Petroglyphs in the Horseshoe
Reservoir Area of the
Lower Verde Valley, Central Arizona
Henry D. Wallace
Report Submitted to
Statistical Research, Inc.
P.O. Box 31865
Tucson, Arizona 85751
Center for Desert Archaeology
3975 North Tucson Boulevard, Tucson, Arizona 85716 ! October 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Petroglyph Recording Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Variables Coded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Photography and Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
3
5
8
RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The Crash Landing Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Nearby Petroglyph Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Horseshoe Mesa, AZ U:2:27/01-187 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Site AZ U:2:96/01-259 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Site AZ U:2:188/01-73 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Site Survey Data for Other Nearby Sites with Petroglyphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
REGIONAL COMPARISONS, STYLE, AND CULTURAL IDENTITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Horseshoe Reservoir Area Rock Art Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparisons with the Phoenix Basin and Beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
16
17
20
ROCK ART FUNCTION AND INTERPRETATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
REFERENCES CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
Map of the Horseshoe Reservoir area, showing the location of petroglyph sites
visited during this study (map prepared by Statistical Research, Inc.).
Figure 2.
Coding index for metric data on boulders and panels.
Figure 3.
Coding index for petroglyph design element data.
Figure 4.
Petroglyph design element categories and coding numbers.
Figure 5.
Coding form for LVAP petroglyphs (boulder/panel data).
Figure 6.
Coding form for LVAP petroglyphs (Class II data).
Figure 7.
Petroglyph design elements on Panel A-1a, Crash Landing site.
Figure 8.
Petroglyph design elements on Panels A-1b and A-1c, Crash Landing site.
Figure 9.
Petroglyph design elements on Panel A-2a, Crash Landing site.
Figure 10.
Petroglyph design elements on Panel IS-1a, Crash Landing site.
Figure 11.
Petroglyph design elements on Panel IS-1b, Crash Landing site.
Figure 12.
Petroglyph design elements on Panel IS-1c, Crash Landing site.
Figure 13.
Petroglyph design elements on Panel IS-2a, Crash Landing site.
Figure 14.
Petroglyph design elements on Panel IS-2b, Crash Landing site.
Figure 15.
Petroglyph design elements on Panel IS-2c, Crash Landing site.
Figure 16.
Photograph of petroglyph Panel A-1a, Crash Landing site.
Figure 17.
Photograph of petroglyph Panel A-2a, Crash Landing site.
Figure 18.
Photograph of petroglyph Panel IS-1a, Crash Landing site.
Figure 19.
Photograph of petroglyph Panel IS-2-a, Crash Landing site.
Figure 20.
View to the northeast from the top of Horseshoe Mesa toward Horseshoe Dam. The
Crash Landing site is visible on either side of the large road cut at top left of center.
iv
Figure 21.
View to the southeast from the top of Horseshoe Mesa toward site AZ U:2:188 on
ridge tip flanked by road in left center.
Figure 22.
Large,complex petroglyph panel at the Horseshoe Mesa site.
Figure 23.
Large,complex petroglyph panel at the Horseshoe Mesa site.
Figure 24.
Connected scroll petroglyph designs at the Horseshoe Mesa site.
Figure 25.
Anthropomorphic and zoomorphic petrogoyph designs at the Horseshoe Mesa site.
Figure 26.
Zoomorphic petroglyph designs the Horseshoe Mesa site.
Figure 27.
Petroglyph designs the Horseshoe Mesa site. Panel with large deer and adjacent
vandalized panel.
Figure 28.
Petroglyph designs the Horseshoe Mesa site. Note hand-holding anthropomorphs
to the right.
Figure 29.
Petroglyph designs at the Horseshoe Mesa site. Probable scene with dancing
anthropomorphs, unusually place zoomorphic figures, and sheep horns to far right.
Figure 30.
Petroglyph designs on panel atop the Horseshoe Mesa site, adjacent to rock-walled
enclosure.
Figure 31.
View from masonry compound and petroglyph site AZ U:2:96 east-northeast
toward Horseshoe Mesa site.
Figure 32.
Petroglyph boulder with grinding slip on top at site AZ U:2:96.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Letter designations and short descriptions of the lower Verde River area petrofacies.
Table 2
Point count parameters used in the petrographic analysis of lower Verde River area sand
samples and sherd thin sections (after Kamilli 1994; Lombard 1987; Miksa 1992).
Table 3
Recalculated point count parameters used in correspondence analysis and discriminant
analysis.
Table 4
Lower Verde River area sand sample correspondence analysis ranked parameter optimal
scores.
v
PETROGLYPHS IN THE HORSESHOE RESERVOIR AREA
Henry D. Wallace
This report is focused on the rock art present at a small ridge top agricultural locality in the
lower Verde Valley near Horseshoe Dam known as the Crash Landing site, AZ U:2:78/01-278.
Four boulders that exhibited over 24 petroglyph design elements were found at this site, as well
as numerous other cultural features including a two-room isolated masonry field house and a large
agricultural complex with rock piles, contour terraces, and boundary walls.
The research design for the Lower Verde Archaeological Project (LVAP) (Ciolek-Torrello et al.
1992) presented three primary research questions pertaining to the rock art at the Crash Landing
site:
1. Can the petroglyphs be characterized according to a specific known style or tradition of
petroglyph art?
2. Can the petroglyphs be provisionally dated?
3. What is the context of the petroglyphs? That is, what are the locational, archaeological, and
environmental parameters?
In addition to the desire to classify the rock art, the research design focuses on the issue of
cultural affiliation. Who made the petroglyphs? Can the styles present provide the necessary clues
to help elucidate this issue? This report will document the rock art at the Crash Landing site, and
discuss it in relationship to rock art reported elsewhere in southern and central Arizona.
Discussion of three other nearby rock art sites — Horseshoe Mesa (AZ U:2:27/01-187), AZ
U:2:96/01-259, and AZ U:2:188/01-73 — is also provided to help assess rock art in the study area
and how it may bear on issues of cultural identity and rock art function. (Note: all LVAP site
numbers are ASM numbers; unless otherwise noted, all other site numbers are ASU numbers).
Definitive conclusions are not possible from an investigation of a small rock art site such as the
Crash Landing site, and without a detailed analysis of the other major sites in the region, the
conclusions presented in this report must be considered preliminary. Nevertheless, it was possible
to tentatively date the designs at the site and make an argument for contemporaneity with other
larger sites in the vicinity. The settings of these sites provide important clues to the role of rock art
in the prehistory of the Verde Valley. Figure 1 provides an overview of the region and the location
of the four sites in relation to one another.
1
METHODS
The methods applied in this study are built on those developed for the recording of the Picacho
Mountains petroglyphs sites (Wallace and Holmlund 1986) and the Painted Rocks Reservoir sites
(Wallace 1989).
The ridge upon which the rock art was located had been intensively surveyed for all types of
cultural features, including rock art, prior to my field efforts, and no attempt was made to search
for additional unreported boulders. A detailed topographic map with cultural features plotted had
been prepared by Statistical Research, Inc. (SRI), prior to my field work and this was used for
spatial control.
In order to obtain comparative data I visited three nearby rock art sites: Horseshoe Mesa, AZ
U:2:96/01-259, and AZ U:2:188/01-73. No formal recording was conducted on these sites, but
photographs were taken and notes made.
I first visited the sites on May 21, 1992, accompanied by Steve Shelley of SRI. Because of
inclement weather, I was unable to do more than photograph the panels and make notes regarding
the sites. This initial set of photographs was used to prepare most of the drafted illustrations seen
in this report. A second visit to the Crash Landing site was made on October 14, 1992 to finish
recording the rock art at the site. I also made a second trip to the Horseshoe Mesa site to obtain
additional photographs and take a more careful look than had been possible during the lightning
storm on the previous less productive, but more exciting, trip.
Following this field effort, the Bureau of Reclamation, using a helicopter and sling, moved
Boulder A-1 at the Crash Landing site to a safe haven on the ridge, approximately 50 m to 60 m
west-northwest of its former location, where construction activities would not damage it.
In the early fall of 1993, an additional petroglyph boulder (A-2), formerly hidden beneath a
large cholla and other vegetation, was discovered by a Reclamation construction inspector near the
previously recorded Boulder A-1 at the Crash Landing site. On September 2, 1993, I returned once
more to the site, in the company of Reclamation archaeologist Jon Czaplicki, to record this boulder
and move it from the path of construction activities upslope to the ridge where Boulder A-1 had
been moved.
2
Petroglyph Recording Procedures
The rock art at the Crash Landing site was recorded using many of the procedures documented
in Wallace (1989). Some of the techniques are not relevant to such a small site. They are used here
in the interest of maintaining comparability in approaches and to facilitate the construction of
larger regional databases. The techniques applied are discussed below.
Petroglyphs in central Arizona commonly occur in groups or clusters consisting of anywhere
from two to over a hundred separate boulders. This is taken into account in the hierarchical
numbering system used here, which separates glyphs into cluster, boulder, panel, and element
numbers. Clusters are defined in the field as groups of two or more boulders, or boulders and
outcrops, that exhibit petroglyphs, regardless of chronological age. They are defined by field
evaluations of spatial distribution and, although they probably can be considered meaningful
cultural units, they are not necessarily the only possible arrangements.
