A Survey of Archaeological Sites Near Guaymas, Sonora

8/13/2019 A Survey of Archaeological Sites Near Guaymas, Sonora

1/24

A Survey of Archaeological Sites near Guaymas, Sonora

Author(s): Thomas BowenSource: Kiva, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Oct., 1965), pp. 14-36Published by: Arizona Archaeological and Historical SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30247558.

Accessed: 19/01/2011 19:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aahs..

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Arizona Archaeological and Historical Societyis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to Kiva.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aahshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/30247558?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aahshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aahshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/30247558?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aahs


2/24

ARIZONA0 5,0 , IQPUENTA MMilesO ENAS CO - .,MNOGALES

SO NORAERMOSILS BahiaKino

CBAafUGYMASCALIORAGulffCalifornia UASAVE

FIG. 1. The Sonoran coastline. Dotted area indicates area of survey.

14


3/24

A SURVEY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITESNEAR GUAYMAS,SONORATHOMAS BOWEN

DEPT. OF ANTHROPOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADOABSTRACTAn archaeological urveyof theGuaymas,Sonoravicinity evealed 27 aboriginalhabitation itesrep-resenting t least threeoccupationpatterns.Thesitesyielded urface emains fmasonrytructures,pottery, round tone, ndchipped tone.A GypsumCave pointand a possibleBorax Lake pointwerecollected.This is substantially arther ouththaneither oint ypehas previously eenreported. hesites and artifacts ndicate longcontinuous ccu-pationoftheareaby peoplesnot n the mainstreamofMeso-Americannd Southwesternnfluence.

INTRODUCTIONNorthwestern exico has longbeen poorlyknownarchaeo-logically. ituatedbetween he ucrative omains fthe AmericanSouthwestand Middle America, t has received only sporadicattentionwhile extensivereconnaissance nd excavation werebeing conductedboth to the south and to the north.The needto understand hearchaeology f theregion yingbetweenthesetwo cultural provinceshas become increasingly cute. Lister(1960) presentsa summaryof the field work which has beenundertaken n northwesternMexico, therefore he details willnot be repeatedhere. Suffice t to say that the earliestseriousreportsof the ruins in this area are by Bandelier (1892) andLumholtz 1902).Thesereconnaissanceswerefollowedby nearly

a thirty ear gap,finally rokenby the studiesof such investi-gatorsas Amsden (1928) and Sauer and Brand (1931).The area of concern n this studycenters on the centralSonoran coast (Fig. 1), a regionwhichhas receivedeven lessattention than other portions of northwestern Mexico. To date,onlya few small surveys and no excavations have been conductedhere,although few small-scaleoperationshave provided omeinformationboutadjacentnorthernonora. Of the latter,Ezell(1954) has surveyedthe northwestern ortionof Papagueriaincluding orthwestonora,Gifford1946)hasnotedbrieflyomeshelldeposits earPuentoPefiasco,ndHaydenhas beencarryingonnumerous tudies n thePinacate (Ives 1964:37). To theeast,Trincherasremains have been surveyedby Hinton (1955) andexcavatedby Johnson 1963).15


4/24

Along the centralcoast propermost of the material whichhas been described s taken from ollectionsmade by amateursor by visitors see DiPeso 1955;Holzkamper1956;Owen 1956).Perhaps the earliestsurveysof the coast were those at Huata-bampo (Ekholm 1940) and one northofGuaymasconductedbyHaydenin 1941 (Hayden 1956).Duringthe 1950'sextensive ur-veyscoveringmuch of thecoast were conducted y Fay butwiththeexception fnumerous rief ommuniquesfor xample1955a,1955b, 956)the informationas remainedunpublished.No exca-vationhas been reported n the coast.The aims ofthepresent urveydiffer omewhatfrom hoseofprevious nvestigations. hereasthesurveyswhichhave beenreportedhave been geared toward sampling sites in variouslocalities longthecoast, t was thoughthatan intensive econ-naissance of a small area would yield a morecomplete, houghlocalized,pictureof the totalpatternof archaeologicalremainsand aboriginalhabitation. he area aroundGuaymaswas chosenforthesurveywhichwas conductedduring hesummer f 1964.This area containsvaried ecological zones which are readilyaccessible.The approach aken nconductinghefieldworkwas dictatedinpart bythescopeof thesurvey s well as bythe natureof thesites. The largequantities funworked lakesfrequently resenton the surface fthesiteswerelargely gnoredwhilea policyoftotal collectionwas employed orflakes howing ignsofretouch-ing. Due to theirweightand bulk, groundstone implements(manosandmetates)were not collectedbutwererecorded n thefield. ites are designatedherein the terms f thearchaeologicalsurveyrecordson file n theUniversityfColorado Museum.

ENVIRONMENTThe coastal regionof central Sonora is a stripofverydrydesertwhich receives ess than 10 inchesof rain annually (fordetailed treatment fthe SonoranDesert environment,ee Ives1964). This desertstripvaries from15 or 20 miles to about 45miles in width. Numerous mall mountainranges and isolatedupthrusts ot the area, which otherwise onsistsof old playas,lagoonbeds, beaches,and desertflats.Most of thearea is highlyeroded, utbynumerous rroyos Fig. 2).Whatlittlerain does occur fallsmostly n Julyand August.Temperaturesduringthe wintermonthsfrequently rop intothe 60xz'swhile in the summer they may soar above 1200 F. Ahumid westerlybreeze emanates fromthe ocean and blows almostcontinuously.

