Classic Period Projectile Point Design Variation in the Tucson Basin and San Pedro Valley, Arizona

Item Type text; Electronic Thesis

Authors Ryan, Stacy Lynn

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.

Download date 24/09/2021 14:32:29

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/625345

CLASSIC PERIOD PROJECTILE POINT DESIGN VARIATION IN THE TUCSON BASIN AND SAN PEDRO VALLEY, ARIZONA

Stacy L. Ryan

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the

SCHOOL OF ANTHROPOLOGY

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

In the Graduate College

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

2017

STATEMENT BY AUTHOR

The thesis titled Classic Period Projectile Point Design Variation in the Tucson Basin and San Pedro Valley, Arizona prepared by Stacy L. Ryan has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for a master’s degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.

Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that an accurate acknowledgement of the source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.

SIGNED: Stacy L. Ryan

APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR

This thesis has been approved on the date shown below:

April 28, 2017 Dr. Steven Kuhn Date Professor of Anthropology

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are many people who provided assistance with this project. First, I thank my advisor and committee chair, Dr. Steven Kuhn, for his invaluable wisdom, support and guidance. I extend my sincere gratitude to my committee members, Professor Barbara Mills, Dr. Jeffery Clark, and R. Jane Sliva, from whom I have learned so much. I consider myself immensely fortunate to have studied and worked with scholars of their caliber. This study has greatly benefited from the knowledge and expertise of my committee. Any errors or inconsistencies that remain in these pages are mine alone. Access to artifacts was provided by the Amerind Museum and the Arizona State Museum. I would like to thank Eric Kaldahl, Arthur Vokes, Paul Fish, Suzanne Fish, and all the museum staff that helped make my time there productive. Steve Shackley conducted obsidian source analysis at the Geoarchaeological XRF Lab. I am grateful to Steve for his excellent work that allows us to ask new questions about the past, and for his support and encouragement. New obsidian source analysis was funded by Cultural Persistence and Resistance at the Edge of Salado, National Science Foundation Award No. BCS-1120117. Obsidian data presented here were also made possible through Collaborative Research: The Structure and Dynamics of Social Networks within the Southwest, National Science Foundation Human and Social Dynamics Program Award No. 0827007 (School of Anthropology, University of Arizona) and Award No. 0827011 (Archaeology Southwest). My thanks to Matt Peeples and the rest of the Southwest Social Networks Project team for providing access to these data. I initially analyzed artifacts from the Yuma Wash site as part of a Desert Archaeology, Inc., project conducted for the Town of Marana. It was this project that sparked my interest in the Classic period in southeastern Arizona. I would like to thank William Doelle, Sarah Herr, Deborah Swartz, and the rest of my colleagues and friends at Desert Archaeology and Archaeology Southwest for providing me with so many opportunities to learn and grow as an archaeologist. The maps in this thesis were expertly crafted by Catherine Gilman, and provided courtesy of Desert Archaeology. Finally, I extend my deepest gratitude to my husband and son, Mark and Jude Ryan. Their unconditional love and support are what I value most in this world.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... 9 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 10 Research Questions ...... 11 Relevance of Study...... 13 CHAPTER 2. PREVIOUS RESEARCH ...... 14 Projectile Point Performance Characteristics and Function ...... 14 Projectile Point Studies in the Southwest ...... 18 The Study Area...... 20 Evidence of Conflict...... 30 Summary ...... 31 CHAPTER 3. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ...... 33 Cultural Transmission Theory ...... 33 Habitus and Communities of Practice ...... 36 Style, Function, and Technology in Artifact Variation ...... 38 An Integrative Theory of Artifact Variability ...... 40 Summary ...... 43 CHAPTER 4. ANALYTICAL METHODS ...... 44 Typological Classification...... 46 Obsidian XRF Analysis ...... 47 The Dataset ...... 48 CHAPTER 5. OBSIDIAN PROCUREMENT PATTERNS IN THE STUDY AREA ...... 50 Obsidian Sources in the Southwest ...... 50 Tucson Basin Obsidian Distributions ...... 53 San Pedro Valley Obsidian Distributions ...... 55 New Obsidian Source Data ...... 57 Summary ...... 59 CHAPTER 6. PROJECTILE POINT ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ...... 60 Tucson Basin ...... 60 San Pedro Valley ...... 80 Discussion ...... 95

CHAPTER 7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 109 Design Variation, Obsidian Use, and Projectile Point Function in the Tucson Basin ...... 109 Design Variation, Obsidian Use, and Projectile Point Function in the San Pedro Valley ...... 112 A Note on Technology, Style, and Function ...... 114 Concluding Thoughts ...... 115 APPENDIX A. PROJECTILE POINT ATTRIBUTES RECORDED ...... 117 APPENDIX B. PROJECTILE POINT DATA ...... 119 APPENDIX C. PROJECTILE POINT BASE MORPHOLOGY ...... 146 REFERENCES CITED ...... 149

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1. Select Classic period sites in the Tucson Basin...... 24

Figure 2.2. Select Classic period sites in the San Pedro Valley...... 28

Figure 4.1. Measured projectile point attributes...... 45

Figure 4.2. Common Classic period projectile point types...... 47

Figure 5.1. Select obsidian sources in Arizona and southwestern New Mexico ...... 51

Figure 6.1. Distribution of Classic Side-notched point lengths, Tucson Basin...... 67

Figure 6.2. Distributions of Southwest Triangular points (all sub-types), Tucson Basin...... 68

Figure 6.3. Projectile points from Whiptail Ruin ...... 72

Figure 6.4. Projectile points from the Yuma Wash site………………………………………….73 Figure 6.5. Projectile points from Second Canyon Ruin ...... 82

Figure 6.6. Triangular projectile points from the Davis Ranch ...... 85

Figure 6.7. Side-notched points from Davis Ranch……………………………………………...85 Figure 6.8. Barbed projectile point from the Tres Alamos site ...... 86

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1. Chronological phase designations...... 21

Table 4.1. Projectile Point Typology used in this analysis…...... …………………………….46 Table 5.1. Obsidian sources represented at Tucson Basin sites in thesis sample...... 54

Table 5.2. Obsidian sources at other Classic period sites in the northwestern Tucson Basin...... 55

Table 5.3. Obsidian sources represented at Lower San Pedro Valley sites in thesis sample...... 57

Table 6.1. Sites and projectile point counts in thesis sample...... 61

Table 6.2. Distribution of Classic period projectile points in the Tucson Basin sample...... 63

Table 6.3. Mean base widths for unnotched and side-notched points in the Tucson Basin ...... 68

Table 6.4. Mean lengths (mm) of select points from burial and non-burial features, Tucson Basin.

...... 70

Table 6.5. Mean base widths (mm) of select points from burial and non-burial features, Tucson

Basin...... 70

Table 6.6. Statistically significant differences between burial and non-burial points, Tucson

Basin...... 71

Table 6.7. Comparison of Classic Side-notched point attributes from Tucson Basin sites...... 72

Table 6.8. Comparison of Southwest Triangular point attributes from Tucson Basin sites...... 73

Table 6.9. Frequencies of serrated blades in the Tucson Basin sample...... 74

Table 6.10. Classic Side-notched (CSN) and Late Classic Side-notched (LCSN) variables...... 76

Table 6.11. Mean lengths of obsidian and non-obsidian points in the Tucson Basin...... 76

Table 6.12. Frequency of obsidian and non-obsidian diagnostic points in the Tucson Basin...... 77

Table 6.13. Diagnostic projectile point types by obsidian source in the northeastern Tucson

Basin...... 77 7

Table 6.14. Diagnostic projectile point types by obsidian source in the northwestern Tucson

Basin...... 78

Table 6.15. Distribution of Classic period projectile points from the Lower San Pedro Valley...83 Table 6.16. Metrics (mm) of side-notched and unnotched points at migrant sites and other sites in the Lower San Pedro Valley...... 88

Table 6.17. Frequency of obsidian and non-obsidian diagnostic points in the Lower San Pedro

Valley...... 89

Table 6.18. Mean lengths of obsidian and non-obsidian points in the Lower San Pedro Valley. 90

Table 6.19. Diagnostic projectile point types by obsidian source at Davis Ranch and Reeve Ruin,

Lower San Pedro Valley ...... 90

Table 6.20. Diagnostic projectile point types by obsidian source at other sites in the Lower San

Pedro Valley...... 91

Table 6.21. Metric attributes of side-notched points in the Lower San Pedro Valley...... 93

Table 6.22. Distribution of Classic period points at Babocomari Village, Upper San Pedro

Valley...... 95

Table 6.23. Metric attributes of points from Babocomari Village...... 95

Table 6.24. Statistically significant differences in metrical values in comparative analyses...... 96

Table 6.25. Potential Characteristics of arrow points intended for hunting or conflict………..101 Table A.1. Projectile point attributes recorded…………………………………………………118 Table B.1. Projectile point metric data...... 120

Table C.1. Basal morphology of side-notched projectile points from Tucson Basin sites ...... 147

ABSTRACT

Similar projectile point types were used by groups living over a wide geographic region in central and southern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries A.D. Substantial changes that occurred in southeastern Arizona at this time include population aggregation, the arrival of northern migrant groups, and an increase in obsidian use. An analysis focusing on two sub-regions, the Tucson Basin and the San Pedro

Valley, was conducted to explore how social, technological and environmental factors influenced projectile point technology during the Classic period (A.D. 1150–1450) in southeastern Arizona.

Projectile point metric and morphological attributes and obsidian source data were used for comparisons within both of the sub-regions. Despite differences in social relations, obsidian exchange networks, and access to large game, comparisons between sites in the northeastern and northwestern Tucson Basin did not reveal significant differences in projectile point types.

However, a good deal of variation in base morphology is evident regardless of type among the

Tucson Basin sites. Projectile points from Kayenta enclaves in the Lower San Pedro Valley are overwhelmingly made of obsidian, but do not possess significantly different attributes from those used by local groups. Notable variation was seen in the small sample from the Upper San Pedro

Valley, which may be attributed to the lack of influence from groups living to the north. Overall, the similarities in projectile point forms correspond with the growth of social networks during the Classic period. Although the small size of these points restricts their usefulness for signaling group identity, variation in base morphology, serrated blade edges, and other small details may continue to inform on the learning traditions or cultural preferences of groups in the region.

Future research should expand the study area to include the Upper Gila region of New Mexico, where groups were living close to the extensive Mule Creek obsidian source. 9

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Projectile points from archaeological contexts are often reliable chronological indicators and have the potential to inform on social boundaries, interaction, migration, hunting patterns, ethnicity, enculturation, and sodality formation (Hoffman 1997; Knecht 1997; Loendorf, Simon et al. 2015; Magne and Matson 1987; Peck 1996; Shackley 2005; Sliva 2015a; Wiessner 1983).

In the late pre-Hispanic contact era in central and southern Arizona, similar projectile point types were manufactured across cultural and geographic boundaries, and appear to be more homogenous than in the preceding centuries. Potential factors influencing such widespread adoption of similar point types include design exchange, population movement, and increased conflict (Sliva 2006). The production of similar point deigns in the region coincides with other important changes that include shifts in settlement patterns, the arrival of northern migrant groups, and an increase in obsidian use (Clark, Hill et al. 2012; Hill et al. 2004; Lyons and Clark

2012; Mills et al. 2015; Mills et al. 2016; Peterson et al. 1997; Wallace and Holmlund 1984). In- depth study is necessary to identify how these processes influenced projectile point technology.

The impetus for this work is the increase in data available through cultural resource management work, grant-funded projects, and field school excavations. Larger projectile point samples and obsidian source provenance studies provide an opportunity to examine inter- and intra-regional variation in raw material procurement patterns and projectile point designs at a level of resolution never before possible.

In this thesis, I examine projectile point morphological variability and obsidian use in two sub-regions of the Hohokam archaeological cultural area, with the goal of exploring the social, technological, and environmental factors that influenced the adoption or rejection of specific

point designs. The geographic areas of interest are the Tucson Basin and the San Pedro Valley.

Each sub-region in this study was impacted by the arrival of migrants to some degree. An examination of site-specific and broader regional patterns may identify cultural and technological trends at a time when similar point forms were produced across the landscape.

Research Questions Spatial, Temporal, and Cultural Variation in Projectile Point Design

Recent research has studied the impact of migrants in the southern Southwest and their influence on ceramic technology, obsidian distribution, and the spread of Salado ideology (Clark and Lyons 2012a; Clark et al. 2013; Crown 1994; Lyons and Clark 2012; Lyons and Lindsay

2006; Mills et al. 2013; Mills et al. 2015). Comparisons of point types between sites in sub- regions influenced to varying degrees by non-local groups may reveal projectile point design preferences within specific groups or geographic areas. These comparisons will be used to answer the following questions:

• What patterns of spatial and temporal variation in point designs are evident within each

sub-region in the study area?

• Do projectile points from areas where migrant groups resettled, as evidenced by ceramics

and architecture, differ from forms used by local groups?

Obsidian Use and Effects of Raw Material

An increase in obsidian use and the diversity of sources beginning in the early thirteenth century is a well-documented pattern in southeastern Arizona during the Classic period (Bayman and Shackley 1999; Clark et al. 2012; Peterson et al.1997; Shackley 2005). A substantial

increase in obsidian use also occurred after A.D. 1300, with greater frequencies of material from

Mule Creek material and the more distant Government Mountain source in northern Arizona.

This pattern has been linked to the settlement of northern migrants near the Mule Creek source area and the spread of Salado ideology (Clark, Hill et al. 2012; Mills et al. 2013; Mills et al.

2015). Obsidian source data amassed in Southwest Social Networks Project Database 1.0 (Mills et al. 2012) and newly collected data are used to further explore obsidian use patterns in the study area. In combination with studies of projectile point morphology classification and metrical attributes, these data are used to answer the following questions:

• Did increased access to obsidian affect projectile point production within the study region

in terms of size and morphology?

• Do point shapes or sizes differ among sites with different obsidian procurement patterns?

If so, what does this imply about interaction and exchange?

Hunting, Conflict, and Projectile Point Design

Projectile point types within the study region consist of both unnotched and side-notched types. Performance characteristics of side-notched and unnotched points have been studied to determine their effectiveness in hunting and warfare based on secure attachment to the haft

(Christenson 1997). Researchers in the Middle Gila Valley in southern Arizona used experimental, archaeological, and ethnohistorical data to conclude that side-notched points are more suitable for hunting and unnotched points for warfare, and suggest that points can be used as “proxy measures of big game hunting and warfare” (Loendorf, Simon et al. 2015). Following this, evidence of hunting practices, violence, or the perceived threat of conflict is gleaned from

the archaeological literature to address the question of whether variation in projectile point types can be attributed to different levels of large-game hunting or potentially hostile interactions.

Relevance of Study A great deal of work has been done to understand the impact of migrant groups during the Classic period in southeastern Arizona through the study of ceramic wares, obsidian distribution patterns, and settlement patterns (Lyons and Clark 2012; Hill et al. 2004; Huntley et al. 2013; Mills et al. 2015). How these changes may have influenced projectile point technology has yet to be examined. It is the goal of this thesis to bring subtle differences in projectile point variation into focus and identify the effects of raw material availability on point designs to inform on social and technological behaviors. In addition, projectile point designs provide a different perspective on group interactions from ceramics and architecture, two often-cited indicators of identity in the pre-contact Southwest, because these artifact classes were likely produced by different subsets of societies. Ethnographic and archaeological evidence in the

Southwest indicates that hunting and raiding is an activity associated with men (Di Peso 1956;

Pfefferkorn 1949:201-204; Szuter2000), while pottery was often produced by women (Mills

2000).

CHAPTER 2. PREVIOUS RESEARCH

This chapter presents an overview of projectile point technology and previous archaeological research in the study area. I begin with a discussion of arrow point performance characteristics and function, and follow with a summary of the contributions of ceramic period projectile point typological studies in the region. Next I present an overview of each sub-region that includes a summary of the impact of migrants, previous obsidian source studies, and evidence for large-game hunting, with an emphasis on sites included in my analysis. I conclude with a brief discussion of conflict and violence in the thirteenth and fourteenth century and its visibility in the archaeological record.

Projectile Point Performance Characteristics and Function A range of dates has been proposed for the introduction of bow-and-arrow technology— and the disappearance of the atlatl—in the Southwest. Small, stemmed arrow points become common across the region by A.D. 475 (Sliva 2003). A later date for the adoption of bow-and- arrow technology is argued for in the Mimbres Mogollon region, where production of arrow points is evident by A.D. 500 to 600 and arrow technology co-occurred with the spear and atlatl into the Late Pit House period (A.D. 550–1000) (Roth et al. 2011). The bow and arrow offer the advantage of increased velocity, greater flight distance, versatility in transportation, flat trajectories that increase accuracy, and the ability to shoot in forested environments (Hughes

1998). However, some researchers suggest that the atlatl and dart system was retained in the

Southwest long after the introduction of the bow and arrow (Lorentzen 1993; Van Pool 2006).

Additional evidence and more secure dates are necessary for a definitive case (Whittaker 2012).

Important performance criteria in projectile technology include penetration, accuracy, distance, and durability (Hughes 1998). There are several ways in which projectile point design attributes can ensure maximum efficiency. For example, a decrease in point mass and surface area increases velocity, which in turn maximizes penetration (Hughes 1998:351–353; Loendorf

2012:39). Hughes (1998:358) notes that certain variables selected during the production process to increase one performance criterion may result in a trade-off of another, as seen with the inclusion of barbs and serrations. Although these attributes increase air resistance, resulting in decreased velocity, they may maximize damage once the point is lodged in the wound (Hughes

1998:358). Experiments have shown that stone-tipped arrows penetrate approximately 10 percent deeper than those with a wooden tip (Waguespack et al. 2009), and a review of ethnographic records indicates that stone-tipped arrows were often preferred for large-game hunting and weaponry (Ellis 1997).

Raw material properties also impact performance characteristics. Fine-grained and homogenous rock types, such as chert and volcanic rock, are the most durable because they can withstand compression forces upon impact (Hughes 1998:371). Obsidian provides sharp edges but it possesses a low amount of compression strength (Hughes 1998:Table VIII). However, it may be an ideal material if penetration and lethality of the wound is more important than durability (Ellis 1997; Hughes 1998:373).

Unnotched and Side-notched Points

At the onset of the Classic period (A.D. 1150), small triangular points without notches or with shallow side-notches begin to dominate collections in southern Arizona (Sliva 2006:56).

Several researchers have assessed the performance characteristics and functions of the unnotched

points that appeared throughout North America as early as A.D. 900 and persisted into later times (Christenson 1997:Table 1; Engelbrecht 2014, 2015; Justice 2002:261–267; Loendorf

2012; Loendorf, Simon et al. 2015). Engelbrecht argues that Iroquoian arrow points in one region of New York became longer, thinner and narrower over time to enhance performance characteristics useful for both hunting and warfare, indicating the operation of “selective pressures influencing the evolution of point design” (Engelbrecht 2015:760). Christenson (1997) compiled a sample of sites across North America with both unnotched and side-notched points.

He argued that stone-tipped points used in warfare should be loosely attached so that they can break off in the victim and cause more damage, while the more firmly attached side-notched points that are retrievable from large game may be more suitable for hunting. Side-notched points, however, may break more easily, leaving part of the blade in the wound to cause more damage (Christenson 1997:135). Christenson was unable to make a case for functional differences between side-notched and unnotched points in his analysis of Numic arrows from the

Great Basin, and recommended an experimental approach to further address the issue

(Christenson 1997:139–140).

Researchers in southern Arizona have addressed the function of unnotched points using ethnographic, archaeological, and historical data from the Middle Gila Valley. Loendorf and his colleagues (2015) at the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) summarized a series of arrow point performance characteristics necessary for hunting and warfare and tested them through controlled experiments. Arrow points intended for hunting are expected to have rounded basal corners and side notches for secure attachment to the haft. In addition, they will have high fragmentation rates because broken points are retrieved from the animal for reuse. In contrast, warfare points are expected to have downward-pointing barbs, narrower bases, less secure

hafting resulting from a lack of side notches, and to more often be complete because they are not recovered after use (Loendorf, Simone, et al. 2015:944). Nearly all unnotched points in the GRIC assemblage possess barbs (Loendorf, Simon et al. 2015:Table 2), and comparisons of base treatments on side-notched and unnotched points produce statistically significant differences.

Over half of the side-notched points also have barbs, leading to the conclusion that the presence of this attribute alone does not indicate the point was meant for warfare (Loendorf, Simon et al.

2015:945). Narrower bases, argued as necessary to penetrate shields during conflict, are seen in the unnotched point group, supporting the hypothesis that these were intended for warfare.

Breakage patterns also follow expected patterns, with higher proportions of fragmentary side- notched points. Finally, during the Classic period, unnotched and side-notched points occur in near equal numbers, but side-notched points—presumably intended for hunting— become much more scarce during the Historic period. This pattern coincides with both the unsuitable environment for hunting large game in the Middle Gila and the warfare documented in historic records (Loendorf, Simon et al. 2015:950, Figure 7). The authors conclude that some differences between unnotched and side-notched points can be attributed to function, and that these results can be used to infer levels of large-game hunting and violence (Loendorf, Simon et al.

2015:951).

Social Function

Projectile points may carry information about identity or enculturation and have ceremonial or ritual use (Bayman 1995; Hoffman 1997; Sackett 1982; Sedig 2007, 2014;

Wiessner 1983). In his study of projectile points in the Four Corners area, Sedig (2007, 2014) presents ethnographic evidence for their use in hunting, warfare, and burial rituals, and as medicinal objects and protection charms. In archaeological contexts in southern and central 17

Arizona, ritual use of projectile points is evidenced by their inclusion in cremations and inhumation, where they are sometimes found in large sets (Kamp et al. 2016; Peterson 1994;

Ryan 2016; Whittaker 1987). Archaic dart points are sometimes associated with later kivas and great kivas in the Mogollon Highlands (Dungan 2015:284), and a small obsidian arrow point discovered underneath the prepared floor of an adobe room during 2016 excavations at the Gila

River Farm site in the Upper Gila may represent a ritual deposit (field notes on file at

Archaeology Southwest).

Projectile Point Studies in the Southwest The projectile point typology used in this study was developed at Desert Archaeology,

Inc. (Sliva 1997, 2002, 2006). Distinct changes in point morphology occurred approximately every 200 years between A.D. 750 and 1450 in central and southern Arizona, and the continued manufacture of earlier arrow point styles was not common (Sliva 1997; Sliva and Kerry

2008:297). In her pan-regional study of points from sites throughout Arizona and southwestern

New Mexico, Sliva shows that point types have narrower geographic distributions during the

A.D. 950–1150 interval followed by an expansion in distributions between A.D. 1150 and 1350

(Sliva 2006). Thus, the fact that many similar point types produced during the late pre-Hispanic period were used by groups with diverse cultural traditions must be considered to fully understand technological behaviors during this time (Sliva 2006:61).

Projectile point designs manufactured during the Preclassic Hohokam era have been used to interpret group identity and the social function of points in ritual contexts (Hoffman 1997;

Sliva 2010). Elaborate point styles were produced in the Lower Salt River Valley, Middle Gila, and Gila Bend area circa A.D. 750 – 1150, with many recovered during excavations at

Snaketown and salvage work in the Gila Bend area (Gladwin et al. 1937; Wasley and Johnson 18

1965). Hoffman (1997) examined variation in point styles and identified three spatially discrete tool traditions along the Gila and Salt Rivers. He concluded that utilitarian designs signify enculturation while the more elaborate decorative points were used to communicate identity or other social messages (Hoffman 1997:433–445). Obsidian source characterization (Shackley

2005) supports Hoffman’s interpretations of tool traditions in southern Arizona. Shackley notes, however, that painted arrows may have carried more emblemic style than projectile points

(Shackley 2005:169). Most of the points used in Hoffman’s study were recovered from mortuary features (Hoffman 1997:162), which may hinder comparisons between his decorative points and those found in non-burial contexts in the area (Loendorf and Rice 2004:43). Nevertheless,

Hoffman’s work suggests that Preclassic Hohokam projectile points conveyed messages about cultural identity and sodality membership.

Analysts working in different areas of the southern Southwest often use different names for similar points (Loendorf and Rice 2004:1; Sliva 2006:61–62). While this is understandable given the tendency for archaeologists to focus on a specific region and give types the names of local phases or places, it makes regional comparisons difficult. For example, in a recent study the points from the Magician’s Burial at Ridge Ruin, referred to as Elden Side-notched and

Mogollon Triangular points, are similar to those classified in this study as Classic Side-notched and Southwest Triangular points—although the Ridge Ruin authors did explicitly state that other typologies were avoided (Kamp et al. 2016:7, Fig. 6). Similar points are referred to in the

Mogollon Highlands as the Small Side-notched Point with Long Blade and the Small Unnotched

Point (Moore 1999:41). In Tagg’s typology for east-central Arizona, points with high-placed and low-placed notches are grouped together as Type 23 and 24, which he suggests can be further subdivided. Small triangular points with straight or concave bases are presented as separate from

those with concave bases (Type 20 and Type 25) (Tagg 1994:111, Figure 39). Studying the variability among these similar types found throughout the southern Southwest and Mogollon region, and working towards a standardized terminology, may help in identifying broad patterns.

The Study Area The specific geographic areas of interest for this study are the Tucson Basin and the San

Pedro River Valley, both in southeastern Arizona. The region includes portions of larger cultural areas that archaeologists have traditionally defined as Hohokam or, during the fourteenth century, Salado, and includes Ancestral Pueblo enclaves, culturally hybridized traditions, and inclusive or exclusive ideologies (Lyons and Clark 2012; Clark and Lyons 2012b; Clark et al.

2013). The study areas will be referred to as distinct geographic sub-regions to avoid equating archaeological cultures with ethnicities and emic cultural identities. Designated phase names for each sub-region are presented in Table 2.1.

Tucson Basin

Researchers have long recognized that important changes occurred during the Classic period in the Tucson Basin, including new forms of architecture, shifts in social organization, population aggregation, the arrival of migrants, and an increase in conflict (Doelle and Wallace

1991; Elson and Swartz 2016; Fish et al. 1992; Grebinger and Adam 1974; Wallace and

Holmlund 1984). The transition from the Preclassic to the Classic period has been interpreted as a “trajectory toward complexity and inequality” (Fish and Fish 2000:166), as well as a

“developmental hinge point” that led to a time of cultural change and decline (Clark and Abbott

2017). This study will primarily focus on comparisons between sites in the northeastern basin

with evidence of migrant groups to those in the northwestern basin where local traditions dominate (Figure 2.1).

Table 2.1. Chronological phase designations.

Period Tucson Basina San Pedrob Date A.D.

1450

Romero 1400 Classic, late Tucson

1350 Redfield

1300 Aravaipa

1250 Classic, early Tanque Verde

Soza 1200

1150

aSwartz 2016 bClark and Lyons 2012b

Whiptail Ruin and Gibbon Springs are prominent sites in the northeastern Tucson Basin, and home to local groups as well as migrants who brought with them traditions from the

Mogollon Highlands (Gregonis 2011b). Families at these sites used locally produced Hohokam

and corrugated ceramic wares, often followed the local cremation burial custom, and practiced hunting rituals (Gregonis 2011b). Tree-ring dates from these sites indicate they were mainly inhabited during the thirteenth century, contemporaneous with local communities located in the northwestern basin. Village groups vacated the northeastern Tucson Basin by the start of the fourteenth century, with the closest late Classic settlement located seven miles to the west at

University Indian Ruin, and to the east in Lower San Pedro Valley at Second Canyon Ruin

(Gregonis 2011b:322).

At the onset of the early Classic period (A.D. 1150–1300) groups settled at sites near water sources in the northwestern Tucson Basin, possible moving from nearby villages (Elson and Swartz 2016:960). To the north, groups lived over a dispersed area with a central platform mound at the Marana Mound site. The Marana community is firmly dated to the early Classic period and corrugated and other non-local ceramics are rare (Fish et al. 1992; Fish et al. 2013).

Residents of this site engaged in craft production using materials acquired through exchange, such as shell and obsidian (Bayman 1995, 1996). Citing ethnographic examples, Bayman notes the ceremonial function of obsidian projectile points and suggests this may account for the large numbers of complete points discarded in trash middens at the Mound site (Bayman 1995).

Further analysis indicated that the points found in midden deposits do not differ from those placed in mortuary features (Chavarria 1995).

The multi-component Los Morteros site, located southeast of Marana Mound on the terrace above the Santa Cruz River was inhabited into the thirteenth century (Wallace 1995). The early Classic flaked stone assemblage shows both a marked increase in obsidian and the inclusion of projectile points in the mortuary ritual compared to preceding phases (Dart 1995).

Wallace (1995:833) suggests that the latter may be attributed to the threat of conflict, and the 22

inclusion of points in the cremation ritual may be indicate “the development of war leaders in the society” (Wallace 1995:833).

Other settlements in the floodplain near the confluence of the Santa Cruz River and

Rillito Creek in the northwestern Tucson Basin have yielded significant findings. The Yuma

Wash site is a large Classic period settlement that was primarily occupied during the Tanque

Verde phase with a smaller Tucson phase occupation (Swartz 2016). The site structure included pit house courtyard groups, above-ground adobe architecture, and compound walls (Elson and

Swartz 2016). A substantial number of projectile points were recovered from Yuma Wash, particularly from burials, and obsidian XRF analysis identified a diverse mix of sources (Ryan

2016; Shackley 2016). Although local groups may have aggregated in the northwestern Tucson

Basin during the Classic period, there is no evidence at Yuma Wash for the presence of more distant migrant groups from the Mogollon Highlands or the Ancestral Pueblo world (Elson and

Swartz 2016).

Site AZ AA:12:46 (ASM), another Classic period settlement, is located southeast of

Yuma Wash. Archaeological work was first conducted in 1969 by University of Arizona students who excavated 58 features, many of which were cremations (Slawson 1990:15). Later work at the site confirmed a late Classic period occupation with Salado polychromes reported “in abundant numbers within several features” (Slawson 1990:147). Current work at this site is being conducted by Desert Archaeology, Inc.

Obsidian. The frequency of obsidian in the Tucson Basin increases in general at the onset of the Classic period and obsidian from the Mule Creek source increases after A.D. 1300 (Clark,

Hill, et al. 2012; Peterson et al. 1997; Shackley 2012). Obsidian source data are available from

several sites in the northwestern basin, and the obsidian assemblage from the early Classic period

Marana Mound site is one of the largest available in the region (Boley 2013). A sizable sample is also available from Yuma Wash. Comparisons between the two sites show a greater frequency of eastern sources, and northern Arizona sources absent from Marana were identified at Yuma

Wash. These differences may be attributed to late Classic distribution patterns (Ryan 2016).

Patterns identified through obsidian source analysis and new source data are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5.

Figure 2.1. Select Classic period sites in the Tucson Basin.

Hunting. The upland environment and water sources in the northeastern Tucson Basin may have been ideal for large-game hunting Both Whiptail Ruin and Gibbon Springs yielded large samples of large mammal bone that included deer, pronghorn, and bighorn sheep (Gregonis

2011b; Slaughter 1996). The placement of these remains in ritual contexts led to the conclusion that hunting specialists resided at Whiptail (Gregonis 2011a). By contrast, artiodactyl bones are generally scarce at Hohokam Classic period sites in lowland settings in the Tucson Basin; an exception to this is Muchas Casas in the northern Tucson Basin, where specialized large-game hunting was identified based on high artiodactyl frequencies (Waters 2016:818–821).

San Pedro River Valley

The Lower San Pedro Valley has a long history of study, with excavations at major sites such as Reeve Ruin, Davis Ranch, and Tres Alamos conducted by the Amerind Foundation (Di

Peso 1958; Tuthill 1947), and highway salvage excavations at Second Canyon Ruin conducted by the Arizona State Museum (ASM) (Franklin 1980). The area was intensively surveyed during the decade-long San Pedro Preservation Project by the Center for Desert Archaeology (now

Archaeology Southwest) and test excavations were conducted at 29 Classic period sites, with most of the tested deposits dating after A.D. 1300 (Clark and Lyons 2012b). Projectile points from the above-mentioned sites are included in the thesis study sample (Figure 2.2).

Davis Ranch and Reeve Ruin are Ancestral Pueblo enclaves that are located only a short distance across the river from one another. Reeve Ruin is located on a defensible ridge augmented by architecture overlooking the San Pedro River (Clark and Lyons 2012b; Di Peso

1958). The village was built during the late thirteenth century and occupied throughout much of the fourteenth century. It is believed to have been founded by migrants from the Kayenta region

northeastern Arizona based on pottery forms, domestic architectural features, and kivas unique to that area (Clark and Lyons 2012a; Di Peso 1958). Davis Ranch is a migrant enclave that may have been built earlier than Reeve Ruin, although occupation at the two sites largely overlapped.

This settlement is located in an open location, and aside from a compound wall no architectural features were constructed to fortify the site (Clark and Lyons 2012a:159).

Second Canyon Ruin is a multi-component site that experienced an increase in population during the late Classic period (Franklin 1980). Twenty-one surface rooms and two pit rooms are attributed to the late Classic period occupation. Early Classic period pit structures were also identified, although these features were filled with mixed deposits and are challenging to date

(Franklin 1980:42). Later use of the site by Apache or Sobaipuri groups is evidenced by hearths near or on the site’s surface (Franklin 1980:35). Projectile points from Second Canyon were grouped into ten types, three of which were firmly associated with the late Classic period.

Franklin noted that these points bear little resemblance to Hohokam styles and suggests that preferences shifted to Mogollon or “Salado” culture styles (Franklin 1980:177). The site is located just east of the Santa Catalina Mountains near Redington Pass, and during the late

Preclassic, or early Classic period some, groups may have moved from Second Canyon over to the northeastern Tucson Basin (Gregonis 2011b:318). Corrugated wares represent approximately five percent of the undecorated ceramics at Second Canyon (Franklin 1980:83), also suggesting the presence of northern groups.

Investigations by Archaeology Southwest on Classic period sites in the Lower San Pedro focused on ceramic production, interaction, cultural identity, and the impact of migrants on local populations (Clark and Lyons 2012b). Most of the contexts sampled dated to the late Classic period. This work resulted in the identification of numerous subsistence communities and four 26

larger districts throughout the valley. Archaeologists revisited Davis Ranch and Reeve Ruin, and the presence of migrants at other sites in the vicinity was postulated based on the distribution of ceramic forms and domestic installations previously only found in the Kayenta region (Clark and

Lyons 2012a; Lyons and Lindsay 2006). Sites that persisted into the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century are comparable to Ormand Village and Dinwiddie in the Cliff Valley of New

Mexico in settlement layout (Clark and Lyons 2012a:109).

The arrival of northern migrants in the Lower San Pedro Valley ca. A.D. 1275 led to village aggregation, the construction of defensive architecture, and the renewal of local ceramic traditions to signal identity (Clark, Hill, et al. 2012; Clark et al. 2013; Huntley et al. 2016).

Coalescent communities developed, which are defined as “coresidential groups in a circumscribed space who interact frequently based on proximity” (Clark et al. 2013:403).

Ultimately it was these Pueblo migrant groups and their descendants that initiated a new ideology (i.e., Salado), which was expressed largely on Roosevelt Red Ware ceramics, including

Salado polychromes (Crown 1994). As indicated by the rapid adoption of Roosevelt Red Ware made at enclaves by the inhabitants of local settlements, this ideology transcended culture boundaries, attesting to its inclusive character. As explained by Clark and others, minority migrant groups continued ceramic traditions from their homeland, which included coil-and- scrape technology, use of black carbon paint, and polychrome designs, and also maintained connections with other immigrant groups in the region. Generations later, Salado polychromes emerged as a distinct ceramic tradition, made by Kayenta immigrants and their descendants, but widely adopted by all groups. Iconography on Roosevelt Red Ware was probably associated with an inclusive ideology and a “meta-identity that transcended, but did not replace, earlier group identities” (Clark et al. 2013:400; see also Clark, Hill, et al. 2012; Mills et al. 2013; Mills et al.

2016). Women likely shared Salado ceramic technology and stylistic conventions directly with one another (Spielmann 2000:356), and as the producers of polychrome vessels they played an important role in this movement (Mills et al. 2016).

Figure 2.2. Select Classic period sites in the San Pedro Valley. 28

Investigated sites in the Upper San Pedro Valley include Babocomari Village and Garden

Canyon Village. Charles Di Peso estimated that Babocomari Village was settled between A.D.

1200 and 1400 (Di Peso 1951). He noted the lack of evidence for Salado or northern migrants and suggested that the site’s inhabitants were in contact with groups to the north, west, and southeast (Di Peso 1951:233, 238–241). The nearby site of Garden Canyon Village is a multi- component site that was mainly occupied between A.D. 1150 and 1450 and has a long and complex history of excavations (Schneider 2016). After a recent analysis of lithic artifacts,

Schneider concluded that the site has strong local traditions and limited evidence of Salado influence (Schneider 2016:151).

Projectile points from this sub-region provide an excellent comparative dataset to address the research questions, because of the presence of migrant groups in the Lower San Pedro Valley and the lack of evidence for northern migrants and low frequencies of Salado polychromes in the

Upper San Pedro Valley (Clark et al 2012; Di Peso 1951; Schneider 2016).

