The University of Arizona Press

2010 The Arizona Board of Regents

All rights reserved

www.uapress.arizona.edu

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Engendering households in the prehistoric Southwest I edited by Barbara

J. Roth.
p.cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-8165-2816-5
1. Indians of North America - Southwest, New- Antiquities. 2. Social
archaeology- Southwest, New. 3. Households- Southwest, New- History.
4. Women, Prehistoric- Southwest, New- History. 5. Sex role- Southwest,
New- History. 6. Chaco culture. 7. Hohokam culture. 8. Mimbres
culture. 9. Excavations (Archaeology)- Southwest, New. 10. Southwest,
New- Antiquities. I. Roth, Barbara J., 1958-
E78.S7E535201O
979'.01 - dc22
2009040700

Manufactured in the United States of America on acid-free,

archival-quality paper containing a minimum of 30% post-
consumer waste and processed chlorine free.

15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2
11
Engendering Households through
Technological Identity
Jenny L. Adams

One of the more rewarding results of archaeological artifact analysis

is finding tangible evidence of personal or social identity (sensu Mills
2004:4). Written specifically to address the topic of engendering house-
holds, this chapter focuses on the concept of technological identity. Tech-
nological identity is developed through a framework of specific techno-
logical behaviors varyingly referred to as practices and traditions, and
manifest as performances and style. The principles that structure tech-
nological identity are developed within specific cultural milieus, where
people are socialized by learning methods of making, living, and behav-
ing. These principles are passed among people within and across genera-
tions (Dobres 2000; Dobres and Hoffman 1999; Lemonnier 1986, 1992).
This process is enculturation and is a subset of the underlying habitus
(Bourdieu 1977), within which are created culturally distinctive techno-
logical attributes that can be recognized even if they become scattered
across the landscape. Engendering households is possible because tech-
nological practice transcends the household and precisely because "habi-
tus is a dynamic relational phenomenon which is both an historical pro-
cess and agent" (Dietler and Herbich 1998:247).
People learn their methods of making, living, and behaving initially
within the household where they grow up and, as they mature, within
the larger community in which their households are situated 0. Clark
2004:44- 45). Normatively speaking, girls learn how to make, live, and
behave from their female elders and peers, boys from their male elders
and peers. Of course, there are exceptions. Although enculturation
occurs at multiple levels during a person's life, thereby perpetuating cul-
tural habitus, divergent technological behavior becomes possible through
experimentation, mistakes, modifications to meet changing demands,
and exposure to outside influences (Dietler and Herbich 1998:250- 253;
Schiffer and Skibo 1987:598- 599). The fact that technological knowledge
can be passed between groups allows for the recognition of informa-
tion transfer in the form of redesigned tools and changes or variations
in design attributes.
 Engendering Households through Technological Identity 209

The process of information transfer is visible in the archaeological

record if the right questions are asked and answered with data. The right
questions include: What were the reactions of practitioners of different
technological traditions as they learned of new tool designs? Would they
choose to ignore the alternatives, to modify their indigenous designs, or
to adopt the alternative designs? When would such decisions become
important? It may be an oddity or discontinuity that helps us recognize
and better understand the importance of the norm within a technologi-
cal tradition (Stark 1998:8). Why, for example, is there a full-groove axe
head among a collection of %-groove axes heads from central Arizona?
Why are there one or two open-trough metates among a collection of
%-trough metates from northern Arizona? These oddities have long been
recognized in collections from the U.S. Southwest and have usually been
interpreted as resulting from trade connections or representing develop-
ments that improved efficiency. Yet what would assemblages look like if
different technological traditions were brought to a settlement by a mar-
riage partner, by a migrant family, or by an entire village on the move?
How do we distinguish the movement of objects through exchange from
their movement by other mechanisms?
These questions become answerable by approaching them using a deep
historical perspective. Although culture history is considered by some
researchers to be a dated paradigm (Ferguson 2004:34; Stark 1998:3),
there is utility in comparing the development of technological practices
through time in different parts of the Southwest. Clearly, material culture
boundaries do not always mirror social boundaries (Ferguson 2004:30,
Mills 2004:4). However, the ability to recognize technological choices
and distinguish the importance or utility of competing choices allows
for the recognition of sociocultural limitations imposed on technologi-
cal choice (Horsfall 1987; see for example case studies in Stark 1998). The
following sections briefly recount a historical perspective of the choices
that women and men made in food-processing technology, axe-hafting
techniques, and pot-shaping techniques. These choices result in distinct
technological identities.

