You are on page 1of 6

Maney Publishing

A Dated Cruciform Artifact?


Author(s): Joseph B. Mountjoy
Source: Kiva, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Summer, 1971), pp. 42-46
Published by: Maney Publishing on behalf of the Arizona Archaeological and Historical Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30247603
Accessed: 26-07-2015 07:38 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30247603?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Maney Publishing and Arizona Archaeological and Historical Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Kiva.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 201.148.81.39 on Sun, 26 Jul 2015 07:38:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A DATED CRUCIFORMARTIFACT?
JOSEPHB. MOUNTJOY
UNIVERSITYOF NORTHCAROLINA,GREENSBORO

ABSTRACT
of San Blas, on the
Excavationsat a site on the outskirts
coastof Nayarit,
south-central
Mexico(1967-8)yieldedan obsidian
cruciform
in stratigraphic
artifact
context,associatedwithartifacts
of the locallydefinedSan Blas complex.Radiocarbonanalysisof
marineshellsamplescollectedabove,below,and twometers
to the
northof the obsidiancruciform,
has producedrawdeterminations
of 2675a80, 2640a85,and2605a80radiocarbon
yearsrespectively.
This is one of the rareinstancesin whicha cruciform
has been
foundin fairlyreliabledated context,addingto presentunderdate as well as distribution,
standingsof cruciform
potentially
Southwest
importantfor problemsof West Mexico-American
contacts.
prehispanic

In 1945 EmilHaurypublishedan articletitled"The ProblemofContacts


BetweentheSouthwestern
UnitedStatesandMexico"in whichhe presented
betweenthetwo
"stone crosses"as one parallelin materialcultureexisting
to "northMexicanand southernArizona
areas, placingtheirintroduction
peoples" at about A.D. 1000 (Haury 1945: 64). Several times since
to
publicationof Haury'sarticle,variousauthorshaveaddressedthemselves
the functionalinterpretation
and temporalplacementof such cruciform
VernonBrook(1966) and E. T. Hemmings
artifacts.
(1967) are apparently
the latestto comment,
of relevant
and each includesa detailedbibliography
publications.
One important
cruciform
artifacts
hasbeenthelackof
problemregarding
associationswhich would reliablyaffix even a generaldate to their
thedirection
ofinfluence
productionand use - obviouslyforunderstanding
betweenthe Southwestand Mexico.In an articlepublishedin 1954, Agnes
Howardnotedthat"so faras canbe determined
thereis no wayof fixing
the
sincetheyhave not been foundin relatable
artifacts
age of the cruciform
strata" (1954: 174). Vernon Brook, attempting
to providesome of the
werefirstusedin the
that"the cruciforms
necessary
temporaldata,suggests
local (El Paso area)preceramic
inuse untilA. D. 1450"
periodand continued
incorrect
in statingthatbothof
(1966: 574). AlthoughBrookis apparently
from
the
levels(one seems
Ventana
Cave
came
Haury's
specimens
pre-ceramic
to have been associatedwithceramicsin levelthreeof the middenin the
upper cave), data do appear to give some supportto the associationof
withnon-ceramic
cruciforms
archaeological
complexesin the El Paso area,
whateverdate that mightindicate.Hemmings(1967) places his type1
Mexicoin thetimerangeof
fromtheSouthwest
andnorthwestern
cruciforms
42

This content downloaded from 201.148.81.39 on Sun, 26 Jul 2015 07:38:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A. D. 800 to A. D. 1400, but althoughnotingfindsin non-ceramic