Obsidian. Archaeology Southwest’s Lower San Pedro Valley investigations documented a significant increase in obsidian after A.D. 1300. The bulk of this material originated from the

Mule Creek and Cow Canyon sources in the Upper Gila region of eastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico. Researchers concluded that Upper Gila material was circulated by

Kayenta migrant groups, a pattern supported by the dominance of Mule Creek obsidian at the two migrant enclaves, Davis Ranch and Reeve Ruin (Clark, Hill, et al. 2012:390–393; Shackley and Gallop 2012). Other patterns of note include the low frequency of the nearby Superior obsidian source and the presence of Government Mountain obsidian, located near Flagstaff in northern Arizona (Clark, Hill, et al. 2012:391). Obsidian patterns in the Upper San Pedro Valley also revealed interesting behaviors. No formal obsidian tools were found during Di Peso’s 29

excavations at Babocomari Village (Di Peso 1951:155), and obsidian debitage was not reported.

By contrast, a diverse mix of sources was identified at Garden Canyon. Upper Gila sources represent just over half of the analyzed sample, acquired through either down-the-line trade or connections to the Upper Gila area (Schneider 2016:139, Table 5.44).

Hunting. Evidence of large-game hunting is prevalent at sites in the San Pedro Valley.

Bones of large mammals, including deer, antelope, and bighorn sheep, are relatively abundant in sites throughout the valley, and hides and dried meat may have been processed for exchange with neighboring regions where large game had been depleted by the late Classic period (Clark et al.

2014; Clark, Hill, et al. 2012:335). The environment surrounding sites in the Upper San Pedro may have also been ideal for large game. Deer, pronghorn, and bison remains were found in cooking and ceremonial contexts at Babocomari Village (Di Peso 1951:12–14), indicating that hunting was an important activity to the villagers. Given the indefensible location and layout of the site, Di Peso attributed the function of the projectile points from the site to animal procurement rather than warfare (Di Peso 1951:155).

Evidence of Conflict

Due to the nature of conflict and the practice of cremation during the late pre-Hispanic contact era, direct evidence of violence in the archaeological record is rare in the study area; therefore, settlement patterns, regional interaction, and defensive site positions serve as indicators of conflict (Doelle and Wallace 1991; Elson and Swartz 2016; Le Blanc 1999;

Wallace and Doelle 2001). Doelle and Wallace suggest that an increase in conflict, or the perceived threat of conflict, accompanied the changes that took place in southeastern Arizona after A.D. 1150. In the northern Tucson Basin, this resulted in the construction of fortified

villages on hill slopes during the thirteenth century and buffer zones between settlements in the late Classic period. In response to the arrival of migrants, people in the Lower San Pedro Valley moved to higher settings, constructed platform mounds, and aggregated at defensible sites

(Doelle and Wallace 1991; Wallace and Doelle 2001; see also Clark et al. 2014). The large numbers of projectile points recovered from the northern Tucson Basin and Lower San Pedro

Valley sites are also cited as possible evidence of conflict, particularly those in burials that may signify warfare-related status (Wallace and Doelle 2001:280). Highly defensible positioning largely occurs near the boundary between local and immigrant settlements in the San Pedro

Valley.

Summary Previous projectile point research in the U.S. Southwest has informed on technological, social, and ritual behaviors in ancient times. The finely crafted and sometimes elaborately designed points produced during the Preclassic Hohokam era and the inclusion of arrow points in ritual contexts indicate a social function outside of hunting and defense (Haury 1976), while the unnotched and side-notched varieties produced in the Classic period may have been purposefully designed for one or both activities (Loendorf, Simon et al. 2015). A region-wide study has shown that changes in arrow point designs occur every roughly every two centuries until late in the pre-

Hispanic contact era, when design variation decreases and the geographic distribution of similar point types increases (Sliva 2006). This coincides with other significant changes in the region that are directly or indirectly related to projectile point manufacture and use: the arrival of new groups with different practices, potential threats of conflict, shifts in hunting strategies due to specialization or resource depletion, and an increase in obsidian circulation (Clark and Lyons

2012a; Mills et al. 2013; Gregonis and Hartmann 2011; Slaughter 1996; Swartz and Elson 2016).

Social forces impacted each of the sub-regions in different ways, and people’s responses to these events are reflected in their material remains.

CHAPTER 3. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

Learning traditions, performance characteristics, resource availability, and raw material properties may all contribute to the decisions made during artifact production. A study of regional projectile point variability calls for a theoretical approach that considers social, technological, and environmental factors. In this chapter, I present a summary of several theoretical frameworks that address the wide range of processes that influence artifact form and variation. These include cultural transmission theory, communities of practice, and an integrative approach that combines aspects of a unified middle-range theory of artifact design, behavioral chain analysis, chaîne opératoire, and organization of technology (Tostevin 2012). Together, they address social learning, design transmission, and the role of style, function, and technology in projectile point production, and allow for a better understanding of design variation at a time when considerable changes were taking place.

Cultural Transmission Theory Cultural transmission theory provides a framework for understanding how technological styles are learned and variation is produced—processes that ultimately create observable patterns in the archaeological record. It follows the assumption that choices in artifact production and design are influenced, either consciously or subconsciously, by the socially-learned skills and knowledge of the producer (O’Brien and Lyman 2003:2; O’Brien and Shennan 2010; Lycett

2010:207; Tostevin 2012:65–69). Archaeological applications of cultural transmission theory often begin from dual inheritance theory, a theoretical construct attributed to Boyd and

Richerson (1985, as cited in O’Brien 2005). Through dual inheritance theory “[t]he spread of cultural information is viewed as being affected by numerous processes, including natural 33

selection, decision making, and the strengths of transmitters and receivers” (O’Brien 2005:33).

Thus, dual inheritance theory focuses on how information is transmitted by a teacher or other model and received by the student or apprentice. It also recognizes that innovation, as well as random copying errors, occur during the decision-making process (O’Brien and Shennan

2010:9).

Researchers have identified several distinct pathways of transmission and a range of biases that affect how information is transmitted. As proposed by Cavelli-Sforza and Feldman

(1981), information may be transmitted vertically from a “parent” (but not necessarily biological), obliquely from another member of a previous generation, or horizontally from peer to peer. Unbiased transmission is the vertical transmission of information through generations based simply on frequency: learners adopt variants more-or-less in proportion to their frequency in the population. Emulation or imitation are never perfect, and perceptible changes in object form may occur over time due to copying error—the unintentional error that occurs during the manufacture sequence due to an individual’s perception and level of skill. Although initially imperceptible, over several generations copying error will result in cumulative changes in form

(Eerkens and Lipo 2005). Biased transmission, in contrast, refers to a learner’s selectivity in adopting one of a range of potential options. One example is prestige-biased transmission that occurs when traits are copied from an individual who is admired or regarded as successful

(Eerkens and Lipo 2005:325). Frequency-dependent bias occurs when learners choose the most common of all alternatives (Bamforth and Finlay 2008:12). Also called conformist bias, this is the process that leads people to produce things a certain way because it is the most widely accepted and known way of doing things. Guided variation is another form of transmission, which involves more direct experimentation. In guided variation “individuals acquire new

behaviors by directly copying other social models and subsequently modifying these behaviors to suit their own needs by individual trial-and-error experiments” (Bettinger and Eerkens

2003:112).

Concepts important in cultural transmission theory adopted from evolutionary biology are drift and cladistics. Drift is the chance that cultural attributes may change during the transmission process based on random choices or losses rather than explicit preferences (Eerkens and Lipo

2005:321; Shennan 2008:77). Drift-like processes are enhanced by isolation and small group size. Cladistics traces similar characteristics shared by two distinct objects to a common ancestor

(O’Brien 2005; O’Brien and Lyman 2003) in order to reconstruct trees of “relatedness.” This model has been applied to Paleoindian dart points in the Southwest to test the hypothesis that

Clovis points gave rise to Folsom points (O’Brien 2005:37). Phylogenetics and cladistics, however, are more appropriate for looking at long-term change rather than those that took place over only a few generations or centuries (Kuhn 2004). Therefore, they may not be useful approaches to study changes in arrow point designs during the late pre-Hispanic contact era in the North American Southwest.

Bettinger and Eerkens’ (2003) often-cited analysis of bow-and-arrow technology in the

Great Basin provides an example of cultural transmission and projectile point production. Based on variability in base width and weight, they conclude that the technology initially spread through guided variation in California, where “craftsmen copied, evaluated, and modified the various elements of point design independently” (Bettinger and Eerkens 2003:113). In contrast, groups in Nevada copied point design wholesale through an indirect bias mode of transmission, and did not rely on experimentation or modification that would expand metric variability.

Cultural transmission theory addresses learning processes from an evolutionary archaeology framework in the above examples; however, the incorporation of social theory may further our understanding of these processes. Miriam Stark and others advocate for the inclusion of non-Darwinian approaches to the study of social learning, specifically Bourdieu’s practice theory and concept of habitus. They argue that bridging these seemingly disparate approaches of social theory and dual inheritance theory will produce a greater understanding of learning processes and their material correlates (Stark et al. 2008).

Habitus and Communities of Practice Pierre Bourdieu’s (1990) practice theory and his concept of habitus provide a greater understanding of socially learned behavior. In practice theory, knowledge is constructed through habitus, which is learned behavior or social norms transmitted in subconscious or unintentional ways. Habitus is rooted in past experiences or collective history that affects our perceptions of the present moment and influences future outcomes. Bourdieu distinguishes between group and individual habitus, and indicates that members of the same social group may possess similar habitus; he argues that this is not generally based on rational action except in instances of economic behaviors (Bourdieu 1990:59–64).

In archaeological applications, habitus is seen as a dynamic process that informs on change and continuity, regional diversity, social boundaries, and identity construction, and its effectiveness increases when integrated with theoretical approaches that address production and consumption (Dietler and Herbich 1998; Hegmon 1998; Stark 2006). Habitus represents socially learned behavior that is transmitted among social groups, consciously or subconsciously, and influences the production choices that create patterns in artifact forms (Stark 2006). Although

these patterns may appear as the result of formal “rules,” as products of habitus they represent the cultural perceptions of available choices (Dietler and Herbich 1987:246). Habitus is a component of the three key elements that are necessary to understand changes in material culture:

(1) the apparatus that structures responses to technical and social problems, demands, or

opportunities (i.e., the habitus), (2) the material conditions that influence the formation of

the dispositions that constitute the habitus, and (3) the origin and nature of the problem or

demands that provoke responses [Dietler and Herbich 1998:248].

Practice and habitus are constructs used to identify communities of practice, a social theory of learning introduced by Lave and Wenger (1991). Communities of practice are social groups with shared knowledge and traditions and are formed through a “process of being active participants in the practices of social communities and constructing identities in relation to these communities” (Wenger 1998:4, emphasis original; see also Stark 2006). Learning within a community of practice is continuous and frequently informal, and the transfer of knowledge often occurs at a specific location, such as a site or a workshop (Wendrich 2012a).

Ethnoarchaeologists and archaeologists who study ancient communities can use this framework to examine choices made during craft production and to identify communities of practice (Stark

2006; Stark et al. 2008). The study of “microvariables,” defined as the “small, often hardly discernible technological details and variations,” is a promising approach to recognize ancient communities of practice reflected in material culture (Wendrich 2012b:259).

Style, Function, and Technology in Artifact Variation The role of style and function in artifact variability has been discussed by North

American archaeologists for over a century, with both processualists and evolutionary archaeologists arguing for a distinction between the two (Dunnell 1978; O’Brien and Leonard

2001:2; Tostevin 2012:30). Functional traits are defined as those affected by natural selection and related to performance, and style is considered independent of function and refers to elements that do not have observable selective values (Dunnell 1978; O’Brien and Leonard

2001; O’Brien and Lyman 2003; VanPool 2001). However, this rigid perspective is unsatisfying because it does not account for the social forces that influence style. Despite the attention paid to style and function, and the examples derived from ethnoarchaeology, the lack of standardized definitions and theoretical development has led to confusion and criticism (Dietler and Herbich

1998:237; O’Brien and Leonard 2001:2).

Polly Wiessner’s (1983) ethnoarchaeological study of Kalahari San projectile points in southern Africa highlights the importance of style in transmitting social identity. Ethnographic data gained through interviews with arrow makers and users enabled her to define two types of style. Emblemic style, through its uniformity, conveys information regarding group identity and social boundaries, and should be identifiable in the archeological record. Assertive style carries a personal message about an individual’s identity and how they wish to be seen in the world, whether consciously or subconsciously. Wiessner observed that projectile points possess the criteria to transmit social identity through style because hunting and weaponry is important to the

San people, and the manufacturing stages allow for greater opportunity to express individual or group identity. Her research illustrates that arrows can effectively carry social information and inform on cultural boundaries. These definitions of style, however, can be difficult for

archaeologists who are unable to directly observe the social function of material attributes

(Dietler and Herbich 1998:242).

James Sackett introduced the concept of isochrestic variation as a more passive view of style (Dielter and Herbich 1998:240). Isochrestic variation refers to the conscious or subconscious choices made during manufacture that are drawn “from a broad spectrum of equally viable alternative ways of achieving the same ends” and are “consistently expressed at any given time and place” (Sackett 1986:630, as cited in Tostevin 2012:32). These choices are subject to change as social interactions change. Sackett’s isochrestic model shows that culturally or temporally diagnostic artifacts can possess both style and function, and the two need not be separated (Tostevin 2012:33).

Dietler and Herbich emphasize the “fundamental distinction between things and techniques,” the former referring to objects in the archaeological record and the latter the human activity responsible for producing objects (Dietler and Herbich 1998:235). Common perceptions of style are called “style of action,” or the way things are done, and “material style,” which refers to patterns observed in artifact attributes that are a result of production techniques (Dietler and

Herbich 1998:236, emphasis original). They distinguish between the two to acknowledge that patterns in material culture attributes are not always intentionally produced.

Hegmon (1992, 1998) notes that archaeologists learn more by viewing style as an active process. She asserts that style is a choice, or a strategy, that is not separate from the technological choices made during production. Nor is it in opposition to function. Style may express social or individual identity, or it may be related to “cultural understandings of the universe” (Hegmon

1998:266). Therefore, it is necessary to incorporate concepts of human agency, habitus, and

practice into our thinking to understand the relationship between style and material culture

(Hegmon 1992, 1998).

These studies emphasize that those who produced the artifacts we study did not necessarily distinguish between style, function, and technology, and bolster the argument that

“style is not without social function” (Tostevin 2012:60). Researchers continue to move away from a tripartite classification of style, function, and technology, and favor an approach that recognizes the social processes that influence production and result in artifact variation (Dietler and Herbich 1998; Hegmon 1998; Stark 2006; Tostevin 2012).

An Integrative Theory of Artifact Variability To move further from the concept of style, function, and technology as distinct phenomena, Tostevin advocates for an integration of four theoretical approaches that can be combined to form “a holistic approach to understanding artifact variation” (Tostevin 2012:39).

These four concepts are a unified middle-range theory of artifact design, chaîne opératoire, behavioral chain analysis, and organization of technology (Tostevin 2012:39–53).

The unified middle-range theory of artifact design, developed by Christopher Carr, examines the hierarchical nature of style and identifies the relationship between technological, social, and individual processes and artifact design attributes. This etic approach recognizes that formal variation, isochrestic variation, and active and passive style may be nested or complementary to one another, and that these processes are linked to the visibility of artifact attributes and their order in the manufacturing sequence (Carr 1995a, 1995b; Tostevin 2012:34–

41). Carr argues that social interaction and information exchange theories are complementary under certain conditions, and active or passive processes inform symbolic expression,

enculturation, and learning processes within and between groups (Carr 1995b:213–215). Factors to consider from this perspective include manufacture, use and discard patterns, projectile point size, raw material, and geographic distribution.

Introduced by Leroi-Gourhan and founded in the “Technologie culturelle” School of

French ethnography, chaîne opératoire is an approach that seeks to understand the cultural implications of technology by considering choices made during the entire production sequence.

Gesture, or the bodily action in production, and ways of knowing are central to this approach, with a distinction made between connaissance, or technical knowledge, and savoir-faire, or knowledge acquired through observation, learning, and practice (Tostevin 2012:42–43). Chaîne opératoire examines the social reasons behind choices made during lithic production, but differs from contemporary use of style theory because the interest is in the producer’s conscious choices, thereby eliminating Sackett’s notion of isochrestic variation (Tostevin 2012:43–44).

Although criticized for its methodology and terminology, chaîne opératoire provides a framework to study the learning process and choices made during lithic production (Audouze

2002; Bar-Yosef and Van Peer 2009; Tostevin 2012).

Schiffer and Skibo argue for a behavioral approach to artifact variation with the behavioral chain analysis perspective. The behavioral chain, defined as the “sequence of activities in an artifact’s life history,” refers to the artisan’s conscious choices made during the production process (Schiffer and Skibo 1997:29). Although this approach seems similar to the chaîne opératoire, it differs in several fundamental ways. First, the life-history approach of the behavioral chain includes performance related to distribution, use, and disposal. Second, the behavioral chain perspective seeks to explain artifact design variation by focusing on artisan’s response to performance characteristics (Schiffer and Skibo 1997; Tostevin 2012). Choices are

influenced by performance feedback and are subject to selective pressures (Schiffer and Skibo

1997:29–32). This behavioral approach favors performance characteristics over social influences, but it does include visual and sensory characteristics of artifact design that may affect the way material culture conveys social or ideological information (Schiffer and Skibo 1997:30).

Schiffer and Skibo’s approach focuses on conscious choices of the artisan based on performance.

Consequently, it can be effectively combined with Carr’s middle-range theory and chaîne opératoire to understand the full range of processes that influenced artifact variation (Tostevin

2012:48–49).

The organization of technology approach is rooted in processual archaeology and Lewis

Binford’s work, and examines technological strategies to explain artifact variability (Tostevin

2012:49). Social and economic needs are conditioned by the environment, and activities conducted across the landscape are relative to available resources, factors that are absent in the previously discussed approaches (Tostevin 2012:50; see also Nelson 1991). Organization of technology draws heavily from evolutionary ecology in its use of optimality models, adaptive strategies, and reproductive success. These concepts are applied to lithic technology to examine raw material use, core technology, and tool utility (Tostevin 2012:49–53).

Tostevin summarizes the vital aspects of these four theoretical approaches as follows: (1)

Carr’s Middle-range Theory of Artifact Design uses the visibility of artifact attributes to identify the social processes that affect production choices and design; (2) chaîne opératoire emphasizes the embedded learning processes—both knowledge and know-how—in choices made during production; (3) behavioral chain analysis stresses the feedback from performance characteristics and its influences on artisans’ choices; and (4) the Organization of Technology approach views choices in relation to resource availability and environmental conditions (Tostevin 2012:62). The

combined strengths of these four approaches provide a framework to recognize social factors responsible for artifact variation, and lead analysts away from a “strict style vs. function vs. technology distinction” (Tostevin 2012:61). Further, they provide an alternative to the assertion that “by definition style cannot have function” (O’Brien and Leonard 2001:3).

Summary The goal of this thesis is to examine regional similarities and differences in projectile point designs during a time of significant social, economic, and demographic change, and to explore how that change might have influenced design choices. Therefore, it is necessary to view this phenomenon from a theoretical position that will address both social and technological processes. Cultural transmission theory is a social-learning model that accounts for selective pressures, the diffusion of cultural traits, and design innovation. When combined with the concept of habitus and the social theory of communities of practice, cultural transmission can interpret behaviors as a response to social demands or related to identity construction—issues that are relevant in this analysis due to the formation of coalescent communities within the study region. A more comprehensive theoretical approach is required, however, to address the full range of social, economic, and material factors that produce artifact variation. An integrative approach that draws from several schools of thought can address conscious and sub-conscious choices, socially-learned skills, performance feedback, technological strategies influenced by resource availability, and social expressions reflected in artifact design. From this perspective, a clearer picture of the processes that led to the adoption, rejection, or abandonment of projectile point designs may emerge.

CHAPTER 4. ANALYTICAL METHODS

To identify potential differences in projectile point designs it was necessary to collect metrical and morphological data from a large sample from each sub-region of the study area.

Many of the points discussed in this thesis have been reported on in technical or synthetic site reports, but some essential data were not published or analyzed. In these instances, I examined collections curated by the Amerind Foundation and the Arizona State Museum. Other points used in this study were analyzed for Desert Archaeology, Inc. or Archaeology Southwest by myself or Jane Sliva, and the results are documented in technical reports.

The projectile point sample was chosen from sites or contexts dating from A.D. 1150 to

1450, as indicated in site reports or museum records. Projectile points from surface or non- feature contexts were included if they represented known Classic period types. It is not unusual to find Archaic dart points in Hohokam structures and pits. Because the focus of here is on points produced between A.D. 1150 and 1450, these earlier artifacts are not included in this analysis.

Details of these earlier types can often be found in the published reports. When an artifact appeared to be a dart point based on its size and weight but was not a diagnostic type, I used the dart-arrow index introduced by Hildebrandt and King (2012) to make a determination. Non- diagnostic projectile point fragments from feature contexts were recorded because they inform on raw material use.

Projectile points from both domestic and mortuary contexts were included in this analysis, in part because some of the largest Classic period collections available from the western portion of the Tucson Basin are from mortuary contexts. A formal comparison of Classic period

burial and non-burial points is not the focus of this project; however, recording types from this special context can inform on different traditions within each sub-region.

Figure 4.1 illustrates the attributes measured for each projectile point. Variables expected to inform on design variation include total length, basal width, and basal depth. Neck width can indicate changes in hafting preferences, and stem-to-length ratios and blade-to-stem ratios provide a comparative measure for notch placement. Thickness, measured as the thickest point of the blade and stem, was also recorded to remain consistent with previous analyses. Important morphological characteristics include the presence or absence of serrations and notch location.

The full range of recorded variables is listed in Appendix A.

New analyses entailed entering measurements and observations into an Excel spreadsheet, and data from previously analyzed projects were drawn from the Desert

Archaeology database. Measurements for all datasets were taken with digital metal calipers and measured to 0.01 mm, and weights were measured to .01 g. Statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics Software package, using a standard confidence interval of 95 percent.

Figure 4.1. Measured projectile point attributes. (Image courtesy of Jane Sliva).

Typological Classification Methods for classifying projectile points may vary among researchers working within the same region, and established typologies change over time as new data become available.

Previous studies often grouped points into categories based on morphological characteristics, designated with names such as “Type 1,” “Type 2,” etc. (Di Peso 1958; Franklin 1980; Myers and Gregonis 2011), but this system is not conducive for inter-site comparisons.

In this analysis, I use the typology established for the Hohokam and Mogollon cultural areas by Desert Archaeology (Sliva 1997, 2002, 2006) (Table 4.1). This typology was developed through two decades of extensive cultural resource management investigations in central and southern Arizona, and continues to be refined as new data are available. This classification system was also adopted by researchers in the Middle Gila region of southern Arizona (Loendorf and Rice 2004), and its continued usage facilitates regional-level comparisons. Any projectile points encountered during the study that did not fit within an established type were recorded in descriptive terms (e.g., shallow side-notched) that are not intended as formal nomenclature.

Table 4.1. Projectile point typology used in this analysis (after Sliva 2002, 2006). Point Type Description Figure Classic Side-notched Thin points with small shallow side-notched located near or 4.2a-c slightly below the mid-point of the blade. Bases range from flat to concave, and L:W ratios often greater than 2.5:1 Late Classic Side- Lower notch placement than Classic Side-notched, with deeper 4.2d notched and wider notches. Flat to slightly concave bases and L:W ratios of 2:1. Arizona Basal-notched Shallow c-shaped notches and a basal notch, less than 25 mm 4.2e long with L:W ratio of 2:1. Southwest Short Unnotched triangular points, flat base, often less than 20 mm 4.2f Triangular long with L:W ratios of 1.5:1–2:1. Southwest Triangular Longer and narrower than Southwest Short, average 25 mm long 4.2g and L:W ratios of approximately 2.5:1. Bases are usually straight or slightly concave or convex.

Southwest Concave-base Markedly concave bases, pronounced pointed ears, variable 4.2h Triangular lengths, L:W ratios usually less than 2.5:1. Southwest Long Length is greater than 30 mm and measure up to 40-45 mm, with 4.2i Triangular L:W ratios of 3:1. Bases are straight or slightly concave. Classic Serrated Thin points with serrations on entire length of blade, including 4.2j stem. Lengths range from 20 to 35 mm. Classic Flanged Thin and long triangular blades with wide concave bases. 4.2k Lengths vary, usually over 20 mm.

Figure 4.2. Common Classic period projectile point types (image courtesy of Jane Sliva).

Obsidian XRF Analysis Obsidian artifacts were sent to Steve Shackley at the Geoarchaeological XRF Lab in

Albuquerque, New Mexico, for non-destructive energy-dispersive x-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis. Analysis was conducted on a ThermoScientific Quant’X EDXRF spectrometer calibrated with a USGS obsidian standard (Shackley 2017a). Trace elements were measured in parts per million and source assignments were determined by reference to Shackley (1995, 2005,

2017b).

To examine the distribution of obsidian sources on both a site and regional level, I was given access to the Southwest Social Networks Database 1.0 (Mills et al. 2012). The database is the result of a NSF-funded collaborative project between the School of Anthropology at the

University of Arizona and Archaeology Southwest, and contains data collected from sites in New

Mexico and Arizona in use between A.D. 1150 and 1450. It is now part of the Heritage

Southwest Database that is maintained in cooperation with the Center for Archaeology and

Society at Arizona State University.

The Dataset Projectile points included in this study are from well-documented excavations, with either previously recorded data or the collections themselves easily accessible for study. Some of the projectile point collections are from sites that are dated based on ceramic seriation and absolute dating methods, providing reliable phase-level temporal resolution.

The Tucson Basin sample consists of large sets of points from contemporaneous groups living in the northeastern and northwestern portion of the basin. Documented differences between these sites include the influence of non-local groups with Ancestral Pueblo traditions and greater access to large game. This sample provides an ideal dataset to address the research themes of this study, as well as an opportunity to make a formal comparison of eastern and western Tucson Basin Classic period projectile points.

The projectile point sample from the San Pedro Valley includes sites that were home to local groups as well as at least two Ancestral Pueblo migrant enclaves. Although the sample from the latter is small, comparisons with other sites in the region can reveal design preferences at migrant sites. Increased tensions in the region and an expanded obsidian distribution network

are also attributed to the arrival of these northern groups (Clark and Lyons 2012b). The San

Pedro Valley sample provides an opportunity to explore how these factors influenced projectile point design choices.

Challenges encountered during this analysis included issues with dating, context, and sample size. Direct comparisons between the Tucson Basin and San Pedro Valley samples were constrained by the available sample. The Tucson Basin sites in this study are largely early

Classic, while the San Pedro Valley sample is weighted toward the late Classic. Some sites have long occupation spans, but temporally mixed deposits made it difficult to identify post-A.D.

1300 shifts in material use and point types with certainty. Many collections include a number of curated Archaic points, and while the inclusion of these points in burials or floor contexts is interesting, their attributes are not the focus of this study. As a result, collections that initially appeared to have a substantial number of points only yielded a small number of diagnostic

Classic period points.

At the onset of this study, the intention was to include the growing collection of data from sites in the Upper Gila region. These assemblages include a substantial number of points of diverse types from an area that lacks a formal typology. It soon became apparent that classifying all the side-notched points from this area for a regional-level study was beyond the scope of this project. Therefore, I chose to focus on collections from the Tucson Basin and San Pedro Valley, and plan to draw from these results for future detailed analysis of point design variation in the

Upper Gila region.

CHAPTER 5. OBSIDIAN PROCUREMENT PATTERNS IN THE STUDY AREA

The increase in obsidian circulation during the Classic period may have influenced projectile point designs, either directly through raw material constraints, or indirectly as ideas and information were shared through expanded exchange networks. In this chapter, I present new obsidian source data determined by energy dispersive x-ray fluorescence analysis (XRF) for three sites in the study region, and discuss regional-level trends in acquisition patterns. Obsidian source data highlight the level of group interaction during the Classic period, as well as the variation in exchange networks among the sites in this study. Unless otherwise referenced, data presented in this chapter are drawn from the Southwest Social Networks Database 1.0 (Mills et al. 2012).

Obsidian Sources in the Southwest Dozens of obsidian sources have been geochemically characterized in the North

American Southwest over the past few decades, and new sources continue to be documented

(Kibler et al. 2014; Martynec et al. 2011; Shackley 1995, 2005, 2009a, 2013). The Mule Creek obsidian source is an extensive source area in the Upper Gila region of New Mexico (Figure 5.1).

Shackley (2005:55) has identified at least four chemically distinct localities within this source area, where most nodules do not exceed 10 cm. Localities within the Mule Creek area that were extensively used by pre-contact groups include Antelope Creek, N. Sawmill Creek, and Mule

Mountains. Although these Mule Creek sub-groups are spatially discrete, they do occur together in mixed deposits in the Gila Conglomerate (Shackley 2005:53).

Distribution of Mule Creek obsidian expanded substantially during the fourteenth century, a phenomenon attributed to Ancestral Pueblo migrant groups who resettled in the Mule

Creek source area and various other areas in southeastern Arizona, such as the Lower San Pedro

Valley (Clark et al. 2012:390-393; Huntley et al. 2016; Mills et al. 2013).

Figure 5.1. Select obsidian sources in Arizona and southwestern New Mexico (after Shackley 2005).

Small obsidian nodules are found at Cow Canyon in eastern Arizona, another source in the Upper Gila located just west of Mule Creek. The primary source for this material is not extensive, but the nodules erode into nearby rivers and drainages and are found in secondary deposits as far as 20 km to the south (Shackley 2005:51-53).

To the west, obsidian sources in the Sonoran Desert were continuously exploited throughout history. Marekanites from these sources are of good flaking quality but also small and rarely exceed 10 cm in maximum size (Shackley 2005:36-49). Sauceda and Vulture obsidian are often well-represented at Classic period sites in southern Arizona (Boley 2013; Peterson et al.

1997; Ryan 2016). In some instances, direction of source appears to be more significant than distance to the source and this is likely related to social factors (Loendorf 2012:116; Ryan 2010;

Sliva and Ryan 2012).

Substantially larger obsidian nodules, measuring up to 30 cm in diameter, are available from the San Francisco Volcanic Field in Northern Arizona (Shackley 2005:32). Government

Mountain obsidian is the most common utilized material from this area. This material has a widespread distribution in the Southwest, likely due to its large size and high flaking quality

(Shackley 2005:29–36). The presence of this material in the study area during the late Classic period may also be attributed to social factors and diverse exchange networks in the region

(Shackley and Gallop 2012).

Obsidian properties. Obsidian is a homogenous material and is an excellent medium for tool production. The effectiveness of an obsidian point to inflict a lethal wound is noted in the ethnographic record (Ellis 1997:50). Its properties, however, may also impose some technological constraints. The size and shape of the Sonoran Desert and Upper Gila nodules may alter core reduction strategies, and limit the number of usable flakes produced from one nodule.

This will ultimately affect the size of the finished tool. There are, however, examples of dart points made of these materials (e.g. Sliva 2015b), and two fluted points of Cow Canyon obsidian were found at the Murray Springs Clovis site (Shackley 2005:52). Another potential issue is durability. While obsidian’s brittle properties are ideal for producing tools with sharp edges, they 52

also result in a lack of compression strength and obsidian points may break easily upon impact

(Hughes 1998:372).

Obsidian points are found in ritual deposits, but the ritual use of unworked obsidian nodules is not often seen in the ethnographic or archaeological record in the Southwest (Shackley

2005:115). Obsidian sources in this region were revisited throughout history, and the material was important enough to have been acquired through long-distance exchange or travel.

Archaeologists may better understand the cultural significance of obsidian source areas and obsidian artifacts through discussions with members of indigenous groups in the region.

Tucson Basin Obsidian Distributions Obsidian source data from sites in the thesis sample are presented in Table 5.1 and comparative data from other sites in the northwestern Tucson Basin are shown in Table 5.2. The obsidian source dataset from the early Classic period Marana Mound site is one of the largest available in the region. A large percentage originates from Sonoran Desert sources in the west, with only slightly over 10 percent from eastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico (Boley

2013). Analysis of the spatial distribution of obsidian at Marana led to the conclusion that the material was most likely acquired through the social connections of the households, but the material likely also had a role in ritual power (Boley 2013). Northern Arizona sources are notably absent at Marana Mound, and based on comparisons with Yuma Wash, AA:12:46, and the nearby late Classic Rillito Fan (Craig 2011) and Dairy sites, circulation of those sources, specifically Government Mountain, increased during the Classic period in the Tucson Basin.

This temporal pattern is also evident in the Lower San Pedro Valley (Clark, Hill, et al.

2012:393).

A diverse mix of sources from several directions is represented in the Yuma Wash sample. Sauceda and other Sonoran Desert sources are well represented and Upper Gila sources occur in relatively low amounts. Cow Canyon material was limited to three burials, one of which contained a Pinedale Black-on-white pitcher, a trade item produced in the Mogollon Rim area

(Hays-Gilpin and van Hartesveldt 1998; Ryan 2016:645). Phase-level comparisons indicated that material from Northern Arizona and Los Vidrios was more common during the late Classic period (Ryan 2016:Table 6.14).

Table 5.1. Obsidian sources represented at Tucson Basin sites in thesis sample.

Northwestern Basin Northeastern Basin

Marana Mound Yuma Wash AA:12:46 Whiptail Ruin Obsidian Source N % N % N % N % Cow Canyon 6 2.8 10 10.9 - - - - Jemez/Bear Springs Peak? - - 1 1.1 - - - - Los Sitios del Agua ------Los Vidrios 2 0.9 6 6.5 1 3.7 - - Mule Creek 17 7.9 13 14.1 6 22.2 14 93.3 San Francisco Volcanics - - 4 4.3 4 14.8 - - Sauceda Mountains 146 68.2 40 43.5 16 59.3 1 6.7 Superior 15 7.0 12 13.0 - - - - Vulture 26 12.1 ------Unknowna 2 0.9 6 6.5 - - - - Total 214 99.8 92 99.9 27 100.0 15 100.0 aSeveral pieces at Yuma Wash were burned or too small for source assignments (Shackley 2016).

Comparative data from other sites in the Tucson Basin indicate temporal shifts in exchange networks. Sauceda obsidian is the dominant type at early Classic sites in the northwestern basin, with the notable exception of Los Morteros. This sample consists of projectile points from two early Classic cremations, most of which are made of Superior obsidian, an unusual pattern for this region (Shackley 2011). Material from Superior is absent at

AA:12:46 and Rillito Fan, and only one piece was identified at the Dairy site. Based on this

patterning, the acquisition of the material may have substantially decreased during the late

Classic period.

Mule Creek obsidian is also more common at sites with a late Classic occupation. It is also well represented at the Dairy site and is the dominant source at the late Classic Rillito Fan site. It composes over twenty percent of the material from AA:12:46. These artifacts were recovered from the 1990 excavations in an area where a late Classic occupation was reported and

Roosevelt Red Ware was common (Slawson 1990).

Table 5.2. Obsidian sources at other Classic period sites in the northwestern Tucson Basin.

Los Morteros Dairy Site Rillito Fan Obsidian Source N % N % N % Antelope Wells - - - - 1 2.6 Los Vidrios - - 7 7.1 4 10.5 Los Sitios del Agua 1 2 - - - - Mule Creek 4 8 18 18.4 13 34.2 San Francisco Volcanics - - 7 7.1 9 23.7 Sauceda Mountains 2 4 65 66.3 11 28.9 Superior 43 86 1 1 0 0 Total 50 100 98 99.9 38 99.9

San Pedro Valley Obsidian Distributions The distribution of obsidian sources at Classic period sites in the Lower San Pedro Valley has been well documented. Obsidian was not abundant in this region until after A.D. 1300 when a substantial increase in circulation occurred (Clark, Hill, et al. 2012; Mills et al. 2013). Four- hundred obsidian artifacts were analyzed as part of the San Pedro Preservation Project. Obsidian from Upper Gila sources dominate the assemblages, with over 60 percent from the Mule Creek source area and another 20 percent from Cow Canyon (Clark, Hill, et al. 2012:390-393; Shackley and Gallop 2012). The increased use of this material is attributed to the social connections that 55

migrant groups and their descendants maintained with people living close to the source. Obsidian frequencies are high at the Kayenta migrant enclaves, Reeve Ruin and Davis Ranch, and only

Upper Gila sources, primarily Mule Creek, are represented (Clark and Lyons 2012a; Shackley and Gallop 2012).

Superior is the closest source and represents only five percent of the assemblage, and is limited to sites in the northern portion of the lower valley. Also present at just under five percent is Government Mountain obsidian, also concentrated in the northern lower valley (Clark, Hill et al. 2012:Figure 6.28). The low frequencies of material from sources in the Sonoran Desert, northwestern Chihuahua, and northern New Mexico also indicate diversity in exchange networks over time (Shackley and Gallop 2012:410). Obsidian sources represented at sites in the Lower

San Pedro Valley thesis sample are listed in Table 5.3.

The patterns discussed above are not seen throughout the entire valley. At Garden

Canyon Village in the Upper San Pedro Valley, Mule Creek material composes over 30 percent of the sample and several pieces from sources in Sonora and Chihuahua, located a great distance away, were also identified (Schneider 2016:Table 5.44). Considering the diverse sources in

Classic period contexts at Garden Canyon, the absence of obsidian at Babocomari Village in the

Upper San Pedro suggests that groups living there were not involved in the same exchange relationships. Alternatively, there may be obsidian debitage and cores in the Babocomari assemblage that have not been reported on.