Ethnographic Models
The framework for recognizing identity among ground-stone assem -
blages presented here begins with ethnography- a model source that
should not be underestimated, especially in the Southwest, where there
are multiple Native American cultures from which to learn. Native
210 Jenny L. Adams

American potters and cooks can-and most will-recount their own

enculturative experiences, identifying who taught them, whom they
taught, and how easy or difficult the process was for them (Fontana
et ai. 1962; Udall 1969; Underhill 1946). Additionally, written accounts
exist that provide time depth to these experiences (Hough 1915; Spier
1933; Stephen 1936; Titiev 1972). Even though caveats should be recog-
nized (Fowler 2000) about how some ethnographic descriptions were
self-serving, photographs were staged, and relationships between eth-
nographers and natives were sometimes muddled, the judicious use of
ethnography can provide a range of possible models for reconstruct-
ing prehistoric agency and engendering the past. For some behaviors,
such as making and using axes, cross-cultural comparisons must serve
because no one living today in the Southwest uses stone axes, nor are
there any written accounts of their manufacture or use.
One of the most important concepts to come out of the archaeologi-
cal use of ethnography is the recognition of teaching frameworks. Teach-
ing frameworks facilitate the transmission of "recipes for action:' and
technological traditions are created through the transmission of techno-
logical knowledge (Schiffer and Skibo 1987:597-598). Transmissions may
be either verbal or nonverbal, with the most common teaching frame-
works taking the form of demonstrations, apprenticeships, and imitation.
There are accounts of mothers teaching daughters to grind food (Hough
1915:62-63; Titiev 1972:20) and of daughters grinding meal under the
watchful eyes of their new husband's relatives (Spier 1933:77- 79; Titiev
1972:37-38; Udall 1969:154-155; Underhill 1946:47). Potters teach their
relatives and perhaps their neighbors how to make pots (Stanislawski
1978:219; Stephen 1936:1020; Stevenson 1904:373; Titiev 1972:21). Instruc-
tions included the proper selection of raw material, as well as the proper
selection and use of manufacturing tools-in essence teaching the chaine
operatoire (see Dobres 2000 and Stark 1998 for historical and practical
discussions of chaine operatoire).
Ethnographies written about Puebloan groups such as the Hopi,
Zuni, and various Rio Grande pueblos- as well as about non-Puebloan
groups such as the Maricopa, Yuma, and O'odham (the latter includes
Papago and Pima)- are specifically useful for modeling the range of
variation in prehistoric food-preparation techniques and their attendant
social behavior. For example, accounts of non-Pueblo groups illustrate
women using freestanding metates outside their houses (Fontana 1983:
fig. 6; Spier 1933: pI. III; Stewart 1968:33). One woman did the grinding,
and if another woman was involved, she was attending to some other
 Engendering Households through Technological Identity 211

preparation task (Underhill [1939]1969:67). Women who prepared foods

together took turns grinding using the same equipment. The equipment
was movable for use elsewhere or for storage. Among non-Puebloan
groups, grinding was done daily to prepare food for consumption by the
household and any visitors. Small amounts of meal may have filled an
extra pot or two (Spier 1933:52), with additional grinding needed occa-
sionally for festivals or large gatherings (Underhill [1939]1969:82).
Illustrations of Hopi and Zuni habitation rooms show multiple, slab-
lined bins as permanent fixtures (Bartlett 1933: fig. 7; Ladd 1979: fig.3;
Mindeleff [1891]1989: figs. 101, 105). Pueblo an women used permanent
grinding stations, where two or more women worked together, some-
times in rhythm to singing or flute music supplied by a male visitor
(Hough 1915:62- 63; Kidder 1932:67, quoting Castaneda; Stephen 1936:153-
154,882). They at times produced massive quantities of flour, far beyond
daily household needs, in preparation for communal functions such as
the feasts associated with weddings, social dances, and the frequent kat-
sina ceremonies that occurred over a period of several months each year
(Hough 1915:70; Simpson 1953:39; Stephen 1936:134,589).
Ethnographic accounts of pottery manufacture document the fact
that pottery production was also women's work among both Puebloan
(Dillingham and Elliot 1992:10; Simpson 1953:75; Stanislawski 1978:217)
and non -Puebloan groups (Fontana et al. 1962; Russell [1908] 1975=126-
127; Spier 1933:107). The paddle-and-anvil technique of pottery shaping
has been documented among Southern Paiute, Yuman, and O'odham
groups (Fontana et al. 1962:13, 14; Spier 1933:107; Wendorf 1953:165). Rus-
sell ([1908] 1975=126-127, pI. xvii) describes a Pima woman coiling a pot
and then blending the coils with a paddle and anvil. The process is clearly
illustrated by a Papago potter in Fontana et al. (1962: figs. 52- 61). Pot-
shaping techniques that do not include a paddle or an anvil have been
documented among Puebloan groups such as the Hopi, Zuni, and Rio
Grande (Batlan 1987:16-18; Bunzel [1929]1972:6; Wyckoff 1990:153).
Models for how axes were used in the prehistoric Southwest need to
be derived from sources other than Southwest ethnographies. There are
accounts of axe heads secondarily used in stonework or placed on altars
(Hough 1918:270-271; Russell [1908]1975:110; Stephen 1936:43; Woodbury
1954:40- 42); however, there are no accounts of anyone in the Southwest
making stone axe heads or using them to chop trees. Models for how
axes could have been manufactured and used in the prehistoric South-
west can be derived from the ethnographic accounts of native groups in
the Amazon (Carneiro 1979), Australia (Gould 1977; Gould, Koster, and
212 Jenny L. Adams