The boulder numbering system is designed to facilitate spatial control over the distribution of
petroglyph panels. Therefore, each boulder with glyphs within a cluster is given an integer
number between 1 and n for each cluster. Each cluster is assigned an upper-case letter designation.
Boulders are distinguished from outcrops by being physically separated from bedrock.
Each boulder face with petroglyphs is treated as a panel. Thus, a panel is a discrete side of a
boulder, which exhibits a roughly comparable inclination and declination across its surface. Panels
are numbered consecutively on each particular boulder by lower-case letters (a-zz).
Particular petroglyph design elements or motifs on a panel are numbered consecutively (1-n).
Thus the format for coding Cluster A, Boulder 2, Panel a, Element Number 1 would look like this:
A-2a:1. Isolated boulders are given the separate designation “IS” in place of the cluster designation
and numbered consecutively by boulder for each site (e.g. IS-1, IS-2, IS-3, etc.).
Prior to any petroglyph recording, an assessment of patination and repatination was necessary.
As the process of repatination can provide relative dating for petroglyphs, a careful consideration
of the process in relation to the local lithology is required. Of particular concern is the potential
for different types and rates of chemical weathering. Rock varnish, distinguished here from
chemical and mechanical weathering of rock surfaces, can also be useful for assessing the relative
age of petroglyph designs; although the techniques used to quantitatively derive dates, such as
cation-ratio dating and direct AMS radiocarbon dating, are controversial (Dorn 1983, 1989, 1994a;
Dorn et al. 1986; Krinsley et al. 1990). Dorn, in a long series of articles, has effectively addressed
3
most of the criticisms that have been leveled against the approaches (e.g. Bierman and Gillespie
1991; Harry 1992) and freely points to the weak points (Dorn 1992, 1994a, 1994b; see especially
Whitley et al. 1996). Additional verification is needed for the AMS approach to evaluate the
conditions under which ancient carbon can be incorporated into the varnish and inadvertently lead
to dates older than the age of the varnish. Several factors can contribute to such a result, and the
issue is by no means settled as to how to effectively and confidently address and control for them.
Caution is warranted and additional testing is advisable.
It is assumed in this study that the findings of Dorn and Oberlander (1981) and Dorn (1991)
are correct: that rock varnish is a product of mixotropic manganese-oxidizing microorganisms.
Detailed discussions and considerations of varnish formation are not provided here as none of the
designs investigated exhibited rock varnish on the petroglyphs. The focus is placed here on
chemical and mechanical weathering.
As in previous work in the Picacho Mountains (Wallace and Holmlund 1986:76-79) and the
Painted Rock Reservoir area (Wallace 1989:84-85, 119-121), the level of repatination of each
petroglyph design was coded as one of a series of possible patina classes. The mineralogy is
different for the project petroglyph boulders than for the Picacho Mountain sites, and the small
sample of petroglyph panels present for evaluation seriously limited the observations that could
be made concerning the potential for relative dating in the vicinity. The rock art at the Crash
Landing site was pecked onto boulders made of basalt, as is the case for the other nearby sites.
Although basalt can exhibit clear patina distinctions for surfaces of different ages, it does not offer
distinctions that are as clear-cut as some other rock types, such as the granodiorites and latites
found in the Picacho Mountains. This is true for several reasons. First, rock varnish is generally
not present on the rock art of the vicinity due at least partly to the relatively recent ceramic period
age of the designs. Second, although rock varnish is relatively indiscriminate in formation,
provided suitably porous rock surfaces are available, the visibility of chemical weathering is more
dependant on the mineralogy of the rock involved. Certain minerals oxidize and degrade more
rapidly and visibly than others. Where a clear color shift in exposed hornblendes is readily
discernible in the felsic rocks of the Picachos, no such trend is readily identifiable at a macroscopic
level on the project area basalts.
The rate of varnish formation on the Verde Valley basalts is believed to be relatively slow
compared to that in the western desert or Picacho Mountains, based on petroglyph design style
comparisons. The relative amount of aeolian-deposited clays and other minerals on rock surfaces
4
is thought to be correlated to the development of chemical weathering (particularly hematite
staining), and to the formation of rock varnish; the more clay, the more rapid the development of
chemical weathering and rock varnish (Wallace 1989:84). Speculating here, I suspect there is a
much lower relative level of aeolian deposition on the rock surfaces in the confined, well-vegetated,
narrow valley of the lower Verde River than in the wind-swept, open country of the western desert
or Picacho area.
The glyphs on the Crash Landing site boulders and those on the other nearby sites exhibited
comparable patina development. No marked distinctions in my brief inspections could be made.
Because I have observed clear distinctions in different age designs on basaltic rocks in other regions
(e.g., Coso Mountains in California, Signal and Tumamoc Hills in Tucson, Gillespie Dam near
Buckeye), not all of which are explicable by differences in aeolian deposition, it is possible that a
chronometric system could be established in the future. The lack of discernible distinctions within
the sites observed in the lower Verde area could be taken to mean rough contemporaneity, though
perhaps at the extremely gross level of 200-800 years. Without significant effort, it cannot be honed
down any finer.
The petroglyphs at the Crash Landing site were recorded using the coding indices provided
in Figures 2, 3, and 4, forms similar to those in Wallace (1989:187-188) (Figures 5 and 6), black-andwhite and color photography, and scaled drawings. I was assisted in this endeavor by Steve
Shelley and Jon Czaplicki for some measurements; although because I did all the attribute coding
and illustrations, they are only guilty by association.
Variables Coded
The selection of variables to be recorded was dictated by the findings of several previous
studies, including Wallace and Holmlund (1986), Bruder (1983), Wallace (1983, 1989), Ferg (1979),
and White (1965). Figures 2 and 3 provide summary descriptions of the selected variables.
Information pertinent to each boulder, panel, and individual glyph are recorded. Many of the
variables considered and examined at the project site were not relevant or present on the panels
or elements recorded. The fact that a particular variable is listed on the coding indices, but not
listed among the raw data, is an indication that this particular variable did not apply or no cases
were observed at the recorded site.
The variables are generally self explanatory. Those requiring clarification are briefly discussed
5
below.
Element Elaboration
Some design elements, such as scrolls, squares, and diamonds, may be elaborated by additional
lines, hatchure fill, and so on. For those elements that can, by definition, be elaborated in some
way beyond their basic form, this variable is used to indicate if such an elaboration is present or
absent. Those elements that are defined as having the potential for elaboration are marked with
asterisks on the design element coding index in Figure 4.
Patination
Please see the brief discussion above.
Period/Style
This variable was applied in a previous study (Wallace and Holmlund 1986:63) based on a
rigorous set of standards pertaining to repatination. It was intended in that study to be strictly
chronological in application.
Stylistic factors were intentionally avoided in order that an
independent measure of stylistic change could be assessed. Enough is now known concerning the
definition and chronological placement of the principal southern Arizona styles so as to permit the
inclusion of style as one avenue to assigning a chronological and stylistic label to a particular
design or set of designs.
Execution of Element
Most of the attributes for this variable are self evident. Abraded designs are distinguished from
those that are ground, or ground and pecked, by exhibiting a rubbed surface that still displays
some of the original rock texture and surface within the limits of the design. Although an abraded
design could be called lightly ground, there is a clear dichotomy between those in the field that are
well ground and those that are merely abraded or lightly ground. Some panels exhibited designs
that graded from being composed of well-pecked, clear designs to being composed of scattered
6
peck marks (dints). These were generally coded as being “pecked.”
Superimposition
This is only applied to cases where it is clear which is (are) the overlying and which is (are) the
underlying elements. If it is not clear, or if the elements are thought to be contemporaneous, they
are treated as a case of panel integration. No cases of superimposed designs were recorded.
Panel Integration
This term is used to describe the combination of distinct elements into an overall design. This
does not apply to simple motifs such as concentric circles or an elaborated spiral. It is only applied
to cases where the overall composition of the design incorporates multiple elements (or motifs).
Combinations of elements within a case of panel integration were separated out and recorded
individually, if possible, and it was noted that they were tied together.
Feature Type and Number
Determining whether particular features were culturally and temporally associated with
particular petroglyph panels is often a difficult task. Functional association is determined through
proximity on the basis of the feature type and local terrain. At the Crash Landing site, a large
group of agricultural features is located near the petroglyphs, as are a possible trail and a clearing.
The potential relationship of these features to the rock art is discussed further below.
Design Element Typology and Application
The typology developed and applied to the LVAP petroglyphs evolved from the work of
Wallace (1989) and Wallace and Holmlund (1986:64-67), which in turn had developed from the
initial efforts of Ferg (1979) and Wallace (1983). See Wallace and Holmlund (1986:64-67) for a
complete description of the rationale behind the system applied here and the basic typology. The
present typology has not been changed from that seen in Wallace (1989:87, Figure 5.5), with the
exception that the element type coded as a “torah,” a mistake in the original system, is now called
7
a “candelabra,” to fit its appearance (with no intent of saying that it represents such an object!).
Photography and Mapping
All petroglyph panels were photographed using both 35-mm color slide film (Kodachrome 64®
and Fujichrome 100®) and 35-mm black-and-white print film (Kodak Plus-X®). Additional
photographs were taken to provide an idea of the setting for petroglyph clusters and isolated
panels. All photographs were taken by the author.
