists no discrepancy between the date of sediment deposition and the date of the radiocarbon sample.

"Portable" rock art (painted cobbles) has been dated through association with radiocarbon-dated material in a sealed occupation deposit (Singer and Wyman, 1%9:508). Elsewhere, associations between portable rock art and radiocarbon dates have been more questionable (Singer and Wyman, 1%9:508; Thackeray et al., 1981).

For some time, direct radiocarbon dating of pictographs has appeared possible (Weisbrod, 1978), but early attempts were unsuccessful (Grant, 1%7:46). The problem derives from the nature of most rock art paints. The paint is composed of a pigment or coloring agent, a binder to make the pigment adhere to the painted surface, and a vehicle (such as water), to make the paint fluid (Schaafsma, 1980:25-26). For many pictographs, the pigment itself is composed of minerals, such as red iron oxide or yellow limonite. Pigment, the dominant component of paint, is therefore usually not amenable to radiocarbon dating. Binders used ethnographically include yucca juice, pifion gum, saliva, urine, and the whites of eagle eggs (Schaafsma, 1980:26 citing Smith, 1952:31). Although these organic substances could be amenable to radiocarbon dating, Schaafsma (1980:26) reports that traces of binder could not be found in the mural paints that provide her analogy. If the same situation applies to pictographs, perhaps the small amounts of organic material necessary for binding purposes are insufficient even for accelerator radiocarbon dating, without destruction of relatively large portions of irreplaceable art.

Tom Ketchum Cave provides an excellent opportunity for direct radiocarbon dating. In the Tom Ketchum pictographs, the pigment, the dominant substance of the paint, is derived from charcoal. Therefore, an adequate sample of organic material could be obtained with almost no effect on the rock art. Before discussing details of the dating, however, the site itself is described.

TOM KETCHUM CAVE

Tom Ketchum Cave is in the Pedregosa Mountains of southeastern Arizona (Figure 1). The Pedregosa Mountains are one of the many northwest-southeast trending ranges that form the extensive basin and range province in the North American West. The adjacent Chiricahua Mountains, of similar volcanic rock composition, lie to the north, the low-lying Perilla Mountains are to the south, and the San Bernadino Valley is to the east. The west is the broad alluvial valley associated with Leslie Creek, which flows southwest through the Swisshelm Mountains before entering Sulphur Springs Valley. Tom Ketchum Canyon, trending from north to south, is a tributary of Big Bend Creek, in tum a tributary of Leslie Creek. The basin through which Big Bend Creek flows is somewhat lush

~

Black Sheep Cave A • Tucson • Willcox

• Coyote Mountains Santa Rita Mountains

•

Nogales •

Tom Ketchum Cave

• Douglas

•

j

.§ Q)

:::E

I z

Figure 1. Regional map showing the location of Tom Ketchum Cave and other areas mentioned in the text.

r---


for southeastern Arizona, with thick grasses, rushes, and large cottonwoods along the creek. The entire Leslie Creek drainage is relatively well-watered, because the Swisshelm Mountains in effect form a dam between the drainage and the Sulphur Springs Valley.

Tom Ketchum Cave is the largest of several rockshelters formed by taphonomic water erosion in the steep rhyolitic cliffs that form Tom Ketchum Canyon. At 5600 feet elevation, the rockshelter is several hundred feet above the narrow drainage bottom, where exposed bedrock forms small tinajas. Vegetation on the canyon slopes include scattered oaks, junipers, agaves, bear grass, and manzanita.

Although other rock art styles have been recorded in the Chiricahua and Pedregosa Mountains, including the Archaic Chihuahuan Polychrome Abstract and the ceramic-period Mogollon Red, the rock art at Tom Ketchum Cave is unique in the region. The site, with over 200 representational human and animal figures, does not fit any of the known styles for the American Southwest (Figure 2; Burton, 1988a).

The Site

The cave is located at the top of a steep talus slope, and is approximately 5 meters deep, 5 to 9 meters wide, and 3 to 9 meters high. The shelter includes one large main room and a small offshoot. Artifacts observed on the surface include small burned bone fragments, cane reed fragments, and a few flakes. No temporally-diagnostic artifacts were found on the cave floor. Sediments in the cave, perhaps a meter deep at the entrance, appear to be composed of fme silt, roof fall, and rodent droppings. Ceilings are smoke-blackened. Graffiti, discarded flash cubes, and pothunter's holes show that the site is known and visited by the public.

Archaeologists of the Coronado National Forest recovered some additional data about the site during cleanup of graffiti and pothunting holes conducted at the site in the summer of 1990. The primary rationale for site cleanup was simply to prevent further vandalism; vandalism studies have found that graffiti breed more graffiti (Pilles, 1989:23). Recent graffiti were photo-documented, and gently removed with distilled water and clean cloth. Some graffiti, such as early twentieth-century names and dates, were not removed because of potential historic interest. Other graffiti were not removable, perhaps protected by silica bonding as described by Peter Pilles for pictographs near Sedona, Arizona (personal communication, 1990). Since the silica bonding takes some time to develop, the indelible graffiti may also be historic.

Before pothunting holes were backfilled, time markers were placed in them. The existing backdirt piles were used as fill, after being screened through 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth. All artifacts and exotic vegetal material were collected. Finally, the cave floor was smoothed, rocks scattered about, and walls gently dusted with a soft paintbrush. A log book and information sheet will be installed


' ' ' '

0 ~1t

' 0 ' ' ' « \

\

\~_)1

,Jt.