Table 5.3. Obsidian sources represented at Lower San Pedro Valley sites in thesis sample.

ntelope

Animas Mountains A Wells Cow Canyon Jemez Los Vidrios Mule Creek San Fran Volcanics Sauceda Mountains Superior Tank Mountains Unknown Vulture Total 111 Ranch - - 14 - - 2 ------16 Adobe Hill - - 3 - - 4 2 - 5 - - - 14 Artifact Hill - - 2 - 1 - - - - - 1 - 4 Ash Terrace - - 6 - - 29 1 1 2 - 3 - 42 Bayless Ruin - - 3 1 - 8 ------12 Big Bell - - 4 - - 2 ------6 Davis Ranch Site - - 3 - - 44 ------47 Dudleyville Mound - - 1 - - 2 ------3 Elliott Site - - 2 - - 33 ------35 Flieger - 2 7 1 1 32 4 1 4 1 - - 53 High Mesa - - 3 - - 7 - - - - 2 - 12 Leaverton - - 6 - - 9 ------15 Lost Mound - - 12 - - 18 2 - - - - 1 33 Reeve Ruin - - 1 - - 42 - - - - 1 - 44 Second Canyon Ruin - - 2 - - 9 ------11 Swingle's Sample - - 5 - - 5 6 1 5 - 1 - 23 Tres Alamos 3 - 2 - 1 10 - 0 - - - - 16 Wright - - 6 - - 7 1 0 - - - - 14 Total 3 2 82 2 3 263 16 3 16 1 8 1 400 Percent 0.8 0.5 20.5 0.5 0.8 65.8 4.0 0.8 4.0 0.3 2.0 0.3 100.0 Note: Bolded sites are Kayenta enclaves.

New Obsidian Source Data Twenty-nine artifacts from the northeastern Tucson Basin and Lower San Pedro Valley were submitted to the Geoarchaeological Lab for XRF source analysis (Shackley 2017a). The artifacts came from Whiptail Ruin, Second Canyon Ruin, and Alder Wash Ruin. Alder Wash

Ruin was in use prior to A.D. 1150 (Masse 1974), and this small sample adds to the Preclassic comparative dataset for the Lower San Pedro Valley.

Alder Wash Ruin was settled during the Colonial and Sedentary Preclassic periods, and has a small early Classic period component (Masse 1974). Four obsidian projectile points from

this site are made from Mule Creek (Antelope Creek), Cow Canyon, and possibly Vulture obsidian. The Vulture assignment is considered provisional due to a level of zirconium outside of source standards (Shackley 2017a). Points were not recovered from the three early Classic structures identified at Alder Wash; however, one barbed point made from Mule Creek obsidian resembles the Classic Barbed point. This type that has only been identified in Classic period deposits at one site in the Tucson Basin (Sliva 2015b). The point was recovered from the floor fill of a Sedentary period pit structure at Alder Wash, but it was noted that this feature was used for trash deposition by later inhabitants (Masse 1974:8). Therefore, this point may be associated with early Classic occupation at Alder Wash Ruin.

Thirteen obsidian projectile points and bifaces from Second Canyon Ruin were chosen for analysis, two of which are from Preclassic contexts. Following previous patterns, the Classic period artifacts are from Upper Gila sources, with eight from the Antelope Creek locality of

Mule Creek, one from the North Sawmill locale, and one from Cow Canyon. The two Preclassic artifacts are made of Superior and Cow Canyon obsidian.

Previous XRF source analysis for Whiptail Ruin identified three projectile points made from Mule Creek obsidian (Myers and Gregonis 2011:176-178). Obsidian is rare at Whiptail

Ruin, composing less than one percent of the total assemblage (Myers and Gregonis 2011:176).

New results of 12 additional projectile points bolster the pattern for connections with groups to the east, with all but one coming from the Antelope Creek locality of the Mule Creek source

(Shackley 2017a). A single point is made from Sauceda obsidian, which is located to the west, and more commonly represented in the northwestern Tucson Basin. The small but informative sample from early Classic contexts in the northeastern Tucson Basin contrasts with patterns in the northwestern basin, where a wide variety of sources is represented. Although the sample size 58

from Whiptail Ruin is small, the absence of Sauceda and the dominance of Mule Creek obsidian reveal differences in exchange networks, and imply connections between people at Whiptail

Ruin and groups to the northeast.

Summary Geochemical source characterization of obsidian artifacts contributes to our understanding of procurement strategies and exchange networks in the Southwest. The XRF source data presented here illustrate the range of material circulating during the Classic period in the study area. The sample from early Classic sites in the northeastern Tucson Basin reflects relationships maintained with groups in the Lower San Pedro Valley or farther northeast. Sources located to the west and north dominate in the northwestern basin, and the greatest frequencies of

Mule Creek and northern Arizona obsidian was identified at sites where groups resided into the late Classic period.

Upper Gila sources are found at all sites with obsidian in the Lower San Pedro Valley sample, and Mule Creek obsidian represents almost all the analyzed material from the Kayenta migrant enclaves. The greatest variation is seen at Flieger Ruin, where occupation persisted into the fifteenth century. This suggests that another shift in exchange networks may have occurred in the San Pedro Valley after several of the sites were depopulated (Shackley and Gallop

2012:410).

CHAPTER 6. PROJECTILE POINT ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Recently published site reports and the resultant increase in sample size allow for a systematic study of Classic period projectile points from different environmental and social settings in the Tucson Basin and San Pedro Valley. In this chapter, I present quantitative and qualitative data to examine similarities and differences in arrow point production, and discuss how these patterns inform on the main research themes of this thesis. The goals of this analysis are to determine how the presence of non-local groups, greater access to large game, and participation in obsidian exchange networks influenced projectile point design choices in the

Tucson Basin and Lower San Pedro Valley.

A starting point is to identify the distribution of various point types across the landscape, and metrical data (Appendix B) are used to determine the level of variation within types between assemblages. While the goal of this thesis is to identify broader patterns within the study area, it is also necessary to consider the contexts of specific artifacts to infer meaningful behaviors. Therefore, site-level details are discussed when appropriate. A complete list of site names, numbers, and total number of points from each site is presented in Table 6.1

Tucson Basin The projectile point sample from the Tucson Basin consists of 505 projectile points from five sites that are located in the northeastern and northwestern margins of the basin (Table 6.2).

This analysis focuses on comparisons between the northeastern and northwestern sites, where marked differences in ceramic traditions and levels of large-game hunting during the early

Classic period are documented.

Table 6.1. Sites and projectile point counts in thesis sample. Bolded sites have Ancestral Pueblo migrant components.

Point Region Site Name Site Numbera Date sample Reference Lower San 111 Ranch BB:6:73 A.D. 1150–1375 1 Clark and Lyons 2012b Pedro Valley

Adobe Hill BB:1:32 A.D. 1350 –1450 3 Clark and Lyons 2012b

Artifact Hill BB:1:55 A.D. 1250–1375 1 Clark and Lyons 2012b

Ash Terrace BB:2:19 A.D. 1250–1375b 2 Clark and Lyons 2012b

Bayless Ranch BB:11:2 A.D. 1150–1375 3 Clark and Lyons 2012b Ruin Big Bell BB:6:2 A.D. 1150–1375 2 Clark and Lyons 2012b

Big Pot BB:2:18 A.D. 1150–1275 2 Clark and Lyons 2012b

Corrugated Ridge BB:6:110 A.D. 1150/1200–1250/1275 2 Clark and Lyons 2012b

Davis Ranch BB:11:36 A.D. 1250/1275– 18 Clark and Lyons 2012b b 1350/1375 Dudleyville Mound BB:2:83 A.D. 1350/1375–1425/1450 1 Clark and Lyons 2012b

Elliott Site BB:11:27 A.D. 1250/1275– 1 Clark and Lyons 2012b b 1350/1375 Flieger Ruin BB:2:7 A.D. 1250/1275– 13 Clark and Lyons 2012b b 1350/1375 High Mesa BB:7:5 A.D. 1150/1200–1350/1375 3 Clark and Lyons 2012b

Leaverton Mesa BB:6:11 A.D. 1250/1275–1350/1375 3 Clark and Lyons 2012b

Lost Mound BB:2:3 A.D. 1250/1275–1350/1375 1 Clark and Lyons 2012b

Reeve Ruin BB:11:26 A.D. 1250/1275– 3 Clark and Lyons 2012b b 1350/1375 Second Canyon BB:11:20 A.D. 700–1400 34 Franklin 1980

Swingle's Sample BB:1:22 A.D. 1350/1375–1425/1450 2 Clark and Lyons 2012b

Tres Alamos BB:15:1 A.D. 700–1450 5 Tuthill 1947

Wright BB:2:51 A.D. 1250/1275–1350/1375 3 Clark and Lyons 2012b

Total 103

Upper San Babocomari EE:7:1 A.D. 1200–1400 19 Di Peso 1951 Pedro Valley Village

Total 19

Tucson Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A.D. 1150–1300 86 Gregonis 2011b Basin Gibbon Springs BB:10:6 A.D. 1150 - 1300 19 Slaughter and Roberts 1996 - AA:12:46 A.D. 1150 - 1450 83 Slawson 1990

Marana Mound AA:12:251 A.D. 1150 - 1300 97 Fish et al. 1992

Yuma Wash AA:12:122, 311, A.D. 1150 - 1450 220 Swartz 2016 312, 314

Total 505

Grand Total 627 aSite numbers preceded by AZ and followed by ASM. bSome mixing with later Romero phase deposits (Clark and Lyons 2012b:Table F.1).

Northeastern Basin

The sample from the northeastern Tucson Basin consist of 86 points from Whiptail Ruin and 19 from the Gibbon Springs site (Table 6.2), which have been firmly dated to the early

Classic period (Gregonis and Hartmann 2011; Slaughter and Roberts 1996). The sample includes points from structures, non-feature contexts, and five from secondary cremations at Whiptail

Ruin. Based on the distribution of corrugated ceramic wares, it is surmised that the migrant groups with Ancestral Pueblo ceramic traditions moved in from the Lower San Pedro Valley and settled with local groups at both Whiptail and Gibbon Springs (Gregonis 2011b; Slaughter 1996).

Half of the diagnostic points from Whiptail Ruin are side-notched and nearly all are

Classic Side-notched types. Southwest Triangular varieties are also well-represented, and those with concave bases occur most frequently. The smallest examples of unnotched triangular points deserve mention because of their exceptionally small size (mean length = 9.83 mm) and potential ritual placement. Two were found on a structure floor near a deer jaw (Hartmann and Gregonis

2011:23), and another made of Mule Creek obsidian was found in a house that contained a variety of tools, ornaments, large-game faunal remains, and an adult male burial (Gregonis

2011b:298; Hartmann and Gregonis 2011:54). Because of the unusual size of these points their metric attributes are not included in the statistical analyses.

Fourteen percent of the Whiptail points are made from obsidian. Most of these are

Southwest Triangular points, one is a Classic Side-notched, and two are too fragmentary to type.

These points are made from Antelope Creek (Mule Creek) obsidian, and one is Sauceda obsidian. The latter is a Classic Flanged point, an unusual style that is found in low numbers in northwestern basin.

Table 6.2. Distribution of Classic period projectile points in the Tucson Basin sample.

Northeastern Basin Northwestern Basin Whiptail Gibbon Point Type Ruin Springs AA:12:46 Marana Mound Yuma Wash N % N % N % N % N % Classic Side-notched 36 41.9 4 21.1 40 48.2 36 37.1 124 56.3 Shallow side-notched 2 2.3 2 10.5 4 4.8 3 3.1 4 1.8 Arizona Basal-notched ------2 2.1 1 0.5

Late Classic Side-notched ------20 9.1

McGregor J - - - - 1 1.2 - - - Classic Serrated 2 2.3 - - 6 7.2 1 1 - - Classic Flanged 1 1.2 - - 1 1.2 1 1 - - Southwest Triangular 11 12.8 5 26.3 4 4.8 16 16.5 7 3.2 Southwest Concave-base Triangular 15 17.4 4 21.1 19 22.9 23 23.7 21 9.5 Southwest Short Triangular 2 2.3 3 15.8 4 4.8 5 5.2 20 9.1 Southwest Long Triangular ------2 2.1 - - Triangular, unspecified type 2 2.3 - - - - 1 1 1 0.5

Small triangular, eccentric 4 4.7 ------Eccentric ------2 2.1 - - Non-diagnostic 11 12.8 1 5.3 4 4.8 5 5.2 22 10.0 Total 86 100 19 100.1 83 99.9 97 100.1 220 100

Collections at Gibbon Springs contain a lower frequency of projectile points compared to

Whiptail Ruin (Myers and Gregonis 2011:181). The distribution of types at Gibbon Springs is also different, with unnotched triangular points representing almost two-thirds of the sample. All are made from chert, chalcedony, or jasper, and obsidian points are absent, although a low number of obsidian cores and debitage were found (Myers 1996).

Northwestern Basin

The sample from the northwestern Tucson Basin consists of 400 points from the Yuma

Wash site, Marana Mound site, and AA:12:46. Although occupation at Yuma Wash and

AA:12:46 continued into the late Classic period, the point sample is heavily weighted to the early

Classic period. Collections from the northwestern basin are unusual because of the high proportion of burial-related artifacts from Yuma Wash (80%) and AA:12:46 (92%).

I analyzed the Yuma Wash projectile points for Desert Archaeology between 2009 and

2010 (Ryan 2016). Classic Side-notched points dominate this assemblage, in part because of their greater frequency in mortuary features. Slightly over 20 percent of the points are Southwest

Triangular varieties and all subtypes are represented except for Southwest Long Triangular.

Side-notched points of unspecified type occur in low numbers, and one basal-notched point was recovered. The Yuma Wash site was settled around A.D. 1150 and remained in use through the late Classic period (Swartz 2016), and is the only site in the Tucson sample with Late Classic

Side-notched points.

Twenty-five percent of the Classic period points from Yuma Wash were made from obsidian and a diverse mix of sources is represented. This includes material from the western

Sonoran Desert, Upper Gila sources, and obsidian from northern Arizona. Obsidian points

include both side-notched and unnotched types and most of the Classic period obsidian points

(76%) were recovered from mortuary features.

The points from AA:12:46 were recovered from cremations during salvage excavations conducted by the University of Arizona, and two are from later excavations at the site (Slawson

1990). A formal report on the salvage work was never published but a ceramics report indicates that Roosevelt Red Ware was not associated with these burial features (Hammack 1977), suggesting an early Classic date. Subsequent work confirmed that the late Classic period features were located north of the early Classic period cemetery (Slawson 1990:78). Distributions of point types at AA:12:46 show a slightly greater frequency of side-notched points and almost all are Classic Side-notched. Among the Southwest Triangular varieties, those with concave bases greatly outnumber other sub-types. Serrations are present on 10 points, both unnotched and side- notched. The absence of Late Classic Side-notched points in the burial collection is another indicator that the cemetery area is associated with the early Classic period. Two points from late

Classic features are also included in this analysis. One is a Classic Side-notched point and another is an incomplete unidentified type (Slawson 1990:Figure 36). A single point was classified as a McGregor J point based on its flat base, sharp basal corners, and relatively wide horizontal c-shaped notches (Jane Sliva, personal communication 2017). This is a common point type at Ridge Ruin in northern Arizona associated with the twelfth century occupation

(McGregor 1941:Figure 64j), and likely represents a trade item. Ten percent of the points in the

AA:12:46 sample are made of obsidian, but these were not submitted for source provenance analysis because they are burial artifacts.

To add to the comparative sample, I analyzed 97 projectile points from the Marana

Mound site in the northern Tucson Basin. This is only a portion of the points recovered during 65

University of Arizona Archaeological Field School investigations between 1990 and 2003 (Fish et al. 2013). They provide a representative sample from early Classic compound rooms and extramural features in the eastern and western sectors of the site, and four are from a single cremation feature. The distribution of types at Marana is slightly different from the other sites in the northwestern basin in that slightly more than half of the diagnostic points are unnotched triangular points (see Table 6.2) Another distinction is the presence of two Southwest Long

Triangular points, expertly crafted and made of chert. One of these points was found in a cremation and the other below a structure floor. Ten points, both notched and unnotched, have serrated blades and one unusual point made of Cow Canyon obsidian has a set of squared-off barbs above its notches. Twenty percent of the points are obsidian and most of these are side- notched (n = 14), including the only two basal-notched examples. Both western Sonoran Desert and Upper Gila obsidian sources are represented.

Projectile Point Characteristics

Most of the projectile points from the Tucson Basin sites represent common Classic period designs, with only a small number of complete artifacts classified as unspecified types.

The variation in Classic Side-notched point total lengths (Figure 6.1) suggests that this was not the most important variable in choosing to design a side-notched or unnotched point. Both the shortest and longest examples were found in burials in the northwestern basin.

A similar pattern is seen in the distribution of unnotched points, although this was expected because the three Southwest Triangular sub-types are identified on the basis of length- to-width ratios (Figure 6.2). The outliers in this collection all represent points from unusual contexts at Marana Mound and Whiptail Ruin, as mentioned above. Base widths on unnotched

points are smaller on average than those on side-notched points (Table 6.3), and differences between the two are statistically significant (t = -3.147, df = 260.998, p = .002, equal variances not assumed). Justice (2002:261) notes that it may be difficult to distinguish a finished unnotched point from a side-notched perform. However, these results support the classification of these examples as finished points rather than preforms. If unnotched points were unfinished preforms, we would expect them to be the same size as, or larger than, the notched specimens on average.

Figure 6.1. Distribution of Classic Side-notched point lengths, Tucson Basin.

Figure 6.2. Distributions of Southwest Triangular points (all sub-types), Tucson Basin.

Table 6.3. Mean base widths for unnotched and side-notched points in the Tucson Basin

Side-notched Unnotched N 230 137 Mean 11.44 10.76 St. Dev 1.86 2.09

Burial Points. Preclassic cremations and burials in the Hohokam cultural region sometimes contain elaborate point designs that suggest they had a non-utilitarian function (Haury

1976:296–298). Although common point types were included in the mortuary ritual at Yuma

Wash, the longest examples of Classic Side-notched points and those with more pronounced concave bases were associated with burials (Ryan 2016:656). This suggests that certain attributes may have been desired for points used in ritual contexts. Statistical analyses were conducted to determine if significant differences between non-burial and burial-related point attributes exist. 68

Metrics of mortuary and non-mortuary points are presented in Table 6.4 and Table 6.5.

Comparisons between points from burials at Yuma Wash to those from domestic contexts did not reveal significant differences. A Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare mortuary and non- mortuary Classic Side-notched lengths (p = .523), unnotched point lengths (p = .324), and unnotched point base widths (p = .703), and a Student’s t-test to compare base widths for side- notched points (df = 107, t = .1.02, p = .311, equal variances assumed).

Comparisons between point lengths from the three northwestern basin sites also did not reveal differences. Significant variation is evident, however, when base widths are compared

(Table 6.6). First, Classic Side-notched points from burials at Yuma Wash have significantly wider base widths than those from domestic contexts at Marana Mound. Second, Southwest

Triangular points from burials at AA:12:46 are the widest recorded in the Tucson sample. These are significantly wider than mortuary points at Yuma Wash and non-mortuary points at Marana

Mound. The widest examples from AA:12:46 have concave bases with pointed ears, and in two instance there appears to be a slight constriction near the mid-point of the blade. Because of the lack of points from other contexts at AA:12:46, it is not possible to determine if these attributes are limited to burial-related points at AA:12:46.

Five expertly crafted Classic Side-notched points were associated with a single cremation at Whiptail Ruin in the northeastern basin. Only a few were complete enough to get accurate measurements, but these points are also longer and significantly wider than their counterparts at the site.

These results illustrate the subtle differences between burial and non-burial points of the same type that may not otherwise appear unusual or elaborate. However, similarities between

points from different contexts at Yuma Wash suggests that ritual function is not the only explanation. These patterns may also reflect differences in learning traditions, preferences, or skill level among groups at living in the northwestern basin. It is notable that the few mortuary points from Marana possess the narrowest base widths in the sample, but this is a low number of points from one feature. Continuing to examine differences in points from ritual contexts may provide insights into the social function of points and group identity, but it is difficult to evaluate the patterns in the current sample further because of the uneven distribution of points from either context at AA:12:46 and Marana Mound.

Table 6.4. Mean lengths (mm) of select points from burial and non-burial features, Tucson Basin.

Classic Side-notched Southwest Triangular, All Sub-types Site N Total Length St. Dev N Total Length St. Dev Yuma Wash, non-mortuary 9 21.78 2.92 6 22.01 4.36 Yuma Wash, mortuary 90 21.33 4.69 27 19.98 4.22 Marana Mound, non-mortuary 23 20.39 3.54 27 20.03 3.86 Marana Mound, mortuary 2 21.78 2.35 2 24.87 16.07 AA:12:46, mortuary 26 21.47 4.68 20 19.67 4.47 Whiptail, mortuary 2 26.89 4.53 - - - Whiptail, non-mortuary 17 20.54 4.09 17 18.43 3.29 Gibbon Springs 2 20.8 1.75 10 19.11 2.54

Table 6.5. Mean base widths (mm) of select points from burial and non-burial features, Tucson Basin.

Classic Side-notched Southwest Triangular, All Sub-types Site N Base width St. Dev N Base Width St. Dev Yuma Wash, non-mortuary 17 11.49 1.43 9 10.49 1.87 Yuma Wash, mortuary 92 12.00 1.97 32 10.75 1.94 Marana Mound, non-mortuary 31 10.74 1.7 35 10.55 2.34 Marana Mound, mortuary 2 9.94 0.78 3 7.62 0.86 AA:12:46, mortuary 31 11.40 1.96 21 11.7 1.59 Whiptail Ruin, non-mortuary 23 10.87 1.31 21 10.52 1.75 Whiptail Ruin, mortuary 4 12.76 0.6 - - - Gibbon Springs 3 11.26 0.28 11 12.12 2.02

Table 6.6. Statistically significant differences between burial and non-burial points, Tucson Basin.

Comparison Point type Attribute p value Implication AA:12:46 mortuary and Southwest Base width p = .015 Bases are significantly wider Marana Mound non- Triangular, all at AA:12:46 mortuary types Yuma Wash mortuary Classic Side- Base width p = .002, Bases are significantly wider and Marana Mound non- notched df = 121 at Yuma Wash mortuary Yuma Wash mortuary Southwest Base width p = .032 Bases are significantly wider and AA:12:46 mortuary Triangular, all at AA:12:46 types Whiptail mortuary and Classic Side- Base width p = .011 Bases are significantly wider non-mortuary notched on mortuary points at Whiptail Ruin

Projectile Points in Local and Migrant Communities

From a typological perspective, there are few discernible differences between early

Classic period projectile points from the northeastern and northwestern Tucson Basin (Figures

6.3, Figure 6.4). It is necessary to look at more detailed attributes of these points to determine if design preferences are different at sites with migrant components in the northeastern Tucson

Basin. These include length, width, base morphology, and presence of serrations. Haft element- to-total length ratio was also calculated to identify differences in notch height.

A comparison of total length, base width, neck width, and blade width indicates no statistically significant differences between Classic Side-notched points from the northeastern and northwestern basin, and haft-to-total length values are nearly identical (Table 6.7). Because two outliers with very large neck widths were noted in the northeastern basin, these values were trimmed for comparisons. Both examples were recovered from burial features and possibly produced specifically for ritual use.

Table 6.7. Comparison of Classic Side-notched point attributes from Tucson Basin sites.

Classic Side-notched

Northeastern Basin Northwestern Basin p value Attribute N Mean St. Dev. N Mean St. Dev. Total Length (mm) 21 21.17 4.26 135 21.38 4.52 0.985 Base Width 30 11.14 1.33 170 11.6 1.92 .210, df = 198 Neck width1 34 5.75 0.82 181 6.11 0.89 .929, df = -364 Blade width 33 6.66 1.07 188 6.67 1.07 .989, df = 219 Haft element ratio2 20 0.43 0.07 132 0.42 .0.06 1 Sample trimmed because of outliers from burial features 2Haft length/Total length

Figure 6.3. Projectile points from Whiptail Ruin: (a-b) Classic Side-notched (ASM Catalog No. 2003-803-40, 2003- 803-58); (c) Southwest Triangular (ASM Catalog No. 38095); (d) Southwest Concave-base Triangular (ASM Catalog No. 2003-803-67); (e-f) Eccentric short points (ASM Catalog No. A-38252-X-2, A-38252-X-1). Artifacts courtesy of the Arizona State Museum, the University of Arizona.

Figure 6.4. Projectile points from the Yuma Wash site: (a-c) Classic Side-notched (ASM Cat. Nos. 2007-396-187 to 2007-396-89); (d) Southwest Triangular (ASM Cat. No. 2007-396-193); (e) Southwest Short Triangular (ASM Cat No. 2007-396-194); (f) Southwest Concave-base Triangular (ASM Cat No. 2007-396-195) (from Ryan 2016).

Southwest Triangular varieties were grouped together for intra-basin comparisons. Doing so increases the sample size for comparisons and includes points that have length-to-width ratios suggestive of the Southwest Short variety. A Mann-Whitney U test to compare length, base width, and blade thickness of unnotched triangular points did not reveal any significant differences between the northeastern and northwestern basin specimens (Table 6.8).

Table 6.8. Comparison of Southwest Triangular point attributes from Tucson Basin sites.

Southwest Triangular, All Sub-types

Northeastern Basin Northwestern Basin p value Attribute N Mean St. Dev. N Mean St. Dev. Total Length (mm) 27 18.68 3 49 20.11 4.17 0.142 Base Width 31 10.77 1.99 60 11.09 2.26 0.589 Blade Thickness 38 2.50 0.71 69 2.46 0.67 0.621

Concave bases are dominant across the region on both side-notched and unnotched points but some minor intra-basin differences are evident. Concave bases were observed more frequently on side-notched points in the northeastern sample but occur less often on unnotched points compared to the northwest basin (Appendix C). The mean base depths of side-notched points at Whiptail is exceeded only at Yuma Wash, where deeply concave bases were noted in the mortuary assemblage. Points with serrated blades occur in low numbers at all sites but are more frequent in the northwestern sample (Table 6.9).

Table 6.9. Frequencies of serrated blades in the Tucson Basin sample.

Side-notched Unnotched Area Site N Percent N Percent Total Northwestern Yuma Wash 8 5.6 4 8.3 12 Marana 5 12.2 3 6.1 8 AA:12:46 3 6.7 5 14.7 8 Northeastern Whiptail 1 2.6 3 8.1 4 Gibbon Springs 0 0 0 0 0

A brief examination of the spatial distribution of points at Whiptail Ruin did not reveal any obvious patterns. Projectile points made from Mule Creek obsidian are found in four loci and are not limited to areas with the greatest frequencies of corrugated wares, which are indicators of migrant households (Gregonis 2011b:313). Points from structures with reconstructible corrugated vessels (Gregonis 2011c:Table 3.12; Gregonis 2011b:313) include Southwest

Triangular and Classic Side-notched points. Apart from the unusually small obsidian projectile point previously mentioned, there are no immediately apparent morphological differences among them. However, Gregonis (2011b:313) noted that all households at the site may have had a corrugated pot. A more detailed site-level analysis is necessary to reveal potential differences in flaked stone artifacts associated with greater frequencies of corrugated wares. A potential 74

migrant household identified at Gibbon Springs (Gregonis 2011b:314) had two Southwest

Triangular points.

Temporal Patterns

Late Classic Side-notched points in this region are only represented at Yuma Wash, where occupation extended into the Tucson phase (Swartz 2016). This point design indicates a change in design preferences, with wider and deeper notches placed lower on the blade (Sliva

1997). These points are often made from obsidian, most of which are from western Sonora desert sources, with the exception of one example each of Mule Creek and Government Mountain

(Ryan 2016). Five artifacts that were recovered during Old Pueblo Archaeology’s excavations at the site are included in this study (Kaldahl 2009a, 2009b).

Comparisons of Classic and Late Classic Side-notched points at the Yuma Wash site suggest that side-notched point length and width decreases slightly through time but these differences are not statistically significant (Table 6.10). The new point type that appears at approximately A.D. 1300 indicates a move away from expanding and deeply convex bases at

Yuma Wash, but mean base width is similar to Classic Side-notched points within the sub-region overall (see Table 6.7). I should note that a point from Yuma Wash that was previously classified as a Late Classic Side-notched is not included in this analysis. This point was observed to be more robust with deeper notches than the others and, in retrospect, should not have been grouped in this category (see Ryan 2016:Figure 6.8t).

Table 6.10. Classic Side-notched (CSN) and Late Classic Side-notched (LCSN) variables.

N Mean St. Dev. CVa p valueb CSN length (mm) 86 21.51 4.76 22.1% 0.664 LCSN length 18 20.68 2.56 12.4%

CSN base width (mm) 86 12.05 1.95 16.2% 0.112 LCSN base width 18 11.17 1.65 14.8%

CSN weight (g) 86 0.46 0.20 43.5% 0.800 LCSN weight 17 0.45 0.13 28.9% aCoefficient of Variation bMann-Whitney U test

Obsidian Projectile Point Designs

Projectile points were collapsed into two broad categories to determine how raw material may have affected projectile point production. Late Classic Side-notched points are only represented at the Yuma Wash site and are excluded from this comparison. Length is an attribute potentially affected by material type, and as expected obsidian points are on average shorter than those made from other materials (Table 6.11). The difference is significant for unnotched points

(t = -3.803, df = 39.942, p < .001) but not for side-notched points (t = -1.506, df = 165, p = .134).

Table 6.11. Mean lengths of obsidian and non-obsidian points in the Tucson Basin.

Unnotched points Side-notched points

Obsidian Non-obsidian Obsidian Non-obsidian N 18 101 47 120 Mean 17.31 20.09 20.25 21.39 St. Dev. 2.47 4.45 4.46 4.35 Note: Both samples trimmed due to outliers.

These categories were also used to determine if raw material influenced the decision to produce a side-notched or unnotched types. On a regional level, obsidian occurs in near-equal

proportions in each category, indicating the material was not used exclusively for either general design category (Table 6.12). However, intra-basin comparisons and associations with source do reveal some obvious patterns.

Table 6.12. Frequency of obsidian and non-obsidian diagnostic points in the Tucson Basin.

Material Side-notched Unnotched

N Percent N Percent Total Obsidian 50 18.8% 29 17.3% 79 Other 208 78.2% 139 82.7% 347

In the northeastern basin, almost all of the diagnostic points are Southwest Triangular varieties and all are made of Mule Creek obsidian. The sole Sauceda point is a Classic Flanged style which occurs in low numbers in the basin. Three additional obsidian points made of Mule

Creek obsidian were previously reported on, but not available at the time of my analysis. Based on published illustrations, these points are Southwest Triangular varieties and are included in

Table 6.13 (Myers and Gregonis 2011:Figure 4.1a, 4.1b, 4.1h). The trace elemental concentrations of these three points were so similar that they may have been from the same nodule (Shackley 2009b, cited in Myers and Gregonis 2011), and it was also determined that two of these points were made by the same knapper (Myers and Gregonis 2011:178–179).

Table 6.13. Diagnostic projectile point types by obsidian source in the northeastern Tucson Basin.

Projectile Point Type Mule Creek Sauceda Classic Side-notched 1 - Southwest Concave-base Triangular 7 - Southwest Triangular 2 - Small triangular 2 - Classic Flanged - 1 Non-diagnostic fragment 2 - Total 14 1 Percent 93.3 6.7 77

Table 6.14. Diagnostic projectile point types by obsidian source in the northwestern Tucson Basin.

San Bear Cow Mule Los Francisco Springs Projectile Point Type Sauceda Superior Canyon Creek Vidrios Volcanics Peak? Classic Side-notched 4 9 2 6 - - 1 Southwest Short Triangular 4 - 6 - - - - Southwest Concave-base 1 - 2 1 1 - - Triangular Southwest Triangular 1 - 2 1 1 - -

Triangular, unspecified - 1 - - - - Late Classic Side-notched 5 - - 1 3 2 - Unspecified side-notched 1 - - 1 1 - - Eccentric - - 1 - - - - Total 16 10 13 10 6 2 1 Percent 27.6 17.2 22.4 17.2 10.3 3.4 1.7

In the northwestern basin, sources were assigned to diagnostic projectile points from Yuma

Wash (n = 50) and the Marana Mound site (n = 9) (Table 6.14). Classic Side-notched points were made from a variety of sources but Superior occurs most frequently. A relatively low amount of

Superior is found at Marana and Yuma Wash overall (Boley 2013; Ryan 2016), but it appears that some individuals at these sites maintained relationships with groups close to the source, located approximately 125 km to the north. Several Classic Side-notched points also made of

Superior were found in an early Classic cremation at the Los Morteros site in the northwestern basin (Dart 1995;Figure 7.1; Shackley 2011). The association between this point type and

Superior obsidian, and whether it is entering the region in finished form, should continue to be investigated.

The Upper Gila sources, Mule Creek and Cow Canyon, are also well represented. Three- quarters of the points made from Cow Canyon obsidian are Southwest Triangular varieties, and 78

many measure well below 20 mm in length. Cow Canyon points were found only in burials at

Yuma Wash and four were associated with a feature that contained a Pinedale Black-on-white pitcher (Ryan 2016:645). Although the point type is not unusual, the presence of another non- local item and the absence of Cow Canyon debitage identified at Yuma Wash suggest that these points could represent trade items. A Cow Canyon point from Marana is an unusual point with squared barbs above a set of notches, and appears more decorative than functional. In contrast to the Cow Canyon points, most the Mule Creek obsidian points are side-notched. These include both Classic Side-notched and one Late Classic Side-notched point.

One of the more surprising results is the Classic Side-notched point made from Bear

Springs Peak obsidian from the Jemez Mountains in northern New Mexico. This is a burned point from a cremation that was analyzed with a portable XRF instrument. Although it was noted to be “slightly outside the elemental concentrations of published source standard data,” Bear

Springs Peak was determined to be the best match (Shackley 2016). This source that is not present at other Classic period sites in the Tucson Basin, but two pieces from Jemez were identified at different sites in the Lower San Pedro Valley (Shackley and Gallop 2012).

Only two projectile points are made from the distant northern Arizona sources, and both are made of Late Classic Side-notched points. One is Government Mountain and the other is

Partridge Creek. Slightly over half of the Late Classic Side-notched points from Yuma Wash are made from obsidian, and five sources are represented. A good deal of variability is evident among these points in terms of base morphology and notch depth, indicating they were made by different individuals who had varying social connections.

San Pedro Valley This analysis focuses on characterizing the projectile point types in the lower San Pedro

Valley and identifying differences in point designs at the two migrant enclaves, Davis Ranch and

Reeve Ruin. Comparisons are also made between the lower valley sites and the sample from

Babocomari Village in the Upper San Pedro Valley.

The sample from the entire San Pedro Valley totals 122 projectile points recovered from

21 sites, many of which date to the late Classic period. All but 19 points and one site are in the

Lower San Pedro Valley. The largest sample is from Second Canyon Ruin, followed by

Babocomari Village (the lone site in the sample from the upper valley), Davis Ranch, and Flieger

Ruin (Table 6.15). The 17 other sites in the Lower San Pedro Valley account for 38 points because only limited excavations were conducted, but together they fill out the larger picture of design preferences in this sub-region.

Sites in the Lower San Pedro Valley are more heavily influenced by Hohokam and

Ancestral Pueblo cultural traditions than those in the Upper San Pedro Valley (Di Peso 1951;

Schneider 2016). Di Peso (1951) surmised that people living at Babocomari interacted with groups outside of the area, but evidence of influence from northern migrants was lacking.

Therefore, these points provide a useful dataset for intra-regional comparisons. The Tres Alamos site is technically located in the northernmost portion of the Upper San Pedro Valley, but material remains suggest strong northern influences from the Hohokam and Mogollon cultural areas, and Roosevelt Red Ware dominates during the late Classic period (Clark and Lyons

2012a; Tuthill 1947). Given these characteristics, points from Tres Alamos are grouped with the

Lower San Pedro Valley sample. The sample from Babocomari Village is presented separately below. 80

Early Classic Sites. Points from sites with discrete early Classic, or Soza phase (A.D.

1150/1200-1250/1275), components include Big Pot, Corrugated Ridge, and Twin Hawks (Clark and Lyons 2012a:84-86). Three of the four diagnostic points from Corrugated Ridge and Big Pot are Classic Side-notched points made of chert. Artifacts from Twin Hawks were not analyzed for this study, but Classic Side-notched and Southwest Triangular points are documented in previous analyses (Luchetta 2005:Figure 5.9).

Second Canyon Ruin. The largest sample analyzed from the Lower San Pedro Valley is from Second Canyon Ruin (n = 34). This site was settled at approximately A.D. 700 and has a strong Classic period component. Most of the points were recovered from adobe rooms, pit structures, extramural features, non-feature contexts, and two were found with cremations. The adobe rooms and one pit structure were associated with late Classic use of the site, and one pit house was reused by fourteenth century inhabitants (Franklin 1980:95, Table 7).

Classic Side-notched and shallow side-notched points are common at Second Canyon, and a few examples of Late Classic Side-notched points were also found (Figure 6.5). One

Classic Side-notched point has an extra notch placed high on the blade (Figure 6.5a). A corner- notched point was found in an adobe room, but this is possibly an earlier non-local style.