Each panel was photographed as a unit, with occasional supplementary photographs taken to
illustrate particular features or elements. Scales were included in all photographs, enabling future
researchers to work with element size. Whenever possible, photographs were taken in plan view
for each panel. Natural light was used for all photographs. Some panels were shaded to optimize
the lighting available.
Color slides of most of the panels at the Crash Landing site were taken during my initial field
visit under suboptimal conditions due to wetting of some of the boulder surfaces from a light rain.
This initial set of photographs was useful for projection to permit scaled, highly accurate drawings
of each panel. These drawings were taken out to the field on my second visit and field checked and
corrected as necessary under the improved field conditions of the second visit. A new set of
photographs, both in color and black-and-white, were taken, and used as the archival set for the
project given their much greater legibility. Boulder A-2, recorded during a later visit to the site,
was sketched in the field and then cross-checked for scale and accuracy via the photographs taken.
RESULTS
Discussions of the sites visited in the project vicinity are offered here. Most attention is focused
on the Crash Landing site; but brief summary descriptions of the other three rock art sites are also
provided. Comparisons with sites and regions further afield are offered following this section.
The Crash Landing Site
The focus of this study is a small ceramic period complex of agricultural features, a two-room
masonry field house, and four rock art boulders located on a low flat-topped basaltic ridge 800 m
8
west of Horseshoe Dam. For a more complete discussion of this site, see Volume 2. I will
concentrate on the aspects of the site directly pertinent to the petroglyph discussion. Dosh and
Henderson (1990) documented what is labeled here as Boulder A-1 and noted the presence of a
possible “partial enclosure,” formed in part by the petroglyph boulder. They also noted one
petroglyph boulder in the portion of the ridge where most of the agricultural features are located;
what I recorded here as Boulder IS-2.
The site is situated in a prominent location, with excellent views across the Verde Valley to the
north, east, and southeast. Large habitation sites ranging throughout the ceramic period and canalirrigated fields are located in the valley below the site. Immediately north of the larger ridge upon
which the site is situated, is the mouth of Lime Creek and the concentration of large Classic period
habitation sites found there. This larger ridge is what forms the constriction of the valley that was
used to facilitate the construction of Horseshoe Dam. Large zones of arable land are found north
and south of the site along the Verde River. The river was formerly half a kilometer distant at its
closest point northeast of the site and water was also potentially available from springs less than
a kilometer distant to the southwest.
The small ridgetop where the site is located is variably strewn with cobbles and occasional
boulders, though much of the rock cover has been modified for agricultural or other prehistoric
pursuits. Small boulders and cobbles also litter the slopes. Petroglyph Boulder IS-2 (Feature 19)
is situated partway down the rocky northeast slope of the ridge, whereas Boulders IS-1 (Feature
267) and Cluster A (Features 294 and 295) are situated atop the ridge on relatively level terrain.
Boulder IS-2 (Feature 19) is the largest of the boulders in its vicinity on the rocky slope. No
cultural features were found nearby. The designs on Boulder IS-2, Panel A may have been visible
for some distance downslope if the slope was clear of vegetation below it. At present, it is
obscured. Although agricultural features are present within 20 m of Boulder IS-1 (Feature 267), no
direct relationship can be drawn such as would be possible if the boulder was incorporated within
the rock pile field.
Petroglyph Cluster A is situated immediately adjacent to a modern trail that follows the very
narrow ridgetop at this point and then heads down off the toe of the ridge. The geomorphic
surface of the ridge is too unstable to conclude that this was necessarily also a prehistoric trail, but
the setting would seem to support such an interpretation. As noted by Dosh and Henderson
(1990), there is a sort of “partial enclosure” formed just southwest of Boulder A-1 (Feature 294) by
the boulder itself and several others nearby downslope. I could find no evidence that any of the
9
other boulders in the vicinity had been moved in prehistory (though this could not be conclusively
demonstrated), leaving the interpretation of a feature here problematic. It appears to be a natural
clearing, perhaps accentuated by some rock removal. The presence of a lithic core and a few lithic
flakes nearby suggest activities in the vicinity, but no clear association of the artifacts could be
drawn.
The 25 petroglyph design elements are situated on 11 panels distributed among four moderatesized boulders of basalt. Tables 1 and 2 provide the raw data recorded on them. The boulders and
panels vary in size, shape, height, orientation, and surface texture, although all are prominent and
among the largest or most obtrusive in their areas (discounting the effects of modern vegetation).
Boulders range in maximum height from 23 cm to 52 cm and from 65 cm to 290 cm in maximum
horizontal dimension. Panels range from 20 cm to 90 cm in width and 20 cm to 64 cm in height.
By token of the nature of the boulders, all panels are on sloping surfaces, though they range in
inclination from 12 to 75 degrees from horizontal (see Table 1). Because of the rounded nature of
some of the rock surfaces, the panel designations used here are sometimes somewhat arbitrary.
With angular-shaped rocks, panels are clearly demarcated by rock morphology; when more
rounded rocks are involved, points of inflection on a rock’s sloping surface may be used to split
out panels or more arbitrary sections of a rock may be identified as a panel in order to facilitate
mapping and photography if no points of demarcation are readily apparent.
The characteristics of the rock, rather than a need to place designs with particular orientations,
seems to be the guiding factor for design placement. In each case the rock surfaces that could be
most easily pecked are the ones with the designs. In some cases, even the smallest panels on the
rocks were used (Panels IS-1b, A-1c), indicating a preference for these particular boulders rather
than other boulders nearby that had larger surfaces. In general, there were not many other
boulders on the ridge of comparable size to Boulders IS-1 and IS-2, but many boulders were
available that were the same size or larger than Boulder A-2.
In most cases, petroglyph panels at the site are not oriented in particular directions or towards
particular cultural features that could be discerned. Because all but one of the boulders had
multiple panels, it is clear that although some of the panels may have been intentionally placed to
face a particular cultural feature or activity space, this could not have been the case for all panels.
In the case of Boulder A-1, the principal designs were situated on a relatively horizontal surface
and were situated immediately adjacent to a natural travel corridor, suggesting that they were
meant to be seen when coming up onto the ridge or when leaving it to head down towards the
10
river. As noted above, the most obtrusive designs on Boulder IS-2 may have been visible for some
distance to individuals looking up the slope of the ridge, provided vegetation did not obscure it.
Boulder IS-1’s designs are not markedly noticeable from a distance and are unlikely to have served
a signaling function to anyone other than someone already familiar with its shape and general
location.
All petroglyphs exhibited some chemical and mechanical weathering and no rock varnish
formation. As such, they were recorded as Patina Class 2.
The petroglyphs recorded are illustrated in drafted form in Figures 7 through 15 to elucidate
the designs which often are not clear enough to see in a black-and-white image. Many of the
petroglyph designs present were not well-pecked and were not readily identifiable as seen in these
illustrations. Many areas of amorphous, unidentifiable pecking were present and it was sometimes
difficult to decide what should be pulled out as separate designs. As such, the number of design
elements coded here must be considered a best guess rather than a hard count. Photographs of
some of the panels are provided in Figures 16 through 19. Table 3 summarizes the design element
tally for the site as a whole. The designs are relatively equally split between life forms, geometric
designs, and designs that could not be classified. The curvilinear, meandering quality of Panel A1a, the presence of variations on the circle (bulls-eye and tailed circle), and the use of stick figure
anthropomorphs are all common features of the Hohokam (or Gila) Petroglyph Style (Schaafsma
1980; Thiel 1994; and Wallace and Holmlund 1986; ).
Of particular interest is the anthropomorphic figure IS-2a:3, illustrated in Figures 13 and 19.
The depiction of the head on this figure seems to indicate a particular hairdo or mask I have not
seen before in southern Arizona. The depiction might be an indication that this figure is really a
horned lizard, and that these are some of the cephalic “horns.” Arguing against such an
interpretation is the fact that the “arms” bend to the rear rather than to the front as they do on
living horned lizards. As the depiction is not necessarily even of something in the natural world,
it would be unwise to say much more in this regard.
Nearby Petroglyph Sites
Three sites near the Crash Landing site were visited to provide comparative data and aid in
establishing the chronological and cultural setting of the rock art. Drawings and notes from two
additional sites in site survey records supplement the sites visited. Brief descriptions of the sites
11
are provided here. Additional data are incorporated in subsequent sections of the report.
Horseshoe Mesa, AZ U:2:27/01-187
This is a spectacular site situated on a high, flat-topped mountain located approximately 2 km
southwest of Horseshoe Dam on the west side of the Verde River (see Volume 2). The mountain
rises some 120 m above the Verde River floodplain to an elevation of 2,400 feet (731.5 m) above sea
level. The following description is excerpted from Schoonover (1979):
The mountain is capped by a basalt flow roughly 10 feet thick, which has produced a
remarkably level surface of perhaps a couple of acres in extent. The basalt cap has also
served to protect the underlying less resistant pyroclastics and poorly consolidated gravels
from erosion, thus preserving the distinctive topographic feature.
Jointing in the basalt, resulting from cooling of the molten lava, has produced many
smooth surfaces, some up to 15 square feet in size, which have facilitated the inscribing of
the petroglyphs.
Weathering along the periphery of the cap has dislodged angular blocks of basalt, some
of considerable size, from the main mass. These blocks have slumped part way down the
precipitous slopes, remaining in unstable positions.