A. Sontz 1971), or New Guinea (Phillips 1979), where men made the axes
and were the most frequent users . Given these multiple cross-cultural
examples, a model of axe manufacture and use by males is plausible for
the Southwest. Experiments with tool use (Morris 1939:137; Saraydar and
Shimada 1971) and use-wear analysis (Mills 1993) indicate that axes were
used to chop trees, grub bushes or tubers out of the ground, and modify
stone surfaces.
The above are examples of technological behaviors that might also
have occurred in the past. The traditions exemplified are products of the
intergenerational transfer of knowledge. However, teaching frameworks
also operate interculturally through social mechanisms such as inter-
marriage, migration, and slavery. Intercultural transmission of techno-
logical knowledge is recognizable in redesigned tools and changes in tool
design attributes. No matter how practitioners of one technological tra-
dition become aware of an alternative tradition, at some point someone
decides whether or not to adopt the alternative and then passes along the
new design within his or her own teaching framework.
The repetition of a particular design is the clearest indicator of teach-
ing frameworks, especially if the design continues despite the presence
of alternatives. The differing designs of axes and metates are the best
examples of teaching frameworks at work within ground-stone tradi-
tions. Those who learn to make a particular groove configuration (full-
groove or %-groove) on their axe head or to design a particular grinding
surface configuration (basin, flat, open-trough, or %-trough) on their
met ate can decide to change or not to change when made aware of an
alternative. If the alternative design is perceived as more efficient, easier
to hold, or more durable than the existing design, then the decision to
change is functional, while the decision not to change is sociocultural
or traditional. If the alternative and the existing design are perceived as
equally efficient, easy to hold, and durable, then the decision to change
or not to change is informed by sociocultural or traditional parameters.
This is a simplification of a very complex topic, but it provides the frame-
work for categorizing decisions made by technological practitioners.

Technological History in Lieu of Culture History

Researchers like A.V. Kidder, J.O. Brew, Emil Haury, Joe Ben Wheat, Paul
Martin, Charles Di Peso, and others categorized archaeological differ-
ences into culture areas and named them Anasazi, Hohokam, Mogollon,
Salado, Patayan, Cohonina, Sinagua, etc. Today, some archaeologists shy
-
Engendering Households through Technological Identity 213

Table 11.1 Ground-stone technological traditions in

the U.s. Southwest
Tradition Metate Design Axe Hafting Pottery Shaping
Circa AD 500

Hohokam Open trough % groove Paddle and anvil

with ridges
Mogollon % trough Unknown Scrape and polish
Anasazi % trough Notched Scrape and polish
Circa AD 1000

Hohokam Open trough % groove no ridge Paddle and anvil

Mogollon Open and % trough % groove Scrape and polish
Fixed receptacles
Anasazi % trough and flat Full groove Scrape and polish
Fixed bins

away from using these ethnic terms, especially Anasazi. However, there
is utility in using them for referencing technological identity. Differences
between Hohokam, Mogollon, and Anasazi technological identities are
specifically addressed here for axe hafting, food grinding, and pottery
shaping (see table 11.1).
The earliest practitioners of Hohokam technological traditions hafted
their axes with a %-groove, ground their food on free -standing, open-
trough metates, and used anvils to shape their pots (see fig. 11.1; Adams
2002, 2003; Gladwin et al. 1965; Haury 1976). The evidence for early
Mogollon axe-hafting technology is sparse, but practitioners designed
a %-groove hafting technique, ground their food on %-trough metates,
and did not use anvils to shape their pots (Adams 1994, 2002; Anyon
and LeBlanc 1984:280; Wheat 1955). The earliest practitioners of Ana-
sazi technological traditions hafted their axe heads with paired notches,
ground their food on free-standing, %-trough metates, and did not use
anvils to shape their pots (Adams 2002; Brew 1946; Woodbury 1954).
These technological traditions were not static, however, and through
time, there were subtle but important design developments.

Axe-Hafting Technology
In general, axe heads were attached to handles using three basic tech-
niques: %-groove, full groove, and notched. Variations do occur, such
",. '.
\
L

~
( \.
r' l~

Figure 11.1 Schematic maps of the U.S. Southwest depicting the spatial
orientation and movement of stone tool technological traditions. (a) Axe -
head designs. Hafting an axe head with a full groove was an Anasazi technique
originating in the northern Southwest; through time, the technique moved
south, while the Hohokam and Mogollon lA-groove technique originated in the
south and moved north through time. (b) Food-processing tool designs. Open-
trough metates were a Hohokam design that moved to the north through time,
while lA-trough metates were a Mogollon and Anasazi design.
 Engendering Households through Technological Identity 215