® ~

~ '(-<

t·.t> ,._, @ .J.. .~

~ t t

r

®

1:®

Figure 2. Plan of Tom Ketchum Cave showing relationship of pictograph panels.

'

\

' \ I I I I I I

' I I

' ' ' ' ' \

Figure 2. (Con'd.)


\ @t ~


at the cave, to give visitors some background information about the site and to collect some basic data on site visitation.

As expected, small, incomplete, and inconspicuous items that had been overlooked or rejected by the original excavators were recovered from the backdirt piles, which are estimated to total approximately 0.6 cubic meter. Flaked stone artifacts, cane reed cigarette and other reed fragments, cordage, knotted plant fiber, a drilled fire hearth, fragments of chrysocolla or turquoise (one backed with adhesive), and a single fragment of a plain ware sherd disk were recovered. Obviously, this collection is skewed by the decision to collect only from previously-disturbed areas, which likely contained only "rejects" or items small enough to be missed by pothunters. More extensive excavation may have been able to discover the presence of undisturbed sediments, or at least a more comprehensive assortment of artifacts.

Most of the artifacts found in the cave could be strictly utilitarian, related to hunting, temporary camping, or other activities. Preliminary analysis of the small collection of flaked stone suggests that initial stages of chipped stone reduction occurred at the site. A large proportion of biface thinning flakes suggests tool manufacture; biface thinning flakes have also been considered to be indicative of the Archaic period (Parry and Kelly, 1987). From the lithic analysis, one might assume that the artifact assemblage represents casual activities carried out at a temporary camp used as a hunting base. Their presence near a utilitarian living site may suggest that pictographs represent decoration or doodling.

However, similar artifacts, although in greater numbers, have been found in organized arrangements in what are considered "ceremonial caves." For example, Haury (1945:194) notes that the most abundant articles in the Double Buttes Cave (presumed by Cushing to be a shrine related to the Los Homos site near Mesa, Arizona) were the "so-called ceremonial cigarettes"; cane reed cigarettes have been found in several other caves considered ceremonial (Fulton, 1941; Haury, 1945; Coffin, 1932; Martinet al., 1954). Arrows and foreshafts at Tom Ketchum Cave may be remnants of more elaborate displays: there was a "widespread practice of depositing arrows at sacred spots that has survived from aboriginal to modem times" (Haury, 1945:200). Caves where arrows and foreshafts appear to have been ritually deposited are described by Haury (1945), Hough (1914:63-66), Cosgrove (1947), Russell (1908:255); Wasley (1962), and Ellis and Hammack (1968).

Could the cane fragments, turquoise, and fire hearth be ceremonial deposits? Could an elaborate display, often related to Mogollon occupation, have been removed, perhaps in recent times? Although shrines, purposefully deposited, may be subject to fewer prehistoric depletion processes than many sites, the material documented elsewhere in shrine sites would be extremely susceptible to historic or modem collection. By the tum of the century, homesteaders were ranching in the Leslie Canyon drainage, and hunters and hikers currently explore even the most remote country. Casual collection of artifacts has been a longstanding


hobby; depletion of painted pottery types from site surfaces through time has been documented (Lightfoot, 1978). Graffiti on the Tom Ketchum Cave walls provide clues to early visitors. "H. J. Hunsaker and N. B .... " is written on one wall; "Discovered by H. J. H. and N. B. C. 1917" is written on another (Figure 3). Could the discoverers have been confident they were the first in the rockshelter because untouched artifact arrangements were present? The area was homesteaded by the Hunsakers in the early twentieth century (Government Land Office Plats, on file at Coronado National Forest). Local residents were contacted to see if any Hunsaker descendants could be located. "H. J." himself is still alive, but was too ill to be interviewed. His daughter, Carol Hunsaker Elmer, lived at the Hunsaker Ranch until she was thirteen; she remembers Tom Ketchum Cave very well. She does not remember her father or any neighbors having collections from the cave, or anyone talking about things that were found there.

There are at least a few possible interpretations of this meager informant data: 1) there never was any elaborate ceremonial deposit in the cave, and it cannot be equated with Mogollon shrines elsewhere; 2) ceremonial deposits were removed before 1917; and 3) ranchers are not likely to discuss their private collections with representatives of the federal government. We are inclined to believe the first option, partly because no other Mogollon shrine documented to date contains such elaborate rock art. The cave is remote enough that it seems unlikely to have been visited before ranching was established in the vicinity, and the ranching families have been very stable, with many of the original homesteader families still in the area. Mrs. Elmer seems more than willing to discuss the site, which held a great attraction for her in her childhood and still commands intrigue and appreciation.

The Art

The pictographs occur both in groups or concentrations and as isolated elements on all walls. Some figures are over 3 m above the cave floor, above a slightly sloping wall. The pictographs are almost all of dense black charcoal pigment, a few are ashy-grey in color. The pictographs occur in a wide range of shades and states of preservation, suggesting they were not painted at the same time.

Over 200 separate elements are still discernible at the cave. Nearly all of the figures are representational zoomorphs (77%) or anthropomorphs (13% ). Other elements include eleven non-representational elements and numerous partial or indistinct elements that could not be classified (Table 1; Figure 4).

