The Protohistoric Period in the Pimería Alta

Home , Amerind Foundation, Mogollon culture, Sobaipuri

Item Type text; Electronic Dissertation

Authors Jelinek, Lauren Elizabeth

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 10:39:51

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/222842 1

THE PROTOHISTORIC PERIOD IN THE PIMERÍA ALTA

Lauren E. Jelinek

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the

SCHOOL OF ANTHROPOLOGY

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

In the Graduate College

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

2012 2

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE

As members of the Dissertation Committee, we certify that we have read the dissertation prepared by Lauren E. Jelinek entitled The Protohistoric Period in the Pimería Alta and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

______Date: March 1, 2012 Barnet Pavao-Zuckerman

______Date: March 1, 2012 J. Jefferson Reid

______Date: March 1, 2012 Thomas E. Sheridan

______Date: March 1, 2012 Teresita Majewski

Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate’s sub- mission of the final copies of the dissertation to the Graduate College.

I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement.

______Date: March 1, 2012 Dissertation Director: Barnet Pavao-Zuckerman 3

STATEMENT BY AUTHOR

This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced 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 dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of 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 copyright holder.

SIGNED: Lauren E. Jelinek 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It has been a great honor and pleasure to collaborate with all those who helped me successfully complete this dissertation. This research could not have been completed without the advice, encouragement, and tenacity of my committee, which included Dr. Barnet Pavao- Zuckerman, Dr. J. Jefferson Reid, Dr. Thomas Sheridan, and Dr. Teresita Majewski. Thank you for providing me with feedback and recommendations throughout the dissertation process. I also owe a great debt of gratitude to James Vint at Archaeology Southwest, for openly sharing his own thoughts and research on Sobaipuri archaeology and spending countless hours with me discussing my research methods and goals. I am grateful to the researchers at Arizona State Museum (ASM) who dedicated their time to help me identify and analyze materials held within the repository. Thank you especially to Dr. Arthur Vokes, George M. (Mike) Jacobs, Alan Ferg, and John Madsen. I would also like to thank Rick Karl for conducting the AZSITE database search on my behalf and giving me access to archaeological site files. Likewise I am grateful to Dr. Dale Brenneman in the Office of Ethnohistorical Research at ASM, who provided me with transcriptions of several historical documents and access to research materials. I also owe sincere thanks to the Amerind Foundation and Dr. Eric Kaldhal for granting me access to their artifact collections and archives. I am extremely grateful to Statistical Research, Inc., for donating time, data, and exper- tise to the completion of my dissertation. I specifically want to thank Dr. William Graves, John Hall, Jacqueline Dominquez, Andrew Saiz, Peg Robbins, and Linda Wooden for their assistance. I am thankful to Dr. David Doyel and Dr. Adrianne Rankin at the Luke Air Force Base Range Management Office (LAFB-RMO) for their permission to use data acquired from projects on the Barry Goldwater Firing Range (BMGR). Additional thanks are due to Dr. Anna Neuzil of EcoPlan, Inc., for granting me advance access to analysis and report details on protohistoric remains in Tucson. I am also grateful to Martyn Tagg at Fort Hua- chuca and Jeremy Moss at Tumacácori National Historical Park for their early assistance in compiling data on protohistoric sites. Special thanks are due to Dr. William Doelle and James Heidke of Desert Archaeology, Inc., who donated their time to train me in ceramic analysis and temper identification. Addi- tional thanks go to Dr. Barbara Mills of the School of Anthropology at the University of Ari- zona and Dr. Stephanie Whittlesey for their helpful advice and feedback on ceramic analysis. This dissertation would not have been completed without the support and assistance of my good friends and colleagues, including Dr. Kelly Jenks, Elisabeth Cutright-Smith, Ka- trina Erickson, Rachel Diaz de Valdes, Melanie Medieros, Dana Drake Rosenstein, Robert Jones, Matthew Pailes, and W. Randy Haas. Last, but certainly not least, I would like to give a multitude of thanks to my parents Lawrence and Sandra Jelinek, for their unflinch- ing faith, support, and love. I would never have made it this far without them. 5 DEDICATION