16


5/24

FIG. 2. View of the Sonoran coastal plain. The Pacific Ocean appears atthe upper left. White patches are shell deposits.The vegetation roundGuaymas is typicalof the SonoranDesert.Along the coastal flatsmesquitetrees,palo verde,and

greasewood omprisemuch of the large vegetation,ccompaniedby saguaro,ocotillo, rgan pipe,cholla,and occasionallypricklypearcacti.Variousgrassesoccur parsely nd inbunchesbetweenthelargerbushes. n thevalleysbetweenthe coastalmountains,as well as farthernland, hegrassespredominate nd the coverchangesto largelyopen plain. In small specific reas, such asalongthe edges ofprotectedagoons,mangrove reesflourish.The fauna oftheregion re moreplentifullyound ntheseathan on land,though mall rodents, abbits, izards,and a fewdeer,coyotes, nd mountain heep inhabitthe area. In, or asso-ciated with the sea, are numerousspecies of fish, ea turtles,dolphins, ccasionalwhales,abundant rabs, nd enormousnum-bersofclams. The sea also supports widevariety fbirds.The soil is generally lightcoloredsand overlying ocks ofbothsedimentarynd volcanicorigin.A fewmiles inlandfromthe coast the soil is fairly ertile ndmuchofthe nlandflat oun-try s now undercultivation,while cattlefrom ocal rancheriasgraze (rather, vergraze) the less fertile reas.SITESA total of27 siteswere locatedin the Guaymas area. Theyfall intofourbasic categories:coastal shellmiddens, pencamp-sites, helter ites,and village sites (see Figs. 3-6).

17


6/24

The coastal shell middens Fig. 3) are so designated ecauseof theirfrequently reatdepthand/or xtentofdeposited hell,and because of theirproximity o the ocean.Theyare differen-tiatedfrom pencampsitesforfourreasons.First, lthough hellis almostalways associated withopen camp sites,thesedeposits

FIG. 3. A portion of a shell midden.

are sparse comparedwith the densityof the coastal middens.Secondly, pencampsites are characterizedyfairlyargequan-titiesofflakes nd/or herdsappearingon the surface,whereastheseremainsare frequentlyparse or even absentat the shellmidden sites.Thirdly, hese differencesre associatedwiththedistanceof the site from he ocean. No sites in whichartifactsdominate he quantitiesofshell are foundon the coast,nor areanyinland sitescharacterizedymassiveaccumulations fshell.Lastly,charcoal s usuallythoroughlymixedwith theshellmid-dens while t doesnotappearas prevalent or as well preserved)at theopencampsites (Fig. 4).Shelter itesconsist f smalloverhangs fgenerallymoderatedepth. omearelocatedcloseto the coastwhileothers re severalmilesdistant.Although he shelters ontain hell,thesedepositsrangefrom cattered ebris oa deepfillwhichconsists rimarilyofshell.Generally, ewartifactsrefound n thesurfacentheseshelters, utgreat uantities fcharcoal reoften vident Fig.5).

18


7/24

FIG. 4. A typical open campsite.White areas in foreground re shelldeposits.

FIG. 5. Shelter sites. This one is located in the lower center portion ofthe hill on the right.

19


8/24

The fourth ategoryof sites is that of villages.These areinland itesand are identifiedythepresence f habitation truc-tures.One ofthesitesrecorded ppearsto have been little morethan a series ofmasonrywindbreaks. he remainingwo, n con-trast, ppear to have been substantialvillages,the largestcon-taining pproximately0 rooms, nd bothpossessing low wallpartially ncirclinghe site (Fig. 6). All threevillagesare locatedonthetopsof hillsofferingxcellentviews in all directions. ir-tuallynoartifactualmaterialwas found t twoofthesites (MEX:SON:16 and 18) thoughFay (1955a) collected argenumbersofboth herds ndchipped tone rtifactsrom heformer ite whichhe designates53:F-15. The remainingvillage (MEX: SON:17)produced nly fewflakes nda large,grooved prighttone labbearingpetroglyphs see OtherRemains).The distributionf ites nd artifact roups sgiven nTable 1.

FIG. 6. A portionof a village site. The walls of several rooms appear inthe background.

20


9/24

TABLE 1. Distributionof Site Types and Artifacts.Chipped GroundSites Stone Stone Sherds

Shellmiddens8)MEX:SON:1 - - -14 X X X20 X - X23 X -24 X - X25 X - X27 X - -

Open campsites (11)MEX:SON:4 X X X5 X - X6 X X7 X X X8 X X X9 X X X10 X - -11 X X15 X - X19 X21 X - XShelters (5)MEX:SON:3 X X X12 X X13 X2226 - - XVillages (3)MEX:SON:16 X X reportedFay1955a)17 X18

STRUCTURESThe threevillage sitesare characterized y the presenceofmasonry tructures. hese structures re of two types,roomsand extendedwalls. The roomsat sitesMEX:SON:7 and 18 arepresentlyittlemore thanrockpiles, ut manyof the rooms atMEX: SON: 16 stand onemeterhigh.Here theroomsare mostlyrectangular,veraging bout 2.5m. long and about 2.0 m. wide.