Large animals are all depicted in profile, almost all with solid bodies. Animals with bifurcated feet or horns were classified as ungulates. Figures with backwardcurving horns were further identified as bighorn sheep, and those with branching horns (antlers) as deer. Four quadrupeds, distinct for their long, big jaws and lack of necks, may be dogs. Ten figures, classified as mountain lions, have long tails, relatively long bodies, and short legs. The single largest figure is a large ungulate, 60 em tall and 68 em from nose to tail. It has a large full body with a large (42 em)


Table 1. Tabulation of Motifs at Tom Ketchum Cave

Anthropomorph

Bighorn sheep

Deeer

Ungulate*

Moountain Uon

Canine

Carnivore•

Zoomorph

Botanical

Arrow

Bow/arrow

Atlatl

Animal tracks

Geometric

Indistinct/partial

Total

* = indeterminate

19 12

13

37 11

4

6 32

2

11

60 211

arrow piercing its back. While the large torso and relatively small legs and head suggest the appearance of a bovid, the branching antlers and short tail suggest the figure is most likely a deer.

The anthropomorphs are varied not only in size, which ranges from 13 to 65 em, but also in form. Several have large heads, thick torsos, and exaggerated fingers and toes. Natural holes in the cave wall form the eyes of one figure, and another has eyes and a mouth formed by a lighter-colored pigment. Two have bows and arrows, and one of these also has a dog immediately below or "in" its hand. One pair of anthropomorphs appears to be self-portraits of a father-and-son team.

Although apparently the work of many artists, the subject matter and general form are consistent, suggesting the pictographs could be grouped as a distinctive style. The depiction of game animals, bows and arrows, and hunting animals (dogs and mountain lions) certainly suggests that hunting was on the minds of the artists. While it may be speculative to extend a hunting magic interpretation to the art, hunting certainly is an important theme.


a b c

d

e

f

h

Figure 4. Selected elements at Tom Ketchun Cave (scale varies): a) anthropomorph, b) anthropomorph with bow and arrow and dog,

c) paired anthropomorphs, d) bighorn sheep, e) deer, f) large deer with arrow, g) mountain lion, h) canine, i) atlatl and zoomorph.


Dating and Pictographs: Style Comparisons

If associated artifacts provide few clues to the function, affiliation, and gross temporal placement of the site, style comparisons are little better. The most common method of dating rock art, correlations with styles identified and dated elsewhere, is ineffective at Tom Ketchum Cave. With a predominance of representational elements, the rock art at the site does not fit into any of the styles that had been previously defined for the region (Burton, 1988b; Burton and Farrell, 1989; Wallace and Holmlund, 1986; Wellmann, 1979; Schaafsma, 1980), most of which are abstract (e.g., Chihuahuan Polychrome Abstract, Western Archaic, and Mogollon Red).

The difficulty in labeling the Tom Ketchum pictographs could relate to several factors. First, even Schaafsma's work, the most comprehensive for the Southwest, is necessarily quite sketchy, covering large areas with only limited data, from a relatively small sample of sites. Most of the Chiricahua and Pedregosa Mountains have never received systematic archaeological survey even in relatively flat areas, where the range, road, and recreation developments that drive compliance survey are more common. The Tom Ketchum Cave site itself, whose graffiti suggest it was well-known to local ranchers since the turn of the century, was reported only in 1965. Other, similar sites may remain unrecorded in southeastern Arizona.

Second, the prehistory of the area, a "boundary" zone between Hohokam, Mogollon, and Chihuahuan influences on many maps, is not well defined. Prehistoric inhabitants are variously described as Hohokam with Mogollon influence, Mogollon with Hohokam influence, and indigenous Dragoon and Ootam with a Casas Grandes influence (Bronitsky and Merritt, 1986:169). Other researchers propose a gradual transition of adaptive strategies, reflecting various traditions as the environment gradually changes from mountain to desert (Ferg et al., 1984:802, 803; Gilman, 1990:10). Burton (1988a:354) compared the subject matter and execution of some of the pictograph elements to rock art and ceramics of the Hohokam and the Jornada Mogollon, and suggested the pictographs held characteristics of both. Such an interpretation is consistent with descriptions of other aspects of prehistory in the region, an area of apparent cultural overlap. However, researchers familiar with both Hohokam and Jomada styles have reviewed the Tom Ketchum rock art, and neither believed it fit into those traditions (Henry Wallace and Polly Schaafsma, personal communication, 1988).

Going farther afield, there are slightly similar figures in Black Sheep Cave in the Tucson Mountains (Hartmann, 1985). The difficulty in objectively applying Schaafsma's style definition becomes apparent here. Subject matter, form relationships, and material are similar between the two sites: charcoal-based paintings of similarly-sized sheep and deer are scattered on walls where vertical superposition may indicate distance. However, Burton (1988a) noted differences


in overall aesthetic quality, one of Schaafsma's prime criteria, as well as in details of the figures and in technique, in that the Black Sheep pictographs are not as fmely executed as the Tom Ketchum Cave figures. Other examples, equally similar or dissimilar, are located in the Coyote Mountains near the base of Kitt Peak, and in the northern Santa Rita Mountains (William Hale, Administrative Aide, National Radio Astronomy Observatory, personal communication, 1989).

If the Tom Ketchum pictographs are related to the Black Sheep, Coyote Mountain, and Santa Rita Mountain paintings, and if the equation between style and social groups or information exchange can be used in reverse, then these distant sites would suggest origins with a far-ranging, broadly-based group with high levels of mobility, communication, or a common history.