For my parents, who have shown me through words and deeds, that life-long learning requires an open mind, a humble spirit, and a sense of humor. 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS list of illustrations...... 10 listof tables...... 11 ABSTRACT...... 12

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION...... 13 Protohistory...... 13 The Pimería Alta during the Protohistoric Period.....14 An Ethnohistoric Approach...... 16 Revisiting “Old” Data...... 18 A Model of Protohistoric Social Reorganization ...... 19 Implications for Cultural Affiliation...... 20 Dissertation Format...... 22

CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND...... 23 The Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology Divide ...... 25 Previous Protohistoric Research in the Americas...... 27 Early Protohistoric Research in the Southwest, 1878–1900 ...... 28 Protohistoric Inquiry in Southern Arizona and Northern Mexico, 1950–Present...... 37 Continuity/Persistence ...... 46 Migration/Replacement ...... 46 Data Gaps ...... 47 7

Table of Contents - Continued

Conclusions...... 56

CHAPTER 3: THEORY...... 57 Culture History...... 59 Direct Historical Approach ...... 64 Culture Contact Studies...... 66 Examining Ethnogenesis and Ethnic Identity in the Archaeological Record ...... 72 Cultural Affiliation Research...... 78 Theoretical Approach to Examining Ethnic Identity during the Protohistoric Period in the Pimería Alta...... 81

CHAPTER 4: CONTEXT...... 84 Environmental Context...... 84 Archaeological Context...... 93 Patayan...... 94 Trincheras...... 97 Hohokam...... 100 Linguistic Context...... 104 Tepiman ...... 105 Yuman...... 110 Apachean...... 112 Historical Context...... 114 Initial Exploration...... 114 Colonization ...... 118 8

Table of Contents - Continued Reorganization...... 125 Research Themes ...... 128 Data Requirements...... 129

CHAPTER 5: METHODS...... 131 Ethnohistory...... 132 The Written Word...... 134 Oral Traditions and Memory...... 136 Ethnographies...... 137 Archaeological Data...... 138 Diagnostic Material Culture...... 143 Conclusions...... 156

CHAPTER 6: RESULTS...... 157 The Written Word...... 157 Exploration Accounts from the Sixteenth Century...... 158 Seventeenth Century Accounts...... 167 Ethnographic Accounts...... 177 Oral Traditions...... 177 Ethnography ...... 183 Archaeology...... 190 Archaeological Sample...... 198 Additional Archaeological Samples...... 221 Summary...... 225

CHAPTER 7: SYNTHESIS...... 227 Artifact Typologies...... 227 9

Table of Contents - Continued

Whetstone Plain...... 227 Sobaipuri Projectile Points...... 230 Summary...... 231 Continuity Hypothesis...... 232 Migration Hypothesis...... 239 Social Reorganization...... 244 Cultural Affiliation Research...... 249

CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSIONS...... 251 Typologies as Ethnic Markers...... 252 A Model of Hohokam-O’odham Continuity...... 255 A Model for Sonoran Migration...... 256 A Model of Protohistoric Social Reorganization...... 258 Future Avenues of Research...... 260 Broader Implications...... 262

APPENDIX A: cERAMICS, BY sITE...... 265

APPENDIX B: PROJECTILE POINTS, BY SITE...... 331

APPENDIX C: FLAKED STONE TOOLS, BY SITE...... 357

REFERENCES...... 365 10 LIST OF Illustrations

Figure 4.1. The Pimería Alta...... 85 Figure 4.2. Environmental zones in the Pimería Alta...... 88 Figure 4.3. Comparative chronology of regional archaeological traditions...... 96 Figure 4.4. Regional archaeological traditions ca. A.D. 1350...... 106 Figure 4.5. Linguistic hierarchy...... 107 Figure 4.6. Jesuit missions and visitas in the Pimería Alta ca. A.D. 1700...... 119 Figure 5.1. Location of selected protohistoric archaeological sites in the Pimería Alta...... 142 Figure 5.2. Reconstructed Whetstone Plain jar from Presidio Santa Cruz de Terranate...... 146 Figure 5.3. Uncataloged Whetstone Plain rim sherds from Alder Wash Ruin...... 147 Figure 5.4. “Sobaipuri” projectile points from Alder Wash Ruin...... 149 Figure 5.5. Projectile points and bifaces from England Ranch Ruin...... 151 Figure 5.6. Uncataloged unifacial scrapers from AZ EE:2:83(ASM)...... 152 Figure 5.7. Projectile point measurements...... 154 Figure 6.1. Ritually destroyed bowl from Batki...... 214 11 LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1. Missions Established by Eusebio Kino in the Pimería Alta...... 120