The petroglyphs at the site are concentrated on the basaltic cliff faces on the eastern exposure
of the mountain top facing the river, and on the dislodged boulders that form a talus slope below
the cliff faces. A series of small additional clusters are found on the western gentle slope of the
mesa top. The views from this site are spectacular, encompassing a full panorama of the Verde
Valley (Figures 20 and 21). A total of 168 petroglyph elements were recorded at the site by an
Arizona Archaeological Society rock art class under the direction of Grace Schoonover (Schoonover
1979). Although many other elements are thought to be present, the data recorded are a useful
indicator of the element categories present. The information is reproduced here in Table 4, using
the categories of this study. Many panels have multiple elements and many of the designs are
quite elaborate and well pecked. Figures 22 through 30 provide representative examples from the
site.
Located on the level top of the mountain on the northern edge is a masonry-walled circular
enclosure 25 m in diameter. The rubble from the wall of this enclosure is substantial, averaging
nearly a meter in height and 6 m in width. Although I use the terms “wall” and “rubble” here,
these may be inaccurate. There is no evidence of coursed masonry or a carefully laid foundation
and it is possible that there never was a formal wall. Attached to the exterior of the enclosure is
12
a masonry structure. Virtually no artifacts are present in association with the enclosure or
structure. Several petroglyph panels are present on the mountaintop, including the dramatic panel
seen in Figure 30. Also present atop the hill are several rock alignments and a disjunct set of two
masonry structures. Several other localities on the benches down the slopes of the mountain also
have masonry structures, none of which were examined during the course of this study.
Site AZ U:2:96/01-259
This is a small masonry compound with at least six rooms and a plaza, situated on a low bench
below the eastern face of the mesa on which AZ U:2:27 /01-187 is located (Figure 31), and just west
and above the Cow Wallow site (AZ U:2:61/01-1152), excavated by SRI as part of the LVAP. The
bench is formed from a small basaltic outcrop and the compound walls are made of basalt
boulders. The bench, approximately 30 m above the floodplain at an elevation of 1,960 feet (597.4
m) above sea level, commands an excellent view of the Verde Valley floodplain. Petroglyphs were
seen on a handful of panels both on isolated boulders and on portions of the basaltic outcrop.
Some of the panels are interspersed within the architecture of the compound, but most are on the
outcrop to the north. Design elements included a significant percentage of anthropomorphic
designs, as well as zoomorphs and a well-pecked spiral (Figure 32). The boulder seen in Figure 32
had a minimally ground metate slick on the top. No more than 30 elements are present; I did not
tabulate actual numbers or counts of motifs.
Site AZ U:2:188/01-73
This is a large petroglyph site situated on the basaltic rim of a high mesa top overlooking the
Verde Valley 2.5 km south of Horseshoe Dam on the west side of the Verde River. Its geological
setting is similar to that of site AZ U:2:27/01-187 described above, though noticeably lower in
elevation at 2,040 feet (621.8 m) above sea level, and shares a spectacular view of the valley. Its
prominent views are to the north and east, and it is immediately across the river from site AZ
U:2:129/01-176 (the McCoy Mesa ball court site) and a string of sites of later time periods.
Petroglyphs are found primarily on the basaltic cliff faces at the northeastern tip of the mesa. The
designs are fewer in number and less elaborate than those seen at AZ U:2:27/01-187, though the
range of motifs is comparable: well over a hundred designs are present on at least 57 panels. A
13
sizable masonry pueblo ruin is located on a ridgetop a short distance northwest of the site. Four
masonry rooms, three of which could be part of a compound, are located on the mesa top
immediately adjacent to the glyphs. The site has suffered significant vandalism, with some panels
removed and others damaged with graffiti. The road access to the site and the fact that it is marked
on the USGS 7.5 minute topographic map of the area has no doubt contributed to this problem.
Site Survey Data for Other Nearby Sites with Petroglyphs
A total of 27 additional sites in the SRI study area are reported to have petroglyphs according
to site survey records at ASU, ASM, and the Tonto National Forest. The majority of these sites are
located in the Horseshoe Reservoir area and most have associated cultural features such as
evidence of habitation and agricultural features. Most notable among these records is the repeated
association of masonry architecture on mountain and ridge tops with petroglyph designs. For the
ten sites that are tentatively dated, nine are assigned to the Classic period and only one is given a
pre-Classic date range.
The data available on the rock art at these sites is generally very limited. Records from seven
of the sites included sketches or mapped drawings of design elements, and photographs are
available for several (but were not seen by the author). The seven sites with data are: AZ U:2:28
(ASU)/01-188, AZ U:2:39/01-745, AZ U:2:120/01-801, AZ U:2:133/01-810, AZ U:2:249/01-261, AZ
U:2:147 /01-264, and AR-03-12-01-1240 (TNF). Several of these sites are located very near to the
sites discussed above. Based on the site survey records, all of the sites have scroll or scroll-related
designs and six of the seven have anthropomorphic figures. Complex connected scroll designs are
present at two of the sites. Also notable are full-body anthropomorphs at three sites.
REGIONAL COMPARISONS, STYLE, AND CULTURAL IDENTITY
The comparative database for the rock art at the Crash Landing site is extremely limited for
neighboring regions. Although a wide range of sites from the Verde Valley, other than the Crash
Landing site, have been recorded in the site files of various institutions, only the Horseshoe Mesa
site (Schoonover 1979), discussed above, and the Orme Reservoir vicinity at the confluence with
the Salt River (Kearns 1975) have received serious attention from the archaeological community.
The Orme Reservoir survey located 36 rock art sites, the general setting and characteristics of which
14
are reported by Kearns (1975:313-331). Not enough data are provided to allow for serious
comparisons of style.
Some limited work has been accomplished in the neighboring Cave Creek drainage to the west.
Sites in that area have been recorded by Rodgers (1977a, 1977b, 1985), Bruder (1983), and Lindauer
(ed., 1992), though none of these authors provide published illustrations or detailed descriptions
of the material in the area. Recent work along Roosevelt Lake has resulted in the documentation
of the petroglyphs at the Bass Point site (Loendorf et al. 1994), but other than preliminary sketches,
the results of this analysis were not yet available for consideration in this study. Several panels
were documented at the Meddler Point site, AZ V:5:4/01-26, as a result of the work by Desert
Archaeology, Inc. (Craig and Clark 1994), but they were small and of little comparative value.
Somewhat further afield, Fernstrom (1984), Bruder (1983), and Rodgers (1985) have reported
on petroglyph sites in the New River, Skunk Creek, and Agua Fria areas. In the Phoenix area,
detailed studies have also been limited, despite the extensive distribution of sites in the area.
Bostwick’s (1989) work at Moon Hill and Weaver’s (1985) work in Hieroglyphic Canyon in the
Superstition Mountains are notable exceptions. Other data from the region are limited to various
synthetic articles such as Snyder’s (1966) work at South Mountain, Schaafsma’s (1980) summary
of the Hohokam Petroglyph Style (Gila Style), Weaver and Rosenberg’s (1978) study of the Sierra
Estrella, and Hamann and Hedges’ (1986) work along the Gila River. I have visited a significant
number of sites in the South Mountains and along the Gila River, but have limited direct
knowledge of areas north and west of Phoenix and have not personally visited the sites that have
been located along the Verde Valley other than those discussed here.
To the north, a range of rock art sites have been reported on Perry Mesa and sketches and
photographs of some of the panels have been made available to the author from Scott Wood and
Patricia Whitley. A recent survey near the town of Prescott by Andrew Christenson (1994) netted
11 sites with over 273 petroglyph-bearing boulders and cliff areas. Although overlap is seen in the
illustrations of the rock art from these sites with the Hohokam and Western Archaic styles, there
are also distinct differences. Taken with the illustrations provided on other Prescott area sites by
Barnett (1981:24-32), there are more similarities in the rock art of this region to Patayan sites along
the lower Gila River than there are to Gila Style petroglyph sites in central and southern Arizona.
Much more work in the area will be required to evaluate this proposition.
The rock art in the Payson/Starr Valley area is sparse and cannot offer much in the way of
comparative stylistic material (Owen Lindauer, personal communication 1994).
15
The limited nature of the data available precludes a comprehensive discussion of the Horseshoe
Dam area sites in their regional context. What can be offered is a gross-level discussion of how the
sites relate to rock art in the Phoenix/New River/Cave Creek areas, and to rock art on Perry Mesa.
The starting point in this endeavor is an examination of the Crash Landing site in relation to the
other sites that were investigated.
Horseshoe Reservoir Area Rock Art Comparisons
The four rock art sites examined in the Horseshoe Reservoir area all share significant
characteristics. None of the sites exhibit evidence of designs that would fall under the Western
Archaic style (Hedges 1982; Schaafsma 1980; Thiel 1994; Wallace and Holmlund 1986), and there
is very little evidence that would indicate significant time depth at the sites. This is not unexpected
given the setting of the sites. The rock art at the Crash Landing site is placed within and around
what is likely to have been relatively short-term Classic period agricultural activity areas on the
ridge. At site AZ U:2:96/01-259, the rock art is associated with a small Classic period masonry
pueblo. The two mountain top sites would be the most likely to be multicomponent, but even in
their case, Classic period occupations are located adjacent to the rock art. At the Horseshoe Mesa
site, the rock art may be directly associated with the activities occurring on the mountain top.