Such disparate ascriptions should be distinguishable by tighter chronological control. Subject matter may provide at least some brackets for dating: a bow and arrow is depicted in one element, and a possible atlatl is depicted in another (see Figure 4). A feathered shaft in what appears to be a deer could be either an arrow or an atlatl dart. Atlatls apparently enjoyed long-lived use in the southwest, from perhaps 6000 B.C. to A.D. 400 {Woodbury and Zubrow, 1979:54). Estimates of the earliest introduction of the bow and arrow into the southwest vary; Woodbury and Zubrow (1979:55) indicate that evidence for them before A.D. 500 is rare in the southwest. McGregor (1965), on the other hand, suggests that there is good evidence for the use of the bow and arrow, along with the atlatl, by the end of the Pine Lawn stage among the Mogollon (i.e., by A.D. 1 in his chronology, or as late as A.D. 500 in Bullard's [1962:94] revisions). Although dates for the early Mogollon periods may be revised (Douglas, 1987:37), the introduction of the bow and arrow is not necessarily tied to these ceramic phases-witness the spread of the bow and arrows in the Great Basin, where ceramics and agriculture were never widespread. Martin (1979:68) indicates that miniature bows and arrows found in Tularosa Cave were dated to before A.D. 300. It seems reasonable, then, to suggest that subject matter puts the paintings sometime after A.D. 1, and perhaps after A.D. 300. Protohistoric origins cannot be ruled out through subject matter; for example, while horse figures were common in Apache rock art, they were by no means universal.

In summary, Tom Ketchum Cave well illustrates problems in defining style and interpreting a rock art site without chronological control. Without independent dating, Burton's attribution of the art to a mixing of Hohokam and Mimbres traits is reasonable, if difficult to verify. As such, the difficulty in placing the pictographs in one or the other styles could illustrate Douglas's point (1990:89) that peripheral areas need not strongly identify with distant social groups. But the radiocarbon dating of the pictographs provides more specific data.


Dating the Pictographs: Independent Dating

Two of the dates are conventional radiocarbon dates from cane reed artifacts found on the cave floor. These date to 1470 :t 330 radiocarbon years B.P. (A-5141.1) and 560 :t 110 radiocarbon years B.P. (A-5141.2). The laboratory also measured the carbon isotope composition, and corrected the dates for fractionation effects (Robert Kalin, Senior Research Specialist, Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory, University of Arizona, personal communication, 1990). Using the University of Washington Quaternary Isotope Laboratory's radiocarbon calibration program, the cane reed dates can be converted to calendar years:

A-5141.1 AD. 184- AD. 936, at 1 sigma 196 B.C. -AD. 1220, at 2 sigma

A-5141.2 AD. 1280- AD. 1440, at 1 sigma A.D. 1160 - 1619, at 2 sigma

The wide range in the calibrated ages is due to multiple intersections of the values with the tree ring calibration curve.

Samples of the pictograph paint itself were also dated, using accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS). These are, to our knowledge, among the first pictographs to be directly dated by an "independent" method. Because the paint is charcoalbased, rather than mineral-based as discussed above, it contains sufficient organic matter for AMS dating. A small amount of pigment was scraped from the pictographs for the samples:

AA-3105 (collected from one medium-density element): Radiocarbon age 1745 :t 70 B.P., calibrated by the University of Arizona Department of Physics to calendar age A.D. 215-390 (at 1 o) or A.D. 120-430 (at 2o ) [the University of Washington calibration program calibrated this date slightly differently, as calendar age A.D. 176 to 387 (1 o) and AD. 80 to 430 (2 o)].

AA-3107 (collected from several very dense elements that formed a group, and looked most recent): radiocarbon age 1640 :t 80 B.P., calibrated to calendar age A.D. 265-525 (1 o) and 235-570 (2 o) [University of Washington calibration program: A.D. 261-533 (1 o), and A.D. 181-596 (2 o)].

The interpretation of "independent" dates is dependent upon assumptions about tree species used, tree longevity and preservation, environmental conditions, cultural behavior, and even population densities affecting wood use (Schiffer, 1986; 1987). However, there are several reasons to be optimistic about the Tom Ketchum Cave dates. First, if the cave served ceremonial functions, as Burton (1988a:353) inferred, it may have been used more frequently than the paucity of utilitarian artifacts suggests. In any event, it may not have taken prehistoric


inhabitants of the area long to exhaust the meager dead fuel wood resources of the desert canyon slopes. Second, ceremonial fues could well incorporate fresh or green wood to produce incense or smoke. Third, firewood selected to heat or light a small rockshelter would most likely be small in diameter, which would lessen the effect of very old inner rings, skewing the date backward. Fourth, and most importantly, the pigment dates and one of the cane reed fragment dates cluster in the same time period. Although the cane reed fragment data is not tight, one date range is nearly centered over those of the pigment date ranges. A fair interpretation of the radiocarbon dates suggests the pictographs were painted sometime between A.D. 250 and 400, or more broadly A.D. 200 to A.D. 500, when the majority of all three date ranges overlap. The other cane reed may then represent later use of the rockshelter. Later use, or multiple components, is not unexpected. The rockshelter may have seemed a special place to the later prehistoric inhabitants of the region, as it did for ranchers in the historic period. Apaches, for example, often considered rock art sites sacred (Schaafsma, 1980:341), and caves often represent multiple episodes of occupation (Straus, 1990).

IMPLICATIONS

To understand the implications of such a date range for the Tom Ketchum Cave rock art, it is necessary to place it in a spatial and temporal context. The Archaic in southeastern Arizona has been defined as the Cochise culture, beginning about 9500 B.C. (Sayles and Antevs, 1941; Bronitsky and Merritt, 1986:101-110). The application of the term "Mogollon" begins with the appearance of pottery, which also coincides with the development of substantial villages (Lipe, 1978:455), but in most respects there appears to be a continuum between the predominantly hunter-gatherer Archaic subsistence and settlement, and that of the more agriculture-oriented Mogollon.