Table 6.1. Archaeological Sites Summary...... 191

Table 7.1. Average Rim Thickness, by Site...... 229 12 ABSTRACT

The Protohistoric period in the Pimería Alta marks the transition from prehistory to history, when the social identities among and between historically documented ethnic groups were shaped and negotiated. This period was characterized by social upheaval and demographic change, marked by the transformation of large archaeological complexes after A.D. 1450, the reorganization of the South- west demographic landscape during the sixteenth century, and the slow yet inexorable encroachment of Spanish colonialism during the seventeenth century. While the Protohistoric period is central to our understanding of culture change and the negotiation of social identity, this period is not well understood from an anthropological perspective, which obscures our understanding of the relationships among and between archaeological cultures and historically documented ethnic groups. Following a reanalysis of archaeological data, written accounts, oral histories, and ethnographic observations, three models of protohistoric demographic change were evaluated within an ethnohistorical framework.

Existing data suggest that historically documented ethnic groups have antecedents in multiple archaeological traditions, rather than a single group. Furthermore, inconsistencies in extant archaeological typologies were identified, resulting in a reevaluation of the validity of the use of these typologies as markers of cultural affiliation. An attribute analysis of these typologies reveals that they are not well defined and cannot be reliably associated with a single ethnic group. This analysis demonstrates that there is rarely a one-to-one correlation between an artifact type and an ethnic identity; rather, it is necessary to examine the practices and behaviors that produce materiality and shape residential spaces to understand the suite of practices that construct and/or express ethnic identity. 13

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

The Protohistoric period marks the transition from prehistory to history, a time when the boundaries between historically documented ethnic groups were shaped and negotiated. De- spite its central importance to history, the period is not well understood from an anthropological perspective. This hampers our understanding of the processes by which large archaeological complexes were transformed after A.D. 1450, further obscuring the relationships among and between archaeological cultures and historically documented ethnic groups.

Protohistory

The Protohistoric period is herein defined as the period fromA.D. 1450 to 1700 that was characterized by massive social upheaval and reorganization. It is a critical period in the Pan-American past because it bridges the divide between prehistory and history, as well as the disciplinary divide between archaeology and documentary history. Because this period is not well understood in the Southwest, it complicates our understanding of the relationships between widespread archaeological traditions, historically documented indigenous populations, and modern tribes. In an attempt to examine the relationship between archaeological traditions and historically documented ethnic groups, many researchers have relied on the direct historical approach. Researchers use multiple data sets and work backward from the historical period into prehistory to demonstrate ethnic continuity over time. However, continuity of group identity into the prehistoric period ignores both the fluid nature of group identity and the social turmoil engendered by colonial contexts. 14

The processes inherent in the creation, maintenance, negotiation, and expression of group identity are a fundamental subset of culture contact research. Archaeological approaches to this paradigm can be divided into examinations of conscious and unconscious expressions of identity (Stone 2003). Practice theory asserts that the ways in which a person orders and goes about daily life reflects the structure of the social system in which they participate (Bourdieu 1977, 1990). While culture contact research has fluctuated with disciplinary trends, common themes include diffusion and acculturation (Herskovits 1958; Spicer 1962), exploration routes and early culture contact (Flint and Flint 1997; Reff 1991a), the consequences of sustained colonialism (Kessell 1976, 2002; Weber 2005), vectors of disease and demographic collapse (Cook 1998; Martin 1994; Ramenofsky et al. 2003; Reff 1991b), the introduction of Euro- pean domesticates (Pavao-Zuckerman 2007; Pavao-Zuckerman and Reitz 2006), domina- tion and resistance (Liebmann and Preucel 2007; Singleton 1998; Spielmann et al. 2006), and ethnogenesis (Cusick 2000; Deagan 1973, 1998; Hill 1996; Lightfoot et al. 1998; Smith 2000; Voss 2008). The diverse ways in which indigenous populations responded to European colonialism by the end of the Protohistoric period and the effects that these encounters had on the development of modern ethnic groups are sources of widespread debate.