Figure 6.5. Projectile points from Second Canyon Ruin: (a-b) Classic Side-notched (ASM Catalog No. 40405, 40415); (c) Late Classic Side-notched (ASM Catalog. No. 40388); (d) shallow side-notched, eared (ASM Catalog No. 40407); (e) Southwest Triangular (ASM Catalog No.40385); (f) Southwest Concave-base Triangular (ASM Catalog No. 40401); (g) Southwest Short Triangular (ASM Catalog No. 40377); (h) probable Sobaipuri point (ASM Catalog No. 40365). Artifacts courtesy of the Arizona State Museum, the University of Arizona.

Several Southwest Triangular points were recovered, only a few with concave bases. An additional four serrated, unnotched points with concave bases were found in Classic period contexts at Second Canyon Ruin, but the temporal association of these points is questionable.

These were found in the fill of Classic period structures and attributed to late Classic occupation, but their deep u-shaped bases, serrated blades, and downward-pointing ears strongly suggest these are Sobaipuri or Huachuca points (see Seymour 2011:Figure 4.1). Franklin grouped several similar points together and associated them with the late Classic period (Franklin 1980:167,

Figure 46). However, he also identified features at Second Canyon that were associated with

Sobaipuri or Apache groups. These points either represent an earlier manifestation of this base morphology, or the fill in these structures is temporally mixed. I recorded the attributes of these points because of their context, but did not group them with the Southwest Triangular varieties.

Table 6.15. Distribution of Classic period projectile points from the Lower San Pedro Valley.

Second Canyon Ruin Davis Ranch Reeve Ruin Flieger Ruin Tres Alamos Other sites Total Point Type Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Classic Side-notched 7 20.6 3 16.7 - - 1 7.7 - - 7 22.6 18 17.5 Late Classic Side- 3 8.8 4 22.2 1 33.3 3 23.1 1 25.0 3 9.7 15 14.6 notched Shallow side- 6 17.6 1 5.6 - - 1 7.7 1 25.0 3 9.7 12 11.7 notched, unspecified Side-notched, ------2 6.5 2 1.9 unspecified Corner-notched 1 2.9 ------1 1.0 Arizona Basal------1 3.2 1 1.0 notched Classic Serrated ------1 1.0 Side-notched, barbed ------1 25.0 - - 1 1.0 Southwest 6 17.6 2 11.1 - - 4 30.8 - - 2 6.5 15 14.6 Triangular Southwest Short 4 11.8 1 5.6 - - 1 7.7 1 25.0 5 16.1 12 11.7 Triangular Southwest Concave- 2 5.9 ------3 9.7 3 2.9 base Triangular Southwest Long ------Triangular Triangular, serrated 4 11.8 ------4 3.9 with deep base Triangular, 1 2.9 1 5.6 2 66.7 1 7.7 - - - - 5 4.9 unspecified type Non-diagnostic or - - 6 33.3 - - 2 15.4 - - 5 16.1 13 12.6 unidentified Total 34 99.9 18 100.1 3 100 13 100.1 4 100.0 31 100.1 103 100.3 Note: Bolded sites denote migrant enclaves.

Almost 30 percent of the points are obsidian. Nine are made of Antelope Creek (Mule

Creek), one is Cow Canyon, and one is from a burial and could not be analyzed using XRF. The material was used to make unnotched and side-notched types, and all Late Classic Side-notched points are of obsidian.

Davis Ranch and Reeve Ruin. Located across the river from one another, these two sites were built by Kayenta migrants from northeastern Arizona by the late thirteenth century (Clark and Lyons 2012a; Di Peso 1958). Di Peso recovered only six projectile points from Reeve Ruin, one of which appears to be a Southwest Concave-base Triangular point, while the rest are large and leaf-shaped with convex bases (Di Peso 1958:Plate 72). He noted that “[s]errated projectile points were notable by their absence” (Di Peso 1958:114). Di Peso’s points were not available for analysis, but one side-notched and two unnotched triangular points recovered during

Archaeology Southwest’s test excavations at Reeve Ruin are included here.

The Davis Ranch Classic period sample includes eighteen arrow points from kiva fill, structure floors, burials, and sheet-trash deposits. The unnotched triangular points from Davis

Ranch are broad and short and one unusual example has convex blade margins and pointed ears

(Figure 6.6c). Side-notched points include Classic Side-notched, Late Classic Side-notched, and one unspecified type (Figure 6.7). These points vary in size and the longest example was recovered from a burial. Because this point is in two pieces, I was unable to obtain an accurate measurement, but it likely measures well over 20 mm. One of the Classic Side-notched points, made of chert, was found on the surface of the site and has a serrated blade. It is possible that this is associated with the earlier pit house component documented at the site (Clark and Lyons

2012a:159).

Both of these sites had high densities of obsidian (Clark, Hill, et al. 2012:Table 6.2).

Nearly all of the points from Davis Ranch (n = 15) and all from Reeve Ruin are obsidian, and the six that were analyzed using XRF are Mule Creek

Figure 6.6. Triangular projectile points from the Davis Ranch: (a) Spec. No. 93b; (b) Spec. No. 154f; (c) Spec No. 129b; (d) Spec. No. 171j. Artifacts courtesy of the Amerind Museum.

Figure 6.7. Side-notched points from Davis Ranch: (a) Spec. No. D/114; (b) Spec. No. D/14; (c) Spec. No. D/75. Artifacts courtesy of the Amerind Museum.

Flieger Ruin. Classic period points from Flieger Ruin include eleven recovered from

Archaeology Southwest’s excavations (Sliva 2012) and two additional points analyzed at the

Amerind Museum. Occupation at this site continued into the fifteenth century (Clark and Lyons

2012b:124). Both side-notched and unnotched points are represented and most of the former are

Late Classic Side-notched. Six of the points are made of obsidian—most are from Mule Creek and one Classic Side-notched point is made of Cow Canyon.

Tres Alamos. Classic period projectile points from Tres Alamos are low in number, but two unusual designs were found at this site. One is a point with notches running along both blade margins, the only example of this type found in the region (Figure 6.8). Another is a small obsidian point with two extra notches on one blade margin, illustrated by Tuthill (1947:Plate 32, top left), but unfortunately this point was not available to analyze.

Figure 6.8. Barbed projectile point from the Tres Alamos site (Spec. No. TA/108). Artifact courtesy of the Amerind Museum.

Other Sites. An additional 27 points were recovered from twelve sites in the Lower San

Pedro Valley. Many of these were settled by the latter half of the thirteenth century and were inhabited during the fourteenth century (Clark and Lyons 2012a). Leaverton Mesa is a platform mound village fortified with a compound wall (Clark and Lyons 2012a:131), and two Southwest

Triangular and one Classic Side-notched point were found there. Settlements that continued into the terminal Classic period include Dudleyville Mound, Ash Terrace, Adobe Hill, and Swingle’s

Sample (Clark and Lyons 2012a). Southwest Triangular and shallow side-notched points were found at these sites, and the obsidian points are made of Mule Creek, Cow Canyon, and

Government Mountain.

Projectile Point Characteristics

The sample from the Lower San Pedro Valley consists of 103 points, only 13 of which are non-diagnostic fragments. Just over half of the diagnostic points in the Lower San Pedro

Valley are side-notched, and 45 percent are unnotched. These proportions fluctuate slightly among sites with larger samples, with the greatest difference at the Kayenta enclave Davis

Ranch, where almost two-thirds of the points are side-notched. Classic Side-notched, Late

Classic Side-notched, and side-notched points of unspecified type are widely distributed. Most of the unnotched points are typical of the Southwest Triangular varieties, but some display unusual blade or base shapes and were not placed in specific categories. Slightly- to markedly-concave bases were favored on both unnotched and side-notched points, although the proportions are not as high as seen in the Tucson Basin. Straight bases occur most frequently on unnotched points

(Appendix C).

Points with serrated blade margins are not common in the Lower San Pedro Valley.

Aside from those at Second Canyon Ruin, which may represent later types, only two Classic

Side-notched points have serrations. One example from Second Canyon has an extra notch on its blade margin and two unusual examples of notched blades were found at Tres Alamos. Points with extra notches on one margin are seen in the Upper Gila at the thirteenth century Fornholt site (Ryan 2014), and one made of Mule Creek obsidian was found at the Garden Canyon site in the Upper San Pedro Valley (Schneider 2016:Figure 5.5 right). Extra notches are not an attribute otherwise represented in the Lower San Pedro Valley samples.

Projectile Points at Local and Migrant Communities

Migrant groups residing at Davis Ranch and Reeve Ruin retained “many aspects of their own technological traditions, identities, and religions for at least a generation or two” before eventually adopting some local traditions (Clark and Lyons 2012a:159). Projectile points from

these communities have the greatest potential to inform on differences in design preferences between local and migrant groups; however, the sample size is relatively small.

The unnotched points from Davis Ruin are broad and short and two unnotched points from Reeve Ruin were noted to be “clubby” in appearance (Sliva 2012), and have slightly irregular blade margins. These points generally have low length-to-width ratios and, with the exception of the convex blade example, are on average only slightly shorter than those found elsewhere in the valley (Table 6.16). These differences are not statistically significant (Mann-

Whitney U Test for length, p = .915; for width, p = .900).

Side-notched points at migrant enclaves are on average shorter and one example has notable deeper notches and neck width below the mean (4.98 mm) (Figure 6.7a). The differences in lengths and widths are not statistically significant (Mann-Whitney U Test for width, p = .320; for length, p = .071). All but three of the points from the migrant sites are made from obsidian, raw material is one possible reason for the slight size differences between these samples. As discussed below, obsidian points are likely to be smaller than those made of other materials.

Table 6.16. Metrics (mm) of side-notched and unnotched points at migrant sites and other sites in the Lower San Pedro Valley.

Triangular, unnotched Side-notched Sites Attribute N Mean N Mean Reeve Ruin/Davis Ranch Length 4 18.7 5 17.27

Width 6 11.22 7 10.41 Other LSPV sites Length 21 19.48 26 20.45

Width 24 11.26 28 11.07

Although the metrical analysis does not indicate any statistically significant differences, point morphology hints at some variation at the migrant enclaves. The most distinct form is the

unnotched point from Davis, which stands out because of its convex blade and pointed ears. The side-notched point from Reeve Ruin is relatively small (15.21 mm in length) and difficult to place in a category. Similar small points have been recovered on the Mogollon Rim, and their function is unclear (Sliva and Ryan 2014:123, Figure 9.4aa).

Obsidian Projectile Point Designs

Of the 103 projectile points in the Lower San Pedro Valley sample, 47 percent are made of obsidian. All sites in the Lower San Pedro Valley sample with three or more projectile points had obsidian points. Site-level proportions in the sample range from 30 percent at Second

Canyon Ruin to 83 and 100 percent at the two Kayenta enclaves, Davis Ranch and Reeve Ruin.

Thirty-five of the points from the Lower San Pedro Valley were geochemically characterized and the majority of these are from the Mule Creek and Cow Canyon sources in the Upper Gila. The more unusual sources represented in the point sample include Government Mountain and one made of Los Vidrios obsidian from northern Sonora.

Among the diagnostic points in the Lower San Pedro Valley sample, a preference for obsidian for side-notched point types is evident (Table 6.17). This association falls just short of being statistically significant (χ2 = 3.431; df = 1, p = .06).

Table 6.17. Frequency of obsidian and non-obsidian diagnostic points in the Lower San Pedro Valley.

Side-notched Unnotched Material N Percent N Percent Total Obsidian 27 55.1 15 37.5 42 Other 22 44.9 25 62.5 47

Both side-notched and unnotched obsidian points are shorter than those made of other materials (Table 6.18), which suggests that that raw material did affect point size to some degree.

Results of a Mann-Whitney U test show that the difference is statistically significant for unnotched points (p = .022), but not for side-notched points (p = 0.93).

Table 6.18. Mean lengths of obsidian and non-obsidian points in the Lower San Pedro Valley.

Unnotched points Side-notched points

Obsidian Non-obsidian Obsidian Non-obsidian N 12 18 16 14 Mean 17.16 20.85 18.85 20.98 St. Dev. 3.67 3.68 3.72 3.63

The projectile points submitted for XRF analysis from the Kayenta enclaves are all made of Mule Creek obsidian (Table 6.19). Points from 13 other sites in Lower San Pedro Valley show a slightly more diverse pattern, with 25 percent of the points made of Cow Canyon (Table 6.20).

Both Cow Canyon and Mule Creek were used most often for side-notched points, which is contrary to the patterns seen at Yuma Wash and Whiptail Ruin.

Table 6.19. Diagnostic projectile point types by obsidian source at Davis Ranch and Reeve Ruin, Lower San Pedro Valley

Projectile Point Type Mule Creek Classic Side-notched 1 Side-notched, Late Classic? 1 Side-notched, reworked 1 Triangular, unspecified 2 Total 5 Percent 100.0

Table 6.20. Diagnostic projectile point types by obsidian source at other sites in the Lower San Pedro Valley

Cow Government Los Projectile Point Type Mule Creek Canyon Mountain Vidrios Total Classic Side-notched 1 2 - - 3 Late Classic Side-notched 6 2 1 - 9 Side-notched, unspecified 4 1 1 - 6 Southwest Short Triangular 5 1 - - 6 Southwest Concave-base Triangular - - - 1 1 Southwest Triangular 2 1 - - 3 Total 18 7 2 1 28 Percent 64.3 25 7.1 3.6 100

Points made from more distant obsidian sources were examined for differences in shape or size. The Late Classic Side-notched made of Government Mountain obsidian from the Wright site is longer and wider than most examples; however, it was observed that the point was likely made by the same knapper as a smaller point of the same type made of Mule Creek obsidian

(Sliva 2012:Table 1). In this case, it appears that the larger nodules available from the

Government Mountain source may be responsible for the difference in size. Another point made of Government Mountain obsidian from the late Classic Adobe Hill site is unique in that it is the only point with a convex base in the sample.

Except for its material type, the single point made of Los Vidrios obsidian from Artifact

Hill is not otherwise distinct. Only a few pieces of Los Vidrios, a western Sonoran Desert source, have been identified in the Lower San Pedro Valley. This material occurs in slightly higher frequencies in the Tucson Basin (see Chapter 5), and this material may have been acquired through contact with people living in the basin.

Temporal Patterns

Direct comparisons of early and late Classic point designs in the San Pedro Valley are difficult, due to either small sample size or lack of phase-level temporal resolution. Early Classic period pit structures were identified at Second Canyon (Franklin 1980:Table 7), but no points are directly associated with these features. Early Classic contexts at Tres Alamos were limited

(Tuthill 1947:59). Occupations at several other sites span the late thirteenth to fourteenth centuries. Nevertheless, some general observations can be made.

Classic Side-notched points made of chert were associated with early Classic period sites, and these points are typical Hohokam Classic period designs. Of the Classic Side-notched points at Second Canyon Ruin, only one was associated with an adobe room; the others were found in mixed deposits or on the surface of the site. One is associated with a Classic period burial that intruded into an earlier pit house (Franklin 1980:Table 7), and another is from a burial within a trash area, but it is not clear what type of vessels were associated with these features. None of these examples were manufactured from obsidian. Given that the distribution of obsidian increases in the region after A.D. 1300 (Clark, Hill, et al. 2012:391) it is possible that these points are not as late as the obsidian points with low-placed notches.

Late Classic Side-notched and other points with low-placed notches were found at six different sites, all of which were inhabited during the fourteenth century. Unlike the Tucson

Basin sample, Late Classic Side-notched points are on average slightly longer and wider than

Classic Side-notched points in this sub-region (Table 6.21). These differences are not statistically significant (Mann-Whitney U test, for length p = .778, for width p = .196). Side-notched points

of unspecified type with low-placed notches are the smallest of the three categories, but have the highest standard deviations (variety of point shapes and sizes). The overall pattern in the Lower

San Pedro Valley suggests a shift toward low-placed notches, wider notches during the late

Classic period, and a move away from the Classic Side-notched style by the fifteenth century.

Table 6.21. Metric attributes of side-notched points in the Lower San Pedro Valley.

Attribute N Mean St. Dev. CV Classic Side-notched length (mm) 11 20.29 4.06 20.0% Late Classic Side-notched length 8 21.02 3.88 18.5% Other side-notched length 10 19.03 3.05 16.0%

Classic Side-notched base width (mm) 15 10.78 1.45 13.5% Late Classic Side-notched base width 10 11.67 1.77 15.2% Other side-notched base width 9 10.36 1.71 16.5%

Classic Side-notched neck width (mm) 19 6.04 0.92 15.2% Late Classic Side-notched neck width 13 5.80 0.83 14.3%

Other side-notched neck width 12 6.7 1.67 24.9%

CSN haft-to-length ratio 11 0.42 0.05 11.9% LCSN haft-to-length ratio 8 0.34 0.05 14.7% Other SN haft-to-length ratio 9 0.32 0.11 34.4%

Comparisons with the Upper San Pedro Valley

Babocomari Village crosses a boundary in painted ceramic distributions from widely distributed Roosevelt Red Ware associated with the Salado phenomenon to a more localized

Babocomari Polychrome tradition (Di Peso 1951; Heckman 2000). The material culture at

Babocomari Village suggests few cultural influences from Pueblo migrants (Di Peso 1951). The main occupation dates largely to the fourteenth century. The Classic period projectile point sample totals 19 (Table 6.22), 12 of which are from cremations, including six associated with a 93

child burial. The sample size of complete points from non-mortuary contexts is too small to statistically determine how mortuary and non-mortuary points compare. The longest point, approaching 36 mm, is an expertly crafted Southwest Long Triangular from a cremation and is the only one recorded by this study in the San Pedro Valley (Di Peso 1951:Plate 58 B, third from left). However, two points from domestic contexts are also relatively long (27 and 29 mm).

Southwest Triangular points dominate the mortuary assemblage, and side-notched and unnotched points occur in almost equal amounts in non-mortuary contexts.

Some characteristics of the point assemblage from Babocomari immediately stand out.

The first is the absence of obsidian, with all the points crafted from either chert or chalcedony.

Second, the mean length of Babocomari unnotched points is significantly larger than those from the Lower San Pedro Valley (Mann-Whitney U test, p = .001) (Table 6.23). The bases of these points are narrower, but the difference is not significant (p = .098). Side-notched points are also longer than those in the lower valley, but two of the three complete examples are from burials, which may account for their unusual size.

A third notable difference is the presence of serrated blades on over 20 percent (n = 4) of the points from Babocomari, associated with both mortuary and domestic features. Serrated blade edges are not common in the lower valley, aside from those at Second Canyon that may represent later styles.

Table 6.22. Distribution of Classic period points at Babocomari Village, Upper San Pedro Valley.

Point Type Count Percent Late Classic Side-notched 3 15.8 Shallow side-notched, unspecified 2 10.5 Classic Serrated 2 10.5 Southwest Triangular 7 36.8 Southwest Concave-base 3 15.8 Triangular Southwest Long Triangular 1 5.3 Non-diagnostic or unidentified 1 5.3 Total 19 100

Table 6.23. Metric attributes of points from Babocomari Village.

Attribute N Mean St. Dev CV Side-notched, length 3 23.25 4.5 19.4% Side-notched, base width 3 11.69 1.45 12.4% Unnotched, length 11 25.75 4.66 18.1% Unnotched, base width 12 10.17 1.66 16.3% Unnotched, length, trimmed 9 25.27 3.18 12.6% LSPV, unnotched length 25 19.36 4.31 22.3%

Discussion The data presented above are used to address the main themes of this thesis. These include the introduction of new point designs by migrant groups, design transmission and learning traditions, obsidian use, and projectile point function. Statistically significant differences identified in this analysis are presented in Table 6.24.

Table 6.24. Statistically significant differences in metrical values in comparative analyses.

Region Result Implication P value Tucson Basin Obsidian unnotched points Raw material influenced p < .001, df, shorter than unnotched points point size 39.942 made of other materials Tucson Basin Regionally, narrower base Two projectile point p = .002, df widths on unnotched points technologies 260.998 compared to side-notched points Tucson Basin AA:12:46 Southwest Intra-regional variation in p = .032 Triangular bases wider than base morphology Yuma Wash, mortuary only Tucson Basin AA:12:46 Southwest Intra-regional variation in p = 0.15 Triangular bases wider than base morphology Marana Mound non-mortuary Tucson Basin Yuma Wash Classic Side- Intra-regional variation in p = .002, df = notched bases on burial points base morphology 121 wider than those from non- mortuary at Marana Mound

Tucson Basin Whiptail Ruin Classic Side- Differences between p = .011 notched bases on mortuary mortuary and non-mortuary points are wider than those points, although sample from other contexts. size is small.

Lower San Obsidian unnotched points Raw material influenced p = .022 Pedro Valley shorter than unnotched points point size made of other materials San Pedro Unnotched triangular points at Different tool traditions, p = .001 Valley Babocomari Village are longer although burial contexts than those found in the Lower must be considered. San Pedro Valley

Projectile Point Designs at Migrant Communities, Tucson Basin

Women at Whiptail Ruin in the northeastern basin passed down knowledge of ceramic production that incorporated both local and non-local traditions (Gregonis 2011:320), while the projectile points associated with men’s activities—hunting, raiding, and defense—are similar to those at other sites in the basin. One explanation for this pattern is a higher proportion of women

migrants at the site. An imbalance of males and females in migrant populations is expected to be visible in the material culture associated with gendered activities, which includes both pottery production and projectile point use (Lowell 2007). Slaughter (1996) suggests that potters may have moved into the northeastern basin based on the frequency of locally produced corrugated wares at the Gibbon Springs site, and intermarriage is one explanation for the introduction of this ceramic technology in the area (Slaughter 1996:529). The similarities in point designs seen across the Tucson Basin supports an interpretation that the groups that arrived in the northeastern basin may have contained more women than men.

Another possible explanation is the enculturation process. Common characteristics of early Classic period projectile points include shallow side-notches placed high on the blade and concave bases—all attributes that are not visible from a distance. Close social interaction among groups in the northeastern Tucson Basin and the Lower San Pedro Valley, facilitated through the

Redington Pass corridor (Slaughter 1996), may have led to common learning traditions and influenced design choices, processes that suggest enculturation (Carr 1995b). Production choices were not necessarily passive, however, and other social or technological factors may have played a role in the adoption of similar designs among different cultural groups.

A third, and perhaps most likely, explanation is that migrant groups that moved into the northeastern Tucson Basin had already adopted the use of these points. Southwest Triangular and

Classic Side-notched points, or variants of these types, were in use throughout much of Arizona by the early Classic period. Classic Side-notched points have a strong presence in the Tonto

Basin (Sliva 2002), and have been documented at Ancestral Pueblo, Sinagua, and Mogollon sites

(Sliva 2006:Table 2.5). They are represented in the San Pedro Valley sample in this study, and have been found northwest of Safford along the Gila River (Wasley and Johnson 1966). Long 97

examples of this type, referred to as Elden Side-notched, represent more than half of the points in the Magician’s Burial at Ridge Ruin (circa A.D. 1175) (Kamp et al. 2016), and Justice illustrates two long examples from Point of Pines Pueblo (Justice 2002:Figure 34.24, 34.26). In his typology for east-central Arizona, Tagg illustrates three examples among his side-notched points that originate in the PII/PIII era (Tagg 1994:Figure 39q, 39v, 39x), although they do not appear to be the dominant type.

Obsidian Points. Obsidian source analysis revealed the greatest differences between

Whiptail Ruin and sites in the northwestern basin. Mule Creek obsidian was used to the near exclusion of all other sources, and knappers overwhelmingly preferred to make unnotched triangular points with the material. Side-notched points made of Mule Creek are found in the

Tucson Basin and the Lower San Pedro Valley, so this cannot be attributed to raw material size constraints. This pattern does suggest that people who maintained connections with groups close to the Mule Creek source preferred a specific point type; however, there is not enough evidence to conclude that these individuals were migrants.

Projectile Point Designs at Kayenta Migrant Enclaves, Lower San Pedro Valley

One of goals of this study was to identify differences in projectile points associated with the Kayenta migrant groups in the Lower San Pedro Valley. In Lindsay’s study of Kayenta cultural traditions he noted that serrated blades are rare and the “characteristic arrowpoint of the

Tsegi phase [A.D. 1250-1300] is a small, long, triangular form with a straight or slightly concave base” (Lindsay 1969:277). Similar types are also referred to as Bull Creek points. Bull Creek points are thin, narrow triangles with concave bases. These date between A.D. 1050 and 1300 and are usually associated with Kayenta ceramics in the northern Ancestral Pueblo region

(Holmer and Weder 1980). Justice (2002:Figure 32 10-15) illustrates five examples of Bull

Creek points that measure 30 mm or longer. Geib (1996) found that Bull Creek points associated with Ancestral Pueblo sites in the Kayenta region usually range in length from 25 to 35 mm, in contrast to the longer examples (45-50 mm) found at sites to the north and west. This distinction, he argues, illustrates the importance of identifying variability so that potentially socially meaningful behavior is not obscured (Geib 1996:108). Following a similar line of thinking, the analysis conducted here was intended to identify what, if any, variability exists among migrant and local groups in southeastern Arizona.

Subtle morphological and metrical differences in point styles at migrant enclaves in the

Lower San Pedro Valley were observed, but no significant differences were found. One notable difference is the high frequency of obsidian projectile points at Reeve Ruin and Davis Ranch, which contrasts sharply with the distribution seen at Second Canyon Ruin. This difference is attributed to their connections with other migrant groups living closer to the Mule Creek source area (Clark et al. 2012:393). Despite the association of unnotched points with Ancestral Pueblo groups in the Kayenta region, side-notched points occur more frequently at the known migrant enclaves.

One of the more notable differences in the San Pedro Valley is seen in the small sample from Babocomari Village, where influences from Ancestral Pueblo groups is limited. Triangular points at Babocomari are significantly longer than those found in the Lower San Pedro Valley, and serrated blades occur more frequently. Although the sample from Babocomari is small, it shows that subtle differences in point types exist between sites with different cultural traditions in the San Pedro Valley.

Obsidian Points. Obsidian projectile points at the Kayenta migrant enclaves include types common in the region as well as those that could not be assigned a specific type. It is postulated that these groups had strong connections to others living close to the Mule Creek source (Clark,

Hill et al. 2012), and a Kayenta enclave has been identified at the 3-Up site in proximity to the

Mule Creek source (Huntley et al. 2010). The small projectile point sample from this locus is dominated by narrow triangular unnotched points, and the few side-notched points have shallow notches placed low on the blade (Ryan 2010). Future research is necessary to investigate similarities in point attributes between sites in the Lower San Pedro Valley and those in the

Upper Gila region inhabited during the late thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.

Projectile Point Function: Hunting or Conflict?

Evidence for large game hunting is abundant in the northeastern Tucson Basin upland setting, and it is posited that Whiptail Ruin may have been the home of hunting specialists

(Gregonis 2011a:247). In contrast, rabbit and other small game dominate at Yuma Wash and many other early Classic period sites in the basin (Waters 2016:Table 10.13). It was expected that differences in the distribution of points from these two areas would reflect these behaviors; however, there is no evidence that associates projectile point attributes, such as the presence or absence of notches, with large-game hunting.

Ethnographic, archaeological, and experimental evidence suggests that specific sets of point attributes are expected for either hunting or warfare points (Ellis 1997; Engelbrecht 2014;

Hughes 1998; Loendorf 2012; Loendorf, Simon et al. 2015). Distinguishing characteristics of points intended for human targets include attributes that would cause the point to break off in the wound to cause more damage, such as the absence of notches or the use of a brittle material, and

100

concave bases that form pointed ears (barbs) which makes removal of the point more difficult.

Points intended for hunting may more often have rounded basal ears to facilitate removal from the animal by the hunter, and side-notches for a more secure haft (Table 6.25). However, the distribution of side-notched and unnotched points in the Tucson Basin sample does not provide clues of the design preferences of ancient hunters. Side-notched points and unnotched points are nearly equal at Whiptail Ruin. Distributions are different at the nearby Gibbon Springs site where artiodactyl remains were also abundant (Slaughter 1996:527; Waters 2016:821). The number of unnotched points at Gibbon Springs is double that of side-notched types, but the sample size is small. Given this distribution and the small triangular points associated with artiodactyl bone at Whiptail, it is possible that some groups preferred to hunt with unnotched points, counter to findings in the Middle Gila (Loendorf, Simon et al. 2015). More data is needed, however, to evaluate this proposition.

Table 6.25. Potential characteristics of arrow points intended for hunting or conflict.

Hunting (Large Game) Warfare Notches for secure hafta,c Unnotched to detach from hafta,c

Rounded basal cornersc,d Serrations or barbs to keep point in woundb,c

Higher rate of fragmentary pointsd More often whole because not retrievedd

Narrower base if needed to penetrate armourc,d

aChristenson 1997; bHughes 1998; cLoendorf 2012; dLoendorf, Simon et al. 2015.

The distinguishing feature of Classic Side-notched points is the presence of shallow notches placed at or below the mid-point of the blade, although a few examples in this study have notches above the mid-point. Notch shape ranges from contracting c-shaped to ephemeral indentions on the blade margins, and their contribution to the security of hafting compared to 101

unnotched points is questionable. Loendorf suggests that points with notches placed at the mid- point of the blade or above represent a “hybrid type” or compromise between unnotched and side-notched points, and that the long haft element may have resulted in splintering the shaft and loosening the point in the wound (Loendorf 2012:42). This would have the desired effect for a human target. However, the notch location also reduces the exposed blade edge and increases rigidity, which may be desired to pierce the hide of large game (Sliva 2002:542-543). Points with side-notches on the lower third of the blade, similar to Late Classic Side-notched points, were used in the experiments to evaluate projectile point performance characteristics (Loendorf,

Simon et al. 2015). Experiments to determine how Classic Side-notched points perform in terms of secure attachment to the haft, fracture rates, and penetration compared to unnotched points and Late Classic Side-notched points are needed.

The frequency of Classic Side-notched points at sites in the Tonto Basin in conjunction with low amounts of artiodactyl remains suggests ritual and warfare as other functions for these points (Sliva 2002:543). Classic Side-notched points were the dominant type in Yuma Wash burials, and five expertly crafted examples were placed with a cremation at Whiptail Ruin. The distribution of these points in the Tucson Basin suggests they had multiple functions and are not associated with a specific activity.

Although direct evidence of violence at Classic period sites is lacking, settlement patterns and architecture are potential markers of conflict or threat during this time (Doelle and Wallace

1991; Elson and Swartz 2016). Some variation is evident among the sites, and significantly narrower bases were observed on Southwest Triangular points compared to Classic Side-notched points in the Tucson Basin. This follows the expectation for points designed for use in warfare if the penetration of defensive armour was desired (Loendorf 2012:43). Evidence for the use of 102

shields during the Classic period is not documented in the study region. Underhill (1979:131) observed that clubs and shields were used by O’odham groups (no description is provided), and a decorated shield made of rawhide was recovered from the Gila River Indian Community

(Loendorf 2012:Figure 16; see also Russell 1980:120-122). The differences in base widths between triangular and side-notched points in the Tucson Basin suggests two different technologies, but I cannot associate unnotched points with a specific activity without direct evidence or an overwhelming preference at fortified or defensively positioned sites.

It is also worth noting an example of violence during pre-Classic times in the Tonto

Basin, where an individual was shot with five relatively long side-notched points (Sliva

2002:543). This incident occurred at a time when smaller serrated triangular points were simultaneously in use in the region. Although it is posited that social tensions increased during the Classic period, there is no evidence that associates point type with conflict during the early

Classic period in the Tucson Basin.

The only direct evidence of violence at pre-Hispanic contact sites in the Lower San Pedro

Valley is seen at Alder Wash Ruin, a multi-component site located on the east side of the Santa

Catalina Mountains. The partial remains of an adult female were found in the fill of a pit structure with a narrow barbed projectile point in her rib-cage area (Masse 1974). The slender stemmed point is made of chert and has one set of pronounced barbs, a characteristic potentially favored for human targets. This incidence of violence likely occurred during pre-Classic times.

Reeve Ruin is situated in a highly defensible location, whereas Davis Ranch is located across the river in a more open location, fortified only by a compound wall (Clark and Lyons

2012a:159). A preference for side-notched points is seen at Davis Ranch, while unnotched points

103

are more frequent at Reeve, but again the small sample size impedes inferences about point function. Further, artiodactyl indices for Lower San Pedro sites are high in comparison to neighboring areas, and hunters in the valley had access to large game (Clark, Diehl et al. 2012;

Clark, Hill et al. 2012). Projectile points were produced for both hunting and defense, but no concrete patterns associating point attributes with function based on archaeological evidence is discernible.

Late Classic Side-notched Points

A technological shift is evident during the Classic period with the production of points with contracting notches placed on the lower third of the blade. Although the notches are deeper than those seen on Classic Side-notched points, they generally do not approach the deep, narrow, parallel-sided notches seen during Preclassic times (Sliva 2006:Figure 2.2f). Many of these points fit within the morphological characteristics of the Late Classic Side-notched, and previous analyses indicate that these are made during the late Classic period in the Tucson and Tonto

Basins (Ryan 2016, Sliva 2002, 2006). The absence of this type in the analyzed sample from the

Marana site supports this inference. This is not to say that points with low-placed notches were not made during the early Classic period, because examples are present. However, these examples often have other distinguishing characteristic that set them apart from Late Classic

Side-notched shapes, such as wide concave bases with pronounced ears (Dart 1995:Figure 7.1z,

7.1aa; Ryan 2016:Figure 6.7).

The production of this point is roughly timed with expanded obsidian exchange networks and the arrival of Kayenta migrants in the San Pedro Valley. From a technological perspective, the lower and wider notches likely offer a more secure haft. This is necessary to handle impact

104

stress (Hughes 1998) and increases retrieval rates (Loendorf, Simon et al. 2015). It also increases the length of the exposed blade, which may be ideal when working flakes from small obsidian nodules.

Points with similar notch shape and placements are also referred to as Pueblo Side- notched points. Sliva identified points with low length-to-width ratios, straight bases, and low- placed shallow contracting notches, found primarily in east-central Arizona during the thirteenth and fourteenth century, referred to as PIII Side-notched (Sliva 2006). Justice (2002:Figure 34) casts a wider net for this type. His grouping includes a range of shapes and sizes and points with high-placed shallow notches and low-placed deeper notches. Whether the change in notch shape and placement during the Classic period is the influence of northern groups is a question not yet answered. Mule Creek obsidian is present at Yuma Wash, but the Late Classic Side-notched points are made from a mix of obsidian sources that includes those to the west and north, and only one is made of Mule Creek. However, as the early Classic sample illustrates, similar designs were shared across the Tucson Basin and a comparison of points and material types from late

Classic sites in the northeastern basin, particularly University Indian Ruin, may better inform on the social processes that led to the adoption of this design.

Social Correlates of Projectile Points

The apparent homogenization of projectile point designs corresponds with the growth of social networks during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (Mills et al. 2013; Sliva 2006).

Morphological and metrical data show potentially meaningful variability among assemblages, and some significant differences were identified. The results also indicate that similar point designs were used among groups with different social networks and subsistence patterns. The

105

following discussion presents possible reasons for these patterns. It is important to acknowledge, however, that points were likely exchanged and gifted and where they were ultimately discarded in the region was not necessarily the production locale.

Early Classic period projectile points in the Tucson Basin consist primarily of two distinct designs—those with high-placed shallow notches, often with concave bases, and narrower unnotched triangular designs with straight or concave bases. Other types were used, of course, but variations of these two designs dominate. Although differences in skill level is apparent in the sample, craftsmen were following similar mental templates (sensu Whittaker 1987) whether living in a low-land setting where hunting strategies focused on small game, or in an upland setting with greater access to large game.

Significant variation was found among base widths in the Tucson Basin. Wide concave bases with pronounced ears may have crafted specifically for ritual use, a pattern also supported with the small sample from a cremation in the northeastern basin. However, relatively large bases were also found in domestic contexts at Yuma Wash and at Gibbon Springs. This variation may be attributed to differences in learning traditions and manufacturing techniques that are expressed while crafting points that follow socially accepted forms, or group habitus.

The important social or ritual role of projectile points is evident during the Classic period, with large numbers found in burial features in northwestern basin. While this may be attributed to the increase in tensions in the area, a greater emphasis on the hunting ritual may also explain this pattern. Szuter (2000) discusses the occurrence of artiodactyl bones, such as skulls, mandibles, and antler bones, on structure floors during the Classic period—patterns similar to those documented at Whiptail Ruin. She suggests the context of these remains is associated with

106

the increase in ritual activity surrounding hunting during a time when resource depletion may have been an issue. Hunting may have become a specialized activity, with small groups of hunters having to travel farther to procure large game (Szuter 2000:211-214). Following this, a specific point design associated with a successful hunter or group of hunters may have influenced production choices within the larger community in the region. This is a potential avenue for future research but a larger dataset and a detailed analysis of attributes are necessary.

As northerners moved into the Lower San Pedro Valley during the late thirteenth century, the residents of the valley responded with “overt displays of identity (in pottery and architecture)” (Huntley et al. 2016:299). Yet the projectile point sample does not display obvious identity signaling, probably because of their small size. Further, the widespread use of similar point designs during the Classic period excludes their usefulness as identity markers.

Attributes that may signal identity include extra blade notches or prominent serrations.

Serrations are one of the few blade treatments that are visible and potentially display social information (Hoffman 1997:188). Results of recently conducted experiments showed that serrations did not significantly change performance characteristics and support the idea of this attribute as active communication in southern Arizona (Loendorf, Oliver, et al. 2015). Few examples of serrated blades are seen in the Lower San Pedro Valley, and blades with extra notches are sparse. Serrated points with deeply concave bases were found at Second Canyon, and it is intriguing to view these as a new Classic period form; however, their strong resemblance to

Sobaipuri points, in conjunction with the documented use of the site by later groups, calls into question their association with the late Classic occupation (Franklin 1980:Figure 46).