Chronology is not well defined for the area. Martin and others (1954) suggest that the earliest Mogollon ceramics were present about 300 B.C., and Sayles (1945; Wasley and Sayles, 1945), suggests that by A.D. 200, pottery-making agriculturalists were living near the Chiricahua Mountains. However, these dates have been revised upward by recent researchers. Bullard (1962) places the earliest ceramic phase at A.D. 450 to 600, and these dates are used by Douglas in his recent work (1987). Within this chronological framework, the Tom Ketchum pictographs appear to fall near the end of the Archaic.

Rock art previously identified as Archaic in southeastern Arizona has been almost completely abstract, in both the Western Archaic tradition and the Chihuahuan Polychrome Abstract styles (Schaafsma, 1980; Burton, 1988b; Burton and Farrell, 1989). In fact, the Chihuahuan Polychrome Abstract style appears to have much in common with the subsequent Mogollon Red style,


and Schaafsma (1980:196) provides evidence for an unbroken continuum between the two styles. Mogollon Red style sites have been recorded within two miles of Tom Ketchum Cave, although these, like some of the Chihuahuan Polychrome Abstract sites, occur in different settings, in more open rockshelters near habitation areas.

The Tom Ketchum pictographs appear to represent an abrupt break from the more common rock art tradition. Rather than small multi-colored or red abstract designs, as in Chihuahuan Polychrome Abstract or Mogollon Red, the Tom Ketchum pictographs are black, boldly executed, and overwhelmingly representational. Rather than being located in shallow overhangs or boulder shelters near habitation sites, the Tom Ketchum pictographs are in a cave-like shelter, in a remote and steep canyon. Rather than being widely distributed in space, the Tom Ketchum style appears to be very restricted, with possible affiliations in the Tucson, Coyote, and Santa Rita mountains.

The different style and different setting appear to occur at a transitional period in the prehistory of the area, from a predominantly hunting and gathering lifestyle to the increased sedentism and agriculture that characterizes the Mogollon. A change in rock art from abstract to representational art is not unparalleled: Schaafsma notes the inception of representational art near the end of the Archaic period in Texas, and suggests that the advent of these styles reflects changes taking place and diversity in the ideographic systems at that time (1980:55).

However, the continuities between Chihuahuan Polychrome Abstract and Mogollon Red in southeastern Arizona argue against a major change in ideological systems there, at least as reflected by rock art. The Tom Ketchum Cave pictographs may represent a functional or small-group distinction, rather than large-scale social changes. Some anthropological theories suggest that the adoption of agriculture about this time reflects a strategy of "risk minimalization," in the face of increasing population and decreasing mobility options (Cordell, 1984:178). Tom Ketchum pictographs, focusing on the hunters and the animals hunted (Burton, 1988a), may have been a different kind of risk minimalization, as a shrine to ensure success in the hunt. Functionally, they may be equivalent to later Mogollon shrines. Schaafsma believes that the late Archaic petroglyphs in Texas are shamanistic in origin, and the Tom Ketchum pictographs may be also.

Before valid inferences can be made about what the pictographs at Tom Ketchum mean for late Archaic interaction or social groupings, of course, it will be necessary to determine if they are indeed part of a style replicated elsewhere. Again, temporal control will be necessary to determine even classificatory contemporaneity (Dean, 1978). If the Tucson and Coyote Mountain examples do date to this period, the style may illustrate a continuation of the highly mobile or interacting groups that characterize the earlier Archaic. If so, a "Pedregosa Pictograph Style,. may be described as focusing on hunting motifs, with game animals, hunters, hunting animals, and hunting implements executed in black paint.


CONCLUSION

In summary, radiocarbon assays suggest the Tom Ketchum pictographs were created toward the end of the Archaic period. Their distinctiveness may relate to social and ideographic changes occurring at the transition from a predominantly hunting and gathering subsistence to a more sedentary lifestyle. Increasing population and reduced mobility would eventually lead to greater emphasis on agriculture, and at the time the Tom Ketchum pictographs were painted, the game animals depicted may have already seemed less abundant. Tom Ketchum Cave may represent the shamanistic depiction of game animals and hunters, as a "risk minimalization" strategy. The potential for other examples, with a distribution scattered in space but restricted in execution, may suggest a "style" (with social interaction or mobility implications), here labeled the Pedregosa Pictograph style.

These inferences are tentative at this time, due to the vagaries of the data: pothunting, "old wood," and the paucity of associated artifacts in general may skew the interpretations. But, archaeologists will rarely have the luxury of working with cave sites that are not "palimpsests" (Straus, 1990). And in general, sites that represent short-term or specialized use, with few temporally diagnostic artifacts, and with evidence of pothunting, will be more common than pristine sites.

The identification of a particular style is only a first step in the study of style as an indicator of social interaction or integration. The Tom Ketchum example illustrates that independent dating can provide a much different framework for rock art evaluation than even the most careful stylistic, comparative analysis. Further refinement and more widespread application of independent dating will be necessary before rock art truly becomes integrated with archaeological analysis.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Funding for radiocarbon dating was provided by the Arizona Archaeological and Historical Society, the Coronado National Forest, and the National Science Foundation Accelerator Facility for Radioisotope Analysis, Department of Physics, University of Arizona. Jeff Dean, of the University of Arizona Tree-ring Laboratory, allowed access to the Tree-ring Laboratory computer to run the University of Washington radiocarbon calibration program. Cleanup of graffiti and the recovery of artifacts was conducted by Arnold Canez, Les Dufour, Bill Gillespie, Louie Pope, and Pat Spoerl of the Coronado National Forest. Cathy Cameron analyzed the lithics. Jeff Dean, Jeff Reid, and Mike Schiffer provided comments on an earlier draft.