as the spiral groove on some full-groove axe heads and a wedge groove
or ridges bordering the groove on some %-groove axe heads (Adams
1979:34-37; Haury 1976:291; Kidder 1932:50-53; Woodbury 1954:35). Han-
dles were attached through various methods of splitting and wrapping
branches around grooved or notched stone heads (see Adams 2002: fig.
7.5 for three designs). One axe-hafting technique has not been docu-
mented to be better than another. The assumption here is that there is no
functional difference between the various axe forms.
Haury (1976:291) developed an evolutionary scheme for Hohokam
%-groove axe heads based on those recovered from Snaketown. He con-
cluded that axe technology came into southern Arizona from areas far-
ther south in western Mexico. If %-groove axes arrived in Arizona from
Mexico, the earliest came prior to the Sweetwater phase (ca. AD 550)
and had one or two distinctive ridges bordering the groove, some with
a wedge groove (Haury 1976:291). Evidence for the local manufacture
of axe heads has been found in the Tucson basin as early as the mid- to
late Tortolita phase (ca. AD 550), and not all of them have ridges (Adams
20 03:213; 2008:325). No matter where the axe heads originated or when,
by AD 850, the Hohokam designed their %-groove axe heads without
ridges.
Evidence for Mogollon axe design is sparse among pithouse villages,
but by AD 900 , the people manufactured %-groove axe-heads without
ridges (Adams 1994; Anyon and LeBlanc 1984:280; Wheat 1955). A lack
of axe heads in pithouse components but their presence in later pueblo
components was noted at both the Point of Pines area in east-central
Arizona (Adams 1994:167; Wheat 1955:123- 124) and at the Galaz Ruin in
southwest New Mexico (Anyon and LeBlanc 1984:280). Obviously, tech-
niques for felling trees would have been critical to building pithouses,

(c) Permanent grinding stations. Anasazi technology solved the problem of

confining food-processing tasks with slab-lined bins and flat metates; this
technology moved from north to south. Mogollon technology solved the
problem with adobe receptacles, and Hohokam technology did not create
permanent fixtures. (d) Pot-shaping techniques. Hohokam pot-shaping
technology incorporated the use of stone anvils and the technique moved
through time from south to north. Stone anvils were apparently not used
in Mogollon or Anasazi technologies. Source: Desert Archaeology, Inc.,
Catherine Gilman, cartographer.
216 Jenny L. Adams

and there may have been circumstances that removed the axes from pit-
house contexts. For example, a model for Anasazi axe-head curation has
been proposed whereby axes were needed in the greatest numbers during
periods of construction and remodeling (Larralde and Schlanger 1994).
When not needed, they were stockpiled for future use. Stockpiles were
left to become part of the archaeological record only when construction
or remodeling activities were not anticipated. Following the line of evi-
dence for these circumstances, the apparent lack of axe heads at pit house
villages may be a product of formation processes. If axes truly were not
used at the pithouse settlements, then techniques for felling trees and
shaping construction beams would have included the use of hand axes
and choppers. These hand tools are noted among Mogollon assemblages
but have not been found in numbers larger than those in Anasazi or
Hohokam assemblages with axes.
The earliest Anasazi axe technology is evident prior to AD 700 in the
Four Corners area, with notched axes recovered from Basketmaker III
sites (Adams 2002:171). By Pueblo I, axe manufacturers were designing
axe heads with full grooves (Adams 2002:171; Etzkorn 1993: fig. 4.7; Haury
1945:131; Woodbury 1954:36). The full-groove design is thought to have
originated in the San Juan Basin/Utah area and it persisted apparently
unchanged in northern Arizona until stone axe heads were replaced by
metal tools (Woodbury 1954:35- 37, 41).

Food-Grinding Technology

Around AD 500, Hohokam food grinders designed free -standing open-

trough metates, a design that never changed. Mogollon and Anasazi food
grinders first designed free -standing * -trough metates (Adams 1994,
2002; Martin et al. 1956), yet profound changes to food -grinding tradi-
tions occurred with the development of permanent grinding stations. In
both traditions, the new concept stayed as a permanent fixture, yet the
traditions' confinement techniques were different (Adams 2002:115-119).
The Mogollon solution was a grinding receptacle that ranged from a hole
in the floor, with the distal end of a * -trough metate angled into the
hole, to an adobe ridge or encirclement that created a catchment basin
(Adams 2002:116-117). Receptacles were common features in the Mog-
ollon region by the early AD 1200S (Adams 1994, 2002; Martin et al. 1956:
fig. 17). The Anasazi solution was the construction of slab-lined grinding
bins that surrounded flat metates, a design developed sometime between
 Engendering Households through Technological Identity 217

AD 900 and 1000 (Adams 2002:116; Brew 1946; Swannack 1969; Wood-
bury 1954:63-64). The metates were mortared into place at an angle and
set with a container at the distal end to catch the ground meal.