107

The small size of Classic period points, particularly when partially covered by hafting materials, impedes their ability to convey social messages. As Shackley (2005:169) notes, the arrow may have been more appropriate for the of display group identity. The recovery of arrows is rare but decorated examples are found in cave deposits in the Upper Gila region (Cosgrove

1947). A study of the various arrow designs compared with the northern examples may yield informative results.

108

CHAPTER 7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Substantial demographic and environmental changes occurred during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries in southeastern Arizona. Research conducted over the past two decades has resulted in new interpretations regarding social networks, the interaction of local and migrant groups, and changes in painted ceramics as new communities of unprecedented size coalesced

(Clark, Hill et al. 2013; Huntley et al. 2016; Lyons and Clark 2012; Mills et al. 2013). Changes that directly pertain to the use of projectile points include increased access to obsidian due to growing social networks, the arrival of new groups with different technological traditions, heightened social tension, and a change in faunal resources in response to settlement patterns, population growth, or environmental stress. Previous projectile point studies have documented the use of similar point types during this time by groups living in multiple geographic and archaeological cultural areas in Arizona and southwestern New Mexico (Sliva 2006). The analysis presented in this thesis was conducted to focus on the social, technological, and environmental factors that influenced projectile point production and use in the Tucson Basin and San Pedro Valley between A.D. 1150 and 1450.

Design Variation, Obsidian Use, and Projectile Point Function in the Tucson Basin The primarily early Classic period sample from the Tucson Basin allowed for a systematic intra-basin comparative analysis between areas with differences in faunal resource availability and social relationships. Locally made corrugated ceramic wares—a technology that reflects Ancestral Pueblo cultural traditions—mark the presence of migrant groups at Gibbon

Springs and Whiptail (Gregonis 2011b; Slaughter 1996). Despite non-local groups in the northeastern basin, there are no clear differences in projectile point designs at these sites. The

109

integration of potters from migrant groups in the San Pedro Valley through intermarriage has been posited as one possible explanation for the presence of corrugated ceramics at Gibbon

Springs (Slaughter 1996), and blended cultural traditions are inferred at Whiptail Ruin (Gregonis

2011b). The migrant population in the northeastern Tucson Basin may have been only women, given the lack of discernible differences in projectile points from this area. However, given the wide geographic distribution of Classic period point types, the most plausible explanation may be that the men who migrated into the area were already making and using point types similar to those made in the Tucson Basin. This is supported by the limited early Classic period point sample from the Lower San Pedro Valley that includes point types similar to those in the Tucson

Basin.

What does this imply about the Ancestral Pueblo migrant groups that introduced corrugated pottery to the Lower San Pedro Valley during the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries? Were these people also making and using points similar to those in southeastern

Arizona? Given that the Mogollon Highlands in eastern Arizona is postulated as their homeland, this is a definite possibility (Clark, Hill et al. 2012:365; Sliva 2006:Figure 2.7). A larger early

Classic period sample from the Lower San Pedro Valley is needed to determine if these groups arrived with distinct projectile point traditions. The question of where the production of the

Classic Side-notched point originated has not been addressed in this study, and the fine-scale temporal resolution needed to answer this may not be available. The earliest known variant of this point, with notches placed above the mid-point of the blade, is associated with the

Sedentary/Classic transition in the Tonto Basin (Sliva 2002:534). Continuing to document the presence and frequency of this point type at sites in Arizona and southwestern New Mexico may provide clues to its region of origin.

110

Projectile point basal morphology revealed the greatest variation in point designs in the

Tucson Basin. These differences are often associated with burials, although wide concave bases with pointed ears are found in non-mortuary contexts as well. This may be attributed to the desire to include points with embellished attributes within the mortuary ritual, but it may also reflect different learning traditions and communities of practice among various groups living in the area.

The obsidian source dataset revealed the most striking difference between the northeastern and northwestern Tucson Basin sites. While the sample size from Whiptail is small, the dominance of Mule Creek is another indicator of their social ties with groups to the northeast.

The pattern in the northwestern Basin is substantially different, where the diversity of sources shows that exchange relationships were maintained with groups in several different directions.

The abundance of artiodactyl remains at the upland sites in the northeastern Tucson Basin is in stark contrast to the prevalence of small game seen at sites along the Santa Cruz River

(Gregonis 2011a; Waters 2016). Despite these differences, there is no evidence that a specific point type was preferred at sites where large game is more common. This is particularly true at

Whiptail Ruin where side-notched and unnotched points occur in near-equal proportions.

Unusually small unnotched points were found with faunal remains at Whiptail, and unnotched points dominate the small sample from Gibbon Springs. It is possible that unnotched points were preferred for hunting among certain groups, but more evidence is needed to evaluate this.

Overall, these findings indicate that during the early Classic period in the Tucson Basin the frequency of side-notched and unnotched point types cannot be used as indirect measures of hunting and conflict. Data derived from experiments conducted with replicas of Classic Side-

111

notched points (shallow notches placed high on the blade) are needed to identify how the performance characteristics of these points compare to the unnotched varieties.

A new point design with marked differences in notch shape and placement is introduced in the Tucson Basin at roughly A.D. 1300. As with earlier designs, similar types are found throughout Southern Arizona (Loendorf and Rice 2004; Ryan 2016:Table 6.7; Sliva 2002). This new form may have had technological advantages, such as deeper notches for a more secure haft and increased exposed blade edge. A larger sample is needed to define the full range of variation of this point type in the Tucson Basin. Although this new style roughly corresponds with the arrival of Kayenta migrants in southeastern Arizona, based on its wide geographic distribution it was not introduced by these groups.

Design Variation, Obsidian Use, and Projectile Point Function in the San Pedro Valley The Lower San Pedro Valley analysis was conducted to identify differences in projectile point types from migrant enclaves, and explore how increased obsidian use and social tensions influenced point designs. Comparisons were also made with Babocomari Village to the south, where evidence of influence from northern migrants is lacking.

The movement of Ancestral Pueblo groups into the Lower San Pedro Valley ultimately impacted social networks and ceramic technology in the region (Clark et al. 2013; Mills et al.

2013; Mills et al. 2016). Based on the small sample, however, migrant groups did not bring significantly different projectile point traditions with them. Some subtle differences were observed in the sample from the Kayenta enclaves, Davis Ranch and Reeve Ruin, and a preference for side-notched points is seen at the former. The unnotched points, however, are not similar to the long, delicate Bull Creek style associated with the Kayenta homeland (Geib 1996;

112

Holmer and Weder 1980; Lindsay 1969). Projectile points from the migrant enclaves are overwhelmingly made of obsidian, which is not surprising given that the residents were involved in the distribution of Mule Creek obsidian (Clark, Hill, et al. 2012; Mills et al. 2013). A larger sample from migrant communities and an exhaustive search to identify point designs associated with the Kayenta homeland are necessary to draw further conclusions.

The projectile point sample from Babocomari Village demonstrates that, in some instances, differences among Classic period points are identifiable in the San Pedro Valley. The absence of obsidian points from Babocomari bolsters the argument that the villagers were not strongly connected to the Ancestral Pueblo groups residing to the north. Point designs at

Babocomari are distinguished from those in the Lower San Pedro Valley by their serrated blade edges and long, narrow triangular forms. It is true that the burial context of many of these points may account for some of these differences; however, long and narrow points were also found in domestic contexts at Babocomari.

Conflict or the threat of warfare is postulated for the Lower San Pedro Valley after A.D.

1200. This is based on defensive positioning, fortification of sites, and population aggregation

(Wallace and Doelle 2001). Based on patterns proposed by Loendorf, Simon, and others (2015), it was thought that unnotched triangular points would dominate at these sites, particularly at the

Kayenta enclaves. This was not the case, however, and side-notched points are well-represented in the small sample from these sites. Large game was exploited in the Lower San Pedro Valley

(Clark, Diehl et al. 2012:335), and it was also important to the residents of Babocomari Village

(Di Peso 1951). Points from domestic contexts at Babocomari represent both relatively long triangular types as well as shorter side-notched points. There is currently no evidence to associate a specific point type with hunting or conflict in the San Pedro Valley. 113

In many ways, the distribution of point types in the Lower San Pedro Valley mirror those in the Tucson Basin. However, systematic comparisons were not made because the samples from each region largely represent different time intervals. Projectile points from University Indian

Ruin (Hayden 1957) may be an ideal dataset to compare point designs between these two regions. This late Classic site is located in the northeastern Tucson Basin and a high proportion of Mule Creek obsidian has been identified (Mills et al. 2012).

A Note on Technology, Style, and Function The transmission of similar point designs across a wide region during the Classic period is likely a result of the expansion of social networks during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (Mills et al. 2013). The diversity of obsidian sources in the Tucson Basin indicates that knappers were connected with groups in many different areas. The greatest amount of variation identified in this analysis is related to base morphology, an attribute that is not visible once the point is hafted. Because visibility, or the lack thereof, informs on the social processes that create artifact variability (Carr 1995b; Tostevin 2012), differences in base morphology can inform on different communities of learning. As Tostevin notes, the “social intimacy” of an enculturating environment at a site allows for knappers to witness and copy artifact attributes (Tostevin

2012:88–89). Therefore, base variation can be attributed to different learning traditions or group preferences that are expressed on small points that otherwise follow socially accepted or preferred forms.

The small size of Classic period points also restricts their potential to convey messages of group or individual identity. The one exception to this is serrated or barbed blade edges

(Hoffman 1997; Loendorf, Oliver et al. 2015), although these attributes are also not visible from a great distance. Serrated and barbed points are associated with the Hohokam archaeological 114

cultural area, but Lindsay (1969) noted that serrated blades are rare at Kayenta sites in northern

Arizona. Further investigation is needed to determine if this attribute is a marker of group affiliation, and work in the Upper Gila may help answer this question.

The importance of projectile points in ritual deposits is evident in both the Tucson Basin and San Pedro Valley. These are generally not the elaborate styles that precede the Classic period

(Haury 1976), although oftentimes the longest and shortest points of each type were found in ritual deposits. Do the points within mortuary features indicate the increased importance of the hunting ritual, or do they denote warrior status? Given the complex factors at play during the

Classic period, both are possible.

Concluding Thoughts One of the main goals of this study was to determine if the arrival of non-local groups in the study regions during the last few centuries of the pre-Hispanic era influenced projectile point forms. Given the widespread distribution of similar point types during this time, as well as limited samples sizes from migrant sites, this proved to be difficult. Metric data and statistical analyses provided information about differences between common point types, but only minor differences were observed at sites with non-local groups. As this line of research continues, attributes such as base morphology, notch depth, notch angle, and blade shape may provide the most useful information to identify variation among these relatively small points. In this sense, I agree with Wendrich (2012b) that the study of microvariables is needed to identify differences in production choices among ancient communities of practice.

It is also necessary to cast a wider net and include data from the Upper Gila region, where migrant and local groups resided close to the Mule Creek obsidian source area (Huntley et al.

115

2010, Huntley et al. 2016). Ongoing field school excavations in this region have resulted in the recovery of a substantial number of projectile points (Dungan 2015; Huntley et al. 2010; Ryan

2014). Investigating how these point types compare to those in the Lower San Pedro Valley is the next step in this research domain.

Projectile points from Point of Pines Pueblo where northern migrants once settled (Haury

1958), as well as other sites in the Mogollon region, may produce promising results in tracing the arrival of new point attributes with migrant populations. As previously mentioned, collections from the late Classic University Indian Ruin (Hayden 1957) can inform on interactions between groups in the Tucson Basin and the San Pedro Valley in the fourteenth century. Projectile point attributes and their archaeological contexts can be used to inform on the changing social organizations in the region between the thirteenth and fifteenth century. The analysis presented here is another step toward this goal.

116

APPENDIX A. PROJECTILE POINT ATTRIBUTES RECORDED

117

Table A.1. Projectile point attributes recorded.

Point type Material Condition (complete, base missing, etc.) Total length (mm) Weight (g) Point shape Blade length (mm) Blade thickness (mm) Blade width (mm) Blade shape Neck width (mm) Haft length (mm) Haft thickness (mm) Base width (mm) Base type (concave, convex, straight) Base depth (mm) Serration (present/absent) Notch depth (shallow, deep) Notch shape (horizontal parallel, expanding, etc.) Notch location (side, corner, basal) Reworking (y/n)

118

APPENDIX B. PROJECTILE POINT DATA

119

Table B.1. Projectile point metric data.

Adobe Hill BB:1:32 419 Shallow side-notched, unspecified chert 0.67 25.91 19.92 10.88 - 9.20 5.59 2.65 2.17 1.35 slightly concave no Mule Creek/AC- Adobe Hill BB:1:32 419 Side-notched, unspecified MM obsidian 0.49 19.68 19.68 10.15 - 6.63 - 2.78 - - no Government Mtn Adobe Hill BB:1:32 467 Shallow side-notched, unspecified obsidian 0.38 17.02 11.72 9.74 - 7.82 5.30 2.82 2.13 - markedly convex no Los Vidrios Artifact Hill BB:1:55 3 SW Concave-base Triangular obsidian 0.22 14.42 14.42 10.57 10.57 - - 1.76 - 1.35 markedly concave no

Ash Terrace BB:2:19 628 SW Triangular chert 0.29 18.67 18.67 - 8.66 - - 2.40 - - very slightly concave no

Ash Terrace BB:2:19 648 Classic, unfinished? chert 0.85 24.59 - 13.46 - - - 2.46 - - no

Ash Terrace BB:2:19 611 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.18 15.45 - - 8.03 - - - - 1.23 markedly concave no Babocomari Village EE:7:1 B/132b SW Long Triangular chert 0.89 35.80 35.80 11.30 11.28 - - 2.52 2.26 - very slightly concave no Babocomari Village EE:7:1 B/S or B/5 Shallow side-notched chert 0.67 18.20 8.00 12.41 7.28 7.41 - 2.87 - slightly concave no Babocomari cryptocrystalline Village EE:7:1 B/137 SW Triangular silicate 0.66 23.82 23.82 9.87 - - 3.09 - - straight partial Babocomari Village EE:7:1 B/134-1 Late Classic Side-notched chert 0.65 28.27 20.01 7.92 10.02 5.91 8.04 2.43 2.42 - slightly concave no Babocomari Village EE:7:1 B/134-2 SW Triangular chert 0.80 29.44 29.44 10.75 10.75 - - 3.80 2.45 - slightly concave no Babocomari Village EE:7:1 B/134-3 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.36 22.80 22.80 8.05 8.05 - - 2.65 1.58 0.82 markedly concave no Babocomari Village EE:7:1 B/134-4 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.46 17.93 - 8.55 8.55 - - 2.97 2.61 0.66 markedly concave no Babocomari Village EE:7:1 B/134-5 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.20 12.47 - 8.62 8.62 - - 3.05 1.62 1.44 markedly concave no Babocomari Village EE:7:1 B/134-6 non-diagnostic fragment chert 0.59 23.48 - - - - - 2.83 - - no Babocomari Village EE:7:1 B/134b Late Classic Side-notched chert 0.54 19.59 11.45 8.54 12.65 6.30 7.63 2.58 2.13 - slightly concave no Babocomari cryptocrystalline Village EE:7:1 B/135 SW Triangular silicate 0.34 20.02 20.02 9.31 9.31 - - 2.53 2.17 - straight no Babocomari Village EE:7:1 B/243 SW Triangular chert 0.92 27.04 27.04 - - - - 3.85 2.89 - slightly concave no Babocomari Village EE:7:1 B/90 Classic Serrated chalcedony 0.74 29.02 29.02 10.36 10.36 - - 4.03 3.44 2.82 markedly concave yes Babocomari Village EE:7:1 B/169b Classic Serrated chert? 1.07 28.16 28.16 13.63 13.63 - - 4.02 2.80 2.05 markedly concave yes Babocomari Village EE:7:1 B/169c SW Triangular chalcedony 0.35 23.19 23.19 9.54 9.54 - - 2.58 1.93 - straight no Babocomari Village EE:7:1 B/273 SW Triangular chalcedony 0.63 23.31 23.31 9.55 9.55 - - 2.69 1.87 - straight no Babocomari Village EE:7:1 B/21 Shallow side-notched chert 0.58 21.90 13.84 8.67 - 7.20 6.78 2.56 2.47 - straight no 120

Table B.1. Projectile point metric data.

ASM Cat. Specimen Total Blade Blade Base Neck Haft Base Site Name Site No. No. No. Point Type Material Weight Length Length Width Width Width Length Blade Thk Haft Thk Depth Base Type Serr. Babocomari Village EE:7:1 B/276 Late Classic Side-notched chert 0.48 20.56 - 10.64 - 5.91 - 2.11 2.54 - yes Babocomari Village EE:7:1 B/224 SW Triangular chalcedony 0.60 20.64 20.64 12.57 12.57 - - 2.46 - - straight no Cow Canyon Bayless BB:11:2 3826 Classic Side-notched, serrated obsidian 0.27 12.72 - 5.31 9.58 4.75 6.49 1.99 2.36 2.23 markedly concave yes

Bayless BB:11:2 3816 Non-diagnostic fragment chert 0.20 12.69 ------no

Bayless BB:11:2 3841 Arizona Basal-notched chert 0.62 21.51 ------no

Big Bell BB:6:2 2053 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.29 13.09 - - 12.31 - - 2.37 - 1.94 markedly concave no

Big Bell BB:6:2 2058 Shallow side-notched, unspecified chert 0.80 24.57 - 9.30 10.46 8.60 6.67 2.89 3.89 - straight no

Big Pot BB:2:18 3479 Classic Side-notched chert 0.72 27.89 15.68 8.44 11.24 6.75 11.53 2.07 2.46 2.41 markedly concave no

Big Pot BB:2:18 3410 Classic Side-notched chert 0.36 21.24 12.04 7.16 10.18 5.65 9.65 1.58 1.78 1.21 markedly concave no

Corrugated Ridge BB:6:110 2208 Classic Side-notched chert 0.55 23.83 - 7.43 12.13 6.46 8.04 2.43 1.95 1.90 markedly concave no

Corrugated Ridge BB:6:110 2234 Unidentified Classic period chert 0.47 12.70 - - 13.25 7.73 12.70 - 2.22 1.86 slightly concave no

Davis Ranch BB:11:36 D/67 Late Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.34 18.00+ - 8.69 9.74 6.05 5.57 - 1.49 0.91 slightly concave no

Davis Ranch BB:11:36 D/36 Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.28 15.23 9.87 7.31 9.73 6.43 5.59 2.12 1.99 - straight no

Davis Ranch BB:11:36 D/13 Classic Side-notched chalcedony 0.55 22.29 11.93 6.53 13.77 6.16 9.37 3.09 3.13 2.39 markedly concave poss

Davis Ranch BB:11:36 D/14 Late Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.31 16.18 9.47 8.18 10.44 4.88 6.57 2.55 2.27 - slightly concave no

Davis Ranch BB:11:36 D/75 Late Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.29 17.43 9.70 6.35 9.70 5.62 7.11 2.44 2.09 - straight no

Davis Ranch BB:11:36 D/114 Late Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.16 6.78 - - 11.74 4.98 - - 1.94 - slightly concave no

Davis Ranch BB:11:36 D/154f SW Triangular obsidian 0.51 17.34 17.34 12.09 12.09 - - 3.28 3.18 - slightly concave no

Davis Ranch BB:11:36 D/129b Unnotched triangular, unspecified obsidian 0.56 23.38 23.38 11.32 11.04 - - 2.26 2.12 2.05 markedly concave no

Davis Ranch BB:11:36 D/171j SW Short Triangular obsidian 0.31 13.51 13.51 10.88 10.88 - - 3.36 2.72 - slightly convex no

Davis Ranch BB:11:36 D/93b SW Triangular obsidian 1.00 20.58 20.58 - 13.64 - - 5.03 4.39 - straight no

Davis Ranch BB:11:36 D/80 Non-diagnostic fragment chert 5.63 28.29 - - - - - 6.58 - - no

Davis Ranch BB:11:36 D/154d Non-diagnostic fragment obsidian 0.34 13.53 - - - - - 2.77 - - no

Davis Ranch BB:11:36 D/154e Non-diagnostic fragment obsidian 0.44 16.54 - - - - - 2.50 - - no Davis Ranch BB:11:36 D/171k Non-diagnostic fragment obsidian 0.36 18.30 - - - - - 2.43 - - no 121

Table B.1. Projectile point metric data.

ASM Cat. Specimen Total Blade Blade Base Neck Haft Base Site Name Site No. No. No. Point Type Material Weight Length Length Width Width Width Length Blade Thk Haft Thk Depth Base Type Serr. Mule Creek/N. Davis Ranch BB:11:36 4255 Non-diagnostic fragment Sawmill Creek 0.31 11.96 - - - - - 2.85 - - no Mule Creek/AC- Davis Ranch BB:11:36 4227 Classic Side-notched? MM obsidian 0.39 18.54 10.30 9.04 6.29 8.16 2.83 2.11 - no Mule Creek/AC- Davis Ranch BB:11:36 4228 Side-notched, irregular, reworked MM obsidian 0.32 16.47 - - - - - 2.66 - - no

Davis Ranch BB:11:36 4302 Non-diagnostic fragment chert 0.41 13.97 ------no

Dudleyville Mound BB:2:83 3333 SW Short Triangular chert 0.63 14.91 - - 12.71 - - 3.41 - 0.87 slightly concave no Mule Creek/AC- Elliott BB:11:27 4887 SW Short Triangular MM obsidian 0.62 17.68 17.68 - 11.73 - - 3.54 - - straight no Mule Creek/AC- Flieger Ruin BB:2:7 1603 Non-diagnostic fragment MM obsidian 0.31 12.82 - - - - - 3.02 - - no Late Classic Side-notched, Mule Creek/AC- Flieger Ruin BB:2:7 1606 reworked MM obsidian 0.27 13.61 7.01 8.33 11.16 4.72 6.96 2.09 1.74 0.99 slightly concave no

Flieger Ruin BB:2:7 1621 Unnotched triangular, unspecified rhyolite 0.75 21.87 21.87 - 13.22 - - 2.04 - - straight no Mule Creek/AC- Flieger Ruin BB:2:7 1636 Side-notched, unspecified MM obsidian 0.22 12.46 12.46 8.20 - - - 2.39 - - no

Flieger Ruin BB:2:7 1650 SW Triangular chert 1.04 23.59 - - 13.97 - - 3.39 - - straight no Mule Creek/AC- Flieger Ruin BB:2:7 1650 SW Short Triangular MM obsidian 0.28 13.55 13.55 8.01 8.01 - - 3.14 - - straight no

Flieger Ruin BB:2:7 1651 SW Triangular chert 0.68 18.42 18.42 - 13.46 - - 2.65 - - straight no Mule Creek/AC- Flieger Ruin BB:2:7 1680 Late Classic Side-notched MM obsidian 0.23 17.48 14.37 8.80 - 4.92 - 1.51 - - no

Flieger Ruin BB:2:7 1705 Late Classic Side-notched chert 0.32 15.57 - 9.80 - 7.37 4.91 1.28 1.18 - slightly concave no

Flieger Ruin BB:2:7 1715 Unspecified Classic chert 0.60 23.11 23.11 - 11.71 - - 2.69 - - straight no Cow Canyon Flieger Ruin BB:2:7 1723 Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.23 18.08 12.72 7.81 - 5.37 6.08 1.92 1.27 - no

Flieger Ruin BB:2:7 C19 SW Triangular chalcedony 0.91 25.46 25.46 11.84 11.84 - - 2.97 2.72 - straight no

Flieger Ruin BB:2:7 C20 SW Triangular chert 0.50 24.16 24.16 13.00 13.00 - - 2.00 1.97 - slightly concave no

Gibbon Springs BB:10:6 63 SW Triangular chalcedony 0.93 20.40 20.40 - 14.83 - - 3.57 - 1.79 slightly concave no cryptocrystalline Gibbon Springs BB:10:6 223 Classic Side-notched silicate 0.28 14.97 - 5.90 11.23 - 7.23 1.68 1.47 1.00 slightly concave no

Gibbon Springs BB:10:6 224 Classic Side-notched chalcedony 0.57 22.04 12.17 7.34 11.55 5.68 9.08 2.91 2.80 0.84 slightly concave no

Gibbon Springs BB:10:6 475 non-diagnostic fragment jasper 0.17 9.96 - - 10.24 - - - 1.69 1.46 slightly concave no

Gibbon Springs BB:10:6 1015 SW Short Triangular chalcedony 0.41 16.44 16.44 - 13.74 - - 2.43 1.65 2.53 markedly concave no Gibbon Springs BB:10:6 1089 SW Short Triangular chalcedony 0.31 16.52 16.52 - 11.82 - - 1.36 - 1.02 slightly concave no

122

Table B.1. Projectile point metric data.

ASM Cat. Specimen Total Blade Blade Base Neck Haft Base Site Name Site No. No. No. Point Type Material Weight Length Length Width Width Width Length Blade Thk Haft Thk Depth Base Type Serr.

Gibbon Springs BB:10:6 2007 Side-notched, unspecified type chert 0.49 26.18 18.03 8.84 10.69 6.99 7.94 1.78 1.60 - straight no

Gibbon Springs BB:10:6 2063 SW Triangular chert 0.95 21.24 - - 12.10 - - 4.23 3.71 0.91 slightly concave no

Gibbon Springs BB:10:6 2212 Shallow side-notched, flared base chert 0.25 15.00 9.21 6.08 10.58 5.87 5.40 2.26 1.83 1.31 markedly concave no

Gibbon Springs BB:10:6 3127 SW Short Triangular chalcedony 0.71 17.16 17.16 - 13.63 - - 3.34 1.89 - straight no

Gibbon Springs BB:10:6 3183 Classic Side-notched chert 0.36 17.38 - 8.21 - 6.80 11.71 1.33 1.90 - slightly concave no

Gibbon Springs BB:10:6 6173 SW Concave-base Triangular chalcedony 0.63 24.23 24.23 11.74 - - 3.84 2.46 1.97 markedly concave no

Gibbon Springs BB:10:6 6317 SW Concave-base Triangular chalcedony 0.36 19.56 19.56 - 8.79 - - 3.31 - 0.93 slightly concave no

Gibbon Springs BB:10:6 6610 Classic Side-notched chert 0.31 19.56 11.74 7.10 11.00 5.12 7.84 1.71 1.73 0.85 slightly concave no

Gibbon Springs BB:10:6 7123 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.40 20.06 20.06 - 11.59 - - 2.59 1.54 2.26 markedly concave poss

Gibbon Springs BB:10:6 7231 SW Triangular chalcedony 0.10 17.02 17.02 - 10.24 - - 1.44 - 1.14 straight no

Gibbon Springs BB:10:6 7237 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.35 18.09 18.09 - 9.85 - - 2.38 1.87 1.69 markedly concave no

Gibbon Springs BB:10:6 7515 SW Triangular chalcedony 0.42 21.59 21.59 - - - - 1.47 - - straight no

Gibbon Springs BB:10:6 7628 SW Triangular chalcedony 0.71 16.09 - - 15.01 - - 2.91 - - convex no

High Mesa BB:7:5 4102 Classic Side-notched chert 0.30 16.98 - 8.16 11.69 7.08 6.97 1.64 1.75 - very slightly concave no Mule Creek/AC- High Mesa BB:7:5 4013 SW Short Triangular MM obsidian 0.33 12.74 12.74 11.26 11.26 - - 2.81 - - straight no

High Mesa BB:7:5 4061 Classic Side-notched chert 0.34 18.84 11.69 7.12 9.41 5.86 6.13 1.54 1.75 - straight no

Leaverton Mesa BB:6:11 2400 SW Short Triangular chert 0.30 11.24 - - 11.56 - - 2.51 - 1.02 slightly concave no Mule Creek/AC- Leaverton Mesa BB:6:11 2406 Classic Side-notched MM obsidian 0.42 17.91 11.43 9.62 10.65 8.27 6.48 1.99 2.17 - slightly concave no

Leaverton Mesa BB:6:11 2422 SW Triangular chert 0.32 20.43 20.43 - 9.07 - - 2.02 - - straight no Mule Creek/AC- Lost Mound BB:2:3 5904 Late Classic Side-notched MM obsidian 0.28 16.67 - 9.73 - 5.41 - 1.75 - - no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 233 (FN 171) Classic Side-notched chert 0.38 18.60 - 7.64 - 6.49 8.92 1.79 1.67 - slightly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 233 (FN169) Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.26 12.57 5.70 5.14 - - - 2.52 2.38 - markedly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 250-256-5 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.30 15.07 - 9.14 - - - 2.00 - 1.49 slightly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 250-300-5 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.52 19.60 19.60 12.06 - - 2.64 - 1.39 slightly concave no Marana Mound AA:12:251 250-315-3 Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.23 14.21 - 5.22 7.19 4.25 7.62 2.32 2.44 0.66 slightly concave no

123

Table B.1. Projectile point metric data.

ASM Cat. Specimen Total Blade Blade Base Neck Haft Base Site Name Site No. No. No. Point Type Material Weight Length Length Width Width Width Length Blade Thk Haft Thk Depth Base Type Serr.

Marana Mound AA:12:251 250-321-6 SW Short Triangular chert 0.16 15.66 15.66 7.44 - - 1.79 - 0.33 very slightly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 250-389-10 SW Triangular chert 0.19 17.06 17.06 - 9.45 - - 1.42 - 0.98 slightly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 250-389-5 Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.34 18.92 11.78 5.96 9.56 5.69 7.64 2.24 1.96 - straight no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 250-389-7 Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.19 13.19 - 5.49 6.74 5.19 5.73 2.15 1.94 0.37 very slightly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 250-426-4 SW Concave-base Triangular chalcedony 0.42 16.40 16.40 - 13.45 - - 3.30 - 1.26 slightly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 250-461-3 Classic Side-notched chert 0.75 22.02 10.42 7.54 12.35 7.18 9.78 2.49 3.25 1.50 slightly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 270-134-5 Side-notched, irregular chert 0.68 21.90 - 5.66 13.52 5.65 - - 12.72 1.51 slightly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 270-403-3 SW Concave-base Triangular chalcedony 0.82 25.70 25.70 15.04 15.04 - - 3.60 - 1.78 markedly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 271-123-2 SW Triangular chert 0.38 18.42 - - 8.49 - - 2.71 - - straight no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 271-125-4 Arizona Basal-notched obsidian 0.32 19.25 12.43 8.10 - 5.55 7.13 2.06 1.91 2.31 notched no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 271-132 Non-diagnostic fragment chalcedony 0.31 12.43 - - - - - 2.35 - - no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 271-135-2 SW Concave-base Triangular obsidian 0.38 15.59 - - 9.17 - - 3.11 - 1.42 markedly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 271-145-10 Shallow side-notched chert 0.13 14.36 10.29 5.35 7.54 4.76 4.12 1.23 1.46 0.79 slightly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 271-145-7 Unspecified type, reworked chert 0.19 11.25 6.06 5.19 10.81 5.88 5.42 2.48 1.81 1.57 markedly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 311-24-3 Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.21 14.51 7.83 5.36 8.60 5.21 7.60 2.09 1.81 1.39 slightly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 311-26-6 Classic Side-notched jasper 0.28 17.55 10.11 6.02 11.34 5.93 7.94 2.46 2.29 1.12 slightly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 330-9-3 SW Triangular chalcedony 0.47 18.73 - - 10.53 - - 2.31 - - slightly convex no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 330-9-3 SW Triangular chert 0.23 14.68 - - - - - 1.84 - - no Cow Canyon Marana Mound AA:12:251 350-106-17 SW Concave-base Triangular obsidian 0.23 23.32 - - 7.53 - - 1.84 1.44 1.74 markedly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 350-169a-2 SW Concave-base Triangular Sauceda obsidian 0.36 21.38 21.38 - 10.74 - - 2.73 - 2.16 markedly concave poss

Marana Mound AA:12:251 350-225-11 Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.34 15.86 - 8.25 11.35 7.22 7.68 1.75 1.82 1.03 slightly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 350-227-5 SW Triangular chert 0.28 17.11 - - 8.09 - - 2.49 2.16 0.52 slightly concave no Cow Canyon Marana Mound AA:12:251 350-48-3 Eccentric obsidian 1.18 23.72 - - - - - 4.43 - - no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 366-31-4 Arizona Basal-notched obsidian 0.15 14.99 8.22 6.85 9.03 5.74 7.14 1.21 1.14 1.30 notched/markedly concaveno Marana Mound AA:12:251 366-31-6 Triangular, short chert 0.25 13.47 - 5.79 - 5.79 5.86 1.98 2.37 - straight no

124

Table B.1. Projectile point metric data.

ASM Cat. Specimen Total Blade Blade Base Neck Haft Base Site Name Site No. No. No. Point Type Material Weight Length Length Width Width Width Length Blade Thk Haft Thk Depth Base Type Serr.

Marana Mound AA:12:251 366-40-9 SW Concave-base Triangular chalcedony 0.29 15.35 15.35 - 9.11 - - 3.39 - 1.52 markedly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 366-44-6 Non-diagnostic fragment chert 0.28 11.07 - - 11.10 - - - 2.50 1.37 markedly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 447-23-9 Classic Side-notched chert 0.36 17.82 10.47 6.37 9.84 6.15 7.75 1.70 1.95 - straight no jasper/RP Marana Mound AA:12:251 447-31-8 Side-notched, eared rhyolite 0.30 18.58 11.97 7.02 10.21 6.50 7.01 2.03 2.19 2.76 markedly concave yes

Marana Mound AA:12:251 448-103-6 Classic Side-notched Superior obsidian 0.57 23.13 12.18 6.26 11.79 6.08 10.75 1.80 3.28 - straight no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 448-125-7 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.39 19.40 19.40 - 12.07 - - 2.17 - 1.18 markedly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 448-139-7 SW Triangular chert 0.27 24.97 24.97 - - - - 1.61 - - slightly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 448-141-6 Classic Side-notched chert 0.24 11.14 - - 10.90 - - - 2.14 1.42 slightly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 448-143-6 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.25 19.96 19.96 - 12.20 - - 1.64 - 1.39 markedly concave poss

Marana Mound AA:12:251 448-23-3 Unusual, reworked? chert 0.81 22.24 - - 11.92 - - 3.63 - - markedly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 448-62-8 Classic Side-notched chert 0.43 19.55 10.31 5.81 11.23 5.43 9.53 2.04 3.28 1.81 markedly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 448-71-13 Classic Side-notched chert 0.58 27.04 13.78 7.31 13.56 6.48 12.79 2.37 1.79 2.98 markedly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 448-97-20 SW Triangular chert 0.17 17.64 17.64 - 6.52 - - 1.43 - - straight no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 449-6-5 SW Short Triangular chert 0.30 15.55 15.55 - 9.52 - - 2.29 - - straight no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 467-101-1 SW Short triangular chalcedony 0.20 11.74 11.74 - 9.39 - - 2.54 - - straight no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 467-117-5 SW Short Triangular chalcedony 0.23 14.31 14.31 - 9.35 - - 2.14 1.62 0.51 slightly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 467-144-5 Classic Side-notched chert 0.43 20.92 12.74 7.03 10.25 6.68 8.49 2.12 2.83 1.32 slightly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 467-144-5 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.27 16.59 - - 11.44 - - 2.15 - 3.73 markedly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 467-34-7 Non-diagnostic fragment chert 0.45 18.14 - - - - - 2.66 - - yes

Marana Mound AA:12:251 467-59-7 Classic Side-notched chert 0.51 22.69 14.73 6.46 10.00 5.90 8.09 2.69 2.64 0.70 slightly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 467-80-2 Classic Flanged chert 0.69 23.61 12.31 5.28 12.09 - 9.94 2.39 3.91 - straight no cryptocrystalline Marana Mound AA:12:251 486-24-5 Classic Side-notched silicate 0.38 18.09 - 5.54 - 5.43 8.60 2.05 2.97 - markedly concave no Cow Canyon Marana Mound AA:12:251 486-25-7 SW Triangular obsidian 0.19 11.56 - - - - - 2.07 - - straight no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 487-37-7 SW Concave-base Triangular chalcedony 0.39 12.76 - - 13.26 - - 2.38 1.72 1.19 slightly concave no Mule Creek Marana Mound AA:12:251 487-38-5 Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.24 14.93 7.16 6.14 8.93 6.03 7.90 1.73 1.71 0.51 slightly concave no

125

Table B.1. Projectile point metric data.

ASM Cat. Specimen Total Blade Blade Base Neck Haft Base Site Name Site No. No. No. Point Type Material Weight Length Length Width Width Width Length Blade Thk Haft Thk Depth Base Type Serr.