REFERENCES CITED

BARD,J.C. 1979 The Development of a Patination Dating Technique for Great Basin

Petroglyphs Utilizing Neutron Activation and X-ray Fluorescence, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

BETTINGER, ROBERT L. and MARTIN A. BAUMHOFF 1982 The Numic Spread: Great Basin Cultures in Competition, American Antiq

uity, 47, pp. 485-503. BILBO, MICHAEL and KAY SUTHERLAND

1982 Stylistic Evolution of Rock Art in the Jomada Region, The Artifact, 24:2, pp. 11-30.

BINFORD, LOUIS R. and S. R. BINFORD 1969 Stone Tools and Human Behavior, Scientific American, 220, pp. 70-84.

BORDES, FRANCOIS and D. de SONNEVILLE-BORDES 1970 The Significance of Variability in Paleolithic Assemblages, World Archae

ology, 2, pp. 61-73. BRADLEY, R. S.

1985 Quaternary Paleoclimatology: Methods of Paleoclimatic Reconstruction, Allen and Unwin, Boston.

BRONITSKY, GORDON and JAMES D. MERRfiT 1986 The Archaeology of Southeast Arizona: A Class I Cultural Resource Inven

tory, Bureau of Land Management, Cultural Resource Series 2, Phoenix. BULLARD, WILLIAM R.

1962 The Cerro Colorado Site and Pithouse Architecture in the Southwestern United States Prior to A.D. 9(}(), Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 44(2), Harvard University, Cambridge.

BURTON, JEFFERY F. 1988a Hunters and the Hunted: The Prehistoric Art ofT om Ketchum Cave, Kiva 53,

pp. 335-355. 1988b Prehistoric Rock Art of the Southeast Arizona Uplands: A Formal Record of

53 Rock Art Sites on the Coronado National Forest, manuscript on me, Coronado National Forest, Tucson, Arizona.

BURTON, JEFFERY F. and MARY M. FARRELL 1989 An Introduction to the Rock Art of Southeastern Arizona, in Roc/cArt Papers,

Vol. 6, K. Hedges (ed.), pp. 1-16, San Diego Museum Papers 24, San Diego. COFFIN, E. F.

1932 Archaeological Explorations of a Rock Shelter in Brewster County, Texas, Museum of the American Indian Heye Foundation, Indian Notes and Monographs No. 48, New York.

CORDELL, UNDA S. 1984 Prehistory of the Southwest, Academic Press, New York.

COSGROVE, C. B. 1947 Caves of the Upper Gila and Hueco Areas in New Mexico and Texas, papers

of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 24, No.2, Harvard University, Cambridge.


DEAN, JEFFREYS. 1978 Independent Dating in Archaeological Analysis, in Advances in Archaeo

logical Method and Theory, Vol. 1, M. B. Schiffer (ed.), pp. 223-265, Academic Press, New York.

DORN, RONALD I. 1983 Cation-radio Dating: A New Rock Varnish Age-Determination Technique,

Quaternary Research, 20, pp. 49-73. 1984 Cause and Implications of Rock Varnish Microchemical Laminations,

Nature, 310, pp. 767-771. DORN, RONALD I. and DAVIDS. WHITLEY

1983 Cation-ratio Dating of Pctroglyphs from the Western Great Basin, North America, Nature, 302, pp. 816-818.

1984 Chronometric and Relative Age Determination of Petroglyphs in the Western United States, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 74, pp. 308-322.

DORN, RONALD I., WIUJAM R. McGLONE, and PHILUP M. LEONARD 1990 Age Determination of Petroglyphs in Southeast Colorado, Southwest Lore,

56, pp. 21-36. DOUGLAS, JOHN E.

1987 Late Prehistoric Archaeological Remains in the San Bernadino Valley, Southeastern Arizona, Kiva, 53, pp. 35-52.

1990 Regional Interaction in the Northern Sierra: An Analysis Based on the Late Prehistoric Occupation of the San Bernadino Valley, Southeastern Arizona, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.

ELUS, FLORENCE HAWLEY and LAURENS HAMMACK 1968 The Inner Sanctum of Feather Cave, a Mogollon Sun and Earth Shrine

linking Mexico and the Southwest, American Antiquity, 33, pp. 25-44. FAULSTICH, PAUL

1986 Spirits on the Rocks: Symbol and Structure in North Queensland, Australia, in American Indian Rock Art, Vol. 10, A. J. Bock and F. Bock (eds.), papers presented at the Tenth Annual ARARA Symposium, pp. 1-28, American Rock Art Research Association, El Toro, California.

FERG,ALAN 1979 The Petroglyphs ofTumamoc Hili, Kiva, 45, pp. 95-118.

FERG, ALAN, KENNETII C. ROZEN, WILUAM L. DEAVER, MARTYN D. TAGG, DAVID A. PHILUPS, JR., and DAVID A. GREGORY

1984 Hohokam Habitation Sites in the Northern Santa Rita Mountains, Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series No. 164, University of Arizona, Tucson.

FREEMAN, PAUL and LOUIS J. PA YEN 1983 A Probable Solstice Site in Northern California, in American Indian Rock Art,

Vol. 9, F. G. Bock (ed.), papers presented at the Ninth Annual ARARA Symposium, pp. 22-25, American Rock Art Research Association, El Toro, California.


FULTON, WILLIAM SHIRLEY 1941 A Ceremonial Cave in the Winchester Mountains, Arizona, Amerind Foun

dation2. GILMAN, PATRICIA A.