The walls are composedof unshapedstoneblocks of moderatesize, at least double coursed,and with no evidence of mortarremaining bove the present ground evel. Some of the roomwalls show indications f innerand outercourses ofstonewitha rubblefill.Wall thicknesses verage 0.5 m.Most of the rooms at MEX: SON:16 appear to be isolatedindividualunitsalthough hereare three doubleroomsand oneunit of at least fourconnectedrooms. One square roomat thesouthend of the site abuts a round structurewhichappears tobe partially ubterranean.t is impossible o ascertainfrom hesurface ndicationswhether hesestructures iffer rom herec-tangularrooms in otherrespects.The orientation f the sitefollows hatofthehilltopon which t was built. ts axis lies ina north-southine.21


10/24

The roomsat the tworemaining illage sitesare similartothoseat MEX:SON: 16,but at bothsites the roomsare in sucha state of disrepairthat no furtherurface nformationan beobtainedfrom hem.Two ofthevillagesites,MEX: SON: 16 and 17,have extendedwalls partially urroundinghe rooms.The walls are similar nconstruction o themasonry f the rooms,being mostlydoublecoursed,built ofunshapedblocks, nd lackingevidenceofmor-tar.Wall thicknesses re comparable.At both sites the greatestexpanseofwall occurson thewest sideof theroom luster, urv-ing to partiallyenclose the north and south ends. There is notraceof a wall on the easternboundary feither ite.The function f thesewalls is notknown.Two similar wall

systemswere noted n theGuaymas area, neitherofwhichareassociatedwith otherculturalremains.One is obviously fencedelineatingthe boundarybetween two rancherias, houghthepurposeofthe other s less clear. Both walls follow heridgelineofthehills on whichtheystand. t is most ikelythat both arerecent and merely erve as fences. t is possiblethat the wallsat thetwosites also served as fences, erhapsto excludepeople.Since there s no evidence oftheir use in agricultural erracingandsince the ocations fthetwositescouldbe considered rotec-tive, t s possible hat he walls were builtfordefensive urposes.

LITHIC MATERIALWithfive xceptionsworked tone s present t each site andin manysites it comprises he bulk of the artifactualmaterial.Whilechipped tonepredominates, few sites contained izeablequantities fground tonetools.The former re fashioned lmost

exclusivelyfrombasalt and obsidian, lthougha few flakesofquartzand chert, longwith a fragmentaryinkquartzchopperand a GypsumCave projectilepointof chert,were found.Thegroundstone is made of basalt and rhyolite.The following nalysis s not intended o represent defini-tive studyof the materialsbut,more in line with the originalaimsofthesurvey,t is intended s a summary f thetypes nddistributionf the stonetools of the area.CHIPPED STONEProjectilePoints and Knives

The artifactswhich are normallyclassified as projectile points in theliterature are often similar to the implementsreferredto as knives orblades. Frequentlythe major distinction s based on size. The difficulties22


11/24

with functionalclassifications re obvious. Rather than wrestlewith arbi-trary distinctions, his analysis follows the scheme originated by Kidder(1932), where all artifacts esembling projectile point n form re lumpedtogethern a category fprojectile pointsand knives, regardlessofsize. Theclassification sed here is based on Haury's typological cheme (1950: 261).The Guaymas area is not prolific n points and knives. Undoubtedlythis is partially due to thehigh influxof touristsvisitingthe area as wellas to the local inhabitantswho manifestno difficultyn recognizing arrow-heads. Consequently, though points and knives were conscientiouslysought, nly37 fragmentswere recoveredof whichonly 16 were sufficientlycompleteto permitdefinite lassification.These are given below:Number ofType Characteristics Specimens1 No stem, leaf shaped, straight base 12 No stem, eaf shaped, concave base......................---------------.....3 No stem, triangular, traightbase--------------~~..-...---.....4 No stem,triangular,concave base...........------------------.....5 Stem narrowerthanblade, stemtaperedand pointed . 16 Stem narrowerthan blade, stem tapered and convex.. 17 Stem narrower than blade, stem parallel-sided andconvex 28 Stem narrower hanblade, stemexpanding and convex 19 Stemnarrower hanblade, stemexpandingand straight 410 Stemnarrower hanblade, stemexpandingand concave 211 Stem narrower than blade, stem parallel-sided andconcave 1All the above stemmedpointsand knives have rounded tangsexcept type 11,which has sharp lateral tangs.

A few of the specimens are worthyof further emarks.The artifactlisted as type5 (Fig. 7e) is an excellent example of a GypsumCave point.It is the only specimenof the entire collection of pointswhich is made ofa material other than obsidian or basalt, in this case chert.The projectedlength s 6.3 cm. It was recoveredfrom he surfaceofa site containingbothpotteryand two microlithicpoint specimens of undoubtedly late origin.The association,however, is presumablyfortuitous.The twomicrolithic ointsare bothbasalt. One is leaf shaped and hasa highlyconcave base (Fig. 7b). Of the pointswhich lack a stemonly oneis large. Its projected length s 5.6 cm. (Fig. 7a).One of the type 10 specimens is serrated (Fig. 7j). It is very smalland neatlyfashionedof obsidian. The artifact abelled type 6 (Fig. 7f) isa well-made pointwhich had apparentlypossessed a longerstemwhichhadprobablybrokenoff,eaving a very small stub which was then retouched.Anotherpoint,not typedabove because it lacks the stem,nonethelessshould be noted due to its fine resemblanceto the Borax Lake type point.It closely parallels the point described as an excellent example in thereportof the Borax Lake site (Harrington1948: 36).On thewhole these artifacts re highlyvariable in form nd are oftencrudelyflaked. n some cases onlythe edges of a face show retouching, hemajorityof the surface retains the original flake scar. Many are difficultto classifybecause each edge could satisfythe requirementsof two dif-ferentcategories. Others,however, display a great amount of care andprecisionin theirmanufacture.The pointsand knivesare evenlydividedbetween obsidian and basalt,excepting the deviant Gypsum Cave point of chert. Lengths range from