Marana Mound AA:12:251 487-43-4 Classic Side-notched chalcedony 0.77 23.30 13.88 7.91 12.47 - 9.71 3.05 3.28 0.82 slightly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 487-51-4 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.31 15.94 - - 8.78 - - 2.23 1.96 0.97 slightly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 487-55-5 Classic Side-notched chalcedony 0.40 17.91 - 6.69 11.98 6.55 9.12 2.28 2.11 1.93 markedly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 487-63-6 SW Triangular or preform RP rhyolite 0.58 19.79 19.79 11.18 - - - 3.38 - - slightly convex no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 487-64-14 Classic Side-notched chalcedony 0.69 25.50 13.55 7.29 13.35 6.90 12.25 2.52 2.74 1.82 markedly concave yes Los Vidrios Marana Mound AA:12:251 488-30-3 SW Concave-base Triangular obsidian 0.34 18.75 18.75 - 9.22 - - 2.54 2.31 0.73 slightly concave yes

Marana Mound AA:12:251 497-50-6 Classic Side-notched chert 0.27 17.23 9.40 5.59 9.78 5.42 8.13 1.82 2.08 1.16 markedly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 507-100-6 Classic Side-notched jasper 0.34 17.82 - 6.74 10.55 5.97 9.37 1.82 1.81 1.27 markedly concave yes

Marana Mound AA:12:251 507-100-8 Non-diagnostic fragment chert 0.40 10.62 - - - - - 2.86 - - no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 507-114-6 Classic Side-notched chert 0.41 17.82 - 7.04 10.33 5.97 9.55 1.93 1.86 2.17 markedly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 507-116-6 Classic Side-notched chalcedony 0.20 17.07 9.20 6.01 13.12 5.71 7.86 1.20 0.98 1.18 slightly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 507-125-5 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.52 24.04 24.04 - 13.74 - - 1.99 - 2.59 markedly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 507-140-6 Classic Side-notched chert 0.40 21.18 14.06 9.08 11.35 7.59 7.67 1.56 1.57 0.95 slightly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 507-155-7 SW Triangular chert 0.61 23.53 23.53 - 12.65 - - 2.85 - 0.72 slightly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 507-170-3 Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.38 17.93 8.75 5.31 8.58 4.84 8.97 2.70 2.67 0.80 slightly concave no Mule Creek Marana Mound AA:12:251 507-170-3 Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.58 24.07 13.68 9.15 13.29 7.94 9.81 2.01 2.85 3.08 markedly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 507-275-3 Classic Side-notched chalcedony 0.46 17.51 8.75 6.66 11.44 6.15 8.49 2.91 3.11 0.62 slightly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 507-66-5 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.35 27.25 27.25 - 9.31 - - 2.38 - 1.57 markedly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 507-75-9 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 1.03 24.65 24.65 - 12.84 - - 4.36 - 1.61 markedly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 507-86-4 Classic Side-notched chert 0.51 26.34 16.28 6.95 11.60 6.12 10.32 2.26 2.27 - very slightly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 508-106-6 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.35 18.38 - - 7.63 - - 2.67 - 1.44 markedly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 508-39-17 SW Triangular chert 0.50 20.17 20.17 - 11.58 - - 2.34 - - straight no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 508-86-9 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.43 17.61 17.61 - 11.36 - - 2.23 - - markedly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 508-86-9 SW Triangular chert 1.20 20.42 - - 17.13 - - 4.47 - 0.97 slightly concave no Marana Mound AA:12:251 508-90-14 SW Long Triangular chert 0.81 38.94 38.94 - 10.54 - - 2.60 - 2.19 markedly concave no

126

Table B.1. Projectile point metric data.

ASM Cat. Specimen Total Blade Blade Base Neck Haft Base Site Name Site No. No. No. Point Type Material Weight Length Length Width Width Width Length Blade Thk Haft Thk Depth Base Type Serr.

Marana Mound AA:12:251 525-91-6 SW Triangular chert 0.18 13.96 13.96 - 8.66 - - 2.31 - 0.57 slightly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 525-99-5 SW Triangular chalcedony 0.38 21.41 21.41 - 10.34 - - 2.53 - 0.95 slightly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 528-35-12 Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.20 11.15 - 5.56 8.88 5.31 6.37 2.29 2.21 1.16 slightly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 600-24-3 Classic Side-notched chert 0.39 18.76 9.78 6.83 11.14 6.71 8.25 2.35 2.26 2.22 markedly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 600-26-3 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.40 21.56 - - - - - 1.99 - - markedly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 600-32-5 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.20 23.91 23.91 - 9.08 - - 1.52 - 1.57 markedly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 600-34-8 SW Concave-base Triangular quartz crystal 0.68 26.08 26.08 - 10.37 - - 3.67 - 1.94 markedly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 600-35-12 SW Concave-base Triangular chalcedony 0.31 19.22 19.22 - - - - 2.17 - - markedly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 600-38-6 SW Triangular chert 0.37 17.47 17.47 - 11.74 - - 2.05 - 0.71 slightly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 600-39-14 Classic Side-notched chert 0.29 22.69 12.21 6.83 10.59 6.06 10.22 1.44 1.45 2.84 markedly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 600-43-7 Classic Side-notched Sauceda obsidian 0.53 21.50 13.13 8.26 10.99 7.44 7.13 3.22 2.98 0.85 slightly concave yes

Marana Mound AA:12:251 SW Short triangular chert 0.13 13.50 13.50 - 8.34 - - 1.93 1.17 0.89 slightly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 Classic Side-notched chert 0.44 23.44 12.29 5.22 10.49 4.84 10.49 2.81 2.61 1.56 slightly concave yes

Marana Mound AA:12:251 Classic Side-notched chert 0.36 20.11 8.14 4.73 9.39 4.06 12.55 2.26 2.46 - slightly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 Classic Serrated chert 0.34 22.30 22.30 - 8.07 - - 2.48 1.99 0.56 slightly concave yes

Marana Mound AA:12:251 SW Long Triangular igneous 0.73 36.23 36.23 - 7.85 - - 2.11 2.00 0.71 slightly concave no

Marana Mound AA:12:251 SW Triangular chert 0.06 7.31 - - 6.67 - - 1.43 1.07 0.81 slightly concave no Mule Creek/AC- Reeve Ruin BB:11:26 4457 Unnotched triangular, unspecified MM obsidian 0.37 15.60 - - 10.27 - - 2.96 - - straight no Mule Creek/AC- Reeve Ruin BB:11:26 4464 Unnotched triangular, unspecified MM obsidian 0.31 13.10 - - 9.39 - - 3.09 - - irregular no Mule Creek/AC- Reeve Ruin BB:11:26 4525 Side-notched, Late Classic? MM obsidian 0.18 15.21 9.79 6.87 7.74 3.46 5.42 1.81 1.40 - straight no Second Canyon Ruin BB:11:20 A-40370 3-26 Shallow side-notched obsidian 0.45 20.01 13.61 7.81 9.69 6.64 6.62 3.30 2.85 - straight no Second Canyon Ruin BB:11:20 A-40371 3-35 Classic Side-notched chalcedony 0.21 12.97 6.43 6.35 10.23 6.33 6.38 1.70 1.97 2.03 markedly concave no Second Canyon Ruin BB:11:20 A-40372 4-54 Shallow side-notched, irregular jasper 0.39 16.14 8.56 7.07 11.06 - 9.13 1.65 1.92 - convex no Second Canyon Ruin BB:11:20 A-40374 4-117 Classic Side-notched chert 0.44 20.25 11.00 6.97 11.38 6.04 9.41 1.78 2.17 0.59 straight to slightly convexno Second Canyon Ruin BB:11:20 A-40368 3-14 Classic Side-notched chalcedony 0.43 23.55 13.94 8.75 12.13 6.23 9.17 1.61 1.67 1.40 slightly concave no

127

Table B.1. Projectile point metric data.

ASM Cat. Specimen Total Blade Blade Base Neck Haft Base Site Name Site No. No. No. Point Type Material Weight Length Length Width Width Width Length Blade Thk Haft Thk Depth Base Type Serr. Second Canyon Antelope Ruin BB:11:20 A-40406 53-14 Late Classic Side-notched Creek/Mule 0.61 21.64 14.06 12.63 13.86 7.44 7.35 2.31 1.93 - straight no Second Canyon Antelope Ruin BB:11:20 A-40388 16-5 Late Classic Side-notched Creek/Mule 0.36 20.95 14.46 8.49 11.45 6.06 5.73 2.58 2.01 - straight no Second Canyon Antelope Ruin BB:11:20 A-40407 57-44 Shallow side-notched, eared Creek/Mule 0.33 17.19 12.69 8.38 12.24 7.85 4.94 2.32 2.19 1.72 markedly concave no Second Canyon Antelope Ruin BB:11:20 A-40382 6-30 Shallow side-notched Creek/Mule 0.35 17.24 13.08 9.47 11.51 7.71 4.71 2.17 2.13 - straight no Second Canyon Cow Canyon Ruin BB:11:20 A-40413 4-141 Late Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.56 24.27 16.84 8.54 10.42 6.10 7.49 2.98 2.23 - straight no Second Canyon Ruin BB:11:20 A-40405 53-12 Classic Side-notched chert 0.42 22.36 11.90 7.83 - 6.52 10.85 1.97 2.02 2.12 markedly concave no Second Canyon Ruin BB:11:20 A-40387 16-3 Triangular, serrated, Sobaipuri? chert 0.32 16.99 16.99 - - - - 3.12 - 2.23 markedly concave yes Second Canyon Ruin BB:11:20 A-40411 66-10 Triangular, serrated, Sobaipuri? chert 0.30 16.48 16.48 8.47 - - - 2.45 2.32 2.61 markedly concave yes Second Canyon Ruin BB:11:20 A-40377 4-140 SW Short Triangular chert 0.47 16.20 16.20 - 10.79 - - 3.46 2.74 0.79 slightly concave no Second Canyon Ruin BB:11:20 A-40384 7-8 SW Short Triangular chert 0.58 19.08 19.08 - 12.22 - - 3.14 2.21 - straight no Second Canyon Ruin BB:11:20 A-40392 31-2 Triangular, serrated, Sobaipuri? jasper 0.58 19.71 19.71 8.99 - - - 3.96 2.79 1.20 markedly concave yes Second Canyon Antelope Ruin BB:11:20 A-40385 7-16 SW Triangular Creek/Mule 0.71 23.10 23.10 - 13.77 - - 2.61 2.15 - straight no Second Canyon Ruin BB:11:20 A-40364 1-23 Shallow side-notched, irregular chert 0.23 18.90 16.03 7.38 7.54 6.59 2.61 1.54 1.50 1.44 markedly concave no Second Canyon Ruin BB:11:20 A-40353 G1-5 SW Triangular jasper 0.99 23.12 23.12 - 10.80 - - 3.34 3.33 - straight no Second Canyon Ruin BB:11:20 A-40389 20-1 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.38 17.29 17.29 - 8.88 - - 3.50 - 1.12 markedly concave no Second Canyon Antelope Ruin BB:11:20 A-40367 3-5 SW Short Triangular Creek/Mule 0.16 14.45 14.45 - 7.68 - - 1.74 - - straight no Second Canyon Convex base, triangular, Ruin BB:11:20 A-40390 20-10 unfinished? chalcedony 0.86 20.23 20.23 12.40 - - - 3.69 - - convex/irregular no Second Canyon Ruin BB:11:20 A-40414 9-11 Corner-notched, Pueblo III? chert 0.76 31.32 26.49 12.13 8.41 6.52 5.02 2.65 1.80 - convex no Second Canyon Ruin BB:11:20 A-40416-X-3 1-16 Shallow side-notched chalcedony 0.31 18.56 17.32 6.67 - 4.74 - 2.00 - - no Second Canyon Ruin BB:11:20 A-40361 0-40 Classic Side-notched chert 0.28 15.13 7.58 4.27 9.63 4.82 7.40 1.80 2.08 1.00 slightly concave no Second Canyon Ruin BB:11:20 A-40365 1-26 Triangular, serrated, Sobaipuri? chert 0.36 21.07 21.07 - 9.95 - - 2.09 - 3.09 markedly concave yes Second Canyon Ruin BB:11:20 A-40415 48-7 Classic Side-notched chert 0.32 20.62 12.18 7.02 11.98 5.47 8.31 2.13 1.25 3.33 markedly concave no Second Canyon Ruin BB:11:20 A-40376 4-139 Classic Side-notched chalcedony 0.28 17.51 - 6.02 8.02 4.31 8.13 1.87 1.47 1.06 slightly concave no Second Canyon Ruin BB:11:20 A-40401 48-3 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.71 29.54 29.54 - 11.26 - - 2.53 - 1.35 slightly concave no Second Canyon Antelope Ruin BB:11:20 A-40409 57-46 SW Short Triangular Creek/Mule 0.40 16.92 16.92 - - - - 2.80 - - slightly concave no

128

Table B.1. Projectile point metric data.

ASM Cat. Specimen Total Blade Blade Base Neck Haft Base Site Name Site No. No. No. Point Type Material Weight Length Length Width Width Width Length Blade Thk Haft Thk Depth Base Type Serr. Second Canyon Antelope Ruin BB:11:20 A-40408 57-45 SW Triangular Creek/Mule 0.73 14.60 - - 15.56 - - 3.60 - - very slightly concave no Second Canyon Ruin BB:11:20 A-40362 1-15 SW Triangular chalcedony 0.74 20.90 - 12.43 - - - 3.14 - - slightly concave no Second Canyon Ruin BB:11:20 A-40363 1-20 SW Triangular jasper 0.34 17.09 17.09 - - - - 2.00 - - no Second Canyon Ruin BB:11:20 A-40417-X-2 3-15 SW Triangular chert 0.33 18.82 - - - - - 2.33 - - no Cow Canyon Swingle's Sample BB:1:22 3625 Non-diagnostic fragment obsidian 0.34 21.40 - - - - - 2.12 - - no Cow Canyon Swingle's Sample BB:1:22 3672 Side-notched, unspecified obsidian 0.31 15.30 - 10.93 - 5.18 - 2.14 - - no

Tres Alamos BB:15:1 TA/39/16 SW Triangular chalcedony 0.66 25.17 25.17 - - - - 2.93 2.76 - straight no

Tres Alamos BB:15:1 TA/435 Shallow side-notched chalcedony 0.52 22.56 14.17 6.22 11.17 5.92 8.46 2.86 2.95 1.69 markedly concave no cryptocrystalline Tres Alamos BB:15:1 TA/108 Barbed, concave base silicate 0.46 22.90 22.90 7.44 11.85 - - - - 2.74 slightly concave barbs Cow Canyon Tres Alamos BB:15:1 Prov 431 Late Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.86 23.42 14.87 10.13 12.18 5.62 8.16 3.53 2.89 - straight no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 2003-803-38 194 Classic Side-notched chert 0.64 26.61 14.65 8.02 13.02 6.98 11.53 2.01 2.30 1.67 slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 2003-803-39 191 Classic Side-notched chalcedony 0.57 26.29 15.73 8.47 12.16 7.00 9.27 2.19 1.99 1.08 slightly concave no cryptocrystalline Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 2003-803-40 191 Classic Side-notched silicate 0.29 19.52 11.05 6.25 9.17 5.01 7.82 1.71 2.11 1.16 slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 2003-803-41 177 SW Triangular chert 0.39 22.15 22.15 - 10.95 - - 1.69 1.50 - straight no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 2003-803-42 165 SW Triangular chalcedony 0.52 22.89 22.89 - 11.54 - - 1.72 1.60 1.18 slightly concave no Antelope Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 2003-803-43 111 Triangular, short, eccentric Creek/Mule 0.05 9.98 9.98 - 5.50 - - 1.45 - 0.46 slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 2003-803-44 Classic Side-notched chert 0.23 9.22 - - 13.04 6.06 - - 1.93 1.41 slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 2003-803-45 80 Classic Side-notched chert 0.16 11.67 - 4.68 9.83 4.57 7.05 1.34 1.30 0.71 slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 2003-803-47 21 Non-diagnostic fragment chert 0.08 9.36 - - - - - 1.48 - - no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 2003-803-48 SW Concave-base Triangular chalcedony 0.24 11.35 - - 9.90 2.42 1.77 0.97 slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 2003-803-49 CR-4-3 Classic Side-notched chert 0.34 20.00+ - 7.60 - 5.67 9.96 1.69 1.38 1.60 markedly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 2003-803-50 CR-4-6 Classic Side-notched chert 0.33 15.62 - 7.57 13.42 5.61 11.03 1.46 1.67 3.21 markedly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 2003-803-51 CR-4-5 Classic Side-notched chert 0.62 25.75 - 7.64 12.80 6.58 11.80 2.13 1.98 3.12 markedly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 2003-803-52 CR-4-4 Classic Side-notched chert 0.62 30.09 19.08 8.06 11.96 6.46 10.70 2.23 2.23 2.01 markedly concave no Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 2003-803-53 CR-4-2 Classic Side-notched chert 0.57 23.68 9.92 7.27 12.84 6.54 13.75 1.77 2.13 1.92 markedly concave no

129

Table B.1. Projectile point metric data.

ASM Cat. Specimen Total Blade Blade Base Neck Haft Base Site Name Site No. No. No. Point Type Material Weight Length Length Width Width Width Length Blade Thk Haft Thk Depth Base Type Serr.

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 2003-803-58 22 Classic Side-notched chert 0.37 20.29 12.47 6.26 10.74 5.30 8.61 1.71 2.52 1.88 markedly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 2003-803-59 A-21 Classic Side-notched chert 0.22 16.09 9.94 6.32 7.87 5.31 6.11 1.77 1.76 0.61 slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 2003-803-61 23 SW Triangular chalcedony 0.72 19.17 - 13.78 - - - 3.49 1.40 slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 2003-803-64 Classic Side-notched chert 0.27 18.16 - - - - - 1.70 1.41 - no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 2003-803-65 143 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.76 15.50 - - 12.69 - - 3.99 2.84 0.78 slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 2003-803-66 3 Classic Side-notched chert 0.60 22.08 - 6.75 10.96 6.26 10.95 2.97 2.37 2.41 markedly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 2003-803-67 SW Short Triangular chert 0.26 15.32 15.32 9.32 2.65 2.46 - straight no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 2003-803-68 200 Classic Side-notched chalcedony 0.29 15.52 8.20 6.03 11.40 6.05 7.31 1.79 1.84 1.19 slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 2003-803-71 21 Classic Side-notched or preform chert 0.64 21.53 12.04 7.52 11.21 - 8.77 2.92 2.60 0.87 slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 2003-803-72 17 Classic Side-notched chert 0.27 18.66 10.13 6.73 11.49 6.03 8.71 1.52 1.65 1.57 markedly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 2003-803-78 Classic Side-notched chalcedony 0.54 26.86 14.80 6.50 11.31 5.62 10.81 2.38 2.11 3.19 markedly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 2003-803-79 46 SW Triangular chalcedony 0.69 16.79 13.92 3.32 2.30 no Antelope Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38020 16-18 SW Concave-base Triangular Creek/Mule 0.28 17.54 - 9.20 - - - 2.00 - - slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38030 Unnotched triangular, reworked? quartz 1.32 18.83 - - 14.56 - - 4.52 - - straight no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38031 Classic Flanged Sauceda obsidian 0.38 19.36 11.59 5.98 - - 6.64 3.01 3.75 2.65 markedly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38033 Classic Side-notched chert 0.25 16.66 11.03 7.71 - 6.96 - 1.50 1.59 - no Antelope Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38034 2-28 SW Concave-base Triangular Creek/Mule 0.19 15.18 15.18 7.06 - - - 1.86 - - slightly concave no Antelope Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38035 2-55 SW Concave-base Triangular Creek/Mule 0.24 14.56 - - 8.15 - - - - 2.22 markedly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38036 GC-14 Classic Side-notched chalcedony 0.53 25.12 16.37 7.32 10.32 6.23 8.22 2.19 2.78 1.06 slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38038 SW Triangular chert 0.58 24.04 24.04 9.96 - - - 2.26 - - straight no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38039 2-44 SW Triangular chalcedony 0.29 18.38 18.38 - 8.03 - - 2.24 1.37 straight no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38040 SW Triangular chalcedony 0.76 23.78 23.78 - 9.87 - - 3.44 3.21 0.49 slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38041 2-56 Classic Serrated chalcedony 0.26 18.34 18.34 - 8.62 - - 2.12 1.49 - straight yes

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38042 2-65 SW Concave-base Triangular chalcedony 0.33 17.22 17.22 7.21 - - - 2.93 - 1.18 slightly concave no Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38043 2-64 Classic Side-notched chalcedony 0.31 16.51 - 5.77 - 5.65 8.90 1.77 2.29 1.45 markedly concave no

130

Table B.1. Projectile point metric data.

ASM Cat. Specimen Total Blade Blade Base Neck Haft Base Site Name Site No. No. No. Point Type Material Weight Length Length Width Width Width Length Blade Thk Haft Thk Depth Base Type Serr.

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38044 Classic Side-notched chert 0.23 20.81 13.19 4.24 - 3.99 7.79 1.59 1.64 1.01 slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38045 2-67 Classic Side-notched chalcedony 0.54 21.80 10.12 6.74 12.89 6.31 11.12 2.23 2.53 2.95 markedly concave no Antelope Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38047 2-27 Non-diagnostic fragment Creek/Mule 0.14 8.46 - - - - - 2.15 - - no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38065 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.32 17.56 17.56 7.07 11.87 - - 2.61 2.05 2.22 markedly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38066-x-1 11-19 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.33 13.07 13.07 - 12.68 - - 2.75 - 1.22 slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38066-X-2 11-19 Unnotched triangular, irregular chalcedony 0.15 12.96 - - 6.87 - - 2.06 - 0.98 slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38067-X-2 Classic Side-notched chert 0.26 14.30 6.50 7.01 11.74 6.23 8.27 1.54 1.52 0.67 slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38069 2-66 Shallow side-notched, unspecified chalcedony 0.16 10.46 6.08 6.57 9.24 6.33 4.46 2.03 1.41 convex no Antelope Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38070 10-35 Non-diagnostic fragment Creek/Mule 0.12 12.73 - 7.75 - - - 1.63 - - no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38071 10-15 SW Concave-base Triangular chalcedony 0.28 16.65 16.65 - 9.52 - - 2.25 2.11 1.87 markedly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38072 10-37 Non-diagnostic fragment chert 0.24 13.14 - - 13.23 - - - 1.54 3.22 markedly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38073-X-1 Classic Side-notched chalcedony 0.23 14.70 - 5.35 - 4.57 - 1.87 2.13 - markedly concave yes Antelope Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38073-X-2 SW Triangular Creek/Mule 0.20 11.12 - - - - - 1.68 1.41 - slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38076 12-61 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.20 16.46 - - 8.74 - - 1.60 1.69 slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38077 10-16 Classic Side-notched chert 0.49 16.67 - 8.94 - 7.43 12.88 2.42 2.25 markedly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38078 7-9 Classic Side-notched chalcedony 0.25 18.02 10.12 6.64 - 5.20 7.93 1.71 1.84 0.66 slightly concave no Antelope Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38079 10-36 Classic Side-notched Creek/Mule 0.28 15.76 7.62 7.17 10.31 6.14 7.93 1.82 2.13 0.70 slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38094 8-40 Non-diagnostic fragment chert 1.51 24.49 - 16.10 - - - 4.47 - - no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38095 7-29 SW Triangular chert 0.36 20.22 20.22 - 12.03 - - 2.26 1.87 0.85 slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38099 Classic Side-notched chert 0.27 15.25 - 5.66 9.78 5.32 9.31 1.86 1.84 1.53 markedly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38170 SW Triangular chalcedony 0.15 11.50 - 5.85 - - - 2.59 - - straight yes

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38175 11-41 SW Short Triangular chert 0.15 15.66 15.66 - 8.14 - - 1.33 1.35 0.59 slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38223-X-1 SW Concave-base Triangular chalcedony 0.32 20.51 20.51 - 10.04 - - 1.61 1.43 1.08 slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38223-X-2 SW Concave-base Triangular chalcedony 0.31 16.59 16.59 - 9.46 - - 2.93 2.36 0.86 slightly concave no Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38224 Classic Side-notched chert 0.33 16.92 - 6.50 11.83 5.16 9.06 1.76 1.83 2.05 markedly concave no

131

Table B.1. Projectile point metric data.

ASM Cat. Specimen Total Blade Blade Base Neck Haft Base Site Name Site No. No. No. Point Type Material Weight Length Length Width Width Width Length Blade Thk Haft Thk Depth Base Type Serr.

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38225 Classic Side-notched chert 0.36 15.98 - 6.51 11.09 5.37 8.71 2.00 2.17 1.06 slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38226-X-1 Classic Side-notched chalcedony 0.19 10.19 - 6.89 - 5.97 7.81 - 1.89 0.36 slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38226-X-2 Non-diagnostic fragment chalcedony 0.31 11.37 - - 10.87 - - - 2.35 1.12 slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38226-X-3 SW Concave-base Triangular chalcedony 0.36 11.56 - - 12.17 - - 2.70 2.47 1.24 slightly concave no Antelope Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38227 Triangular, short, eccentric Creek/Mule 0.22 12.48 - 7.70 - - - 2.77 - - slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38231 FN GC-22 Non-diagnostic fragment chalcedony 0.13 8.53 - - 9.93 - - - 2.09 2.14 markedly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38232-X-1 4-8 Classic Side-notched chalcedony 0.32 22.72 14.08 5.66 9.49 4.53 8.76 2.33 2.27 2.10 markedly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38232-X-2 4-9 Classic Side-notched chalcedony 0.16 14.48 7.25 4.69 9.78 4.48 7.20 1.51 1.46 1.37 slightly concave no Antelope Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38233 4-10 SW Triangular Creek/Mule 0.30 16.01 16.01 - 10.47 - - 2.13 1.83 straight no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38234 4-72 Classic Side-notched chert 0.43 21.38 11.71 6.83 11.28 5.94 9.85 2.07 2.15 1.55 slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38235 4-71 Classic Serrated chalcedony 0.52 24.13 - - 11.79 - - 2.27 2.03 1.94 markedly concave yes Antelope Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38236 4-75 SW Concave-base Triangular Creek/Mule 0.30 18.01 18.01 - 8.81 - - 2.85 2.40 1.04 slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38237-X-2 4-26 Classic side-notched, notched basechalcedony 0.39 20.46 11.75 6.32 10.92 - 8.46 1.77 2.23 1.47 notched no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38237-X-3 4-27 Non-diagnostic fragment chalcedony 0.49 16.12 - - - - - 2.77 - - no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38238 4-7 Non-diagnostic fragment chert 0.63 14.47 - - 15.95 - - - 3.03 5.68 markedly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38239 Classic Side-notched chalcedony 0.31 11.88 - 6.09 9.54 4.99 11.18 2.28 2.03 1.32 slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38247 4-29 Non-diagnostic fragment chalcedony 0.10 12.73 - 7.57 - - 1.02 - - no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38249-X-1 4-28 SW Concave-base Triangular chalcedony 0.45 11.70 - - 12.61 - - 2.75 2.21 1.40 slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38249-X-2 4-30 Non-diagnostic fragment chert 0.09 6.01 - - 7.62 - - - 2.28 1.08 slightly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38252-X-1 6-2 Triangular, short, eccentric chert 0.06 9.17 9.17 - 5.44 - - 1.57 - 0.90 markedly concave no

Whiptail Ruin BB:10:3 A-38252-X-2 6-3 Triangular, short, eccentric chalcedony 0.10 10.33 10.33 - 6.66 - - 1.79 - 0.94 markedly concave no Government Mtn Wright BB:2:51 3043 Late Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.73 27.11 18.93 12.52 15.18 5.79 8.18 2.37 2.06 1.18 slightly concave no

Wright BB:2:51 3073 Non-diagnostic fragment chert 0.45 12.73 ------no Mule Creek/AC- Wright BB:2:51 3037 Late Classic Side-notched MM obsidian 0.35 17.13 11.05 8.83 11.94 5.21 6.08 2.13 2.02 0.85 slightly concave no Yuma Wash AA:12:312 2007-396-10 345 Side-notched, serrated chert 0.45 13.93 - 8.54 12.99 7.24 4.78 0.46 2.93 - straight yes

132

Table B.1. Projectile point metric data.

ASM Cat. Specimen Total Blade Blade Base Neck Haft Base Site Name Site No. No. No. Point Type Material Weight Length Length Width Width Width Length Blade Thk Haft Thk Depth Base Type Serr.

Yuma Wash AA:12:312 2007-396-11 275 Classic Side-notched Superior obsidian 0.43 16.49 7.62 6.34 12.07 6.96 8.23 2.65 3.55 0.79 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:312 2007-396-12 783 Classic Side-notched Sauceda obsidian 0.45 17.99 10.11 5.49 11.86 6.55 9.02 2.12 2.59 1.26 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:312 2007-396-13 381 Classic Side-notched chert 0.28 22.60 14.80 6.14 - 5.15 7.40 1.46 1.53 - straight no

Yuma Wash AA:12:312 2007-396-14 476 Classic Side-notched chert 0.66 23.01 11.37 7.09 13.05 7.13 10.05 1.90 2.97 1.36 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:312 2007-396-15 357 Classic Side-notched chert 0.46 18.83 - 6.71 10.85 6.49 8.23 2.13 2.10 0.72 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:312 2007-396-16 663 Classic Side-notched chert 0.44 15.57 - 7.53 10.56 7.26 8.51 2.46 2.80 1.37 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:312 2007-396-17 912 Classic Side-notched chert 0.54 21.23 - 6.55 14.26 7.94 9.20 2.23 1.51 1.96 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:312 2007-396-18 359 Classic Side-notched chert 0.61 25.45 12.85 5.79 10.74 5.10 11.66 2.75 3.66 1.96 markedly concave yes Government Mt Yuma Wash AA:12:312 2007-396-181 3060 Late Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.40 19.68 13.35 8.32 12.71 7.42 5.49 2.07 1.61 - straight no

Yuma Wash AA:12:122 2007-396-187 5236 Classic Side-notched chert 0.78 25.99 13.61 6.93 13.80 6.59 11.24 2.24 2.77 2.32 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:122 2007-396-188 5234 Classic Side-notched Superior obsidian 0.43 21.90 13.10 6.54 11.52 6.37 7.86 2.20 2.39 1.52 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:122 2007-396-189 6314 Classic Side-notched Sauceda obsidian 0.49 21.27 11.96 6.25 12.28 6.72 8.06 2.21 2.34 1.80 markedly concave no Mule Creek Yuma Wash AA:12:122 2007-396-190 6120 Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.35 20.92 9.49 6.33 11.67 4.90 10.45 1.60 1.42 2.09 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:122 2007-396-191 5535 Classic Side-notched chalcedony 0.36 18.37 - 5.50 11.58 5.38 9.08 1.24 1.61 2.69 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:122 2007-396-192 6012 Classic Side-notched chert 0.25 17.32 9.49 5.72 8.89 5.39 7.01 1.46 1.63 - slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:122 2007-396-193 5904 SW Triangular chert 0.49 21.33 21.33 10.18 12.47 - - 1.72 1.95 - straight no

Yuma Wash AA:12:122 2007-396-195 6119 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.12 15.71 - 6.30 7.83 - - 1.13 - 1.12 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 2007-396-199 10343 Classic Side-notched chert 0.54 22.13 12.61 7.28 12.25 6.47 9.48 2.46 2.53 1.80 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:312 2007-396-20 182 SW Triangular chert 0.80 25.43 25.43 10.34 12.97 - - 2.80 - 0.51 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 2007-396-200 10344 Classic Side-notched chert 0.46 20.70 - 8.01 10.33 6.40 9.12 1.98 1.96 1.57 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 2007-396-201 1557 Classic Side-notched chert 0.37 20.09 - 6.12 9.86 5.06 8.41 2.11 1.94 2.66 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 2007-396-202 10111 Classic Side-notched chert 0.37 15.61 - 5.27 9.72 4.90 9.85 2.11 1.86 - slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 2007-396-203 9187 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.47 28.96 28.96 9.72 11.50 - - 1.93 1.65 2.78 markedly concave yes

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 2007-396-204 2322 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.52 25.62 - 5.44 11.43 - - - - 2.49 markedly concave yes Yuma Wash AA:12:311 2007-396-205 9161 SW Short Triangular chalcedony 0.35 20.03 20.03 7.05 8.17 - - 2.70 - 1.09 slightly concave yes

133

Table B.1. Projectile point metric data.

ASM Cat. Specimen Total Blade Blade Base Neck Haft Base Site Name Site No. No. No. Point Type Material Weight Length Length Width Width Width Length Blade Thk Haft Thk Depth Base Type Serr.

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 2007-396-206 10333 SW Short Triangular chert 0.26 17.94 - 7.44 9.16 - - 1.73 - - straight no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 2007-396-207 10332 reworked, untypable Superior obsidian 0.22 11.69 3.44 3.43 9.34 - 9.54 2.17 2.21 2.09 markedly concave no cryptocrystalline Yuma Wash AA:12:311 2007-396-208 10264 Unspecified serrated fragment silicate 0.31 11.20 - - 12.27 - - 2.62 2.44 0.90 slightly concave yes

Yuma Wash AA:12:312 2007-396-21 170 Unspecified, triangular? Superior obsidian 0.53 11.32 - - 15.17 - - - - - slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 2007-396-210 10111 Non-diagnostic fragment chert 0.22 21.88 - 6.03 ------no

Yuma Wash AA:12:312 2007-396-22 64 Late Classic Side-notched Sauceda obsidian 0.20 17.65 11.91 5.13 8.75 5.00 5.88 1.85 1.83 - straight no

Yuma Wash AA:12:312 2007-396-23 228 Late Classic Side-notched Sauceda obsidian 0.53 26.24 18.80 7.13 10.09 5.57 8.48 3.14 2.60 1.57 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:312 2007-396-24 708 non-diagnostic fragment Sauceda obsidian 0.31 8.73 - - 10.17 - - - - 1.03 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:312 2007-396-25 69 non-diagnostic fragment obsidian 0.17 14.29 - 8.98 - - - 1.49 - - no

Yuma Wash AA:12:312 2007-396-26 117 non-diagnostic fragment chert 0.30 19.82 - 8.53 - - - 2.02 - - no

Yuma Wash AA:12:312 2007-396-27 110 non-diagnostic fragment chert 0.43 22.42 - 6.60 - - - 2.48 - - no

Yuma Wash AA:12:312 2007-396-28 694 non-diagnostic fragment chert 0.28 19.06 - 7.08 - - - 1.42 - - no Rillito Peak Yuma Wash AA:12:312 2007-396-29 757 Non-diagnostic fragment rhyolite 1.21 26.10 - 11.60 - - - 3.93 - - no

Yuma Wash AA:12:314 3007-396-196 1027 SW Short Triangular chert 0.36 18.83 18.83 8.99 11.39 - - 2.41 1.72 - straight no

Yuma Wash AA:12:312 205 Classic Side-notched chert 0.26 13.67 - 6.35 - 5.15 6.16 2.17 1.89 0.46 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:312 256 Shallow side-notched chalcedony 1.09 23.22 14.28 8.63 14.15 8.39 6.88 3.32 3.26 0.83 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 1411 Classic Side-notched chert 0.30 18.09 - 7.88 - 6.15 10.96 1.90 1.65 - markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 1412 Classic Side-notched chert 0.39 23.55 14.65 7.02 11.75 5.96 7.60 1.80 1.91 3.03 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 1413 Classic Side-notched chert 0.31 19.29 11.69 6.20 10.90 6.29 7.73 1.49 2.12 1.28 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 1414 Classic Side-notched chert 0.33 18.03 11.38 7.46 10.69 6.97 6.06 1.37 2.05 1.48 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 1415 Classic Side-notched chert 0.36 20.54 11.53 7.22 13.71 6.98 8.44 1.53 1.52 1.60 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 1416 Classic Side-notched chert 0.27 19.59 10.00 5.32 10.13 4.83 9.01 1.40 1.48 1.54 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 1417 Unspecified Classic Hohokam chert 0.18 10.88 - - 10.90 - - - 2.18 1.74 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 1471 Classic Side-notched chert 0.33 17.97 10.93 5.65 - 5.43 6.45 2.20 2.81 - slightly concave no Los Vidrios Yuma Wash AA:12:311 1472 Side-notched, Late Classic? obsidian 0.86 23.47 14.45 13.15 15.36 6.71 7.42 3.24 1.70 1.18 slightly concave no

134

Table B.1. Projectile point metric data.

ASM Cat. Specimen Total Blade Blade Base Neck Haft Base Site Name Site No. No. No. Point Type Material Weight Length Length Width Width Width Length Blade Thk Haft Thk Depth Base Type Serr.