Pot-Shaping Technology

In 1956, Shepard published Ceramics for the Archaeologist, in which she

describes technological practices that have a much broader raI}ge than
the Southwest. For this discussion, her distinctions between forming and
shaping techniques are important (Shepard 1956:54- 65). Modeling and
coiling are the forming techniques most commonly used by prehistoric
and historic potters in the Southwest. Two shaping techniques are the
paddle-and-anvil technique and scraping. The bonding and thinning
tactics of paddling a pot formed with coils of clay are an alternative to
bonding by pressing the coils together with the fingers and then thinning
the vessel by scraping with a sherd or gourd scraper (Shepard 1995:59,
185) . Shepard admits that distinguishing between shaping techniques is
difficult with sherds, but it is also difficult with pots that have obliterat-
ing surface finishes (Shepard 1956:185). The presence of anvils provides
additional evidence for the paddle-and-anvil shaping technique.
The paddle-and-anvil technique was a part of Hohokam potting tech-
nology at Snaketown, with ceramic evidence noted during the Vahki-
phase occupation (Gladwin et al. 1965:228), with stone-anvil evidence
during the Rillito and Rincon phases, between AD 850 and 1150 (Gladwin
et al. 1965: fig. XLV), and at the Hodges Ruin in the Tucson basin (Adams
2002:157; Kelly, Officer, and Haury 1978:91- 93). Apparently, neither Ana-
sazi nor Mogollon potting technology included paddle-and-anvil shap-
ing, with the possible exception of Adamana Brown, an early brown ware
made in the Petrified Forest and Puerco Valley areas of northern Arizona
(Reed, Wilson, and Hays-Gilpin 2000:207). Pots were formed by coiling
in all three technological traditions.
This brief historical perspective shows that in the Southwest, there
were distinctive technological solutions to the problems of putting a
handle on a stone axe head, grinding substances between two stones, and
shaping pots. Two primary solutions were designed to solve the problem
of hafting an axe. The men in the northern part of the Southwest learned
the Anasazi axe-hafting techniques of first making notches and later full
grooves to hold the handle. Men in the southern and central parts of
the Southwest learned the Hohokam axe-hafting technique of making a
218 Jenny l. Adams

%-groove on the axe head to hold the handle (fig. n.la). These two tool
designs, with minor variations, remained basically unchanged and dis-
tinct throughout prehistory and were abandoned only when better tech-
nology was introduced in the form of metal axe heads.
The technological solutions developed by women for grinding foods
and for shaping pots also varied regionally, but in a way different from
the solution of the male axe manufacturers. In the northern and cen-
tral portion of the Southwest, Mogollon and Anasazi food-processing
tool designs were initially similar, with freestanding, %-trough metates,
but while both technological traditions eventually developed permanent
grinding stations, the solutions to confining the ground resources and
the design of the permanently affixed metates were different. In southern
Arizona specifically, Hohokam food-processing tool designs were dis-
tinct (fig. 1l.lb, c), with open troughs that were rarely placed in perma-
nent fixtures. Other female technological traditions in southern Arizona
also remained distinctive with the continued use ofthe paddle-and-anvil
pot-shaping technique, which was not used by woman of Anasazi and
Mogollon technological traditions (fig. ll.ld). These technological tradi-
tions of axe hafting, food processing, and pottery shaping highlight tech-
niques, performances, and designs that can be used to track technologi-
cal identity and gender at multiple levels of analysis.

Engendering Households through

Technological Traditions
The technological histories previously described establish a baseline
for each of three traditions and outline significant developments that
contribute to distinctive technological identities. The establishment of
these distinct identities is important for understanding the source and
trajectory of technological change and for sorting out what happened
when practitioners of different technological traditions came into con-
tact. Particularly with immigration, it is possible to sort out the process
whereby technological practitioners were exposed to new designs and
made choices about maintaining or changing their own technologies.
The decision to maintain distinctive designs may have had important
social implications or benefits by allowing the tradition in question to
remain recognizable (Lemonnier 1986:160- 161). Alternatively, it may
have been important for an immigrant party to blend in by adopting
new designs, particularly if an immigrant individual or household would
suffer by remaining obViously foreign. These are not startling new ideas.
 Engendering Households through Technological Identity 219

,.' I
::; " ~ \.~
W:9:~JI ~ \: ~ .
St()~.C'anfdn Site

~.
' 1. I
W:9:83
Lunt Site
,

\
, I

Kilometers
o 4

Figure 11.2 Map of the Point of Pines area sites. Source: Desert Archaeology,
Inc., Catherine Gilman, cartographer.

However, a framework constructed with ethnographically based models

and technological histories, as outlined above, allows for the recognition
of specific behaviors relevant to foreign and indigenous technologies
generally used at the household level. In the following section, I illus-
trate this using a case study from the Point of Pines area of east-central
Arizona.
The Point of Pines area (see fig. 11.2) has a deep culture history span-
ning at least one thousand years, with evidence of foreign technology
220 Jenny L. Adams