23


12/24

I

/ I, ;h A. I I g

a e1 II I

Ir Ior IgII

kFIG. 7. Projective point and knife types. Specimens a-e, types 1-5; f-i,types 6-9; j-k, types 10 and 11, possible Borax Lake point:1. Length of jis 2.3 cm.Drawings made by Stan Rhine.

2.0 cm. (this specimenwith a widthof 0.7 cm.) to projected engths xceed-ing 7.5 cm.ChoppersTwo artifactswere found whichmay be classed as choppers.One is aroughly ircular,wedge shaped piece of basalt havinga maximumdiameterof 12.7 cm. The otherspecimen,which is too fragmentary o determine tsoriginal dimensions, s made of pink quartz. Both are percussion flakedand both were found at MEX: SON: 14, an open campsite.

24


13/24

RoundedScrapersTwenty-fivechipped artifacts are approximately circular in form.They may be divided into two general groups,those often referredto asdiscoidals, ovoids, or turtle-backscrapers, and a rounded but irregularclass.Of the 13 discoidals,fourhave been flakedon both faces. Most havebeen shaped around the entireperimeter hough n most cases the flakingis well executed on only about one-half of the circumference,ndicatingthat only a semi-circular edge was sought. Three specimens of this typeare basalt, the remainderobsidian. The average diameter is about 2.5 cm.Four of the 10 irregular rounded scrapers are basalt. In general,these artifactsare quite variable both in overall quality of manufactureand in the extent to which the edge has been retouched.

Side ScrapersThe most numerous of the scrapers are side scrapers which displayretouching long a single longitudinal dge or,in fourcases, along oppositeedges. There are 39 such artifacts f which 16 are basalt and the remainderobsidian. They are subdivided into four classes: double edged of variableshape, and single edged triangular,rectangular,or irregular.Two of thedouble-edged scrapers are roughlytriangular,one 4.6 cm. and the other7.2 cm. in length.The other two double-edged scrapers are of intermediatelength.One ofthesehas curvededges,while the other s rectangular.Theirlengthsare 6.2 cm. and 6.3 cm. respectively.The remaining ide scrapersare single-edgedand one group possessesa roughlytriangularform. These range in lengthfrom2.3 cm. to 4.6 cm.The workmanship on these obsidian scrapers is poor and retouching isonly sporadic.Five of the 11 rectangular single-edged scrapers are obsidian andbare basalt. In this group there is a substantial amount of variation inboth quality and size, which ranges from2.5 cm. to 8.1 cm. in length.The sixteen irregularspecimensare highlyasymmetrical.They sharein commononly a definite etouched ongitudinal edge. Nine are obsidian.Lengths vary from1.8 cm. to 8.2 cm.

End ScrapersFourteen artifacts re classified as end scrapers and all but four areobsidian.Althoughvariation s again great theyall possess a readilyidenti-fiableend which is finely etouched. Seven of the specimenshave a thinlytapered end which resembles a chisel while the ends on the rest are pur-poselybluntand thick.One memberofthisgroup s retouched on bothends.Side-endScrapers

This class is so named because retouching s prominenton at leastone side and one end. They are eithertriangularor rectangularand of 18specimens 11 are obsidian. They may be further lassified as indicated:Number ofShape SpecimensTriangular,one side retouched 6Parallel-sided,one side retouched----...................-------------..Parallel-sided,bothsides retouched..........--------......---....---....---..

25


14/24

Specialized ScrapersFour obsidian scraper-like artifactspossess rather specialized andfinelychipped concave edges. These implementsare sometimesreferredto as arrow straighteners r spokeshaves. The concavity is in all casesexcellentlyflaked. It occurs on the end of two of the specimens and on

the side of the othertwo. One of the latter has two such concavitieswhilethe other n additionpossesses a point,rendering t a graver as well.Gravers

Five obsidian gravers were recovered. They are all small, rangingfrom 1.5 cm. to 4.1 cm. in length. Excepting one specimen,neither thewhole artifact nor the point itself had been carefullyworked. The onewell-made graver had been reworkedfrom the brokenbasal portionof aprojectile point. The broken point apparently had rounded tangs, anexpanding stemwider than the blade, and a concave base. The sharpenedpointwhich was added to convert the tool into a graver is shortand notcarefullymade.Blades

Eleven chipped basalt artifactswhich have a sharpened edge areclassifiedseparately as blades. They are not included among the scrapersbecause only scantyretouching, f any, is evidentalong the edges. Insteadof retouching, hese implementsutilize naturally sharp percussion-flakededges for cuttingsurfaces. There is no uniformityn the form of thesetools. The only commonfeature s evidence of use. Lengths vary from 2.8cm. to 5.8 cm. It is perhaps noteworthy hat all of the blades were foundat an open campsite (MEX: SON: 14) with the exception of two whichoccurred at MEX: SON: 23, a shell midden.SUMMARY OF CHIPPED STONE

The distribution f chipped stone artifacts s tabulated inTable 2. It mustbe emphasized hat n somecases a particularlyrich iteyielded largeproportionf theartifactsfa giventype.TABLE 2. Percent of Total Number of Artifactsof Each Type Occurringat Each Type of Site.