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 1609 non-diagnostic fragment chert 0.22 16.67 - 5.20 - - - 3.00 - - no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 1615 SW Short Triangular chert 0.31 17.27 17.27 8.25 8.58 - - 2.63 3.04 - yes

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 1693 Classic Side-notched chalcedony 0.54 17.05 5.97 5.83 9.25 5.05 9.33 2.36 4.49 1.26 slightly concave yes

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 1812 SW Short Triangular chert 0.25 14.48 - 8.03 9.55 - - 1.74 - 0.99 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 1813 Classic Side-notched chert 0.52 23.67 14.90 7.56 10.61 7.20 8.02 2.03 2.30 1.05 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 1837 Unspecified Classic Hohokam Sauceda obsidian 0.31 12.47 - 4.72 11.78 - 5.04 2.51 1.74 - slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 1968 Classic Side-notched chert 0.33 14.17 - - 11.90 - 11.14 - 2.09 3.51 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 2306 Classic Side-notched chert 0.51 29.55 17.58 5.88 12.89 4.98 11.23 1.63 1.97 2.95 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 2307 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.95 25.98 25.98 14.08 16.11 - - 2.67 - 1.21 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 2308 Classic Side-notched chert 0.64 32.47 20.04 7.12 12.62 6.92 12.00 1.94 2.25 1.56 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 2309 Classic Side-notched Superior obsidian 0.53 22.16 22.16 11.70 11.82 - - 2.53 - 0.94 slightly concave yes

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 2310 Classic Side-notched chert 0.28 23.34 15.39 6.16 10.00 5.69 7.57 1.19 1.57 2.89 markedly concave no Unknown Yuma Wash AA:12:311 2424 Side-notched, unspecified obsidian 0.10 5.50 - - 10.49 6.03 5.50 - 1.26 - straight no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 2886 Classic Side-notched chalcedony 0.48 19.29 10.50 6.23 13.23 6.07 8.91 2.84 3.19 2.22 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 2944 Classic Side-notched chert 0.25 15.78 9.03 7.34 12.18 6.78 5.45 1.70 1.58 1.64 markedly concave no Cow Canyon Yuma Wash AA:12:311 2945 SW Short Triangular obsidian 0.24 18.05 18.05 8.47 10.78 - - 2.39 - - slightly concave no Cow Canyon Yuma Wash AA:12:311 2946 SW Short Triangular obsidian 0.23 16.28 16.28 7.61 9.11 - - 2.08 - - straight no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 2947 SW Short Triangular chert 0.22 14.92 14.92 8.36 10.64 - - 2.01 - 1.25 slightly concave no Cow Canyon Yuma Wash AA:12:311 2948 SW Short Triangular obsidian 0.17 14.04 14.04 6.29 8.06 - - 1.53 - - straight no Cow Canyon Yuma Wash AA:12:311 2949 SW Short Triangular obsidian 0.27 16.59 16.59 8.38 9.42 - - 2.32 - - straight no

Yuma Wash AA:12:122 5112 non-diagnostic fragment chert 0.24 15.21 - 7.02 - - - 1.98 - - no

Yuma Wash AA:12:122 5374 non-diagnostic fragment chert 0.13 13.86 - 4.98 - - - 1.56 - - no

Yuma Wash AA:12:122 5457 Classic Side-notched chert 0.24 16.48 - 6.42 8.24 5.97 6.41 1.55 1.30 0.99 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:122 5536 SW Short Triangular chalcedony 0.43 17.48 17.48 6.45 9.48 - - 3.21 - - slightly concave no Yuma Wash AA:12:122 5940 non-diagnostic fragment chert 0.14 15.98 - 5.02 - - - 1.57 - - no

135

Table B.1. Projectile point metric data.

ASM Cat. Specimen Total Blade Blade Base Neck Haft Base Site Name Site No. No. No. Point Type Material Weight Length Length Width Width Width Length Blade Thk Haft Thk Depth Base Type Serr.

Yuma Wash AA:12:122 6021 Classic Side-notched chalcedony 0.45 10.82 - - - 7.24 - - 3.29 - markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:122 6182 Classic Side-notched chert 0.44 23.61 15.57 7.17 10.33 6.29 6.84 2.39 2.23 2.11 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:122 6671 Classic Side-notched chert 1.29 25.48 - 8.04 - - 9.94 3.39 3.84 2.88 markedly concave no Rillito Peak Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9178 Late Classic Side-notched rhyolite 0.45 20.90 13.31 9.41 12.26 6.92 5.70 2.54 2.05 0.71 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9205 SW Short Triangular chert 0.23 15.78 15.78 8.91 - - - 1.67 - - slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9327 Classic Side-notched chert 0.35 21.78 11.07 6.67 11.13 6.09 8.86 1.91 2.08 1.89 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9438 Classic Side-notched chert 0.35 19.64 10.90 5.47 10.46 4.58 7.93 2.01 2.05 1.12 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9495 Classic Side-notched chert 0.45 17.73 8.70 7.21 11.91 6.75 8.15 2.09 2.41 1.04 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9495 Early Classic Side-notched chert 0.36 17.73 6.86 6.17 12.85 5.52 10.04 1.10 2.17 1.21 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9615 SW Short Triangular chert 0.16 14.16 14.16 6.83 8.16 - - 1.88 - 0.92 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9615 Classic Side-notched chert 0.19 15.63 7.70 4.77 9.65 4.12 7.19 1.38 1.76 1.13 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9615 Classic Side-notched chert 0.57 21.43 - 7.95 15.04 6.89 9.56 2.14 1.98 2.07 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9615 Classic Side-notched chert 0.22 19.08 - 6.52 11.99 6.16 8.69 1.18 0.87 2.54 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9615 Classic Side-notched chert 0.16 13.70 8.60 5.78 8.87 5.62 4.39 1.49 1.31 - straight no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9615 Classic Side-notched chert 0.19 11.93 7.00 5.35 8.82 5.13 4.35 1.92 1.82 - straight no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9615 Classic Side-notched chert 0.39 20.70 11.46 6.70 10.73 5.84 8.16 1.94 1.87 1.10 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9615 Classic Side-notched chert 0.44 21.19 12.02 7.16 12.31 6.84 8.53 1.90 2.45 1.05 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9615 Classic Side-notched chert 0.44 24.29 13.43 6.79 11.42 6.46 8.75 1.84 1.82 3.04 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9615 Classic Side-notched chert 0.50 28.17 16.45 6.96 11.04 5.91 10.35 2.14 1.82 2.51 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9615 Classic Side-notched chert 0.53 21.83 11.75 5.93 11.72 4.95 9.54 2.12 3.09 1.88 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9615 Classic Side-notched chert 0.76 29.73 13.93 6.82 15.01 6.47 13.83 2.28 2.42 5.99 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9615 Classic Side-notched chert 0.85 26.22 14.14 7.92 16.41 7.62 10.54 2.75 2.33 3.49 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9615 Classic Side-notched chert 0.95 32.59 18.42 8.08 17.46 9.06 13.36 2.46 2.67 5.62 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9615 Classic Side-notched chert 0.53 22.08 13.40 7.66 12.93 7.48 7.22 2.57 2.06 0.77 slightly concave no Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9615 Classic Side-notched chert 0.30 18.13 9.26 6.77 10.64 5.69 7.41 1.84 2.08 1.28 slightly concave no

136

Table B.1. Projectile point metric data.

ASM Cat. Specimen Total Blade Blade Base Neck Haft Base Site Name Site No. No. No. Point Type Material Weight Length Length Width Width Width Length Blade Thk Haft Thk Depth Base Type Serr.

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9615 Classic Side-notched chert 0.30 22.16 13.47 6.93 11.42 5.89 8.30 1.37 1.32 1.94 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9615 Classic Side-notched chert 0.45 20.16 10.78 5.81 13.46 6.82 10.80 1.86 2.43 2.82 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9615 Classic Side-notched chert 0.61 28.33 14.72 5.22 15.18 4.46 11.71 2.79 2.98 5.03 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9615 Classic Side-notched chert 0.63 26.34 15.35 6.88 14.10 6.59 9.63 2.03 2.65 1.98 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9615 Classic Side-notched chert 0.91 24.20 14.40 9.61 13.80 9.01 8.74 2.30 3.46 - straight no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9615 Classic Side-notched chert 0.31 19.88 10.39 6.09 10.47 5.76 8.30 1.99 1.71 1.89 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9615 Classic Side-notched chert 0.82 33.26 18.91 7.10 13.69 5.69 13.27 1.94 2.58 2.46 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9615 Classic Side-notched chert 0.32 17.96 9.88 6.44 11.32 6.11 7.18 2.02 2.06 2.08 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9615 Classic Side-notched chert 0.41 19.22 10.14 6.48 11.13 6.07 7.83 2.32 2.03 1.72 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9615 Classic Side-notched chert 0.43 20.53 12.23 7.51 12.90 7.09 7.50 1.31 2.21 1.15 slightly concave yes

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9615 Early Classic Side-notched chert 0.25 18.43 8.29 5.37 11.60 4.55 9.27 1.16 1.36 1.12 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9622 Classic Side-notched chert 0.52 29.92 19.86 5.78 - - 8.25 3.03 3.20 2.38 markedly concave no cryptocrystalline Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9645 SW Concave-base Triangular silicate 0.38 19.64 19.64 10.23 11.21 - - 2.00 - 1.09 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9646 Classic Side-notched chert 1.05 26.13 12.90 6.88 15.74 7.16 12.12 4.58 4.74 4.56 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9647 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.46 25.45 25.45 8.27 12.46 - - 2.67 - 1.50 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9694 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.37 21.46 - 7.13 - - - 2.80 - - slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9767 SW Short Triangular chert 0.36 15.21 - 7.48 10.75 - - 2.47 - 1.40 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9767 Classic Side-notched chert 0.15 12.20 7.74 4.39 9.37 4.28 5.67 2.07 2.15 1.08 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9767 Classic Side-notched chert 0.59 23.72 - 6.63 - 6.26 9.40 2.02 2.62 1.16 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9767 Classic Side-notched metamorphic 0.20 12.95 - - - - 7.35 - 2.52 2.27 no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9781 Classic Side-notched chert 0.44 19.54 11.12 6.04 10.78 5.71 7.98 2.91 3.39 - straight no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9782 Classic Side-notched? chert 0.38 19.02 12.36 - 14.09 8.18 6.37 2.33 2.59 2.27 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9783 Classic Side-notched chert 0.62 28.18 17.19 7.03 15.14 5.99 10.41 2.33 3.03 4.68 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9784 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.36 16.45 - 9.77 13.26 - - 2.37 - 1.43 slightly concave no Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9785 non-diagnostic fragment chert 0.26 20.06 - 8.12 - - - 1.65 - - no

137

Table B.1. Projectile point metric data.

ASM Cat. Specimen Total Blade Blade Base Neck Haft Base Site Name Site No. No. No. Point Type Material Weight Length Length Width Width Width Length Blade Thk Haft Thk Depth Base Type Serr.

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9786 Classic Side-notched chert 0.40 21.99 12.93 9.64 9.62 5.23 8.99 2.19 1.96 0.63 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9787 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.34 19.32 - 8.48 10.42 - - 2.42 - 2.09 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9788 SW Short Triangular chert 0.29 14.55 - 10.60 13.21 - - 2.55 - 1.14 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9800 SW Triangular chert 0.39 22.29 - 8.54 12.20 - - 1.69 - 0.80 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9800 Classic Side-notched chert 0.36 19.15 10.44 6.26 11.61 5.57 7.38 1.82 1.97 0.85 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9800 Classic Side-notched chert 0.60 28.57 15.46 7.78 17.63 7.05 11.33 7.50 13.18 3.77 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9800 Classic Side-notched chert 0.45 19.87 11.04 6.89 12.18 6.38 7.39 2.18 1.61 1.59 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9800 Classic Side-notched chert 0.24 14.46 7.40 5.25 9.91 5.12 6.52 1.96 1.73 0.47 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9800 Classic Side-notched chert 0.33 16.56 7.29 5.90 11.28 5.53 7.88 2.07 1.85 1.22 slightly concave no Mule Creek Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9800 Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.43 18.34 9.64 7.99 13.06 7.34 7.66 1.92 2.22 1.69 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9800 Classic Side-notched chert 0.54 25.48 15.07 - 12.78 7.46 10.58 1.50 1.84 1.42 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9800 Classic Side-notched chert 0.52 20.92 11.02 7.36 15.33 6.93 9.60 1.91 2.49 0.94 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9808 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.61 23.21 - 11.49 13.39 - - 2.99 - 1.19 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9808 Classic Side-notched chert 0.39 21.27 11.54 5.59 11.45 5.26 9.52 1.60 2.23 1.11 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9808 Classic Side-notched chert 0.51 27.77 17.52 6.53 - 6.38 9.83 2.40 1.79 - slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9808 Classic Side-notched chert 0.43 22.05 13.39 5.69 11.04 4.99 8.15 2.52 2.53 0.78 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9808 Classic Side-notched chert 0.71 26.30 15.28 8.97 14.63 8.14 11.77 2.62 2.79 2.64 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9808 non-diagnostic fragment chert 0.20 12.04 - - - - - 2.46 - - no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9829 Late Classic Side-notched chert 0.33 17.34 11.57 7.80 10.56 5.68 5.64 1.88 1.92 - slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9830 Late Classic Side-notched chert 0.50 20.44 13.64 8.21 10.09 5.12 5.75 2.57 2.11 - slightly convex no Los Vidrios Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9831 Late Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.54 23.42 16.37 11.74 13.23 7.79 5.39 2.10 1.69 0.91 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9832 Late Classic Side-notched chert 0.55 22.66 15.02 8.31 12.57 4.88 7.67 2.79 2.16 - slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9833 Classic Side-notched chert 0.54 16.61 9.10 7.88 12.10 7.18 7.20 3.01 2.84 - slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9834 Late Classic Side-notched chert 0.40 19.39 13.62 7.92 10.58 5.85 5.52 2.25 2.10 - straight no Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9835 Late Classic Side-notched chert 0.39 22.31 15.96 8.51 8.50 5.59 6.26 1.84 1.46 - slightly concave no

138

Table B.1. Projectile point metric data.

ASM Cat. Specimen Total Blade Blade Base Neck Haft Base Site Name Site No. No. No. Point Type Material Weight Length Length Width Width Width Length Blade Thk Haft Thk Depth Base Type Serr.

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9836 Late Classic Side-notched Sauceda obsidian 0.60 22.04 16.58 7.83 9.68 6.24 4.95 3.65 2.62 0.69 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 Arizona Basal-notched chert 0.38 16.42 - - 11.69 6.85 7.93 - 2.73 2.18 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.49 15.42 - 9.71 10.72 - - 3.12 - 2.03 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.49 32.06 32.06 8.73 11.82 - - 1.49 - 3.68 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.30 18.23 18.23 7.01 9.53 - - 2.17 - 1.37 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.45 21.09 21.09 9.36 13.33 - - 2.42 - 2.11 markedly concave no Cow Canyon Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 SW Short Triangular obsidian 0.17 13.98 - 8.44 9.40 - - 1.36 - 0.60 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 SW Short Triangular chert 0.39 17.82 17.82 8.47 - - - 2.77 - - straight no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 SW Short Triangular obsidian 0.11 13.91 - 6.78 - - - 1.23 - - slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 SW Short Triangular obsidian 0.26 16.72 16.72 8.15 - - - 2.05 - 0.86 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 SW Triangular chert 0.63 20.08 20.08 10.53 13.35 - - 3.18 - 0.92 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 SW Triangular chert 0.38 22.80 22.80 10.13 10.98 - - 1.84 - 1.09 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 SW Triangular obsidian 0.30 21.36 21.36 8.28 - - - 1.98 - - slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 Classic Side-notched chert 0.49 23.13 13.60 6.80 11.33 6.66 7.97 2.22 2.15 1.70 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 Classic Side-notched chert 0.46 27.32 15.25 6.85 11.25 6.42 10.83 1.84 1.68 1.30 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 Classic Side-notched chert 0.53 26.89 16.93 6.99 12.05 6.05 9.61 2.19 1.62 1.97 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 Classic Side-notched chert 0.66 29.44 29.44 9.35 13.86 - - 2.23 - 1.56 slightly concave yes

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 Classic Side-notched chert 0.97 25.37 - 7.46 12.19 7.06 11.13 3.38 3.23 2.20 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 Classic Side-notched chert 0.30 11.55 - 6.12 - 5.88 - 2.49 2.40 - no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 Classic Side-notched chert 0.27 16.65 8.54 7.11 12.64 6.40 8.10 1.46 1.58 0.93 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 Classic Side-notched Superior obsidian 0.22 15.45 8.83 5.75 9.50 5.28 5.85 1.67 1.98 - straight no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 Classic Side-notched Superior obsidian 0.41 15.55 7.06 6.88 15.08 5.98 7.54 1.69 1.61 - slightly convex no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 Classic Side-notched Superior obsidian 0.46 20.92 9.61 6.02 12.43 4.19 9.47 2.50 2.61 0.91 slightly concave yes Bear Springs Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 Classic Side-notched Peak obsidian 0.64 26.22 15.70 6.61 10.90 5.85 8.81 2.91 3.57 0.52 slightly concave no Unknown Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 Classic Side-notched obsidian 1.04 32.37 16.73 7.47 11.35 6.35 13.96 3.32 3.57 - straight no

139

Table B.1. Projectile point metric data.

ASM Cat. Specimen Total Blade Blade Base Neck Haft Base Site Name Site No. No. No. Point Type Material Weight Length Length Width Width Width Length Blade Thk Haft Thk Depth Base Type Serr.

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 Classic Side-notched chert 0.28 18.34 10.23 6.37 9.23 5.73 7.38 1.48 2.33 - straight no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 Classic Side-notched chert 0.54 22.90 12.79 6.32 11.98 6.46 9.44 2.45 2.69 2.10 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 Classic Side-notched chert 0.33 18.29 - 5.37 - 5.32 7.54 2.42 2.54 - straight no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 Classic Side-notched chert 0.44 28.90 17.79 7.31 - 6.29 10.10 1.83 2.15 1.75 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 Classic Side-notched chert 0.45 17.44 - 5.90 12.27 4.93 10.52 3.11 2.80 0.82 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.20 14.25 9.44 6.80 10.42 6.37 4.54 1.56 1.83 - straight no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.30 14.86 8.60 7.05 11.49 6.65 5.20 2.00 2.11 0.39 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.32 16.73 8.35 6.87 14.03 6.75 7.83 1.55 2.14 1.28 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.38 19.95 9.98 6.40 10.30 5.34 8.75 1.41 2.21 1.15 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.64 20.94 10.28 7.37 14.83 6.53 10.06 1.99 2.66 - straight no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.75 23.37 11.45 6.11 14.08 6.47 9.43 2.37 3.15 - straight no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.26 11.74 5.87 6.04 9.18 5.59 5.55 2.29 2.38 - straight no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.50 21.87 12.41 7.04 - 6.47 8.96 2.66 2.36 - straight no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 Early Classic Side-notched chert 0.26 14.86 7.45 4.13 9.38 4.39 8.47 1.54 2.19 - straight no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 Early Classic Side-notched chert 0.40 17.40 7.37 5.51 11.04 5.25 8.63 1.77 2.06 0.98 no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 Shallow side-notched Sauceda obsidian 0.31 17.66 13.78 6.59 11.44 5.62 5.26 2.59 2.18 1.31 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 Unspecified Classic Hohokam obsidian 0.38 15.67 - - 16.62 - 9.36 - 5.39 4.53 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 Shallow side-notched obsidian 0.51 20.56 13.17 5.76 14.00 - 7.28 3.71 3.02 2.22 slightly concave yes

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 9912 Unspecified Classic Hohokam obsidian 0.33 14.85 - 6.82 11.70 - - 2.39 - 2.32 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 10090 Classic Side-notched chert 0.33 15.80 - 5.73 - 5.61 9.28 1.74 2.29 - straight no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 10090 non-diagnostic fragment chert 0.05 9.87 - 3.68 - - - 1.33 - - no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 10090 non-diagnostic fragment chert 0.12 14.40 - 4.59 - - - 1.87 - - no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 10092 Classic Side-notched chert 0.34 20.44 9.90 6.16 11.15 5.63 9.96 1.50 1.48 1.19 slightly concave no Cow Canyon Yuma Wash AA:12:311 10093 Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.31 16.93 8.73 7.07 11.43 6.25 7.09 1.65 1.48 - straight no Yuma Wash AA:12:311 10178 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.36 20.84 20.84 7.32 11.80 - - 1.86 - 1.31 markedly concave no

140

Table B.1. Projectile point metric data.

ASM Cat. Specimen Total Blade Blade Base Neck Haft Base Site Name Site No. No. No. Point Type Material Weight Length Length Width Width Width Length Blade Thk Haft Thk Depth Base Type Serr. Cow Canyon Yuma Wash AA:12:311 10179 SW Concave-base Triangular obsidian 0.33 20.14 20.14 7.22 9.43 - - 2.19 1.79 1.72 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 10179 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.29 22.74 22.71 6.91 8.79 - - 1.99 0.79 1.48 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 10179 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.35 21.32 21.32 7.84 10.70 - - 2.58 - 1.50 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 10179 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.27 24.24 24.24 6.46 9.67 - - 1.42 0.69 1.36 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 10179 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.30 25.66 25.66 6.20 - - - 1.71 - 1.20 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 10179 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.30 12.46 - 9.70 10.70 - - 1.99 1.42 1.42 markedly concave no Cow Canyon Yuma Wash AA:12:311 10179 SW Short Triangular obsidian 0.23 16.31 16.31 7.36 8.11 - - 1.80 1.39 1.12 slightly concave no Cow Canyon Yuma Wash AA:12:311 10179 SW Triangular obsidian 0.34 19.79 19.79 7.32 8.44 - - 2.27 1.49 0.51 slightly concave no Cow Canyon Yuma Wash AA:12:311 10179 Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.28 22.72 13.78 6.30 9.04 6.03 6.58 1.36 1.33 1.72 markedly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 10179 Classic Side-notched Superior obsidian 0.33 19.57 9.70 5.55 11.14 4.79 8.17 2.18 1.96 0.65 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 10179 Classic Side-notched chert 0.48 25.95 13.87 4.74 12.78 4.61 10.25 2.33 2.41 3.16 slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 10370 Late Classic Side-notched chert 0.28 16.56 10.59 7.57 10.05 5.57 4.58 1.41 2.14 - straight no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 10371 Late Classic Side-notched Sauceda obsidian 0.31 20.71 13.64 7.63 9.00 4.07 5.97 2.36 1.47 - slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 10372 Late Classic Side-notched chert 0.36 19.02 13.00 8.22 11.49 6.70 5.92 1.90 1.91 - slightly concave no

Yuma Wash AA:12:311 101 Late Classic Side-notched Sauceda obsidian 0.55 22.39 15.56 9.81 12.56 6.30 6.79 3.17 2.57 0.59 slightly concave no Los Vidrios Yuma Wash AA:12:311 412 Late Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.72 21.83 13.32 8.81 13.38 6.44 6.29 3.41 3.15 0.77 slightly concave no Los Vidrios Yuma Wash AA:12:311 481-2 Late Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.50 16.98 11.68 9.58 13.08 7.76 4.81 2.05 2.82 - straight no Mule Creek Yuma Wash AA:12:311 2165 Late Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.39 22.61 17.45 10.66 - 7.20 4.39 1.77 1.63 2.00 slightly concave no Partridge Creek Yuma Wash AA:12:311 1015 Late Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.29 11.73 - 6.28 12.40 6.19 - 2.80 1.62 - straight no

AA:12:46 90-120-29 Non-diagnostic fragment obsidian 0.33 16.89 - 9.97 - 5.75 - 2.18 - - no

AA:12:46 90-120-30 Classic Side-notched, unfinished? chert 0.40 17.18 10.14 6.25 9.13 5.86 8.08 2.41 3.75 1.18 slightly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47377-X Classic Side-notched chert 0.55 19.03 9.46 6.60 13.10 - 9.91 2.54 3.22 0.70 slightly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47377-X Classic Side-notched chert 0.52 22.10 13.31 8.06 14.10 7.60 10.59 1.92 2.08 2.00 markedly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47377-X Classic Side-notched chert 0.54 20.27 - 6.24 12.03 5.95 11.82 2.48 2.37 1.22 slightly concave no AA:12:46 A-47377-X SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.26 17.42 17.42 - 9.58 - - 1.61 - 1.10 slightly concave no

141

Table B.1. Projectile point metric data.

ASM Cat. Specimen Total Blade Blade Base Neck Haft Base Site Name Site No. No. No. Point Type Material Weight Length Length Width Width Width Length Blade Thk Haft Thk Depth Base Type Serr.

AA:12:46 A-47377-X Classic Side-notched chert 0.29 19.50 12.06 6.67 10.27 6.25 8.21 2.04 1.39 1.12 slightly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47377-X Classic Side-notched quartz crystal 0.41 16.83 8.34 8.62 10.73 6.07 8.39 2.04 2.85 0.58 slightly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47377-X SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.58 28.10 28.10 - 12.30 - - 1.70 - 2.00 markedly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47377-X SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.40 16.26 - - 11.51 - - 2.79 - 0.59 slightly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47377-X McGregor J chert 0.36 18.86 13.26 7.81 10.08 6.56 6.03 2.00 2.10 - straight no

AA:12:46 A-47377-X Classic Side-notched chert 0.63 25.18 14.53 7.35 12.57 6.97 10.80 3.28 1.94 1.40 slightly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47377-X Classic Side-notched chert 0.28 21.75 13.66 4.70 7.76 4.27 7.09 2.21 2.36 1.29 slightly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47377-X Classic Side-notched chert 0.46 24.52 - 7.22 - 6.40 11.60 2.13 1.99 2.36 markedly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47377-X Classic Serrated obsidian 0.23 16.61 16.61 - 7.74 - - - 1.58 - straight yes

AA:12:46 A-47377-X Classic Serrated obsidian 0.29 16.75 16.75 - 8.96 - - 2.11 1.57 - straight yes

AA:12:46 A-47377-X Shallow side-notched obsidian 0.48 19.03 10.91 7.40 11.08 7.15 8.63 2.43 3.32 - straight no

AA:12:46 A-47377-X Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.45 20.29 11.08 5.81 9.93 5.47 9.30 2.60 2.79 - straight no

AA:12:46 A-47377-X SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.37 17.96 17.96 - 11.64 - - 2.35 - 1.63 markedly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47377-X Classic Serrated chert 0.34 24.42 - - 10.98 - - 1.78 1.55 1.67 markedly concave yes

AA:12:46 A-43787-X SW Concave-base Triangular? chert 0.51 19.86 19.86 - 13.29 - - 2.92 - 1.39 slightly concave no

AA:12:46 A-43787-X SW Triangular chert 0.41 18.24 - - 12.64 - - 3.07 - 1.12 slightly concave no

AA:12:46 A-43787-X Classic Side-notched chert 0.27 18.67 11.33 6.28 11.06 5.71 7.18 1.96 1.98 0.79 slightly concave no

AA:12:46 A-43787-X Classic Flanged chert 0.45 21.33 13.66 - - - - 2.24 2.48 - slightly concave no

AA:12:46 A-43787-X Classic Side-notched chert 0.52 23.36 - 8.53 13.28 7.14 11.98 1.71 1.82 1.69 slightly concave no

AA:12:46 A-43787-X Classic Side-notched chert 0.29 20.06 10.83 5.20 9.26 3.91 9.40 2.07 2.32 2.02 markedly concave no

AA:12:46 A-43787-X Classic Side-notched chert 0.71 30.24 16.01 6.12 12.08 5.16 15.16 2.01 3.16 1.99 markedly concave yes

AA:12:46 A-43787-X Classic Side-notched chert 0.61 26.20 16.39 7.45 12.70 6.75 10.21 3.12 2.28 1.41 slightly concave no

AA:12:46 A-43787-X Classic Side-notched chert 0.45 21.41 13.60 7.73 10.29 7.07 9.79 2.11 2.20 1.15 slightly concave no

AA:12:46 A-43787-X Classic Side-notched chert 0.30 17.66 9.05 4.82 9.63 4.78 8.24 1.93 2.13 1.60 markedly concave no AA:12:46 A-43787-X Classic Side-notched chert 0.59 27.16 18.05 7.73 - 7.26 - 2.02 2.93 - concave no

142

Table B.1. Projectile point metric data.

ASM Cat. Specimen Total Blade Blade Base Neck Haft Base Site Name Site No. No. No. Point Type Material Weight Length Length Width Width Width Length Blade Thk Haft Thk Depth Base Type Serr.

AA:12:46 A-47387-X SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.67 26.82 26.82 - 13.59 - - 2.65 - 1.59 markedly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47387-X Shallow side-notched, eared chert 0.25 20.26 13.44 6.57 10.10 6.44 7.64 1.43 1.45 2.06 markedly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47387-X Classic Side-notched chert 0.70 20.80 - 8.55 16.82 8.49 13.39 1.89 1.56 2.08 markedly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47387-X Classic Side-notched chert 0.31 18.54 8.10 5.66 12.46 5.30 9.45 1.24 1.88 1.61 slightly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47387-X Classic Side-notched chert 0.28 14.94 8.15 6.59 - 6.62 6.99 1.59 2.49 0.95 slightly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47387-X Classic Side-notched chert 0.32 17.37 8.39 5.12 11.84 4.99 8.80 2.05 2.97 1.59 slightly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47387-X Classic Side-notched chert 0.46 27.09 15.41 7.14 - 6.43 11.63 1.29 2.15 - markedly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47387-X SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.37 19.24 19.24 - 11.00 - - 2.60 - 2.63 markedly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47387-X SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.36 17.91 17.91 - 10.15 - - 2.84 - 1.42 markedly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47387-X SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.31 18.66 18.66 - 12.18 - - 2.15 - 1.59 slightly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47387-X SW Triangular chert 0.27 19.92 19.92 - 9.89 - - 2.01 - 0.81 slightly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47387-X SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.73 29.82 29.82 - 14.01 - - 2.56 - 3.41 markedly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47387-X SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.58 20.56 20.56 - 13.48 - - 3.16 - 1.64 markedly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47387-X Non-diagnostic fragment chert 0.25 7.83 - - 13.89 - - - 2.95 1.94 markedly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47596-X Classic Serrated chert 0.53 21.02 - - 10.68 - - - 2.70 - slightly concave yes

AA:12:46 A-47596-X Shallow side-notched chert 0.43 21.85 14.16 7.00 11.84 6.72 7.72 2.29 2.61 2.30 markedly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47596-X SW Short Triangular chert 0.26 16.07 16.07 - 12.01 - - 2.44 - 0.95 slightly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47384-X-1 Classic Side-notched chert 0.26 21.80 15.44 7.00 8.33 5.68 6.67 1.67 1.86 0.76 slightly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47384-X-2 Classic Side-notched chert 0.61 27.26 16.75 6.18 11.58 5.43 10.73 2.67 3.20 2.31 markedly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47383 Classic Side-notched chert 0.44 24.07 14.53 6.81 10.57 6.33 10.06 1.81 2.17 1.68 markedly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47375-X-1 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.54 20.12 20.12 - 11.21 - - 3.45 - 1.55 markedly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47375-X-2 Classic Side-notched chert 0.27 13.61 7.77 6.82 11.56 6.69 6.36 2.42 2.02 - straight no

AA:12:46 A-47376 Classic Side-notched chert 0.38 14.20 - 6.09 9.56 5.36 7.81 2.98 3.13 - straight no

AA:12:46 A-47603 SW Concave-base Triangular obsidian 0.32 15.14 - - - - - 2.68 - - markedly concave no AA:12:46 A-47393 Classic Serrated obsidian 0.36 17.95 17.95 - 12.16 - - 2.53 2.13 1.31 slightly concave yes

143

Table B.1. Projectile point metric data.

ASM Cat. Specimen Total Blade Blade Base Neck Haft Base Site Name Site No. No. No. Point Type Material Weight Length Length Width Width Width Length Blade Thk Haft Thk Depth Base Type Serr.

AA:12:46 A-47379 Classic Side-notched chert 0.38 24.07 15.05 7.84 12.44 7.17 8.57 1.65 1.13 1.57 slightly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47386 SW Short Triangular chert 0.27 15.40 15.40 - 10.21 - - 1.83 - 0.86 slightly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47388 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.28 16.50 16.50 - - - - 2.83 - - slightly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47388 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.28 17.03 17.03 - 9.44 - - 2.07 - 1.56 markedly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47388 Classic Side-notched chert 0.68 34.33 20.16 7.60 14.39 6.98 14.10 1.93 2.27 1.98 markedly concave yes?

AA:12:46 A-47391-X Classic Side-notched chert 0.31 14.97 - - - 5.11 9.18 1.90 2.94 - slightly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47391-X SW Short Triangular chert 0.24 16.20 16.20 - 10.72 - - 1.61 - 0.80 slightly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47391-X Classic Side-notched chert 0.30 17.35 - 6.41 11.97 5.91 8.80 1.58 2.08 - straight yes

AA:12:46 A-47391-X SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.91 24.80 24.80 - 15.51 - - 3.88 - 3.42 markedly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47391-X SW Short Triangular chert 0.20 12.38 12.38 - 10.89 - - 1.92 - 0.72 slightly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47392-X-2 Classic Side-notched chert 0.31 20.23 12.06 6.80 9.56 5.83 8.05 1.79 1.46 0.50 slightly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47392-X-1 SW Triangular chert 0.42 18.64 18.64 - 12.90 - - 2.63 - - straight no

AA:12:46 A-47389-X-1 Classic Side-notched chert 0.46 16.03 7.15 5.90 12.22 6.05 9.21 2.74 3.31 1.20 slightly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47389-X-2 Shallow side-notched chert 0.48 21.90 16.62 7.61 11.11 7.20 4.74 3.38 2.13 1.25 slightly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47390 Classic Side-notched chalcedony 0.48 19.97 9.45 7.56 - 6.52 10.72 2.33 2.56 - slightly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47380 Classic Side-notched chert 0.12 10.87 - 5.37 - 5.16 - 1.38 - - no

AA:12:46 A-47382 Classic Side-notched chert 0.27 19.63 9.18 5.59 9.14 4.74 9.82 1.39 1.90 2.12 markedly concave poss

AA:12:46 A-47385 Classic Serrated chert 0.56 21.67 - - 12.12 - - 2.98 - 1.71 markedly concave yes

AA:12:46 A-47597 Non-diagnostic fragment chert 0.54 13.31 - - 16.87 - - - 2.32 2.71 markedly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47378-X Classic Side-notched chert 0.68 24.99 15.52 8.73 13.02 8.26 9.67 2.32 2.86 0.95 slightly concave poss

AA:12:46 A-47378-X SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.41 19.78 - - 10.79 - - 2.49 - - concave no

AA:12:46 A-47378-X Classic Side-notched obsidian 0.36 14.84 - 5.95 9.22 5.80 8.63 2.86 2.54 1.03 slightly concave no AA:12:46 A-47369 SW Triangular chert 0.56 17.42 - - 12.00 - - 2.92 - 0.44 slightly concave no

144

Table B.1. Projectile point metric data.

ASM Cat. Specimen Total Blade Blade Base Neck Haft Base Site Name Site No. No. No. Point Type Material Weight Length Length Width Width Width Length Blade Thk Haft Thk Depth Base Type Serr.

AA:12:46 A-47370 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.72 24.37 24.37 - 16.01 - - 2.44 - 2.95 markedly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47371 Non-diagnostic fragment chert 0.71 22.94 - 9.33 - - - 3.44 - - yes

AA:12:46 A-47373 Classic Side-notched chert 0.30 17.19 9.15 5.80 11.07 5.22 8.58 2.02 2.51 - slightly concave no

AA:12:46 A-47374 SW Concave-base Triangular chert 0.47 26.95 26.95 - 12.06 - - 1.96 - 2.91 markedly concave no

145

APPENDIX C. PROJECTILE POINT BASE MORPHOLOGY

146

Table C.1. Basal morphology of side-notched projectile points from Tucson Basin sites

Side-notched Points

Slightly Markedly Mean Area Site Straight concave concave Notched Convex depth Range N

Northwestern Basin AA:12:46 6 24 13 0 0 1.47 0.50-2.36 33 Marana 3 22 13 2 0 1.45 0.37-3.08 33 Yuma Wash 22 63 51 1 2 1.78 0.39-5.99 106 Total 31 109 77 3 2 Percent 14.0 49.1 34.7 1.4 0.9 Northeastern Basin Whiptail 0 17 16 1 1 1.54 0.36-3.21 33 Gibbon Springs 1 4 1 0 0 1.00 0.84-1.31 5 Total 1 22 17 1 1 Percent 2.4 52.3 40.5 2.4 2.4

Table C.2. Basal morphology of unnotched points in the Tucson Basin.

Unnotched Points

Slightly Markedly Mean Area Site Straight concave concave Notched Convex depth Range N

Northwestern Basin AA:12:46 3 16 15 0 0 1.61 0.44-2.36 26 Marana 8 20 18 0 2 1.3 0.33-3.73 34 Yuma Wash 7 24 16 0 0 1.39 0.51-3.68 34 Total 18 60 49 0 2 Percent 14.0 46.5 38.0 0.0 1.6 Northwestern Basin Whiptaila 8 21 7 0 0 1.19 0.46-2.65 19 Gibbon Springs 3 2 3 0 1 1.58 0.91-2.53 9 Total 11 23 10 0 1 Percent 24.4 51.1 22.2 0.0 2.2

aExcludes eccentric points

147

Table C.3. Basal morphology of side-notched points in the San Pedro Valley.

Side-notched Points

Slightly Markedly Mean Area Site Straight concave concave Convex depth Range N Lower San Pedro Valley Second Canyon 6 3 5 1 1.63 0.59-3.33 9

Reeve Ruin/Davis Ranch 3 3 1 1.65 0.91-2.39 2

Misc. Sites 3 8 5 1 1.66 0.85-2.74 10

Total 12 14 11 2

Percent 30.8 35.9 28.2 5.1

Upper San Pedro Valley Babocomari Village 1 3 - - - Percent 25.0 75.0 - - -

Table C.4. Basal morphology of side-notched points in the San Pedro Valley.