1990 The Archaeological Survey in the San Simon Drainage Phase III, Department of Anthropology Office of Cultural Resource Management Report 75, University of Oklahoma, Norman.

GORTNER, WILLIAM A 1989 Evidence for a Prehistoric Petroglyph Trail Map in the Sierra Nevada ll: Two

Additional Glyph Maps,NorthAmericanArchaeo/ogist, 10, pp. 231-236. GOUlD, RICHARD

1980 Living Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. GRANT, CAMPBELL

1967 Rock Art of the American Indian, Promontory Press, New York. HALVERSON, JOHN

1987 Art for Art's Sake in the Paleolithic, Current Anthropology, 28, pp. 63-89. HANTMANN, JEFFREY

1984 Regional Organization of the Northern Mogollon, American Archeology 4, pp.171-180.

HARTMANN, GAYLE HARRISON 1985 The Black Sheep Pictograph Site, Kiva, 50, pp. 95-109.

HAURY, EMIL 1945 The Excavation of Los Muertos and Neighboring Ruins in the Salt River

Valley, Southern Arizona, Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology Paper 24(1), Harvard University, Cambridge.

HEDGES, KEN 1982 Great Basin Rock Art Styles: A Revisionist View, in American Indian Rock

Art, Vols. 7 and 8, F. G. Bock (ed.), pp. 205-211, American Rock Art Research Association, El Toro, California.

1986 The Sunwatcher of La Rumorosa, in Rock Art Papers, Vol. 4, K. Hedges (ed.), pp. 17-32, San Diego Museum Papers 21.

HOSKINSON, TOM 1986 Coyotes, Rainbows, and Power Mountains, in Rock Art Papers, Vol. 3,

K. Hedges (ed.), pp. 91-102, San Diego Museum Papers 20. HOUGH, WALTER

1914 Culture of the Ancient Pueblos of the Upper Gila River Region, New Mexico and Arizona, Smithsonian Institution Bulletin 87, Washington, D.C.

HUDSON, TRAVIS and ERNEST UNDERHA Y 1978 Crystals in the Sky: An Intellectual Odyssey Involving Chumash Astronomy,

Cosmology, and Rock Art, Ballena Press Anthropological Papers 10, Socorro, New Mexico.

HUNGER, K. F. HEINZ 1986 Ritual Coition with and Among Animals, in American lndion Rock Art, Vol.

10, A J. Bock and F. Bock (eds.), papers presented at the Tenth Annual ARARA Symposium, pp. 116-124, American Rock Art Research Association, El Toro, California.


JONES, JR., BERNARD M. 1986 A Wanakik Cahuilla Solstice Site, in Rock Art Papers, Vol. 4, K. Hedges

(ed.), pp. 5-16, San Diego Museum Papers 21. KEYSER, JAMES D.

1977 Audrey's Overhand: A Pictographic Maze in Central Montana, Plains Anthropologist. 22, pp. 183-188.

KEYSER, JAMES D. and GEORGE C. KNIGHT 1976 The Rock Art of Western Montana, Plains Anthropologist, 21, pp. 1-12.

KROEBER, ALFRED L. 1908 Notes on the Luiscno, in TheReligionoftheLuisenoandDieguenolndiansof

Southern California, by C. G. Dubois, pp. 69-186, University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8.

KRUPP, E. C. 1983 Emblems of the Sky, in Ancient Images on Stone, J. Van Tilburg (ed.),

pp. 38-45, The Rock Art Archive, University of California, Los Angeles. l..aPENA, FRANK

1983 A Native American's View of Rock Art, in Ancient Images on Stone, J. Van Tilburg (ed.), pp. 25-29, The Rock Art Archive, University of California, Los Angeles.

UGJITFOOT, KENT 1978 The Impact of Casual Collection on Archaeological Interpretations through

Regional Surface Surveys, in An Analytical Approach to Cultural Resource Management: The Little Colorado Planning Unit, F. Plog (ed.), Arizona State University Anthropological Research Paper No. 13, Tempe, Arizona, and U.S.D.A Forest Service Cultural Resource Report 19, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

UPE, WilliAM D. 1978 The Southwest, in Ancient North Americans, J. D. Jennings (ed.), W. H.

Freeman and Company, New York. MARTIN, PAUL SIDNEY

1979 Prehistory: Mogollon, in Handbook of North American Indions, Vol. 9: Southwest, A Ortiz (ed.), pp. 61-74, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

MARTIN, PAULS., JOHN B. RINAI.l)O, and ELAINE BLUHM 1954 Caves of the Reserve Area, Fieldiana: Anthropology 42, Natural History

Museum, Chicago. MARTINEAU, LeV AN

1973 The Rocks Begin to Speak, K. C. Publications, Las Vegas, Nevada. McGREGOR, J. C.

1965 Southwestern Archaeology, (2nd Edition), University of Illinois Press, Urbana. MOORE, ElANIE A.

1986 Solstice Observations at Cuesta del Palmarito I, in Rock Art Papers, Vol. 4, K. Hedges (ed.), pp.lOl-106, San Diego Museum Papers 21.

PARRY, WilliAM J. and ROBERT L. KELLY 1987 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism, in The Organization of Core

Technology, J. K. Johnson and C. A. Morrow (eds.), pp. 285-304, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.


PIILES, PEI'ER J. 1989 Public Education and the Management of Rock Art Sites on the Coconino

National Forest, in Preserving Our Rock Art Heritage: Proceedings from the Symposium on Rock Art Conservation and Protection, H. K. Crotty (ed.), pp. 23-34, American Rock Art Research Association, San Miguel, California.