Shell OpenMiddens Campsites Shelters VillagesProjectile oints nd knives 55% 45% - -Choppers 100% - -Rounded crapers 55% 40% 5% -Side scrapers 59% 37% 4% -End scrapers 75% 25% - -Side-end crapers 69% 19% 12% -Specialized crapers 25% 75% - -TOTAL CRAPERS 61% 34% 5% -Gravers 67% - 33% -Blades 100% - - -

26


15/24

It is difficulthereforeospeakinterms faverages.For instance,MEX: SON:14 supplied the following proportions f artifactsrecovered:end scrapers, 2%; and side-end crapers, 6%; whileMEX:SON:23 provided53% of the side scrapers.Furthermore,bothof thesesites are shellmiddens,whichundoubtedly xplainstheconsistentlyigher otalfrequency f thesetypesof artifactsamongthe shell middensthanamongthe open campsites.Con-sequentlyTable 3 has been constructed o presentthe artifactfrequenciesn sucha way as to avoidpossiblemisinterpretationsfrom his small sampleproblem.TABLE 3. Chipped toneArtifactss a Percent f All ChippedArtifactsat thatTypeof Site.

Shell OpenMiddens Campsites Shelters VillagesProjectile points and knives 21.4% 31.1% --Choppers 2.4% -- -Rounded scrapers 13.1% 19.1% 20.0% -Side scrapers 22.6% 28.7% 20.0%End scrapers 10.7% 7.1% --Side-end scrapers 13.1% 7.1% 40.0% -Specialized scrapers 1.2% 7.1% - -TOTAL SCRAPERS 60.7% 69.1% 80.0% -Gravers 2.4% - 20.0% -Blades 13.1% - - -TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% -

Table 4 expresses heartifact roups s percents f the totalnumberof chippedstone artifacts ecoveredfrom ll the sites.It is evident fromthis table that projectile points and knives werefrequent implements fromboth the shell middens and the opencampsites, constituting 3.7,:/ f all chipped tools recovered. None-theless they can hardly rival the tremendousnumber of scraperspresent,which comprises 63.9 . of all the chipped artifacts.

TABLE 4. Artifact Types as Percent cf Total Chipped StcnoRecovered: N --131.Shell OpenMiddens Campsites Shelters Villages

Projectile points and knives 13.8% 9.9% - -Choppers 1.5% -Scrapers 38.6% 22.2% 3.1% -Gravers 1.5% - 0.7% -Blades 8.4% - - -

Table 3 combines ll thechipped tone rtifactsound t eachtypeof siteand thenexpresses ach typeofartifact s a percent27


16/24

of this total.This eliminates he bias caused by the occurrenceof a disproportionateumberof artifacts f one typeat a par-ticular iteand allows thepercent igureso be directly ompared.A number fminordifferencesn artifact requencyan be seen,but mostof these are of suchslightmagnitude hattheymaybespurious.Of possiblesignificance,hough, re thefigures or theblades and the projectilepoints.The absence of the former topen campsites s noteworthy,s is the occurrence falmost50%'morepoints nopen campsites han nthe middens. hedifferencein total frequency f all the scrapers s small, thoughthere ssome slightindicationthat specific ypes tend to occur morefrequentlyt specific ypesof sites.Thus the occupantsof theopen campsites eemed to have displayed slightpreference orroundedscrapersand side scrapersover the otherkinds,andmade moreof thesethandid the nhabitants f theshell middens.The data forshelterand village sites is too incomplete orassessment.

GROUND STONEManos and/ormetatesoccur at nine sites ncluding ne shellmidden, ix opencampsites,ndtwoshelters.n addition, everalgrindingmplementswere found whichlacked further ulturalassociation.Manos occur at all nine sites.They are all one-handed ndmade of basalt or rhyolite,veraging12 cm. long,10 cm. wide,and 3 cm. thick.They are quite homogenousn bothshape anddimensions.Mostof the manosare unifacial.Bifacialmanos occurat onlythree ites, ll of whichare opencampsitesyielding ottery,nd,in two cases, unifacialmanos as well. It is possible that thesebifacial manosoccurprimarilyn later times.Metates re found t onlyfour ites.Two of theseare shelterswhiletheremainder re open campsites acking eramicremains.They are all shallow basin typesand, exceptingone specimenfrom campsite, heyare unifacial.The twometateswhich ackother ssociation re similar;however, ne of these s bifacial.Like the manosthe metatesform fairlyhomogenous roup.Their dimensions verage approximately0 cm. n length, 0 cm.in width, and 2.5 to 5.0 cm. in thickness. They are made of thesame materials as the manos.The distributionof ground stone is summarized in Table 5.