Unnotched Points

Slightly Markedly Mean Area Site Straight concave concave Convex depth Range N Lower San Pedro Valley Second Canyon 4 5 5 1 1.77 0.79-3.09 7

Reeve Ruin/Davis Ranch 2 1 1 1 2.05 - 1

Misc. Sites 10 4 3 - 1.48 1.02-1.94 2

Total 16 10 9 2 37

Percent 43.2 27.0 24.3 5.4

Upper San Pedro Valley Babocomari Village 5 3 5 - 1.56 0.66-1.56 5 Percent 38.5 23.0 38.5

148

REFERENCES CITED

Audouze, Francoise 2002 Leroi-Gourhan, a Philosopher of Technique and Evolution. Journal of Archaeological Research 10(4):277–306. Bamforth, Douglas B., and Nyree Finlay 2008 Introduction: Archaeological Approaches to Lithic Production Skill and Craft Learning. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 15:1–27. Bar-Yosef, Ofer, and Philip Van Peer 2009 The Chaine Operatiore Approach in Middle Paleolithic Archaeology. Current Anthropology 50(1):103–131. Bayman, James M. 1995Rethinking "Redistribution" in the Archaeological Record: Obsidian Exchange at the Marana Platform Mound. Journal of Anthropological Research 51:37–63. Bayman, James M. 1996Shell Ornament Consumption in a Classic Hohokam Platform Mound Community Center. Journal of Field Archaeology 23(4):403–420. Bayman, James M., and M. Steven Shackley 1999 Dynamics of Hohokam Obsidian Circulation in the North American Southwest. Antiquity 73:836–845. Bettinger, Robert L., and Jelmer Eerkens 2003 Point Typologies, Cultural Transmission, and the Spread of Bow-and-Arrow Technology in the Prehistoric Great Basin. In Style, Function, Transmission: Evolutionary Archaeological Perspectives, edited by Michael J. O’Brien and R. Lee Lyman, pp. 105– 117. University of Utah Press. Boley, Michael J. 2013 Obsidian Acquisition and (Re)Distribution at the Marana Platform Mound Site. In Power and Economy in Early Classic Period Hohokam Society: An Archaeological Perspective from the Marana Mound Site, edited by James M. Bayman, Paul R. Fish, and Suzanne K. Fish, pp. 117–132. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 207. Arizona State Museum, The University of Arizona, Tucson. Bourdieu, Pierre 1990 The Logic of Practice, translated by Richard Nice. Stanford University Press, California.

149

Bronitsky, Gordon, and James D. Merritt 1986 The Archaeology of Southeast Arizona: A Class I Cultural Resource Inventory. Cultural Resource Series, Monograph No. 2. Arizona State Office of the Bureau of Land Management. Phoenix, Arizona. Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., and M. W. Feldman 1981 Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A Quantitative Approach. Princeton University Press, New Jersey. Carr, Christopher 1995a Building a Unified Theory of Artifact Design. In Style, Society and Person: Archaeological and Ethnological Perspectives, edited by Christopher Carr and Jill E. Neitzel, pp. 151–170. Plenum Press, New York. Carr, Christopher 1995b A Unified Middle-Range Theory of Artifact Design. In Style, Society and Person: Archaeological and Ethnological Perspectives, edited by Christopher Carr and Jill E. Neitzel, pp. 171–258. Plenum Press, New York. Chavarria, Sara Patricia 1995 Classic Period Hohokam Projectile Points as Exotic Materials at the Marana Platform Mound Site. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. Christenson, Andrew L. 1997 Side-Notched and Unnotched Arrowpoints: Assessing Functional Differences. In Projectile Technology, edited by Heidi Knecht, pp. 131 – 142. Plenum Press, New York. Clark, Jeffery, and David Abbott 2017 Classic Period Hohokam. In The Oxford Handbook of Southwest Archaeology, edited by Barbara J. Mills and Severin Fowles. Oxford University Press, Oxford, in press. Clark, Jeffery J., Michael W. Diehl, Jennifer A. Waters, J. Brett Hill, and Jenny L. Adams 2012 Plant and Animal Utilization. In Migrants and Mounds: Classic Period Archaeology of the Lower San Pedro Valley, edited by Jeffery. J. Clark and Patrick D. Lyons, pp. 309– 344. Anthropological Papers No. 45. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson. Clark, Jeffery J., J. Brett Hill, Patrick D. Lyons, and Stacey N. Lengyel 2012 Of Migrants and Mounds. In Migrants and Mounds: Classic Period Archaeology of the Lower San Pedro Valley, edited by Jeffery J. Clark and Patrick D. Lyons, pp. 345–405. Anthropological Papers No. 45. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson. Clark, Jeffery J., Deborah L. Huntley, J. Brett Hill, and Patrick D. Lyons 2013 The Kayenta Diaspora and Salado Meta-Identity in the Late Precontact U.S. Southwest. In The Archaeology of Hybrid Material Culture, edited by Jeb J. Card, pp. 399–424. 150

Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Occasional Paper No. 39. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale and Edwardsville. Clark, Jeffery J., and Patrick D. Lyons 2012a How, Where, and What We Excavated. In Migrants and Mounds: Classic Period Archaeology of the Lower San Pedro Valley, edited by Jeffery J. Clark and Patrick D. Lyons, pp. 67–210. Anthropological Papers No. 45. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson. Clark, Jeffery J., and Patrick D. Lyons (editors) 2012b Migrants and Mounds: Classic Period Archaeology of the Lower San Pedro Valley. Anthropological Papers No. 45. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson. Clark, Jeffery J., Patrick D. Lyons, J. Brett Hill, Stacey N. Lengyel, and Mark C. Slaughter 2014 Migrants and Mounds in the Lower San Pedro Valley, A.D. 1200–1450. In Between Mimbres and Hohokam: Exploring the Archaeology and History of Southeastern Arizona and Southwestern New Mexico, edited by Henry D. Wallace, pp. 203–278. Anthropological Papers No. 52. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson. Cosgrove, C. B. 1947 Caves of the Upper Gila and Hueco Areas in New Mexico and Texas. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, 2–1. Harvard University, Cambridge. Craig, Douglas B. (editor) 2011 Archaeological and Geoarchaeological Investigations Along the Santa Cruz River Floodplain: The Pima County Plant Interconnect Project. Technical Report No. 09-47. Northland Research, Inc., Tempe, Arizona. Crown, Patricia L. 1994 Ceramics and Ideology: Salado Polychrome Pottery. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Dart, Allen 1995 Chipped Stone Artifacts. In Archaeological Investigations at Los Morteros, a Prehistoric Community in the Northern Tucson Basin, Part II, by H. D. Wallace, pp. 467– 502. Anthropological Papers No. 17. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. Di Peso, Charles C. 1951 The Babocomari Village Site on the Babocomari River, Southeastern Arizona. Archaeological Series No. 5. The Amerind Foundation, Dragoon, Arizona. Di Peso, Charles C. 1956 The Upper Pima of San Cayetano del Tumacacori: An Archaeohistorical Reconstruction of the Ootam of Pimeria Alta. The Amerind Foundation, Dragoon, Arizona.

151

Di Peso, Charles C. 1958 The Reeve Ruin of Southeastern Arizona: A Study of Prehistoric Western Pueblo Migration into the Middle San Pedro Valley. Archaeology Series No. 8. The Amerind Foundation, Dragoon, Arizona. Dietler, Michael, and Ingrid Herbich 1998 Habitus, Techniques, Style: An Integrated Approach to the Social Understanding of Material Culture and Boundaries. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, edited by Miriam T. Stark, pp. 232–263. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. Doelle, William H., and Henry D. Wallace 1991 The Changing Role of the Tucson Basin in the Hohokam Regional System. In Exploring the Hohokam: Prehistoric Desert Peoples of the American Southwest, edited by George J. Gumerman, pp. 279–345, University of New Mexico Press. Albuquerque. Dungan, Katherine Anne 2015 Religious Architecture and Borderlands Histories: Great Kivas in the Prehispanic Southwest, 1000 to 1400 CE. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson. Dunnell, Robert C. 1978 Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy. American Antiquity 43(2):192–202. Eerkens, Jerkin W., and Carl P. Lipo 2005 Cultural Transmission, Copying Errors, and the Generation of Variation in Material Culture and the Archaeological Record. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24:316– 334. Ellis, Christopher J. 1997 Factors Influencing the Use of Stone Projectile Tips: An Ethnographic Perspective. In Projectile Technology, edited by Heidi Knecht, pp. 37–74. Plenum Press, New York. Elson, Mark D., and Deborah L. Swartz 2016 The Yuma Wash Community, Classic Period life on the Santa Cruz River. In Archaeological Investigations at the Yuma Wash Site and Outlying Settlements: Part 2, edited by Deborah L. Swartz, pp. 949–971. Anthropological Papers No. 49. Archaeology Southwest and Desert Archaeology, Tucson. Engelbrecht, William 2014 Unnotched Triangular Points on Village Sites. American Antiquity 79:353–367. Engelbrecht, William 2015 Interpreting Broken Arrow Points. American Antiquity 4:760–766. Ericson, Jonathon E. and Timothy K. Earle (editors) 1982 Contexts for Prehistoric Exchange. Academic Press, New York. 152

Fertelmes, Craig M., David R. Abbott, and M. Steven Shackley 2012 Obsidian Source Characterization at Las Colinas: Shifting Exchange Patterns during the Hohokam Sedentary-Classic Transition. Kiva 77:281–312. Fish, Suzanne K., and Paul R. Fish 2000 The Institutional Contexts of Hohokam Complexity. In Alternative Leadership Strategies in the Prehispanic Southwest, edited by Barbara J. Mills, pp. 154–166. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Fish, Suzanne K., Paul R. Fish, and John H. Madsen 1992 The Marana Community in the Hohokam World. Anthropological Papers No. 56. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Fish, Suzanne K., Paul R. Fish, and James M. Bayman 2013 Introduction: The Marana Mound Site. In Power and Economy in Early Classic Period Hohokam Society: An Archaeological Perspective from the Marana Mound Site, edited by James M. Bayman, Paul R. Fish, and Suzanne K. Fish, pp. 1–17. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 207. Arizona State Museum, The University of Arizona, Tucson. Franklin, Hayward H. 1980 Excavations at Second Canyon Ruin, San Pedro Valley, Arizona. Contributions to Highway Salvage Archaeology in Arizona No. 60. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. Geib, Phil R. 1996 Glen Canyon Revisited. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 119. Salt Lake City. Gerald, Rex E. 1975 Drought-Correlated Changes in Two Prehistoric Communities in Southeastern Arizona. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago. Grebinger, Paul, and David P. Adam 1974 Hard Times? Classic Period Hohokam Cultural Development in the Tucson Basin, Arizona. World Archaeology 6(2):226–241. Gregonis, Linda M. 2011a Animal Remains. In Whiptail Ruin (AZ BB:10:3 [ASM]): A Classic Period Community in the Northeastern Tucson Basin, edited by Linda M. Gregonis and Gayle Harrison Hartmann, pp. 229–247. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 203. Arizona State Museum and the University of Arizona, in collaboration with the Arizona Archaeological and Historical Society, Tucson.

153

Gregonis, Linda M. 2011b Chronology, Ritual, and Migration: The Clues from Whiptail. In Whiptail Ruin (AZ BB:10:3 [ASM]): A Classic Period Community in the Northeastern Tucson Basin, edited by Linda M. Gregonis and Gayle Harrison Hartmann, pp. 291–322. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 203. Arizona State Museum and the University of Arizona, in collaboration with the Arizona Archaeological and Historical Society, Tucson.

Gregonis, Linda M. 2011c Ceramics. In Whiptail Ruin (AZ BB:10:3 [ASM]): A Classic Period Community in the Northeastern Tucson Basin, edited by Linda M. Gregonis and Gayle Harrison Hartmann, pp. 95–156. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 203. Arizona State Museum and the University of Arizona, in collaboration with the Arizona Archaeological and Historical Society, Tucson. Gregonis, Linda M., and Gayle Harrison Hartmann (editors) 2011 Whiptail Ruin (AZ BB:10:3 [ASM]): A Classic Period Community in the Northeastern Tucson Basin. Archaeological Series No. 203. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. Hammack, Nancy S. 1977 An Analysis of the Ceramic Vessels from the Mortuary Pits, Ariz. AA:12:46, Rabid Ruin, Tucson, Arizona. Manuscript on file, Arizona State Museum Library, University of Arizona. Hartmann, Gayle Harrison, and Linda M. Gregonis 2011 Architectural Structures. In Whiptail Ruin (AZ BB:10:3 [ASM]): A Classic Period Community in the Northeastern Tucson Basin, edited by Linda M. Gregonis and Gayle Hartmann, pp. 17–94. Archaeological Series No. 203. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. Haury, Emil W. 1958 Evidence at Point of Pines for a Prehistoric Migration from Northern Arizona. In Migrations in New World Culture History, edited by Raymond H. Thompson, pp. 1-6, University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Haury, Emil W. 1976 The Hohokam: Desert Farmers & Craftsmen. Excavations at Snaketown, 1964–1965. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Hayden, Julian D. 1957 Excavations, 1940, at the University Indian Ruin, Tucson. Technical Series No. 5. Southwestern Monuments Association, Globe, Arizona.

154

Hays-Gilpin, Kelley, and Eric van Hartesveldt 1998 Prehistoric Ceramics of the Puerco Valley: The 1995 Chambers-Sanders Trust Lands Ceramic Conference. Museum of Northern Arizona Ceramic Series No. 7. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff. Heckman, Robert A. 2000 The Babocomari Tradition. In Prehistoric Painted Pottery of Southeastern Arizona, edited by Robert A. Heckman, Barbara K. Montgomery, and Stephanie M. Whittlesey, pp. 23–41. Technical Series 77. Statistical Research, Tucson. Hegmon, Michelle 1992 Archaeological Research on Style. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:517–536. Hegmon, Michelle 1998 Technology, Style, and Social Practices: Archaeological Approaches. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, edited by Miriam T. Stark, pp. 264–279. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. Hildebrandt, William R., and Jerome H. King 2012 Distinguishing Between Darts and Arrows in the Archaeological Record: Implications for Technological Change in the American West. American Antiquity 77:789–799. Hill, J. Brett, Jeffery J. Clark, William H. Doelle, and Patrick D. Lyons 2004 Prehistoric Demography in the Southwest: Migration, Coalescence, and Hohokam Population Decline. American Antiquity 69(4):689–716. Hill, J. Brett, David Wilcox, William Doelle, and William Robinson 2012 Coalescent Communities Database Version 2.0. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson. Hoffman, Charles Marshall 1997 Alliance Formation and Social Interaction During the Sedentary Period: A Stylistic Analysis of Hohokam Arrowpoints. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. Holmer, Richard N., and Dennis G. Weder 1980 Common Post–Archaic Projectile Points of the Fremont Area. In Fremont Perspectives, edited by David B. Madsen, pp. 55–68. Antiquities Section Selected Papers 16. Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City. Hughes, Susan S. 1998 Getting to the Point: Evolutionary Change in Prehistoric Weaponry. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5:345–408.

155

Huntley, Deborah L., Jeffery J. Clark, and Mary F. Ownby 2016 Movement of People and Pots in the Upper Gila Region of the American Southwest. In Exploring Cause and Explanation: Historical Ecology, Demography, and Movement in the American Southwest, edited by Ann F. Ramenofsky and Cynthia L. Herhahn, pp. 275–295. University Press of Colorado, ProQuest Ebook Central. Justice, Noel D. 2002 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Southwestern United States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Kaldahl, Eric J. 2009a Flaked Stone Artifacts. In Archaeological Excavations at the Yuma Wash Site, AZ AA:12:311(ASM) in the Silverbell Place Subdivision, Marana, Arizona (Draft), edited by Jeffrey T. Jones. Archaeology Report No. 25. Old Pueblo Archaeology Center, Tucson. Kaldahl, Eric J. 2009b MHPY Project, Yuma Wash Site Flaked Stone. In Archaeological Excavations at Five Sites West of the Santa Cruz River in Marana, Arizona: Yuma Wash and Silverbell- Ina Hohokam Sites, AZ AA:12:311(ASM), AZ AA:12:314(ASM), and AZ AA:12:315(ASM), and Bojorquez-Aguirre Ranch and Meador-Canas Sites AZ AA:12:122(ASM) and AZ AA:12:313(ASM), Vol. 2, Section IV: The Marana Heritage Program Yuma Wash Field School Investigations at AZ AA:12:311(ASM) (MHPY Project), edited by A.C. MacWilliams and Allen Dart, pp. 25.1–25.14. Old Pueblo Archaeology Center, Tucson. Kamp, Kathryn A., John C. Whittaker, and William D. Bryce 2016 The Magician of Ridge Ruin: Insights into Ceremony and Status from Arrow Points and Bows. Lithic Technology, DOI: 10.1080/01977261.2016.1252620. Kibler, Karl W., Héctor R. Hinojosa-Prieto, M. Steven Shackley, and Héctor J. Hinojosa-Garcia 2014 The Selene Obsidian Source (Formerly Sonora Unknown B) of the Upper Río Bavispe Basin, Sonora, Mexico. Kiva 80:168–192. Knecht, Heidi 1997 The History and Development of Projectile Technology Research. In Projectile Technology, edited by Heidi Knecht, pp. 3–35. Plenum Press, New York. Kuhn, Steven 2004 Evolutionary Perspectives on Technology and Technological Change. In World Archaeology 36(4): pp. 561–570. Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger 1991 Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

156

LeBlanc, Steven A. 1999 Prehistoric Warfare in the American Southwest. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Lindsay, Alexander Johnston 1969 The Tsegi Phase of the Kayenta Cultural Tradition in Northeastern Arizona. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Arizona. Loendorf, Chris R. 2010 Regional and Temporal Variation in Obsidian Use within the Hohokam Region. Journal of Arizona Archaeology 1(1):47–59. Loendorf, Chris 2012 The Hohokam-Akimel O’odham Continuum: Sociocultural Dynamics and Projectile Point Design in the Phoenix Basin, Arizona. Gila River Indian Community Anthropological Research Papers No. 5. Gila River Indian Community Cultural Resource Management Program. Sacaton, Arizona. Loendorf, Chris R., Craig M. Fertelmes, and Barnaby V. Lewis 2013 Hohokam to Akimel O’odham Obsidian Acquisition at the Historic Period Sacate Site (GR-909), Gila River Indian Community, Arizona. American Antiquity 78:266–284. Loendorf, Chris, Theodore J. Oliver, Shari Tiedens, R. Scott Plumlee, M. Kyle Woodson, and Lynn Simon 2015 Flaked-stone Projectile Point Serration: A Controlled Experimental Study of Blade Margin Design. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 3:437–443. Loendorf, Chris, Lynn Simon, Daniel Dybowski, M. Kyle Woodson, R. Scott Plumlee, Shari Tiedens, and Michael Withrow 2015 Warfare and Big Game Hunting: Flaked Stone Projectile Points along the Middle Gila River in Arizona. Antiquity 89:940–953. Loendorf, Chris R., and Glenn E. Rice 2004 Projectile Point Typology, Gila River Indian Community, Arizona. Anthropological Research Papers No. 2. Cultural Resource Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona. Lorentzen, Leon H. 1993 From Atlatl to Bow: The Impact of Improved Weapons on Wildlife in the Grasshopper Region. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. Luchetta, Sarah Kendall 2005 Soza Phase Sites in the Lower San Pedro Valley, Arizona. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. 157

Lycett, Stephen J. 2010 Cultural Transmission, Genetic Models and Paleolithic Variability: Integrative Analytical Approaches. In New Perspectives on Old Stones: Analytical Approaches to Paleolithic Technologies, edited by Stephen J. Lycett and Parth R. Chauhan, pp. 207–234. Springer, New York. Lyons, Patrick D., and Jeffery J. Clark 2012 A Community of Practice in Diaspora: The Rise and Demise of Roosevelt Redware. In Potters and Communities of Practice: Glaze Paint and Polychrome Pottery in the American Southwest, A.D. 1275–1700, edited by Linda S. Cordell and Judith A. Habicht- Mauche, pp. 19–33. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. McGregor, John C. 1941 Winona and Ridge Ruin, Part 1: Architecture and Material Culture. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 18. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff. Magne, Martin, and R.G. Matson 1987 Projectile Point and Lithic Assemblage: Ethnicity in Interior British Columbia. In Ethnicity and Culture: Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, edited by Reginald Auger, Margaret F. Glass, Scott MacEachern, and Peter H. McCartney, pp. 227–242. University of Calgary Archaeological Association, Calgary, Alberta. Martynec, Richard J., Rich Davis, and M. Steven Shackley 2011 The Los Sitios Del Agua Obsidian Source (Formerly Unknown A) and Recent Archaeological Investigations along the Rio Sonoyta, Northern Sonora. Kiva 76:413–429. Masse, Bruce 1974 Excavations at Alder Wash Ruin. In The Peppersauce Wash Project: Excavations at Three Multicomponent Sites in the Lower San Pedro Valley, Arizona. Contributions to Highway Salvage Archaeology in Arizona 53: Chapter 2. MS, Arizona State Museum Library, University of Arizona, Tucson. Mills, Barbara J. 2000 Gender, Craft Production, and Inequality. In Women and Men in the Prehispanic Southwest: Labor, Power, and Prestige, edited by Patricia L. Crown, pp. 301–343. School of American Research Press and James Currey. Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Oxford. Mills, Barbara J., Jeffery J. Clark, W. Randall Haas Jr., Matthew Peeples, Deborah Huntley, Lewis Borck, Meaghan Trowbridge, and Susan Ryan 2012 Southwest Social Networks Database, Version 1.0. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson. Mills, Barbara J., Jeffery J. Clark, Matthew A. Peeples 2016 Migration, Skill, and the Transformation of Social Networks in the Pre-Hispanic Southwest. Economic Anthropology 3:203–215.

158

Mills, Barbara J., Jeffery J. Clark, Matthew A. Peeples, W. R. Haas, Jr., John M. Roberts, Jr., J. Brett Hill, Deborah L. Huntley, Lewis Borck, Ronald L. Breiger, Aaron Clauset, and M. Steven Shackley 2013 Transformation of Social Networks in the Late pre–Hispanic US Southwest. Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences 110(15):5785–5790. Mills, Barbara J., Matthew A. Peeples, W. Randall Haas, Jr., Lewis Borck, Jeffery J. Clark, and John M. Roberts, Jr. 2015 Multiscalar Perspectives on Social Networks in the Late Prehispanic Southwest. American Antiquity 80:3–24. Mitchell, Douglas R., and M. Steven Shackley 1995 Classic Period Hohokam Obsidian Studies in Southern Arizona. Journal of Field Archaeology 22:291–304. Nelson, Margaret C. 1986 Chipped Stone Analysis: Food Selection and Hunting Behavior. In Short-Term Sedentism in the American Southwest: The Mimbres Valley Salado, by Ben A. Nelson and Steven A. LeBlanc. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Nelson, Margaret C. 1991 The Study of Technological Organization. In Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 3, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 57–100. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Nelson, Margaret C. 1997 Projectile Point Form, Function, and Design. In Projectile Technology, edited by Heidi Knecht, pp. 371–384. Plenum Press, New York. Neuzil, Anna A. 2008 On the Aftermath of Migration: Renegotiating Ancient Identity in Southeastern Arizona. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No. 73. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. O’Brien, Michael J. 2005 Evolutionism and North America’s Archaeological Record. World Archaeology 37: 26– 45. O’Brien, Michael J., and Robert D. Leonard 2001 Style and Function: An Introduction. In Style and Function: Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Archaeology, edited by Teresa D. Hurt and Gordon F. Rakita, pp. 1–23. Bergin and Garvey, Westport, Connecticut. O’Brien, Michael J., and R. Lee Lyman (editors) 2003 Style, Function, Transmission: Evolutionary Archaeological Perspectives. University of Utah Press. 159

O’Brien, Michael J., and Stephen J. Shennan 2010 Issues in Anthropological Studies of Innovation. In Innovation in Cultural Systems: Contributions from Evolutionary Anthropology, edited by Michael J. O’Brien and Stephen J. Shennan, pp. 3–17. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Peck, Trevor Richard 1996 Late Side-Notched Projectile Points on the Northwestern Plains. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton. Peterson, Jane D. 1994 Chipped Stone. In The Pueblo Grande Project: Vol. 4. Material Culture, edited by M. S. Foster, pp. 49–118. Publications in Archaeology No. 20. Soil Systems, Phoenix. Peterson, Jane, Douglas R. Mitchell, and M. Steven Shackley 1997 The Social and Economic Contexts of Lithic Procurement: Obsidian from Classic– Period Hohokam Sites. American Antiquity 62:231–259. Pfefferkorn, Ignaz 1949 Sonora: A Description of the Province. Translated and annotated by Theodore E. Treutlien, Ph.D. The University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Roth, Barbara J. 2000 Obsidian Source Characterization and Hunter-gatherer Mobility: An Example from the Tucson Basin. Journal of Archaeological Science 27:305–314. Russell, Frank 1980 The Pima Indians. Reprinted. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Originally published 1908, 26th Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1904–1905, Smithsonian Institution, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Ryan, Stacy L. 2010 Flaked Stone Technology. In Final Report on 2008 and 2009 Investigations at the 3-Up Site (LA150373), Mule Creek, New Mexico, by Deborah Huntley, Robert Jones, Katherine Dungan, J. Brett Hill, and Jeffery Clark. In review at Archaeology Southwest, Tucson. Ryan, Stacy L. 2014 Flaked Stone Artifacts from the Dinwiddie Site, LA 106003. In Report on the 2013 Archaeology Southwest/University of Arizona Test Excavations at the Dinwiddie Site (LA 106003; NM S:14:1[ASM]) in Cliff, New Mexico, by Deborah Huntley and Leslie Aragon. Report Submitted to Archaeology Southwest. Ryan, Stacy L. 2015 Flaked Stone Artifacts from the Fornholt Site, LA 16471. Manuscript of file, Archaeology Southwest, Tucson.

160

Ryan, Stacy L. 2016 Flaked Stone Technology and Obsidian Use at the Yuma Wash Site. In Archaeological Investigations at the Yuma Wash Site and Outlying Settlements, Part 2, edited by Deborah L. Swartz. Anthropological Papers No. 49, Archaeology Southwest and Desert Archaeology, Tucson. Sackett, James R. 1982 Approaches to Style in Lithic Analysis. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:59– 112. Sackett, James R. 1986 Style, Function and Artifact Variability: A Reply to Binford. American Antiquity 51:628–634. Schiffer, Michael Brian, and James M. Skibo 1997 The Explanation of Artifact Variability. American Antiquity 62(1):27–50. Schneider, Anna Elizabeth 2016 The Land Between: An Examination of Ground and Chipped Stone Artifacts from Garden Canyon Village. University of Colorado Master of Arts Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Boulder. Published by Proquest 2016. Sedig, Jacob William 2007 Getting to the Point: An Examination of Projectile Point Use in the Northern American Southwest, A.D. 900–1300. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder. Sedig, Jacob W. 2014 An Analysis of Non-utilitarian Stone Point Function in the US Southwest. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 34:120–132. Seymour, Deni J. 2011 Where the Earth and Sky Are Sewn Together. University of Utah Press. Salt Lake City. Shackley, M. Steven 1995 Sources of Archaeological Obsidian in the Greater American Southwest: An Update and Quantitative Analysis. American Antiquity 60:531–551. Shackley, M. Steven 1996 Range and Mobility in the Early Hunter–gatherer Southwest. In Early Formative Adaptations in the Southern Southwest, edited by Barbara J. Roth, pp. 5–16. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 25. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

161

Shackley, M. Steven 2005 Geology, Geography, and Archaeology. In Obsidian: Geology and Archaeology in the North American Southwest, pp. 28–87. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Shackley, M. Steven 2009a Two Newly Discovered Sources of Archaeological Obsidian in the Southwest: Archaeological and Social Implication. Kiva 74:269–280. Shackley, M. Steven 2009b An Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Analysis of Obsidian Artifacts from the Whiptail Site (AZ BB:10:3[ASM]), Tucson Basin, Arizona. Letter Report, Berkeley Archaeological XRF Lab, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley. Shackley, M. Steven 2011 Source Provenance of Obsidian Projectile Points from Early Classic Contexts at Los Morteros, Tucson Basin, Arizona. Report Prepared for Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson Arizona. Copies available from Archaeology Southwest, Tucson. Shackley, M. Steven 2013 Mule Creek Regional Source: Western New Mexico, http://www.swxrflab.net/mulecr.htm, Accessed March 27, 2017. Shackley, M. Steven 2016 Source Provenance of Obsidian Artifacts from the Yuma Wash Site, AZ AA:12:122 (ASM), AZ AA:12:311 (ASM), AZ AA:12:312 (ASM). www.archaeologysouthwest.org/store/anthropological-papers/ap49.html. Shackley, M. Steven 2017a Source Provenance of Obsidian Artifacts from Archaeological Contexts in Southeastern Arizona. Geoarchaeological XRF Laboratory, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Ms. on file at Archaeology Southwest, Tucson. Shackley M. Steven 2017b Sources of Archaeological Obsidian in the Greater American Southwest. Electronic document, http://swxrflab.net/swobsrcs.htm, accessed May 5, 2017. Shackley, M. Steven, and Samantha Gallop 2012 X-Ray Fluorescence Sourcing of Obsidian, San Pedro Preservation Project. In Migrants and Mounds: Classic Period Archaeology of the Lower San Pedro Valley, edited by Jeffery J. Clark and Patrick D. Lyons, pp. 409–428. Anthropological Papers No. 45. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson. Shennan, Stephen 2008 Evolution in Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 37:75–91. 162

Slaughter, Mark C. 1996 Occupation of the Gibbon Spring Site: Summary and Concluding Thoughts. In Excavation of the Gibbon Springs Site: A Classic Period Village in the Northeastern Tucson Basin, edited by Mark C. Slaughter and Heidi Roberts, pp. 523–534. Archaeological Report No. 94-87. SWCA, Tucson. Slaughter, Mark C., and Heidi Roberts (Editors) 1996 Excavation of the Gibbon Springs Site: A Classic Period Village in the Northeastern Tucson Basin. Archaeological Report No. 94-87. SWCA, Tucson. Slawson, Laurie V. 1990 The Terminal Classic Period in the Tucson Basin, Rabid Ruin, a Late Tucson Phase Hohokam Settlement. Southwest Cultural Series No. 10. Cultural and Environmental Systems, Tucson. Sliva, R. Jane 1997 Introduction to the Study and Analysis of Flaked Stone Artifacts and Lithic Technology. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. Sliva, R. Jane 2002 Temporal, Spatial, and Functional Variability in the Flaked Stone Assemblage. In Tonto Creek Archaeological Project: Artifact and Environmental Analyses: Vol. 2. Stone Tool and Subsistence Studies, edited by Jeffery. J. Clark, pp. 487–558. Anthropological Papers No. 23. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. Sliva, R. Jane 2003 Valencia Vieja and Changing Perspectives on Early Ceramic and Early Pioneer Period Flaked Stone Technology. In Roots of Sedentism: Archaeological Excavations at Valencia Vieja, a Founding Village in the Tucson Basin of Southern Arizona, edited by Henry D. Wallace, pp. 227–251. Anthropological Papers No. 29. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. Sliva, R. Jane 2006 Projectile Points in Regional Perspective. In Sunset Crater Archaeology: The History of a Volcanic Landscape. Stone, Shell, Bone, and Mortuary Analyses, edited by Mark D. Elson, pp. 31–63. Anthropological Papers No. 31. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. Sliva, R. Jane 2010 Virtuoso Hohokam Flintknapping. Journal of the Southwest 52:237–253. Sliva, R. Jane 2012 Flaked Stone Inventory, San Pedro Preservation Project. www.archaeologysouthwest.org/ap45

163

Sliva, R. Jane 2015a Projectile Points of the Early Agricultural Southwest: Typology, Migration, and Social Dynamics from the Sonoran Desert to the Colorado Plateau. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson. Sliva, R. Jane 2015b Flaked Stone Technology at the Clearwater Site, AZ BB:13:6 (ASM). In Tucson’s Origins: 4,000 Years of Prehistory and History at the Base of Sentinel Peak (Draft), edited by Michael W. Diehl, J. Homer Thiel, and Michael L. Brack. Technical Report No. 2008- 06. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson. Sliva, R. Jane, and Kristopher W. Kerry 2008 Flaked Stone Analysis from the Dove Mountain Project. In Life in the Foothills: Archaeological Investigations in the Tortolita Mountains of Southern Arizona, edited by Deborah L. Swartz, pp. 289–306. Anthropological Papers No. 46. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. Sliva, R. Jane, and Stacy L. Ryan 2012 Flaked Stone Technology at Honey Bee Village. In Life in the Valley of Gold: Archaeological Investigations at Honey Bee Village, a Prehistoric Hohokam Ballcourt Village, Part 1, edited by Henry D. Wallace, pp. 433–484. Anthropological Papers No. 48. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson. Sliva, R. Jane, and Stacy L. Ryan 2014 Flaked Stone from the Christopher Creek Section and Sharp Creek Campground. In Their Own Roads: Archaeological Investigations along State Route 260: Payson to Heber– Christopher Creek Section and Sharp Creek Campground, edited by Sarah A. Herr and CaraMia R. Whitney, pp. 117–132. Technical Report 2003–05, Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson. Spielmann, Katherine A. 2000 Gender and Exchange. In Women and Men in the Prehispanic Southwest: Labor, Power, and Prestige, edited by Patricia L. Crown, pp. 345–377. School of American Research Press and James Currey. Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Oxford. Stark, Miriam T. 2006 Glazeware Technology, the Social Lives of Pots, and Communities of Practice in the Late Prehistoric Southwest. In The Social Life of Pots: Glaze Wares and Cultural Dynamics in the Southwest, A.D. 1250–1680, edited by Judith A. Habicht–Mauche, Suzanne L. Eckert, and Deborah L. Huntley, pp. 17–33. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Stark, Miriam T., Brenda J. Bowser, and Lee Horne 2008 Why Breaking Down Boundaries Matters for Archaeological Research on Learning and Cultural Transmission: An Introduction. In Cultural Transmission and Material Culture: 164

Breaking Down Boundaries, edited by Miriam T. Stark, Brenda J. Bowser, and Lee Horne, pp. 1–16. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Swartz, Deborah L. (editor) 2016 Archaeological Investigations at the Yuma Wash Site and Outlying Settlements: Part 1 and Part 2. Anthropological Papers No. 49. Archaeology Southwest and Desert Archaeology, Tucson. Szuter, Christine R. 1991 Hunting by Hohokam Desert Farmers. Kiva 56:277–291. Szuter, Christine R. 2000 Gender and Animals: Hunting Technology, Ritual, and Subsistence in the Greater Southwest. In Women and Men in the Prehispanic Southwest: Labor, Power, and Prestige, edited by Patricia L. Crown, pp. 197–220. School of American Research Press and James Currey. Santa Fe, New Mexico. Tostevin, Gilbert B. 2012 Seeing Lithics: A Middle–Range Theory for Testing for Cultural Transmission in the Pleistocene. Oxbow Books on behalf of the American School of Prehistoric Research. Oxford and Oakville. Tuthill, Carr 1947 The Tres Alamos Site on the San Pedro River, Southeastern Arizona. Archaeology Series No. 4. Amerind Foundation, Dragoon, Arizona. Underhill, Ruth M. 1979 Social Organization of the Papago Indians. Reprinted. Contributions to Anthropology Vol. 30. Columbia University, New York. Originally published 1939, Columbia University Press, New York. VanPool, Todd L. 2001 Style, Function, and Variation: Identifying the Evolutionary Importance of Traits in the Archaeological Record. In Style and Function: Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Archaeology, edited by Teresa D. Hurt and Gordon F. Rakita, pp. 119–140. Bergin and Garvey, Westport, Connecticut. VanPool, Todd L. 2006 The Survival of Archaic Technology in the Agricultural World: How the Atlatl and Dart Endured in the North American Southwest. Kiva 71:429–452. VanPool, Todd L., and Chet Savage 2010 War, Women, and Religion: The Spread of Salado Polychrome in the American Southwest. In Innovation in Cultural Systems: Contributions from Evolutionary Anthropology, edited by Michael J. O’Brien and Stephen J. Shennan, pp. 251–265. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 165

Waguespack, Nicole M., Todd A. Surovell, Allen Denoyer, Alice Dallow, Adam Savage, Jamie Hyneman, and Dan Tapster 2009 Making a Point: Wood- versus Stone-tipped Projectiles. Antiquity 83:786-800. Wallace, Henry D. 1995 Summary and Concluding Remarks. In Archaeological Investigations at Los Morteros, a Prehistoric Settlement in the Northern Tucson Basin: Part II, edited by Henry D. Wallace, pp. 801–835. Anthropological Papers No. 17. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. Wallace, Henry D., and William H. Doelle 2001 Classic Period Warfare in Southern Arizona. In Deadly Landscapes: Case Studies in Prehistoric Southwestern Warfare, edited by Glen E. Rice and Steven A. LeBlanc, pp. 239–287. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Wallace, Henry D., and James P. Holmlund 1984 The Classic Period in the Tucson Basin. Kiva 49:167–194. Wendrich, Willeke 2012a Archaeology and Apprenticeship: Body Knowledge, Identity, and Communities of Practice. In Archaeology and Apprenticeship: Body Knowledge, Identity, and Communities of Practice, edited by Willeke Wendrich, pp. 1–19. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Wendrich, Willeke 2012b Knowledge Transfer in the Archaeological Record. In Archaeology and Apprenticeship: Body Knowledge, Identity, and Communities of Practice, edited by Willeke Wendrich, pp. 255–262. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Wenger, Etienne 1998 Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press, New York. Wiessner, Polly 1983 Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points. American Antiquity 48(2): 253–276. Whittaker, John C. 1987 Individual Variation as an Approach to Economic Organization: Projectile Points at Grasshopper Pueblo, Arizona. Journal of Field Archaeology 14(4):465–479. Whittaker, John C. 2012 Ambiguous Endurance: Late Atlatls in the American Southwest. Kiva 78:79–98.

166