PLOG, STEVEN 1980 Stylistic Variation in Prehistoric Ceramics, Cambridge University Press,

New York. RUSSEll, F.

1908 The Pima Indians, Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C.

SACKE1T, JAMES R. 1977 The Meaning of Style in Archaeology: A General Model,AmericanAntiquity,

42, pp. 369-380. 1990 Style and Ethnicity in Archaeology: The Case for lsochrestism, in The Uses of

Style inArchaeology, M. Conkey and C. Hastorf (eds.), pp. 32-43, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

SAYLES, E. B. 1945 The Cochise Cultural Sequence in Southeastern Arizona, Anthropological

Papers of the University of Arizona 42, University of Arizona Press, Tucson. SAYLES E. B. and E. ANTEVS

1941 The Cochise Culture, Medallion Paper 29, Gila Pueblo, Globe, Arizona. SCHAAFSMA, POLLY

1980 Indian Rock Art of the Southwest, School of American Research, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

1985 Form, Content, and Function: Theory and Method in North American Rock Art Studies, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 8, M. B. Schiffer (ed.), pp. 237-278, Academic Press, Orlando.

SCHAAFSMA, POLLY and CURTIS F. SCHAAFSMA 1974 Evidence for the Origins of the Pueblo Kachina Cult as Suggested by South

western Rock Art, American Antiquity, 39, pp. 535-545. SCHIFFER, MICHAEL B.

1986 Radiocarbon Dates and the Old Wood Problem: The Case of the Hohokam Chronology, Journal of Archaeological Science, 13, pp. 13-30.

1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

SINGER, RONALD and JOHN WYMAN 1969 Radiocarbon Date for Two Painted Stones from a Coastal Cave in South

Africa, Nature, 224, pp. 508-510. SMITH, WATSON

1952 Kiva Mural Decoration at Awatovi and Kawaitka-a, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 37, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

SPETH, JOHN 1988 Do We Need Concepts like Mogollon, Anasazi, and Hohokam Today? A

Cultural Anthropological Perspective, Kiva, 53, pp. 201-204.


STEWARD, JUUAN H. 1929 Petroglyphs of California and Adjoining States, University of California

Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 24, Berkeley. STRANGE, WILUAM C.

1989 Tsagiglalal and Her Wicked Sister: A Study in Contexts, in Rock Art Papers, Vol. 6, K. Hedges (ed.), pp. 111-119, San Diego Museum Papers 24.

STRAUS, lAWRENCE GUY 1990 Underground Archaeology: Perspectives on Caves and Rockshelters, in

Arcluuological Method and 'I'heory, Vol. 2, M. B. Schiffer ( ed. ), pp. 255-304, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

11IACKERA Y, ANNE 1., J. FRANCIS 11IACKERA Y, PETER B. BEAUMONT, andJ.C. VOGEL

1981 Dated Rock Engravings from Wonderwerk Cave, South Africa, Science, 214, pp.64-67.

moMAS, DAVID H. and TRUDY C. mOMAS 1972 New Data on Rock Art Chronology in the Central Great Basin, Tebiwa, 15,

pp.64-69. 111RNER, C. G.

1963 Petroglyphs of 1M Glen Canyon Region, Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 38, Flagstaff.

WRPIN, SOL VEIG 1989 Rock Art and Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology: A Case Study from South

west Texas and Northern Mexico, Journal of Field Archaeology, 17, pp. 263-281.

V ASfOKAS, JOAN M. and ROMAS K. V ASTOKAS 1973 Sacred Art of 1M Algonkians: A Study of 1M Peterborough Petroglyphs,

Mansard Press, Peterborough, Canada. WALlACE, HENRY D.

1983 The Mortars, Petroglyphs, and Trincheras on Rillito Peak, Kiva, 48, pp.137-246.

WALlACE, HENRY D. and JAMES P. HOLMLUND 1986 Petroglyphs of 1M Picacho Mountains, South Central ArizoM, Institute for

American Research Anthropological Papers 6, Tucson, Arizona. WASLEY, WIU1AM A.

1962 A Ceremonial Cave on Bonita Creek, Arizona, American Antiquity, 27, pp. 380-394.

WASLEY, WILUAM A and E. B. SA YI..ES 1945 Radiocarbon Dates, in The Cochise Cultural Sequence in Southeastern

ArizoM, E. B. Sayles (ed.), pp. 44-57, Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona 42, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

WEISBROD, RICHARD L 1978 Rock Art Dating Methods, Journal of New World Archaeology, 2, pp. 1-8.

WEllMAN, KlAUS F. 1979 A Survey of North American Indian Rock Art, Akademische Druck und

V erlagsanstalt, Graz, Australia.


WOBST, H. MARTIN 1977 Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange, in For the Director: Research

Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, C. E. Oeland (ed.), pp. 317-342, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan Anthropological Papers 61, Ann Arbor.

WOODBURY, R. and E. ZUBROW 1979 Agricultural Beginnings, 2000 B.C.-A.D. 500, in Handbook of North

American /ndiJJns, Vol. 9: Southwest, A. Ortiz (ed.), pp. 43-60, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

YOUNG, M. JANE 1989 Signs from the Ancestors: Zuni Cultural Symbolism and Perceptions of Rock

Art, University of Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Direct reprint requests to:

Mary M. Farrell Coronado National Forest 300 West Congress Street Tucson,~ 85701

Dating Tom Ketchum: The Role of Chronometric Determinations in Rock Art Analysis

Documents

Transcript of Dating Tom Ketchum: The Role of Chronometric Determinations in Rock Art Analysis