There is no definite evidence that the sites discussed are contemporaneous.
Rock art
researchers commonly turn to locally produced decorated pottery design styles for dated stylistic
analogs. The paucity of locally produced decorated pottery precludes ceramic cross-dating as a
feasible dating strategy. To a certain degree, there are broad regional patterns in the evolution of
stylistic expression in central and southern Arizona and these can be referenced. The interlocking
scroll complexes are suggestive of those seen on Sedentary and Classic period ceramics in the
Phoenix Basin, but the curvilinear aspects of many designs, such as those on Boulder A-1 (Feature
294) at the Crash Landing site would, going by gross trends in Phoenix Basin ceramic design,
suggest a Colonial period association.
My research at other sites and areas in southern Arizona has led me to be cautious in making
such direct interpretations. Rock art design conventions do not follow the same sequence as that
seen on pottery (Wallace and Holmlund 1994), and unless particularly diagnostic motifs are
present (and if they are present, I did not find them), one cannot draw meaningful conclusions.
The best that can be said right now concerning the sites is that the majority of designs appear
16
similar stylistically (though larger and more complex panels are present on Horseshoe Mesa); the
designs tend to only be minimally repatinated, with none observed bearing true rock varnish; and
all, by association with other datable cultural remains, are likely to have a significant Classic period
component.
Another feature supporting contemporaneity, and by inference, stylistic cohesiveness, is the
presence of anthropomorphic figures with “full” bodies (i.e., thickened lines or filled-in oval or
round pecked areas, such as that seen in Figures 7, 8, 9, 13, 14). Although present at many other
sites in southern Arizona, this form is usually vastly outnumbered by stick figures and figures with
expanded midbodies. The anthropomorph with full body and curved-down arms almost touching
the body (Element IS-2b:3 seen in Figure 14) observed at the Crash Landing site is a form repeated
many times at the Horseshoe Mesa site. This is a relatively rare figure type elsewhere in the state
and could indicate that the same people were actually producing designs at these two nearby sites.
The presence of similar full-bodied figures at nearby sites AZ U:2:28/01-188, AZ U:2:133/01-810,
and AZ U:2:249/01-261 may indicate the presence of a local stylistic tradition. Similar differences
in figure-type expression have been observed between major rock art site complexes in different
mountain ranges within south-central Arizona (Wallace and Holmlund 1986:121-125).
Comparisons with the Phoenix Basin and Beyond
Assuming that the Crash Landing site is at least roughly contemporaneous with the three other
nearby rock art sites visited as part of this study, and that the limited data available from the site
supports the interpretation that it is stylistically similar, it is now possible to draw some general
comparisons on a larger regional scale. The Crash Landing site alone is too small to draw
meaningful comparisons, but taken with the wealth of intricate panels at the Horseshoe Mesa site,
and the information from the other sites investigated and the seven sites with data in the site
survey records, some interpretations are possible.
The most distinctive qualities of the Horseshoe Reservoir area sites may be summarized as
follows:
1. Full-bodied anthropomorphs are common and full-bodied anthropomorphs with curveddown arms touching or nearly touching the body are frequent.
2. Repeated panels with “scenes” of rows of anthropomorphs holding hands (3 panels on
Horseshoe Mesa) occur.
17
3. Zoomorphs with antlers (presumably deer) are frequently depicted to the near exclusion
of sheep-like designs.
4. Elaborated scrolls, including interlocking, connected, and running forms are common.
5. Pipettes and dint patterns (see Wallace and Holmlund 1986:149-151, 225), both of which are
commonly found on large sites in the Phoenix and Tucson areas, are absent.
These qualities mark the sites as distinct and different from those currently known in the
Phoenix area and sites further south. Whereas none of the traits cited are diagnostic in and of
themselves, taken together, they present a package that has a slightly different look from that seen
to the south and southwest. The differences are subtle, not dramatic, and the design styles present
are closely allied to that seen in the Phoenix area and northern periphery. In the Phoenix area,
panels with anthropomorph “scenes” are present, albeit rare; there are many complex scroll
depictions, though they are not generally as common, and there are generally many more circular
and curvilinear designs of other types. The large, well-pecked lizards at Horseshoe Mesa do occur
elsewhere in the Phoenix and Tucson areas, though again, they are quite rare.
The Hedgpeth site, located 53 km to the west-southwest in the Skunk Creek tributary of the
New River drainage, is the nearest large, well-recorded site to those investigated here (Bruder
1983). It bears very little resemblance to the Horseshoe Reservoir sites, due for the most part, to
a lack of contemporaneity. Contrary to Bruder’s initial assessment, the majority of designs at the
site are believed to fall under the Western Archaic style, dating no later than A.D. 800 (Wallace and
Holmlund 1986:86; Wallace et al. 1995). This interpretation is based on the design styles present,
a reconsideration of the repatination data from the published report, and through field inspection.
The other sites recorded by Rodgers and Bruder (Bruder 1983:62-82) in the Cave Creek, New River,
and Agua Fria drainages west-southwest of the Horseshoe Reservoir site are of greater interest.
Bruder provides brief site descriptions, summary descriptions of the petroglyphs present, and
tallies of the motifs. The lack of published photographs of the designs limits the interpretations
possible here, but even with the data available, it can be seen that there may be similarities to the
Horseshoe Reservoir sites.
Two sites, AZ U:1:23 and AZ U:1:24, together containing six
petroglyph-bearing boulders, are closest to the project sites. They are situated near Elephant Butte
in the mountainous country forming the headwaters of Cave Creek, less than 25 km to the
southwest of Horseshoe Reservoir. The element tally listed by Bruder includes nearly as many
deer as sheep and a nearly identical high percentage of scrolls (13 percent) to that recorded at
18
Horseshoe Mesa (see Table 4). The dating of the two sites is likely to be roughly contemporaneous
with the project sites, as both are listed as Classic period components. Differing from the
Horseshoe Reservoir sites are the presence of birds and a higher frequency of sheep than deer.
These data leave open the question of stylistic association, and it would be necessary to see the sites
or photographs of the designs to assess specific stylistic traits.
At the other sites discussed by Bruder (1983:62-86), general similarities are present, as they are
with most sites in the Phoenix area, but none have the high percentages of deer present at the
Elephant Butte sites. The other sites do have relatively high percentages of scrolls, averaging 8.1
percent. This compares to 5.1 percent for the South Mountain database compiled by Snyder (1966)
and the much lower percentages seen at most sites further south. Of the recorded sites in the
Phoenix and Tucson areas with more than 30 design elements (Snyder 1966; Wallace and
Holmlund 1986; Weaver 1985), only Signal Hill, AZ AA:12:63 (ASM), in Avra Valley exhibits
comparably high values (13.6 percent; Wallace and Holmlund 1986:211). The significance of scroll
percentages on a regional basis is difficult to assess because there is not a ready means to establish
contemporaneity. The scroll symbol is virtually universal in rock art and does not by itself denote
particular cultural affinities. The most that can be said is that the data may be indicating a greater
affinity in rock art depictions among sites on the northern periphery of the Phoenix Basin than
between these sites and the Phoenix Basin proper. Before concluding, I also want to briefly address
other nearby regions that could potentially be relevant.
The rock art at Perry Mesa in the upper Agua Fria drainage is very distinctive and very
different from that seen in the Horseshoe Reservoir area (see Wood 1985). Birds, anthropomorphs
with footprint feet, complex geometric forms, and shield-like framed motifs are all markedly
different from the material seen either to the south or in the Verde sites.
The Horseshoe Reservoir sites also bear no resemblance to the rare reported sites in the
Mogollon country to the east (Burton 1988; Jernigan 1992; Schaafsma 1980; Thiel 1994; Weaver
1991a, 1991b, 1991c), or to the Anasazi sites to the north and northeast (Grant 1978; Schaafsma 1980;
Thiel 1994). They also cannot be mistaken for styles present at the sites in the Prescott area
illustrated by Franklin Barnett (1981:24-32), some of which bear a strong resemblance to the
Patayan Sears Point style (Thiel 1994).
19
Discussion
There are several critical missing pieces to this discussion that will require future field research
to fill in. Almost nothing has been published regarding the rock art found in the Verde Valley
north of Horseshoe Lake. It would be reasonable to develop hypotheses of cultural affiliation to
be tested with rock art data in the Horseshoe Reservoir area if the area were well known
archaeologically; but few data-oriented studies have been accomplished in recent years and little
consensus on the culture history of the region has been achieved. Plus, theories of stylistic change
and how it might relate to changing cultural scenarios are only weakly developed. Post-A.D. 1200
cultural manifestations in the middle and upper Verde Valley have been attributed to one of
several scenarios: (1) Migration of Sinaguan groups into the area (Colton 1946), perhaps involving
the absorption of indigenous populations (Schroeder 1960); (2) alteration of trade relationships
among indigenous groups resulting in the appearance of changing populations (Fish and Fish
1977); or (3) pan-regional changes associated with the onset of the Classic period affecting
indigenous populations (Tagg 1986). Perhaps most useful of the scenarios presented is the
possibility that there may be strong cultural ties to the north and northeast in the middle Verde,
leading to the possibility that design styles might be influenced in this direction (or at least be
different internally from that seen further south in the Phoenix Basin). Supporting this possibility
is Scott Wood’s (1987:50) observation that the middle Verde Valley-produced ceramic type Verde
Red-on-buff bears motifs in the Classic period design style (Style 3, Wallace 1995), with some use
of elements similar to those present on Flagstaff Black-on-white. As the motifs on Flagstaff Blackon-white are not clearly demarcated from those seen in Classic period style types in the Phoenix,
Tonto, and Tucson basin areas, Wood’s suggestion must be treated with caution. The best that can
be deduced from the information at hand is that if we were to look for a style that might
characterize the middle and upper Verde regions, it would most likely be one that shares traits
with the Phoenix Basin to the south and the Sinagua area to the northeast.