context
does not ventureto assigna dateto suchoccurrences.
In brief,it appearsthat
data are stilllackingforassigning
any sortof concisereliabledate to the
of
in
the
cruciforms
theiruse untilas lateas
Southwest,
although
appearance
thefifteenth
seems
certain.
century
The situationhas not been much betterin Mexico. Associationof
cruciforms
withdatableartifacts
in theDurango-Zacatecas
areahas notbeen
the occurrences
indicativeof an earlytemporalplacement
good. Generally,
are fromdubiouscontext,and the only fairlyreliableassociationhas been
withratherlate materialsof the Chalchihuites
culture.However,in central
Mexico at Cuicuilcothereare data to suggestan associationof cruciform
witha Preclassicoccupation(Haury1945; Hughes1956). Fromthe
artifacts
information
scanty
by Hughesitwouldappearthattheassociation
presented
is witha LateCuicuilcodeposit,indicating
a dateofperhaps300 B. C. or200
B. C. In West Mexico, Long has recentlyreportedfindinga cruciform
to shaft-and-chamber
tomb
chalcedonypendantamongtheitemsattributable
threeat El Arenalin the highlandsof Jalisco(Long 1966: 278). Long and
a date
determinations,
Taylor(1966), on thebasisof fiveradiocarbon
suggest
of about the firstcenturybeforeChristfor the San Sebastianphase of
shaft-tomb
but indicatethattheshaft-tomb
complexdevelopment,
complex
extend
to
as
late
400
or 600, the picturecomplicatedby
as
D.
A.
may
possiblere-useof some tombsover a considerableperiodof time(Long
1966).
Whatis intendedin the remaining
space is to presentone instancein
whicha cruciform
artifact
has been foundin fairly
reliabledatedcontexton
thewesterncoastof Mexico.The cruciform
is madeof darkgreenobsidian,
and originally
had foursymmetrically
placedpoints,twoofwhichhavebeen
brokenoff(Figure1). The objectappearsto havebeen finished
by grinding;
the edges are flatand highlypolishedwhereasthe faces are roughened,
an effectsimilarto thatoffine"frosted"glass.The cruciform
was
producing
foundat a depthof 70-80centimeters
in squareC oftrench3 at theSan Blas
17 site (Figure2) - locatedabout2 kilometers
back fromthecoastlineon
theoutskirts
of San Blas,Nayarit.Cappingtheprincipalstrataat thetrench
was a thin(5 to 30 centimeters)
stratumof darksoil and culturaldebrisin
whichmanyEarlyIxtlain(shaft-tomb)
complexceramicswerefoundmixed
withSan Blas complexsherds.Belowthe cap-layer
was a deposit,extending
to bedrockat a depthof 150 centimeters,
to thelocal San
whichis attributed
Blas complex.Thiscomplex,describedin detailelsewhere
(Mountjoy1970a,
is
one
of
five
distinct
1970b)
archaeologicalcomplexeswhichhave been
isolatedin the San Blas area. It is preceededlocallyby the non-ceramic
shellmoundMatanch6ncomplexand followedby the EarlyIxtlin (shafttomb)complex.
Threeradiocarbondates fromsamplesof marineshellare availablefor
thedepositat trench3. Two samplesweretakenfromsquareC, one fromthe
50 to 60 centimeter
leveland theotherfromthe110 centimeter
level.These
43

This content downloaded from 201.148.81.39 on Sun, 26 Jul 2015 07:38:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PROFILE
OF
NORTHEAST
WALL

>

NO.
2
#1uare

'7 -7> v
>>i-A- NNO<

.N14>
7.1 1
i0C
A
v
< <<
> v <L <v
LC

<
147-,I
>
r -1

>S

I
NO.

C70-80

Lv

11
11
11il.1
4

L
< _L11
#1

>
1, V

cm.

square

5
NO
2

UNXCAVAEDUNEXCAVATED-13EDROCK
ROCK
ED
PRFL
OOTWETWL

STRATA
NO.I D1RKBROWNTO BLACKSOIL HEAVY
WITHSHERDS ANDSHELL,HARD
PACKED.
NO.2 LIGHT BROWNLOOSE SOIL WITH
A LOT OF SHELL.
NO.3 VERYLOOSE BROWNSOIL IN AN
ALMOSTSOLID SHELL DEPOSIT
WITHMANYROCKS,SOME BURNED
AND BROKENOR BATTERED.
NO.4 MEDIUMTO DARK BROWNFIRM
DEPOSIT WITHFEWERSHELLS.
NO.5 MEDIUMTO DARK BROWNFIRM
SOIL WITHLARGEROCKS AND
BOULDERS.

i.iO

CENTIMETERS

10 2D300 4050

3. squareC, 70 to 80
Figure1. Obsidian cruciformartifactfromSB-17, trench
centimeter
detail.
level,andstratigraphic

44

This content downloaded from 201.148.81.39 on Sun, 26 Jul 2015 07:38:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