28


17/24

TABLE . Number f SitesYieldingGround tone Artifacts.Manos Metatesbasin)

Site type Unifacial Bifacial Unifacial BifacialShell middens 1Open campsites 4 3 1 1Shelters 1 - 2Villages - - -

CERAMIC MATERIALThe potsherds ollected from 15 sites sometimesexceededthe numberof stonetools found at thesesites.However,at nosite could sherdsbe said to occurabundantly.As withthestone,theobjecthere s tobrieflyutline hepottery ound nd indicate

its distribution.The pottery f the Sonorancoasthas never been givenmorethan cursoryand superficialtreatment. t has mainly beendescribed s a crude utilitarian rowntype,probablyrelated tothevariousbrown nd buff lainwaresfound n thesurroundingareas.The mostobvious classificationan be made on the basis ofthickness. ome of the pottery s extremely hin and is some-timesreferred o as eggshell pottery.This pottery omprisesa characteristicarietywhichaverages2.5mm. nthickness, eredesignated s TypeA.TypeA is a highlyhomogenous ariety. t utilizesa temper-ing agentofveryfine-grainedand consistingmainlyof quartz.This temper s used in very large quantities.The color of thistype varies fromred-brown to light tan with some sherds dis-playing gray fireclouds. Both the exterior and the interiormaybe eitherrough and grainyor polished. Interiorsfrequentlyshowsmoothingmarks probably produced by strokingwith grass orleaves. Cores are eitherdark grayor tan. Type A sherds are fairlyhard and the curvatures indicate that very large vessels werefabricated of this thin pottery.The otherpottery ypesare considerablythicker than Type A.TypeB ranges nthickness rom to 12mm. ts temper s a verycoarse,mainly uartz, andwhich s also used ingreatquantities.The colorrange s similar o thatofTypeA. Almost ll thesherdsof thistypeare roughon both the exterior nd the interior venthough moothingmarks re frequentnd a few sherdsfrom neof the shelters MEX: SON: 3) showvague signsofpolishing.ngeneralthistype s durable,but definitelytilitarian.TypeC sharesmostof the characteristicsfTypeB but dif-ferson two counts.First, t utilizes a fine-grainedand for its

29


18/24

tempering gent. Secondly,sherds are frequently olished.Inthickness t is roughly imilarto Type B but does not exceed8 mm.ThecoresofbothTypesB andC maybe tan,gray, r black.TypesD and E are substantially ifferentrom heprecedingtypes.Bothtypestendtowardextremethickness, angingfrom5 to 10 mm.but averagingabout 9 mm. The tempering gentappearstobe a mixture fcoarsesand,organicmaterial, nd pos-siblyground herds.Thecoresvaryfromightgray oblack.Bothtypesare polished.Type E differs romType D by theuse of athinredslip.Threedecorated herdswere found.They are badlyweath-ered specimensof TrincherasPurple-on-rednd are probablyintrusive.

A fewrim herdswererecovered. ypeA vesselsutilizeplainroundedrims which are slightly hinned n the exterior.Threevarieties of rims are associated with Type C, one of which isidenticalto the TypeA rim. A secondvarietypossessesa morebluntor squarededge and lacks thinning. he thirdformhas alarge outwardflangewitha roundededge and no thinning,ndoccurson the vesselnotedbelow.Onerimstyle s associatedwithTypeD sherds.This is a squared edgehavinga slightly xtendedexterior ortionwhichcreates very mallexterior lange. hereis somethinningrom heexterior ide.Norimsherdswere foundforpottery ypesB or E.The TypeC rim sherdswiththelarge flange eservespecialattention s theyrepresentboutone-third f therim of a vessel.Thisvesselis apparentlyn olla. The diameter f therim s esti-mated to have been 11.9cm.whilethemaximum iameter fthebodymusthave exceeded 30 cm. It is likelythatthe vessel wasmoreor less globular n shape. It was found t MEX: SON:3.SUMMARY OF CERAMIC MATERIAL

To summarize, ivemainvarieties fpottery ave beendiffer-entiated.Due to the smallsherdsampleand poorstate ofpreser-vationofmanyofthe sherds, hisclassifications offeredolelyas a temporarymeansofdescribinghepotterywhichwas found,until,hopefully, detailedanalysisofa largecollections under-taken.TypeA isthemostdistinctiveariety. ypeC maybe thoughtofas similar oTypeA except n thickness. ypeB is essentiallya poorer grade of Type C. Types D and E differfrom the othersmost notably in temper, and differbetween each other by thepresence of a slip on Type E.

30


19/24

Table 6 gives the sherdcountsfor each site.Thoughsherdsoccurredn fartoofewnumbers or eliablequantitativenalysis,a fewqualitativeremarksmight entatively e made. Type C ismostnumerous n grossquantity utis apparently estricted ri-marilyto open campsites,where it is the most frequent ype.TypeB seemstobe somewhatmorebroadlydistributed,ccurringbothat open campsites nd at shell middens.Type A is foundonlyat sites which also containbothTypes B and C. Althoughthis includesonlyfoursites, t maybe significanthat all foursites are quite large,perhaps ndicating lengthy ccupation.