These conclusions leave us standing in fairly murky water. In the Horseshoe Reservoir area
almost no locally produced Classic period pottery is present, setting the area somewhat apart from
other areas such as the middle Verde Valley, Tonto Basin (Wallace 1995), Phoenix Basin, Tucson
Basin, Papaguería, lower San Pedro Valley, and Safford Valley, all of which were producing
ceramics with the Classic period design style typified by the types Tanque Verde Red-on-brown
and San Carlos Red-on-brown. The resemblances to the Phoenix Basin rock art seen in the
20
Horseshoe Reservoir area are probably significant, but how much the differences might relate to
styles potentially originating further north or northeast is unknown. My guess is that the rock art
of the Horseshoe Reservoir area is drawing from cultural affinities or religious beliefs that are
originating further north in the Verde Valley. How much of this might simply be a local cultural
development cannot presently be determined. It does seem safe to say that the motifs present are
not simply those one would expect from migrants moving up from the Phoenix Basin.
ROCK ART FUNCTION AND INTERPRETATION
A variety of functions have been ascribed to rock art sites in southern and central Arizona,
many of which can be readily discounted for the sites discussed. In previous studies, James
Holmlund and I (Wallace 1983; Wallace and Holmlund 1986) discuss a range of potential functions
and roles rock art may have played for sites in the Phoenix and Tucson areas. Readily excluded
for the Horseshoe Reservoir sites are doodling or graffiti, mnemonic devices, decoration, and clan
or totem symbols. Briefly, doodling or graffiti is excluded because of the lack of consistent direct
association with habitation areas, the hidden nature of many panels, and the effort placed on some
panels, which exceeds that which seems reasonable to expect for idle doodling (Busby et al. 1978;
Wallace 1983:236). Were mnemonic devices present, it should be possible to identify their syntax;
a task not proven possible in studies searching for it. The ethnographic data on Hopi clan symbol
rock art (Colton and Colton 1931) suggests that repetitive groupings of certain totemic symbols
would be anticipated if this was a primary motivation for rock art production in the lower Verde
Valley. Although some panels do exhibit repeated designs, sometimes to the extent of occurring
repeatedly on several adjacent boulders at the Horseshoe Mesa site, this is not a pattern seen at the
Crash Landing site, nor is it the dominant feature of design element distribution at Horseshoe
Mesa.
Alan Ferg (1979:116) proposed that the petroglyphs on Tumamoc Hill in Tucson were made
“for the enhancement of the petroglyph maker’s immediate surroundings.” If such a decorative
function were foremost in the minds of the prehistoric artisans, then it would be expected that they
would correlate very highly with activity areas and areas of habitation. Further, in areas with
masonry architecture like the lower Verde Valley, one would expect stones used in construction
or located nearby to be used on a regular basis for rock art depictions. Although the petroglyphs
at site AZ U:2:96/01-259 are near a masonry compound, the designs at the other sites are not
21
directly associated with architectural remains and it cannot be said that they could be serving a
purely decorative function. Indeed, most of the rock art at the sites with masonry architecture in
the Horseshoe region with sufficient data to evaluate are located on cliff faces not directly visible
from the architectural features located nearby.
Many researchers have suggested that the rock art of central Arizona might be functioning as
a signaling device, perhaps marking the location of trails; commemorating historical, mythical,
astronomical, or cosmological events (or marking the location of such events); commemorating
other ceremonial activities; or perhaps marking boundaries important in systems of land tenure
(Bostwick 1989; Bruder 1983; Thiel 1994; Wallace 1983; Wallace and Holmlund 1986). One could
include calendrical functions here. Not enough detailed recording work has been accomplished
at Horseshoe Mesa and site AZ U:2:188/01-73 to fully evaluate each of these possibilities for those
sites, but some preliminary observations are possible. The Crash Landing site is discussed
separately below.
In previous studies of rock art in the Phoenix and Tucson areas, a clear association of rock art
and ritual or ceremonialism has been identified. At sites in the Samaniego Hills, Wallace and
Holmlund (1986:174) report on an association of rock art with talus-slope burial cysts. Such an
association is a strong indication of a ritual and/or commemorative role. In the Picacho Mountains
at the Shelter Gap site (Wallace and Holmlund 1986), petroglyphs were found inside and at the
mouth of small, difficult-to-access shelters. The private nature of the small shelters and difficulty
involved in making designs led Wallace and Holmlund (1986:136-138) to argue that the shelters
were sacred spaces that may have been used for a variety of possible functions including
purification, the acquisition of personal power, and the storage of ritual paraphernalia. The
presence of glyphs at the mouths of these small shelters was interpreted as possible boundary
maintenance devices, indicating the private nature of the localities.
Some evidence for ritual activity comes from the designs themselves. At a wide variety of sites
in the Tucson and Phoenix regions, anthropomorphic figures are occasionally depicted with
elaborate headdresses, holding items of material culture often assumed to relate to ritual activities,
or engaged in dances or group activities that are likely to be related to ritual activity.
Another indication that ritual, or at least social activities involving more than just the
petroglyph artisan, were occurring at rock art sites in the Phoenix and Tucson areas is the presence
of “bell” rocks. At some sites with the appropriate geological circumstances, large boulders are
present that resoundingly “ring” when hammered with a small stone. Different pitches and
22
volumes may be obtained on different parts of some of these rocks. That the rocks were utilized
in prehistory for this function is evidenced by the presence of battered margins and, in some cases,
what have been called cupules or cupule/glyphs. Based on the chronology developed in the
Picacho Mountains, they were utilized throughout the sequence. Their presence suggests that not
only the “ringer,” but also an audience was present while they were being “rung.” It is not difficult
to imagine ceremonies at the sites where the remarkably loud, clear chimes from these rocks could
have made a major impact on the participants and the general atmosphere of the event.
Rock art serving as a signaling device or boundary marker may also function in other roles, as
seen in the case of the Shelter Gap site noted above. Sites where rock art is present in association
with agricultural features such as canals and rock pile fields are common in the Phoenix area, and
have been documented in the lower Verde region near Fort McDowell (Kearns 1975). Rock art sites
in southern and central Arizona also commonly occur in association with wild-plant-food
processing stations (Wallace 1983; Weaver 1985; Weaver and Rosenberg 1978), with lithic quarries
(Wallace and Holmlund 1986; White 1965), and along trails (Bostwick 1989; Hayden 1972; Snyder
1966; Wallace 1983, 1989). The relationship of rock art to the types of activities implied by the
cultural associations could have a range of possible interpretations. That it was likely serving a
signaling role is relatively obvious in many cases, but the fact that many designs are often not
visible from the nearby trail or processing area suggests other functions as well. Given the strong
evidence for a ritual role for rock art at many sites and the evidence from ethnographic accounts
in North America (Russell 1975; Whitley 1987), Africa (Lewis-Williams 1981), and Australia
(Layton 1992) that overwhelmingly point to a ritual context for rock art in the societies that produce
it, I suggest that even in these apparently secular settings, the rock art may be serving a function
that relates to such diverse ritual themes as marking sacred localities, relating part of a relevant
myth or cosmological event that has some bearing on the activities performed nearby, or requesting
assistance from the cosmos to improve the harvest or facilitate the work to be performed.
At the Horseshoe Reservoir sites, specific indications of ritual are evident at the Horseshoe
Mesa site. There, the three panels with lines of hand-holding anthropomorphs are distinctive and
almost certainly relate to ceremonial activities. The fact that the most distinctive of these panels,
seen in Figure 30, is located on a relatively isolated boulder atop the mountain adjacent to the large
walled enclosure may be an indication that this structure was serving a ritual role for people living
in surrounding settlements. The mesa, given that it is the highest such peak in the region
bordering the river, and that it is suited for mountain-top activities due to its flat top, would be a
23
prime candidate for a sacred site in prehistory. The range of architectural features present on the
mountain are of some interest if this interpretation is correct. The lack of artifactual remains
support an interpretation of limited or very short-term activity. This hypothesis could be tested
through excavations in the structures atop the mountain. Note that this interpretation does not
preclude a defensive motivation for the construction of the massive-walled enclosure. Ritual and
warfare are inseparable in tribal societies. Hopi informants who visited the site and viewed the
enclosure and rock art panel with the hand-holding figures, stated that this was a wuwtsim site,
supporting a ritual interpretation (Scott Wood, personal communication 1996).
