Petroglyphs of the Picacho Mountains, South Central Arizona
Creators: name: Wallace, Henry D.
name: Holmlund, James P.
Publisher: name: (:unav)
Year: 1986
Subjects: subject: McClellan Wash
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/geographic-keyword/76798/mcclellan-wash
subject: Red Rock Reservoir
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/geographic-keyword/8719/red-rock-reservoir
subject: Picacho Mountains
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/geographic-keyword/16532/picacho-mountains
subject: Salt-Gila Aquaduct
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/geographic-keyword/76791/salt-gila-aquaduct
subject: Picacho Reservoir
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/geographic-keyword/54281/picacho-reservoir
subject: Hohokam pre-Classic period
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/temporal-keyword/141/hohokam-pre-classic-period
subject: Hohokam Classic period
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/temporal-keyword/144/hohokam-classic-period
subject: Historic Pima
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/temporal-keyword/5621/historic-pima
subject: Hohokam
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/culture-keyword/21/hohokam
subject: AZ AA:7:51(ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/6132/az-aa751asm
subject: AZ AA:7:27(ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/6206/az-aa727asm
subject: Picacho Point
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/3525/picacho-point
subject: AA AZ:3:121(ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/6218/aa-az3121asm
subject: North Pass
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/3531/north-pass
subject: AZ AA:3:106(ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/6219/az-aa3106asm
subject: AZ AA:3:107(ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/6220/az-aa3107asm
subject: Shelter Gap
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/3533/shelter-gap
subject: AZ AA:3:122(ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/6221/az-aa3122asm
subject: AZ AA:3:123(ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/6222/az-aa3123asm
subject: AZ AA:3:124(ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/6223/az-aa3124asm
subject: AZ AA:3:125(ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/6224/az-aa3125asm
subject: AZ AA:3:41(ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/6225/az-aa341asm
subject: AZ AA:3:42A(ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/6226/az-aa342aasm
subject: Sheep
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/3539/sheep
subject: AZ AA:3:42B(ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/6227/az-aa342basm
subject: AZ AA:3:42D(ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/6228/az-aa342dasm
subject: Kisto
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/3541/kisto
subject: AZ AA:3:42E(ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/6229/az-aa342easm
subject: La Cuesta
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/3542/la-cuesta
subject: AZ AA:3:42F(ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/6230/az-aa342fasm
subject: AZ AA:3:8(ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/6231/az-aa38asm
subject: AZ AA:7:18(ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/6232/az-aa718asm
subject: AZ AA:7:83(ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/6233/az-aa783asm
subject: AZ AA:7:84(ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/6234/az-aa784asm
subject: AZ AA:7:85(ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/6235/az-aa785asm
subject: AZ AA:7:86(ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/6236/az-aa786asm
subject: AZ AA:7:87(ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/6237/az-aa787asm
subject: AZ AA:3:18(ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/6121/az-aa318asm
subject: Rock Art
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-type/361/rock-art
subject: Petroglyph
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-type/363/petroglyph
subject: Protohistoric repecking
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/other-keyword/134735/protohistoric-repecking
subject: Western Archaic Tradition
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/other-keyword/134733/western-archaic-tradition
subject: Gila style
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/other-keyword/134734/gila-style
subject: Picacho Mountains Archaeology
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/other-keyword/108362/picacho-mountains-archaeology
subject: Petroglyph Study
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/other-keyword/124617/petroglyph-study
subject: Site Evaluation / Testing
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/investigation-type/10/site-evaluation-testing
subject: Systematic Survey
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/investigation-type/12/systematic-survey

description: This report presents the results of an intensive archaeological study of the petroglyph sites in the Picacho Mountains of south-central Arizona. Twelve sites with a total of 4,152 recorded designs are considered. A sample survey of the foothills of the Picacho Mountains and previous research performed by the authors at 31 additional petroglyph sites in the Tucson Basin and Samaniego Hills provide contextual information and a substantial comparative data base. The study was conducted by the Institute for American Research under the sponsorship of the Bureau of Reclamation (contract No. 4-CS-30-00788). It comprises one aspect of the archaeological mitigation program concerned with Phase A of the Tucson Aqueduct Project. Three major episodes of glyph making were identified in the Picacho Mountains: Western Archaic Tradition, Gila style, and Protohistoric. Clear evidence of a design style classed as part of the Western Archaic Tradition that is dated to the Archaic period is presented, extending as late as the Pioneer period of the Hohokam sequence. The majority of the Picacho designs are classed as Gila style and dated to the Hohokam occupation of the region. A significant Protohistoric utilization of the area is documented through survey data, and widespread repecking of glyphs is dated to this time period. The stylistic sequence is believed to represent cultural continuity between Archaic and Gila styles and discontinuity between the Gila style and the Protohistoric repecking. The latter is interpreted as representative of culture change following the Hohokam Classic period. Petroglyph site distribution in terms of design element numbers, time depth, and site complexity was found to be related to projecting bedrock points and a large natural corridor through the northern Picacho Mountains we refer to as North Pass. Survey of the corridor for isolated artifacts confirmed the interpretation that it was used for passage through the mountains. Intra-site spatial analyses identified a correlation of petroglyphs with the distribution of small rockshelters, quarries, and trails. Proximity and diversity analyses are used to test the significance of these associations and to test a series of functional hypotheses concerning the Picacho sites and the sites from the regional data base. The results of these studies strongly support the interpretation that Gila style petroglyphs are symbols recognized by multiple individuals and presumably multiple social and community groups. No evidence for consistent symbol-activity relationships were discovered, although diversity analyses demonstrate differences in the utilization of different types of cultural features. The application of proximity analysis to attributes not related to symbolism, in this case specific anthropomorph characteristics, produced the first clear evidence for stylistic variability within the range of the Gila style. An examination of petroglyph function and symbolism led to the conclusion that some of the Archaic designs related to the hunting of large game animals. perhaps in the manner discussed by previous researchers in the Great Basin. Many of the Gila style designs are thought to relate to ritual activities on an individualistic bas is. Specific ideographs identified and discussed include several "birthing" or fertility scenes, petroglyph "maps", and a possible curing ceremony. An unexpected result of the detailed studies of petroglyphs and repatination was the discovery that historic and prehistoric earthquakes had affected the study area. The significance of this finding to archaeologists working with rock art sites and to geologists interested in paleoseismicity is addressed.