TABLE 6. Distributionof Pottery Types.Type HistoricalSites A B C D E indicatedyX

Shell middensMEX:SON:1 - -2 - - - - - -14 19 29 8 - - -20 - 1 -- 1 -23 - - - - -24 - - - 6* - -25 - 3 -27 - - - - - -

Open campsitesMEX:SON:4 11 4 18 19 8* X5 - - 2 1 -6 - - - - - -7 - - 2 1 - -8 - - 5 - -9 4 3 1 - -10 - -11 - -15 - - 1 - -19 - -21 5 2 21 17* -SheltersMEX:SON:3 - 8* 10* -12 - - - -13 - - -22 - - - - - X26 - - - - 2 -

VillagesMEX:SON:16 - - - - -17 - - - - - X18 -TOTALS 39 50 68 45 10 -Asterisksndicate hatmostof thesesherds omprised singlevessel.

31


20/24

OTHER REMAINSAt the easternedge of MEX: SON: 17,a large upright toneslab was foundwhichbears obviousindications fhavingbeenworked (Fig. 8). The slab is approximately .0 m. high,0.7 m.

wide at itsgreatestwidth, nd 15cm.thick. t has a broadgroovearound heupperportionwhichprobablywas initiated ynaturalagenciesand augmented y pecking.On the owerportion f oneface of the slab, below the groove, number of pecked petro-glyphsare visible.They consist of several straight nd curvedlines, omeconnected, uttheydo notresemble nything eadilyidentifiable.The slab presently tandsupright n sharp contrast o therest ofthe structurest thesite.Since it is poorly upported ndnotverystable, tmayhave beenrighted nly recently.

FIG. 8. Uprightslab at MEX: SON: 17.32


21/24

CONCLUSIONSIt is a difficultask to convert rtifactsndruins nto humanbeingsand cultures.To do so from n archaeological urvey nan area whereno temporal equence has been formulated,heobstacles are substantiallymore formidable.Nonetheless t isappropriate o make such comments nd draw such conclusionsas are warrantedby the extentof the fieldwork,tentative ndgeneralas theymaybe.Firstofall,theGuaymas oasthas beenvisitedby largenum-bers ofaboriginal eoplesovera longperiodof time.The evidencefor his restsontwofactors: hegreat depth nd extentofmanyofthe shell middens nd the presenceof artifactswhich are of

typesthought o be both late and early.This last refers peci-fically o the GypsumCave pointand the possibleBorax Lakepointrecoveredduringthe course of the survey.The presenceof theseartifactsmay also indicate the earlyhuntingof largeranimals than exist in the area at present, way of lifewhichobviouslydid notpersist.On thebasis of both thenatureof the sites and thedistribu-tion of theartifacts,tmaybe permissible omake someconjec-turesconcerninghe subsistence f the formernhabitants. hefrequency f sites and the extent of the sites diminish s oneproceeds nland from he coast. This changedoes not seemto becorrelatedwith a pronouncedchange fromone site type toanother, ut it shouldbe notedthatall of the village sites aresituatedat substantialdistancesfrom he coast. Certainartifactchangesare,however, onsistentwithdistance from he sea. Amarkeddifferencexists n thefrequency fprojectilepointsatthe differentypes of sites,the artifact ollectionsfromopencampsitesyielding greater roportionfpoints hanthosefromthe shell middens.A slightdifferenceccurs in the frequencyof scrapervarietiesbetweenthese two types of sites.Roundedscrapers nd side scrapers eem to have been preferredvertheothertypesbythe inhabitants f the inlandcampsites. t is alsonoteworthyhat isolated projectilepointsare more frequentlyfoundat somedistancefrom he coast.Manos and basin metates re almosttotally bsentfrom heshellmiddens,while theyoccurquite numerously t several oftheopen campsites. ottery s found n somewhatgreaterquan-tity t theopen campsites,whereTypeC seems to have been thefavored variety.This evidence suggests at least three habitation patterns forthe area. One, characterized by the shell middens, is quite logi-

33


22/24

cally concernedprimarilywithobtaining hellfish nd perhapsotherkindsof seafood.A secondpattern, revalent arthernland,carries the earmarks of a small game huntingand gatheringexistence.Thepresence fvillagesitespresentsomethingf an enigma.Nowhere is evidence of prehistoric griculture een, yet it isdifficulto imagine hat a fairlyargesedentary opulation ouldhave been supportedby the quantitiesof small game and seedplantswhichexist in the area today.Nor is there evidence atthesesitesofanysortof arge-scaledependence ponthe sea forfood.Since these sites have been stripped lean of surfacearti-facts, ittle nformationan be providedby thissurvey.Sheltersites, s faras can be determined,re no morethanprotectedhell middens rsheltered ampsites. ince,again, ittleartifactualmaterialremains on the surface of these sheltereddeposits, t is notprofitableo speculatewidelyon theirsignifi-cance. Sufficet to say that shelteroccupation n other culturesoften receded hebuilding f tructuresntheopen.Withrespectto the village sites,this may also have been the case in theGuaymasarea.The problemof chronologys at presentunresolvable.Thearea has probablybeen occupiedcontinuouslyince the timeofEarlyMan.Even contemporaryccupation s documented y thepresenceofconsiderablehistorical ebrisat several sites.A substantial mount f variation xistsbothamongthe sitestakenas archaeologicalunitsand amongthe artifactswhich areassociatedwiththesesites.Therefore,t is natural o askwhethertheoccupation fthevarioustypesofsiteswas bya singlegroupofpeople at differentoints n time,whether he typesofoccu-pationrepresent ifferentroupsat the same time,or whetherbothpossibilitiesmightbe correct. t is also worthconsideringwhether r not the shell middens ould simplybe the accumula-tionsof a peoplewho characteristicallyived further nlandbutventured o the coast for occasional clambakes, s manyof thelocal Mexicans do today.A furtheruestionmarkcenters roundthe identity f theinhabitantsnd what connectionsheymaintainedwith culturalgroups othesouth, heeast,and the north. he Guaymas regionwas inhabited ya groupquiteremoved ulturally rom heGilaRiverHohokam and the Guasave traditions.But can a relationship o theDesertHohokamand the trin-cheras buildersto thenorthbe asserted?When Meso-Americanculture elements were diffusingnorthward toward the AmericanSouthwest, some of these traits became incorporatedinto the way