The rock art at sites AZ U:2:188/01-73 and AZ U:2:96/01-259 is more problematic in terms of
specific clues to their cultural role. By token of the mesa top setting for the former site, one could
argue a similar function to the Horseshoe Mesa site, but this is purely speculative. For the latter
site, general functional possibilities might include something related to ritual, marking historical
events, and boundary maintenance. A ritual function is suggested by the presence of the grinding
slick atop the boulder illustrated in Figure 32. These features are relatively ubiquitous on
petroglyph sites across southern and central Arizona (Schaafsma 1980:96-97; Wallace 1989:123), and
the current evidence strongly supports a function for them directly tied to the production or use
of the petroglyph designs. Based on the presence of a group of these features on a precipitous cliff
face with petroglyphs in the Gila Bend Mountains, I inferred that they were sometimes used in a
group activity, and that only a token amount of grinding was necessary for the function sought
(Wallace 1989:123). At the well-known Painted Rocks site, there is a boulder with a remarkably
well-ground, oval flat-bottomed depression several centimeters deep that suggests that, on
occasion, very formal grinding was performed at the sites. In both cases, the obvious specialfunction grinding stone at Painted Rocks and the innumerable slicks present at other rock art sites,
indicate a ritual function. This may be nothing more than making a small food offering, or
smearing a small quantity of pigment on a particular design to renew its “power.” In any event,
the presence of this feature at site AZ U:2:96/01-259 offers supportive though not conclusive
evidence for a ritual component in the use of the site and the production of the rock art.
The petroglyphs at the Crash Landing site, could conceivably have served a variety of
functions. As remarked by SRI project personnel as soon as maps became available, the petroglyph
boulders neatly demarcate the limits of the agricultural component of the site on the north, south,
and east sides. Because these are the three directions from which one would most likely approach
the ridge, it could be argued that they are boundary signaling devices. As petroglyphs on the
24
boulders would have been potentially visible from the logical access routes onto the ridge, this
might account for the presence of glyphs in these locations. Furthermore, the glyphs in Cluster A
are situated along what was probably a prehistoric trail that led down the ridge towards the river.
The interpretations are complicated by the fact that only a moderate subset of the designs on the
four boulders would likely be visible to a casual visitor. Why place designs on portions of the
rocks that would not be readily visible if the only concern was boundary maintenance? One
possibility might be that although the designs do serve to signal the presence of the field system,
thereby determining their placement, the designs chosen might relate to fertility or ritual requests
for a good harvest, or perhaps to symbols that denote personal power of one sort or another. The
specific process of design selection and illustration is therefore potentially a very different affair from
the process of design placement. I know of no current means to deduce the actual processes
involved in design selection and illustration other than to note that the cultural template involved
appears to have been similar to that involved for illustrating the designs on Horseshoe Mesa and
sites AZ U:2:96/01-259 and AZ U:2:188/01-73.
A complementary interpretation for the Crash Landing site petroglyph boulders that would
account for the limited visibility of the designs and yet support the boundary maintenance
hypothesis is that the designs are primarily oriented towards marking property rights should
disputes arise. This would be akin to the often difficult-to-see property markers used today. It is
not necessary to see such a marker on a day-to-day basis, nor is it important that every visitor sees
the boundary markers. What is important is the evidence of property rights established by the
markers if the land is contested. The use of the largest boulders available might be anticipated if
this interpretation is correct, as they could not be readily moved with the idea of surreptitiously
changing property boundaries.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The four rock art boulders at the Crash Landing site were found to be stylistically similar to
those found at Horseshoe Mesa, AZ U:2:96/01-259, and AZ U:2:188/01-73. Together, the sites
exhibited no indications of superpositioning or distinct patination differences that would be
indicative of significant time depth. Taken with the presence of Classic period architecture and,
in the case of the Crash Landing site, a dry-farming field system, most of the designs at the sites
are thought to date sometime in the A.D. 1100 to 1450 range. No evidence for protohistoric period
25
designs was observed, and no repecking was documented. This observation is based on the lack
of definable historic design elements rather than a clear conception of what a protohistoric style
might be in the area due to the lack of previous research in this regard. The rock art is stylistically
most similar to the Hohokam Petroglyph style of the Phoenix and Tucson areas in terms of named
and defined styles (Thiel 1994); however, some differences were observed that suggest a different
local tradition was in operation. The presence of other sites in the Horseshoe Reservoir area and
the nearby upper Cave Creek Valley that share some of the most distinctive stylistic traits identified
in the visited sites supports the possibility of a localized stylistic tradition. It is currently unknown
whether some influences from the north or northeast are present due to the lack of published data
on the rock art in the critical areas. It is recommended that a reconnaissance of other known rock
art sites in the area and particularly in the valley to the north and northeast be pursued to
document the styles and associations present in this region. Quick field visits combined with
photography would serve to begin this process. Such a study would help considerably to evaluate
the style of designs seen in the sites discussed here.
Rock art in the region is thought to function primarily in a ritual context, though other specific
functional roles may often be involved. The documentation of historic events and the possibility
of a boundary or signaling role may be involved for some of the localities observed. Regardless
of the true function of the designs at the Crash Landing site, they were likely related to the
agricultural pursuits seen on the ridge top.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the archaeologists at Statistical Research, Inc., for giving me the
opportunity to work on the rock art of the Lower Verde. Special thanks are due Steve Shelley, who
shuttled me in to the sites and took me on the grand tour of the area, and to Stephanie Whittlesey
and Richard Ciolek-Torrello for strongly supporting this rock art research. I would also like to
thank Jon Czaplicki, archaeologist at the Bureau of Reclamation, for taking me out to record a rock
art boulder that one of the construction workers located at site AZ U:2:78 (ASM). He helped record
the panel and provided a strong back to help move the boulder from the path of the earthmovers.
Several individuals provided useful comparative information and shared unpublished
manuscripts with me. These include Grace Schoonover, Owen Lindauer, David Jacobs, Scott
Wood, and Andrew Christenson. I would also like to thank Jim Holmlund, David Jacobs, Scott
26
Wood, Sharon Urban, and Andrew Christenson for discussing the rock art of the region and
generally providing useful insights. Review comments were received from Jon Czaplicki, Scott
Wood, Stephanie Whittlesey, and Bill Doolittle. All were helpful and appreciated. The production
and support staff at Desert Archaeology, Inc., made the generation of this report as painless as
possible. Thank you Donna Breckenridge, Kara Myrick, Elizabeth Black, Catherine Gilman, and
Chip Colwell for helping me get this together.
REFERENCES CITED
Barnett, Franklin
1981 These Were the Prehistoric Prescott Indians; A History of the Tenure of these Pioneers in Arizona.
Arizona Archaeological Society, Yavapai Chapter, Prescott.
Bierman, P., and A. Gillespie
1991 Accuracy of Rock-Varnish Chemical Analyses: Implications for CR Dating. Geology
19:96–199.
Bostwick, Todd W.
1989 The Greenway Road and 17th Avenue Petroglyph Site (AZ T:8:102 [ASU]). Report No. PGM-8819. Pueblo Grande Museum and Cultural Park, Phoenix.
Bruder, J. Simon
1983 Archaeological Investigations at the Hedgpeth Hills Petroglyph Site. Research Report No. 28.
Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.
Burton, Jeffery F.
1988 Prehistoric Rock Art of the Southeast Arizona Uplands: A Formal Record of 53 Rock Art Sites on
the Coronado National Forest. Trans-Sierran Archaeological Research, Tucson. Reprinted in
July. Originally published February 1988. Submitted to USDA Forest Service, Contract Nos.
40-8197-6-321 and 40-8197-7-268. Copies available from Coronado National Forest Office,
Tucson.
Busby, C., R. Fleming, R. Hayes, and Karen Nissen
1978 The Manufacture of Petroglyphs: Additional Replicative Experiments from the Western
Great Basin. In Four Rock Art Studies, edited by C. W. Clewlow, Jr., pp. 89–108. Publications
on North American Rock Art No. 1. Ballena Press, Socorro, New Mexico.
Christenson, Andrew
1994 Archaeological Survey of the Prescott Lakes Project Area, Prescott, Arizona. Ms. prepared
for the M3 Companies, Phoenix, Arizona. In possession of author, Prescott, Arizona.
Ciolek-Torrello, Richard S., Stephanie M. Whittlesey, John R. Welch, Steven D. Shelley, and Jeffrey
A. Homburg
1992 The Lower Verde Archaeological Project: Draft Research Design. Submitted to U.S. Department
27
of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Phoenix, Contract No. 1425-2-CS-32-01870. Statistical
Research, Tucson.
Colton, Harold S.
1946 The Sinagua: A Summary of the Archaeology of the Region of Flagstaff. Bulletin No. 22. Museum
of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.
Colton, Mary Russell F., and Harold S. Colton
1931 Petroglyphs: The Record of a Great Adventure. American Anthropologist 33(1):32–37.
Craig, Douglas, and Jeffery Clark
1994 The Meddler Point Site (AZ V:5:4/26). In The Roosevelt Community Development Study: Vol.
3: Meddler Point, Pyramid Point, and Griffin Wash Sites, by M. Elson, D. Swartz, D. Craig, and
J. Clark. Anthropological Papers No. 13. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.
Dorn, Ronald I.
1983 Cation-Ratio Dating: A New Rock Varnish Age Determination Technique. Quarternary
Research 20:49–73.
1989 Cation-ratio dating of rock varnish: A geographical perspective. Progress in Physical
Geography 13:559–596.