recognizable as early as AD 400. 1 During this thousand-year period,

architectural construction technology changed from pithouses to pueb-
los. The indigenous technological traditions are defined by the material
culture at Crooked Ridge Village. This pithouse village was occupied
over a period of two hundred years between AD 400 and 600, as deter-
mined primarily by ceramic cross-dating and a few superimposed pit-
houses (Wheat 1954:167-175).
Pithouse 2 is within the range of variation for typical early Mogollon
pithouses. Also typical are the two %-trough metates set up in use posi-
tions near the hearth and the nearby Alma Plain and Alma Smudged
pots (Wheat 1954:19-22, fig. 4). However, several ground-stone artifacts
recovered from the floor are foreign, including a %-groove axe head with
ridges on either side of the groove, a carved stone bowl, and a medi-
cine stone (Adams 1994:248; Wheat 1954:22, fig. 51). These three items are
typical of contemporary Hohokam technology as practiced in southern
Arizona, leading Wheat (1954:22) to conclude that they were trade items.
The only other foreign objects found at any of the other households at
Crooked Ridge were several ceramics, and these are not conclusive evi-
dence for either trade or the presence of foreign women at the village.
The sparse representation of foreign items within one house in a village
context, in my opinion, is best explained by the presence of an individual
foreign male in the household living in Pithouse 2.
The isolated occurrence of an axe head brings up another, possibly
unanswerable, question. If the inhabitants of Crooked Ridge Village did
not already have stone axes, why wouldn't they adopt stone-axe technol-
ogy for felling trees when clearly there was at least one example at the
settlement? Axe heads in any quantity were found only in later pueblo
contexts in the Point of Pines area, and they may be additional evidence
for the model of axe-head caching proposed by Larralde and Schlanger
(1994). If, however, the contention that axes were not used by pithouse
inhabitants is correct, then the axe head found at Crooked Ridge is an
example of an ignored technology, which is interesting in itself.
Indigenous technological traditions continued in the Point of Pines
area with pithouse occupations at the Stove Canyon (AD 700-900), Lunt
(about AD 800), and Nantack (AD 900-1000) sites. The Pueblo an occu-
pations at these settlements are not considered here. Only Stove Canyon
had foreign architecture, represented by two pithouses constructed with
Hohokam technology (Neely 1974:312). Ground-stone artifacts indicative
of Hohokam technology recovered from the site included a single pot-
tery anvil and a palette (Adams 1994). Room notes and catalogue cards
 Engendering Households through Technological Identity 221

indicate that a few .i -trough metates were found, but most metates were
not classified by trough configuration (Adams 1994). However, if women
from southern Arizona were living in the Hohokam-design pithouses,
which seems likely given the presence of a pottery anvil, it is plausi-
ble that they were also using Hohokam-design, open-trough metates
for food processing. None of the food -processing, axe-hafting, or pot-
shaping technologies at Nantack or Lunt were foreign, although pal-
ette fragments were recovered from Lunt. Only .i -trough metates were
recovered from either pithouse settlement, two .i -groove axe heads were
found in fill deposits at Nantack, and no stone pottery anvils were found
at either settlement (Adams 1994; Breternitz 1959).
Thus, prior to AD 1000, there is minimal evidence in the ground-stone
assemblages for the introduction of foreign technological practices into
the Point of Pines area. Individuals or single households could account
for the quantities of foreign stone tools in the pre-Pueblo an villages. Axes
hafted by means of .i -grooves, stone anvils for shaping pots, and prob-
ably open-trough metates were known to the indigenous population and
coexisted alongside indigenous technology. If teaching frameworks were
in place for the cross-cultural transfer of technological information, the
evidence is not obvious in the archaeological record until later in time.
Sometime after AD 1000, major changes are evident in the Point of
Pines area, as they are elsewhere in the Southwest. There was a clear
change in habitus, most obviously in architectural technology associated
with the shift from pithouse to pueblo architecture. This change is visible
at Wao:37, constructed between AD 1100 and 1200. Twenty-one single-
story rooms and five kivas were excavated and are thought to have been
about half of the existing rooms, with the possibility of one more kiva
(Olson 1959:21). For all the obvious changes in architectural technol-
ogy, there was little change in other stone technological traditions. Axe-
hafting technology remained unchanged, as evidenced by the recovery
of nineteen .i-groove axe heads. However, I propose that the two full-
grooved axes recovered from W:1O:37 were brought there by immigrant
men, along with masonry architectural technology.
Furthermore, because there is no other evidence of Hohokam tech-
nology, it is apparent that some indigenous food grinders adopted
open-trough metates, which were more plentiful (n = 9) than .i -trough
metates (n = 3) at W:1O:37 (Adams 1994). The location of food-grinding
activities in pueblo rooms remained the same as in the earlier pithouses,
with freestanding metates situated near hearths. No permanent grind-
ing stations, either receptacles or bins, were uncovered. Thus, while the
Figure 11.3 Two grinding facilities in the Point of Pines area.
Top: Adobe collared receptacles atTurkey Creek Pueblo, which was
occupied circa AD 1225- 1290. Source: Arizona State Museum, University of
Arizona, Emil Haury, photographer.
Bottom: Slab-lined bins at W:1O:51, which was occupied after AD 1400. Source:
Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, E.B. Sayles, photographer.
 Engendering Households through Technological Identity 223