34


23/24

of life of these coastalpeoples.But weremanyelementsfranklyrejected or were the adopted elements the only ones whichreached thecoast,via a routeofdiffusionypassing hisarea?These questions annotyetbe answered, ut it is hopedthatexcavationswill eventuallyhelp clarify ome of theseproblems.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer s indebted to several individuals withoutwhose help theproject would have been considerablymore difficult nd far less pleasur-able. Permitsfor the work were granted by Sr. Roman Pina Chan of theInstitutoNacional de Antropologia e Historia. Leslie J. Kulhanek andJanetK. Lind assisted the fieldwork,while Dr. David A. BreternitzandJ. Richard Ambler donated special assistance throughout he duration cfthe project.

REFERENCESAmsden,Monroe1928 Archaeological Reconnaissance in Sonora. Southwest MuseumPapers, No. 1 .Los Angeles.Bandelier, A. F.1892 Final Report of Investigations Among the Indians cf the UnitedStates, Part II. Papers of the Archaeological InstituteofAmerica,American Series IV. Cambridge.DiPeso, Charles C.1955 Two Cerro Guamas Clovis Fluted Points from Sonora, Mexico.The Kiva, Vol. 21, Nos. 1-2, pp. 13-15. Tucson.Ekholm,Gordon F.194.0 The Archaeologyof Northern nd Western Mexico. In The Mayaand Their Neighbors, G. Vaillant, editor. D. Appleton-CenturyCompany. New York.Ezell, Paul H.1954 An Archaeological Survey ofNorthwestern apagueria. The Kiva,Vol. 19,Nos. 2-4, pp. 1-26. Tucson.Fay, George E.1955a A Preliminary Report of an Archaeological Survey in SouthernSonora, Mexico; 1953. Transactions of the Kansas Academy cfScience, Vol. 58, No. 4, pp. 566-87.1955b Prepottery,Lithic Complex from Sonora, Mexico. Science, Vol.121,No. 3152, pp. 777-8. Washington.1956 AnotherCruciformArtifact rom onora. AmericanAntiquity,Vol.21, No. 4, pp. 410-1. Salt Lake City.Gifford, . W.1946 Archaeology of the Puento Pefiasco Region, Sonora. AnmericanAntiquity,Vol. 11,No. 4, pp. 215-21. Salt Lake City.Harrington,Mark R.1948 An Ancient Site at Borax Lake, California. Southwest MuseumPapers, No. 16. Los Angeles.Haury, Emil W.1950 The Stratigraphy nd Archaeology ofVentana Cave, Arizona.Uni-versityof Arizona Press, Tucson, and Universityof New MexicoPress, Albuquerque.

35


24/24

Hayden, Julian D.1956 Notes on theArchaeologyof the Central Coast of Sonora, Mexico.The Kiva, Vol. 21, Nos. 3-4, pp. 19-22. Tucson.Hinton,Thomas B.1955 A Survey ofArchaeological Sites in theAltar Valley, Sonora. TheKiva, Vol. 21, Nos. 1-2, pp. 1-12. Tucson.Holzkamper,Frank M.1956 ArtifactsfromEstero Tastiota, Sonora, Mexico. The Kiva, Vol. 21,Nos. 3-4, pp. 12-9. Tucson.Ives, Ronald L.1964 The Pinacate Region, Sonora, Mexico. Occasional Papers of theCalifornia of Sciences, No. 47. San Francisco.Johnson,Alfred E.1963 The TrincherasCulture of NorthernSonora. American Antiquity,Vol. 29,No. 2, pp. 174-86.Salt Lake City.Kidder, A. V.

1932 The Artifacts f Pecos. Yale UniversityPress, New Haven.Lister, Robert H.1960 Historyof Archaeological Fieldwork in NorthwesternMexico. ElPalacio, Vol. 67, No. 4, pp. 118-24.Sante Fe.Lumholtz, Carl1902 UnknownMexico. Charles Scribner's Sons. New York.Owen, Roger C.1956 Some Clay Figurines and Seri Dolls from Coastal Sonora. TheKiva, Vol. 21, Nos. 3-4, pp. 1-11. Tucson.Sauer, Carl and Donald D. Brand

1931 Prehistoric ettlements f Sonora withSpecificReferenceto Cerrosde Trincheras.University f CaliforniaPublicationsin Geography,Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 67-148.Berkeley.

Documents

A Survey of Archaeological Sites Near Guaymas, Sonora