1991 Rock Varnish. American Scientist 79:542–553.
1992 Comment on accuracy of rock-varnish chemical analyses: Implications for cation-ratio
dating. Geology 20:470–471.
1994a Dating Petroglyphs with a Three-tier Rock Varnish Approach. In New Light on Old Art:
Recent Advances in Hunter-gatherer Rock Art Research, edited by D. S. Whitley and L. L.
Loendorf, pp. 13–36. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
1994b
Surface Exposure Dating with Rock Varnish. In Dating in Exposed and Surface
Contexts, edited by C. Beck, pp. 77–113. University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque.
Dorn, Ronald I., D. B. Bamforth, T. A. Cahill, J. C. Dohrenwend, B. D. Turrin, D. J. Donahue, A. J. T.
Jull, A. Long, M. E. Macko, E. B. Weil, D. S. Whitley, and T. H. Zabel
1986 Cation-ratio and Accelerator Radiocarbon Dating of Rock Varnish on Mojave Artifacts and
Landforms. Science 231:830–833.
Dorn, Ronald I., and T. M. Oberlander
1981 Microbial Origin of Desert Varnish. Science 213:1245–1247.
Dosh, Steven G., and T. Kathleen Henderson
1990 Site survey record for site AZ U:2:78. On file, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona,
Tucson.
28
Ferg, Alan
1979 The Petroglyphs of Tumamoc Hill. The Kiva 45(1–2):95–118.
Fernstrom, Katherine
1984 Petroglyphs. In Prehistoric Cultural Development in Central Arizona: Archaeology of the Upper
New River Region, edited by P. M. Spoerl and G. J. Gumerman, pp. 323–338. Occasional
Paper No. 5. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University at
Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois.
Fish, Paul R., and Suzanne K. Fish
1977 Verde Valley Archaeology: Review and Prospective. Research Paper No. 8. Museum of Northern
Arizona, Flagstaff.
Grant, Campbell
1978 Canyon de Chelly, Its People and Rock Art. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Hamann, Diane, and Ken Hedges
1986 Topographic Distribution of Hohokam Petroglyph Sites. Rock Art Papers 21:77–86.
Harry, Karen G.
1992 Lithic Procurement and Rock Varnish Dating: Investigations at CA-KER-140, A Small Quarry in
the Western Mojave Desert. Submitted to Bureau of Land Management, California Desert
District, Contract No. N651-C1-3016. Copies available from Statistical Research, Tucson.
Hayden, Julian D.
1972 Hohokam Petroglyphs of the Sierra Pinacate, Sonora, and the Hohokam Shell Expeditions.
The Kiva 37(2):74–83.
Hedges, Ken
1982 Great Basin Rock Art Styles: A Revisionist View. American Indian Rock Art 7:205–211.
Heizer, Robert F., and Martin A. Baumhoff
1962 Prehistoric Rock Art of Nevada and Eastern California. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Jernigan, E. Wesley
1992 Hour-Glass Rock Art Figures of Southeastern Arizona. Publication No. 4. Eastern Arizona
College Museum of Anthropology, Thatcher, Arizona.
Kearns, Timothy M.
1975 Rock Art. In An Archaeological Survey of the Orme Reservoir, assembled by V. Canouts, pp.
94–97, 313–331. Archaeological Series No. 92. Arizona State Museum, University of
Arizona, Tucson.
Krinsley, David H., Ronald I. Dorn, and Steven W. Anderson
1990 Factors that Interfere with the Age Determination of Rock Varnish. Physical Geography
11(2):97–119.
29
Layton, Robert
1992 Australian Rock Art: A New Synthesis. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Lewis-Williams, J. D.
1981 Believing and Seeing: Symbolic Meanings in Southern San Rock Paintings. Academic Press, New
York.
Lindauer, Owen, (editor)
1992 Spur Cross Ranch Surveys. In The Archaeology of Sur Cross Ranch, Cave Creek, Arizona, edited
by C. L. Redman and P. E. Minnis, pp. 17–31. Anthropological Field Studies No. 23. Office
of Cultural Resource Management, Arizona State University, Tempe.
Loendorf, Chris, David Jacobs, and Glen E. Rice
1994 Petroglyph, Grinding Slicks, and Cupules of the Rock Island Complex: U:8:392/862. In
Where the Rivers Converge: Report on the Rock Island Complex, Roosevelt Platform Mound Study
(Draft Report), edited by O. Lindauer. Roosevelt Monograph Series No. 4, Anthropological
Field Studies No. 33. Office of Cultural Resource Management, Arizona State University,
Tempe.
Rodgers, James B.
1977a Archaeological Investigation of Granite Reef Aqueduct, Cave Creek Archaeological District,
Arizona. Anthropological Research Papers No. 12. Office of Cultural Resource Management,
Arizona State University, Tempe.
1977b
A Comparative Petroglyph Analysis of the Northern Salt River Valley, Central
Arizona. Paper presented at the 4th annual Symposium of the American Rock Art
Research Association, Tempe. Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, Arizona
State University, Tempe.
1985 Rock Art Analysis and Regional Comparison of the Terrace Garden Site (AZ T:8:19). In
Hohokam Settlement and Economic Systems in the Central New River Drainage, Arizona, edited
by D. E. Doyel and M. D. Elson, pp. 823–845. Publications in Archaeology No. 4. Soil
Systems, Phoenix.
Russell, Frank
1975 The Pima Indians. Reprinted. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Originally published
1908, Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1904–1905, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Schaafsma, Polly
1980 Indian Rock Art of the Southwest. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Schoonover, Grace, editor
1979 A Rock Art Site Located in the Tonto National Forest Southwest of Horseshoe Dam,
Maricopa County, edited by Grace Schoonover. Department of Certification, Arizona
Archaeological Society, Rock Art Recording Class. Ms. on file, Tonto National Forest,
Arizona.
30
Schroeder, Albert H.
1960 The Hohokam, Sinagua and Hakataya. Archives of Archaeology No. 5. Society for American
Archaeology, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
Snyder, Ernest
1966 Petroglyphs of the South Mountains of Arizona. American Antiquity 31:705–709.
Tagg, Martyn D.
1986 The Tuzigoot Survey and Three Small Verde Valley Projects: Archaeological Investigations in the
Middle Verde Valley, Arizona. Publications in Archaeology No. 40. Western Archaeological
and Conservation Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Tucson.
Thiel, J. Homer
1994 Rock Art in Arizona. Technical Report No. 94-6. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.
Wallace, Henry D.
1995 Decorated Buffware and Brownware Ceramics. In The Roosevelt Community Development
Study: Vol. 2: Ceramic Studies, Draft, edited by J. Heidke and M. Stark. Anthropological
Papers No. 14. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.
1983 The Mortars, Petroglyphs, and Trincheras on Rillito Peak. The Kiva 48(3).
Wallace, Henry D.
1989 Archaeological Investigations at Petroglyph Sites in the Painted Rock Reservoir Area, Southwestern
Arizona. Technical Report No. 89-5. Institute for American Research, Tucson.
Wallace, Henry D., William H. Doelle, and James M. Heidke
1995 Hohokam Origins. Kiva 60(4):575–618.
Wallace, Henry D., and James P. Holmlund
1986 Petroglyphs of the Picacho Mountains, South Central Arizona. Anthropological Papers No. 6.
Institute for American Research, Tucson.
Weaver, Donald E., Jr.
1985 Hieroglyphic Canyon. Monograph No. 1. American Rock Art Research Association, El Toro,
California.
1991a
Documentation and Evaluation of Four Rock Art Sites at Fools Hollow Lake on the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests Navajo County, Arizona. Plateau Mountain Desert
Research, Flagstaff, Arizona.
1991b
Documentation and Evaluation of Two Rock Art Sites at Chevelon Crossing and Mormon
Crossing on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Coconino County, Arizona. Plateau
Mountain Desert Research, Flagstaff, Arizona.
1991c Documentation and Evaluation of Two Rock Sites along Pigeon Creek on the Apache-Sitgreaves
National Forests Greenlee County, Arizona. Plateau Mountain Desert Research, Flagstaff,
Arizona.
31
Weaver, Donald E., Jr., and Bettina H. Rosenberg
1978 Petroglyphs of the Southern Sierra Estrella, A Locational Interpretation. American Indian
Rock Art 4:108–123.
White, Cheryl Ann
1965 The Petroglyphs of Saguaro National Monument, Tucson, Arizona. Ms. on file, Arizona
State Museum Library, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Whitley, David S.
1987 Socio-religious Context and Rock Art in East Central California. Journal of Anthropological
Research 6:159–188.
Whitley, David S., R. I. Dorn, J. Francis, L. L. Loendorf, T. Holcomb, R. Tanner, and J.Bozovich
1996 Recent Advances in Petroglyph Dating and their Implications for the Pre-Clovis
Occupation of North America. In Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology, Vol.9,
pp. 92–103. Society for California Archaeology.
Wood, J. Scott
1987 Checklist of Pottery Types for the Tonto National Forest: An Introduction to the Archaeological
Ceramics of Central Arizona. The Arizona Archaeologist No. 21. Arizona Archaeological
Society, Phoenix.
1995 Winter Solistics Expedition to Perry Mesa. Ms. on file, Desert Archaeology, Tucson, and Tonto
National Forest, Phoenix.
32