two axe heads and the radically different architectural technology are
evidence for the presence of Anasazi technological traditions, there is
no obvious evidence of technological traditions associated with immi-
grant females.
The impacts of northern immigrants are obvious and well known at
Turkey Creek Pueblo, occupied between AD 1225 and 1290, and at the
Point of Pines Pueblo, which was occupied concurrently with Turkey
Creek and until early in the 1400S. Turkey Creek Pueblo has been inter-
preted a~ fully Anasazi by Haury (1989:117) and as a mixture of Ana-
sazi and Mogollon, equaling Western Pueblo, by Lowell (1991b:15-16).
Among the ground-stone artifacts, indigenous technology prevails, with
*-groove axe heads, both open- and * -trough metates, and the addi-
tion of permanent grinding receptacles (see fig. 11.3, top). No stone-lined
grinding bins were found at Turkey Creek, nor is there evidence of pot-
tery types common to the Kayenta Anasazi, who later migrated to the
Point of Pines Pueblo (Zedeno 2002:81). Assuming that this information
has not been misinterpreted by me, there is nothing that truly reflects the
technology of immigrant women at Turkey Creek Pueblo.
Turkey Creek may be one of the more faScinating locations where it
is possible to understand what happened when the practitioners of dif-
ferent technological traditions are coresident. Immigrant men brought
their full-groove hafting techniques with them, but when they arrived
in the Point of Pines area, they either scavenged or were given axes with
%-grooves. These axe heads were modified by extending the groove
across the previously ungrooved edge to meet Anasazi design require-
ments for a properly hafted axe head (see fig. 11.4). Three examples of
such remodeling were associated with floors at Turkey Creek Pueblo.
Lowell's (1991b) research at Turkey Creek Pueblo considered the
implications of two different hearth deSigns, circular and rectangular.
She concluded that the hearth types resulted from different uses and that
a household, or "dwelling" in her terms, consisted of a suite of rooms that
included both types of hearths, as well as rooms without hearths (Low-
ell 1991b:31). Her study provided the data for a cross-tally of hearth type
with metate and axe designs for assessing the technological identity of
households at Turkey Creek Pueblo by the presence of indigenous and
immigrant technology (see table 11.2). The assumption here is that slab-
lined, rectangular hearths were part of Puebloan architectural technol-
ogy (Clark 2001:62) and that circular hearths were remnants of indigo
enous technology. As it sorts out, the evidence is sparse, with only six
224 Jenny L. Adams

e,I 2e 3, "e
o 4
-
Scm

Figure 11.4 Regrooved axe heads from Turkey Creek Pueblo. Two tech-
niques were used for redesigning %-grooves into full-grooves: a narrower
groove was manufactured into the formerly ungrooved side in alignment
with the original groove (top); a new full-groove was manufactured to one
side of the original %-groove (bottom). Source: Desert Archaeology, Inc.,
Rob Ciaccio, photographer.

hearths associated with full-groove or regrooved axe heads (table 11.2).

Five of the six (83 percent) are rectangular hearths.
Although the sample size is small, I propose that these co-occurrences
are additional evidence for the interm,ingling of immigrant and indige-
nous occupants. Yet, with no examples of anything but indigenous food-
processing technology, it appears that only Anasazi men immigrated as
an extrahousehold group to the Point of Pines area, perhaps in search of
suitable settlement locations. They apparently built Turkey Creek coop-
eratively with indigenous groups, who continued to use their traditional
hearth, axe-hafting, and food-grinding technologies. The immigration
of families came later. Such a pattern of prior immigration of males fol-
lowed by resident households has been noted as one of many typical
frontier population patterns (Herr 2001:19).
 Engendering Households through Technological Identity 225

Table 11.2 Cross tabulation of hearths, metates, and axes

at Turkey Creek Pueblo
Hearth Metate Axe Count

Circular Trough %-groove 4

Circular Trough None 24
Circular None %-groove 6
Circular None Full
Circular None None 39
Subtotal 74

Rectangular Trough % -groove 4

Rectangular Trough Full
Rectangular Trough Redesigned
Rectangular Trough None 17
Rectangular None % -groove
Rectangular None Full 2
Rectangular None Redesigned
Rectangular None None 17
Subtotal 44
Total 118

The arrival of Kayenta Anasazi immigrants in the mid-1200S has been

labeled as the Maverick Mountain phase at the Point of Pines Pueblo
(Haury 1958, 1989; Lindsay 1987). During this time period, immigrant
technology is reflected in the ground-stone assemblage, with full-groove
axe heads, a few %-groove heads redesigned with full grooves, a few flat
metates, and slab-lined grinding bins. Grinding bins were found in five
Maverick Mountain rooms as well as in post-AD 1300 rooms at Point of
Pines Pueblo and at the nearby Pueblo W:1O:51 (fig. 11.3, bottom). Bin
configurations range from Single bins to multiples of two, three, and
four contiguous bins. Like the %-groove axes mentioned above, trough
manos and metates may have been scavenged by the immigrants or gifted
to thel1? by the locals. No matter how they were acquired, the trough
metates were placed in bins, some with their trough borders knocked off
to create the flat grinding surface of traditional Anasazi food-processing
technology. Trough manos were reused on flat metates (Adams 1994).
Newly manufactured manos and metates were flat, according to tradi-
tional Anasazi designs.
The history of food-grinding technology in the Point of Pines area
was also impacted by formation processes. Some of the supporting
226 Jenny L. Adams

