Black Canyon Rock Shelter

A projectile point recently found near the rock shelter is similar to a number encountered
during excavation (see below). These types of side-notched arrow points are widespread and
although they are found among the Apache they were not exclusively made by them. Such
points are also found on sites thought to be Yavapai, so stylistically they are not particularly
diagnostic unless the suble aspects of their manufacture are considered. It is also useful to
consider that the Apache and other mobile groups picked up points they found and reused
them as projectiles or as tools and so it is not uncommon to find the points of other groups on
mobile group sites. This requires caution when assigning cultural affiliation on the basis of
points, which tended to be used off site anyway (shot through the air), and were expected to
be lost and used in contexts other than habitation sites.

An excavator's drawing of one of the temporary hut ("gowah" in
Western Apache language) outlines found on the surface inside the
rock shelter. This is probably one of the Apache or Yavapai houses
that is contemporaneous with the pottery. Mixon referred to them
as representing the "Yavapai occupation," owing largely to its
geographic placement relative to historical distributions of Yavapai
versus Apache and the presence of Tizon Wiped. But Apachean
artifacts are also present.

Perforators (left) and formally shaped bifacial knives (right) are found in many Apache
contexts, especially those that were used for a sufficiently long period of time to
accumulate debris. Both of these tool forms are present on Cerro Rojo complex (ancestral
Apache) sites throughout southern and western New Mexico. This particular style of
perforator--on an ovate flake with retouch on one or more margins to form and
excentuate the projection--has been found on Reservation-period Mescalero sites in
southern New Mexico and on earlier sites. Knives are widespread and are usually found
in fragmentary form. This one was jammed under a rock with only its end exposed. It
therefore can be subjected to residue analysis once funding is obtained for such studies.
These types of analyses will tell us what this tool was used for.

Locality 3 is distinguished by its placement on a
bench just below the top of the ridge. It overlooks the
other localities in the valley, across the way from the
rock shelter. Placed on a rocky ledge the site consists
of a cobble- and boulder-rimmed structure that is
quite substantial compared to many structural
features. Positioned to take advantage of the
morning sun, the feature seems sufficient to
withstand colder temperatures, suggesting this may
have been used during the colder months.

Black Canyon Rock Shelter is near Heber on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. The
site was excavated by an avocational archaeologist Ben Mixon, in 19xx, as part of an
Arizona Archaeological Society project. At the time the site was believed to have been
looted to the degree that it had no additional research value. The resulting data suggest
the contrary. One of the most interesting aspects of this site relates to the late Apache
and/or Yavapai occupation. This was recognized by the excavators and they noted three
'gowah" (Western Apache for structure or wickiup) rings on the surface inside the shelter.
Artifacts also indicate the presence of late historic mobile occupants.

The projectile points found in the rock shelter consist of the side-notched and triangular arrow points shown here. A fairly high number of dart
points were also recovered. Previous researchers have typed these points, assigning many of them cultural affiliation. This information has been
included here in the way the points are grouped but these groupings should not be taken as definitive, as the cultural assignments are tentative. n
fact, many of these late points would be at home in the southern Southwest, among Apachean groups.

Culture histories for the area just above the rim on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests refer to an occupational hiatus. This gap occurs between the Canyon Creek
phase of the prehistoric period and the Skidi phase that is a period of recognized Apachean occupation. This was noted by Haury in his Mogollon volume and has since
been repeated by archaeologists summarizing the culture history of the area. The inability to identify Apachean sites in this area has lead to this perception, as has the
notion that Apache sites are expected to be situated in the same localities as prehistoric Mogollon sites. In fact, through time there was a proclivity for the Apache to live in
the mountainous areas adjacent to the valleys; so those researchers searching for their evidence in the valleys will not likely find it. Not at least until later when the
Western Apache in particular became relatively more sedentary and began occupying and farming lower-lying areas. Thus, a lack of evidence of Apache occupation in
the valleys where important Mogollon villages are located does not imply that there was an occupational haitus, a lack of people present, and a void in use. Instead it
means that other niches need to be examine for evidence of habitation sites. Once these more visible sites are found it will likely be possible to associate sites in a wider
range of settings with earlier Apachean presence. The Apache ranged far and wide to exploit their environment.

To some degree it is true, if you define your study areas small enough, there is an occupational gap, but if you define it to understand landscape use and terrain selection,
there is probably no gap. Ancestral Apachean sites are known from the surrounding areas. These date to the period encompassed by the gap. There are also sites to the
south that date even earlier, which only makes sense from a migration standpoint if they are also further north. Of course some people still think of Athapaskan migrations
as occuring down the plains and then circling in from the east to occupy the mountainous areas of the American Southwest, but this is no longer beleived by those who are
in the mix, studing Athapaskan migrations. The contemporaniety of dates in the mountains and on the plains, the use of early traditional accounts, widespread material
culture related to the Cerro Rojo complex, and site scattered throughout the mountains suggest that there were many corridors of migration and that at least one came
down the mountains to the west of the plains. Consequently, it makes no sense that an area in and near the mountains to the north would be devoid of occupation while
mountainous areas to the south and southwest have quality evidence--especially if one accepts a mountain route of migration that would have taken Ancestral Apache
through the Mogollon highlands.

The problem with the conceptualization that there was an occupation gap is that this is used as a logical step in suggesting that there was no one around and that the
Apache did not arrive in this portion of the Southwest or the entire southern portion of the Southwest until much later. This can now be demonstrated to be untrue as
numerous sites to the south, west, and east have revealed early dates in association with distinctly Athapaskan material cutlure. This is discussed in another way in the
following publication:

Seymour, Deni J.
2008 Despoblado or Athabascan Heartland: The Safford Area in the Ancestral Apache Settlement Scheme. Chapter 5 in Crossroads of the Southwest: Culture, Ethnicity, and
Migration in Arizona's Safford Basin, edited by David E. Purcell, Cambridge Scholars Press, New York.

Tools other than projectile points can be representative of a particular groups. Archaeologists tend to focus on pottery and projectile
points as an indication of cutlural affilaiton. In the protohistoric and historic periods it is difficult to differentiate between groups on the
basis of just pottery and projectle points because there is so much overlap. Overlap occurs owing to high degrees of mobility, intermixing
of people between small groups, and less concern for signaling identity through these types of non-perishable material culture, varied
learning networks, and truncation of learning networks that would lead to well honed material culture traditions.

The knives below include a flake knife on the left that is nothing more than a large core reduction flake with a sharp edge that
was used in an expedient fashion. These are commonly found on Apache sites. Next is a unifacial knife with fine retouch along
the left margin and end. Another unifacial tool is shown in close-up so that the retouch flake scars can be viewed. The bifacally
worked tool on the far right is characteristic of a small subset of tools that were formally prepared and bifacial. Below, in the
Locality 2 discussion, a bifacial knife is illustrated. Formal bifacial knives are rare owing to their misidentification as Archaic
tools. Moreover, they are nice and have therefore often been collected by the public. Knives made by the Apache differ from
those of surrounding groups and so it seems that they may be differentiated on the basis of style--although groups borrowed
from one another and used each others' material culture when they found it.