thereforeconveniently
bracketthe location of the obsidiancruciform
The
first
of
(Figure2).
sample(U.C.L.A. 1451a) yieldeda determination
2675a80 radiocarbonyears(725 B.C.), and the secondsample(U.C.L.A.
of 2649a85 radiocarbon
1451b) a determination
years(690 B. C.). A third
in squareA (Figure2), gavea
sample,froma depthof 80 to 100 centimeters
determinations,
readingof 2605a80 (655 B. C.). Theseare theuncorrected
whichdo not takeintoaccountanyerrorforupwelling.
It is theopinionof
R. E. Taylorthatthe correctionforupwellingwould,accordingto present
reducethedeterminations
knowledge,
by no morethan240 years(485 B. C.,
450 B. C., and 415 B. C.), and it is probablethatthetruedate liescloserto
theolderdatesthanto theyounger
ones(personalcommunication,
1970).
thecruciform
was notsubjectedto obsidianhydration
Although
analysis,
a numberof hydrationmeasurements
were obtainedfromotherobsidian
objects (flakes) found in the deposit. On the whole, the hydration
measurements
are somewhaterraticfortheentiretrench3 obsidiansample
tested.However,those flakesanalyzedwhich were found most closely
associatedwiththe obsidiancruciform
tendto indicatean earlydate.The
from
obsidian
flakes
in
found
hydration
squareC froma depthof 50 to 150
are3.3, 7.5, and6.8 microns.
centimeters
Theonlytwoobsidianflakestested
fromthe70 to 80 centimeter
levelcamefromtheadjacenttwo-meter
square
of 7.6 and 7.7 microns.If
(squareB). Theywerefoundto havehydrations
the3.3 micronmeasurement
is discounted
as erroneous,
ratherthanintrusive,
the othersamplesaverage7.4 micronsof hydration,
which,at theMorett,
Colimarateof 260 yearspermicron- therateproposedbyMeighan,
Foote,
and Aiello(1968) - wouldindicatea dateof approximately
26 B. C. It seems
reasonableto expect that the actual date for the obsidiancruciform
lies
somewherebetweenthe radiocarbonand hydrationdeterminations,
and,
withoutdetaileddiscussionof culturalcontextand the problems
inherent
in
the obsidianhydration
methoditself,it is my opinionthatthe data from
ceramictypology
andstoneassemblage
bestsupporttheearlierdates.
Thereis always,of course,thepossibility
thattheobsidiancruciform
was
intrusivefrom above, but, given all available information,
this seems
improbable.
It is not yetpossibleto unequivocably
statethatcruciform
artifacts
are
earlierin eithertheSouthwestor Mexico.It doesseem,however,
thatrecent
information
fromSan Blas indicatesa probableoccurrence
of suchartifacts
on thesouth-central
coastof Nayaritas earlyas thefirstfewcenturies
before
Christ- possiblyas earlyas 600 B. C. The presenceof thecruciform
obsidian
artifactin associationwith the San Blas complexmay have some further
The San Blas complexappearsrelatedto a Formative-based
significance.
culturalexpansionwhichextendedfromsouthern
coastalMexicofarup to
the west coast of Mexico, dependentof the intensiveexploitationof
resourcesfromthe sea, estuary,and associatedland-basedmicroenvironments.This development
appearsto have broughtthe use of potteryinto
some areas of coastalWestMexico,and it is preciselyin thisearlycoastal
45

This content downloaded from 201.148.81.39 on Sun, 26 Jul 2015 07:38:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

forevidenceof contact
expansionwhichwe shouldbe intently
searching
which mighthave influencedthe earlydevelopment
of Hohokamin the

Southwest.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research
which
this
by theNationalScience
upon
paperis basedwassponsored
Foundation(GS-1387) and the Mesoamerican
Co-operativeResearchProgramof
withpermission
e
Southern
IllinoisUniversity,
oftheInstituto
Nacionalde Antropologi'a
de Monumentos
in Mexico.Professor
Clement
Historia,Departamento
Prehispainicos
and
R. E. Taylormadetheobsidianhydration
Meighan,LeonardFoote, and Professor
radiocarbon
determinations
available.
REFERENCES
Brook,Vernon
1966 Cruciform
fromtheVicinity
Artifacts
ofEl Paso,Texas.American
Antiquity,
Vol. 31,No. 4, pp. 574-5.SaltLakeCity.
Haury,E. W.
1945 The Problemof Contactsbetweenthe Southwestern
UnitedStates and
Journalof Anthropology,
Mexico.Southwestern
Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 55-74.
Albuquerque.
E. T.
Hemmings,
1967 Cruciform
and RelatedArtifacts
of Mexicoand the Southwestern
United
States.TheKiva,Vol. 32,No. 4, pp. 150-69.Tucson.
Howard,A. M.
1954 Cruciform
Artifacts
of theSierraOccidental.
American
Vol. 20,
Antiquity,
No. 2, pp. 174-75.SaltLakeCity.
Hughes,J.T.
1956 StoneCrosseswitha CuicuilcoBurial.AmericanAntiquity,
Vol. 22, No. 1,
pp. 80-2.SaltLakeCity.
Long,S. V.
1966 Archaeologyof the Municipioof Etzatl6n,Jalisco.Ph.D. dissertation.
ofCalifornia.
Los Angeles.
University
Long,S. V.
1966 SuggestedRevisionfor WestMexicanArchaeological
Sequences.Science,
Vol. 154,pp. 1456-9.Washington.
C. W.,L. Foote,andP. Aiello
Meighan,
1968 ObsidianDatingin WestMexicanArchaeology.
Science,Vol. 160, No. 3832,
pp. 1069-75.Washington.
J.B.
Mountjoy,
CultureHistoryand CulturalContacton theSouthernCoastof
1970a Prehispanic
Mexico.Ph.D. dissertation.
Southern
IllinoisUniversity.
Carbondale.
Nayarit,
1970b San BlasComplexEcology.Paperpresented
at the35thannualmeeting
of the
21 p., MexicoCity.
SocietyforAmerican
Archaeology,
Mimeographed,

46

This content downloaded from 201.148.81.39 on Sun, 26 Jul 2015 07:38:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

You might also like