evidence for technological development has been lost because of selec-

tive collection policies in place at the time of excavation. A thorough
examination of field records, photographs, and reports led me to pro-
pose that open-trough designs were adopted by some grinders in the
Point of Pines area after they were introduced by immigrant Hohokam
at Stove Canyon, circa AD 1000. Open-trough metates essentially became
an indigenous design that co-existed with, but never fully replaced, the
I -trough design, even within later pueblo communities. After AD 1100,
open-trough metates were more common than I -trough metates at
Point of Pines area settlements, although the I- trough design contin-
ued in use until the AD 1400S (Adams 1994). Women had a choice in tool
design that may have been driven by their participation in particular
social collectives. The same trend appears to have happened at eastern
Mogollon villages in the Pine Lawn region (Martin et al. 1956:73).
Stone technological traditions thus provide another line of evidence
for recognizing immigrant and indigenous technologies in the Point
of Pines area. As outlined, Point of Pines culture history provides evi-
dence for various types of immigrations- a single male who brought his
Hohokam tool traditions with him to Crooked Ridge Village; a house-
hold or two that brought Hohokam tool, pithouse, and ball-court tradi-
tions to Stove Canyon; an extrahousehold group of men who brought
their tool and pueblo-building traditions to Turkey Creek Pueblo; and
multiple households that brought both male and female technologies to
Point of Pines Pueblo and W:1O:51.

Discussion and Conclusions

The differing methods by which prehistoric people conducted their daily
activities remain accessible through the analysis of technological tra-
ditions. It is not enough to recognize that groups designed their tools
differently when it is possible to understand why, in specific situations,
one design was chosen over another. Two approaches aid in this under-
standing: design theory and the concept of social agency. Design theory
applied to ground stone (Horsfall 1987) assumes that tools were made
to solve problems deriving from functional, economic, or other realms
(Adams 2002). Differences in tool design are sometimes brought about
by sociocultural constraints, such as economy of production and effi-
ciency. Costs of production, such as the distance to a material source,
ownership of material source, and difficulty of manufacture may dictate
 Engendering Households through Technological Identity 227

the choice of design specifications for rock type, for example. The priori-
tization of choices reflects the sociocultural context of the relevant group
making the choices (Horsfall 1987:334).
To varying degrees, sociocultural constructs govern such issues as
why metates are not always made of the most durable material. Design
theory allows for the uncertainty of knowing the best possible choice and
assumes that tool design is often compromised by making choices that
create satisfactory rather than optimum tools for the job at hand (Hors-
fall 1987:33S). By recognizing that mUltiple morphological solutions are
possible for performing similar functions, it is possible to begin sorting
out solutions that are delimited by sociocultural standards. This is an old
argument that has been debated regarding ceramics, projectile points,
and other material culture, but it has rarely been debated for the most
mundane tools, such as food-processing tools.
Social agency is "a process by which people construct and express per-
sonhood, participate in social collectivities of various sorts, and through
such means materially shape their lives" (Dobres 2000:132). Individual
behavior, even while conducting routine chores, is a form of "silent social
discourse" (Dobres 2000:136-137). Ethnographically derived models pro-
vide us with a range of varying social environments within which women
learned and performed their grinding and potting chores. Evidence for
learning and performing is visible in the archaeological record in the
spatial positioning of tools, intentional manufacture of food-grinding
surfaces, and the use of permanent grinding stations and special tools
such as pottery anvils and scrapers.
Different mano and metate designs have long been recognized by
archaeologists. The explanations proffered for the design differences have
generally revolved around an evolutionary trend toward increased effi-
ciency, with untested inferences that gathered and cultivated resources
were ground with different designs. I have argued elsewhere that devel-
opments in food-grinding tool designs reflect processing strategies and
not subsistence strategies (Adams 1999). Women learned to grind and to
pot through kin or social relationships. There were rules, some of which
were recipes for traditional foods that varyingly required meal or flour
of different textures (Adams 1999), and others of which were recipes for
mixing the appropriate amounts of clay and temper. The rules for attach-
ing handles to axe heads were also learned, some by individual trial and
error, others from someone who had mastered the skills of grooving a
stone and bending a stick.
228 Jenny L. Adams

This study has expanded the dialogue beyond artifact analysis to gain
a broader understanding of social agency using techniques for recogniz-
ing technological identity. If technological identity can be understood
at some level, then we can explore what happens when practitioners of
different technologies come into contact as individuals, members of a
household, or members of an extrahousehold organization. The Point
of Pines case study presented here has provided examples of decisions
made by individuals who insisted on a preference for one design over
another. The recognition of a process for maintaining or changing tool
designs within technologies purported to be gender-specific reinforces
the importance of recognizing the relationship between becoming a
member of a group and practicing the conventions, routines, and tech-
niques of that group. Tacking back and forth between artifacts and social
processes is not tautological, it is hermeneutic.

Note
1. Data used in this section were collected during dissertation research,
although not all of it was published in the dissertation (Adams 1994).