The Pimería Alta during the Protohistoric Period

Historical and anthropological examinations of the Protohistoric period are abundant in Southwest research. Anthropologists became interested in this period when they began to explore the connections between modern Native American tribes and archaeological ruins in the late nineteenth century. The Pimería Alta encompasses a large area extending across southern Arizona into Sonora. It stretches from the Gila River south to the Altar and 15

Magdalena River valleys, and east from the San Pedro River to the Colorado River and the Gulf of California. The beginning of the Protohistoric period in the Pimería Alta was characterized by social change, wherein large archaeological traditions underwent dramatic demographic shifts characterized by the coalescence of some entities and the dispersal of others. Archaeologi- cal complexes are not interpreted here as representative of group identities, but rather as common sets of traits and materials that populations manufactured and exchanged as part of everyday life. A variety of evidence is marshaled to support two very different theories to explain population shifts during this period. Several scholars hypothesize that the groups encountered by Spanish missionaries in the 1600s were the remnant populations of the large archaeological complexes that once dominated the Southwest in A.D. 1400. This continuity model posits that the Hohokam regional system declined between A.D. 1350 and 1400, when remnant populations reorganized into loosely affiliated rancherías and participated in a diluted version of the former Hohokam social system (Ezell 1963a; Haury 1976a). Oral historical, ethnographic, linguistic, documentary, and limited archaeological evidence is often used to support a model of Hohokam-O’odham continuity. Other researchers theorize that the Southwest was completely depopulated after the decline of these cultural complexes, by A.D. 1450. Ambiguities and inconsistencies embedded within oral traditions, ethnography, linguistics, documentary history, and archaeological data are used to demonstrate discontinuity between the Hohokam and O’odham (Reid and Whittlesey 1997:109). This discontinuity model posits that after the Hohokam decline, southern Arizona was almost completely abandoned. It is argued that the Hohokam migrated north into the Homol’ovi area and then onto the Hopi Mesas, or the Rio Grande pueblos (Teague 1993). As a result of pressure from central Mexico, O’odham groups may have 16 moved into the vacant Pimería Alta from Sonora or from the east. These migrants populated the empty Pimería Alta during the fifteenth century and utilized Hohokam irrigation systems, while gradually incorporating stories of the existing ruins into their oral traditions (Fritz 1989; Masse 1981). The Protohistoric period in the Pimería Alta has remained contentious because the archaeological record does not always support historical-period or ethnographic data. One of the primary problems inherent in protohistoric archaeology in the region is that there are few sites that have been extensively excavated and even fewer sites that contain stratified deposits. Archaeological investigations of protohistoric sites have often been conducted as part of larger salvage projects, with the result that these components are not always given due consideration or effort when compared to other more impressive sites. The paucity of archaeological data is further exacerbated by the small number of sites with identifiable protohistoric deposits. Additionally, diagnostic artifacts are rare and inconsistently defined. The inability to accurately date deposits using seriation, traditional dendrochronology, radiocarbon, and archaeomagnetic techniques further complicates protohistoric archaeology.

An Ethnohistoric Approach

Regardless of the causes and timing of the Hohokam decline, it is evident that the people who lived in the area following this phenomenon participated in a social system distinct from that defined as Hohokam. Massive population reorganization characterized much of the Southwest during this period, and the resulting demographic landscape serves as the focus of this dissertation. Re-evaluating existing documentary, ethnographic, and archaeological evidence and using it to construct an ethnogenetic model may clarify the nature of demographic change during the Protohistoric period in the Pimería Alta. Models previously 17 proposed to characterize social demography in the Pimería Alta during the Protohistoric period are summarized and examined to assess their strengths and weaknesses. A third model that posits a more complicated relationship, resembling a braided network of interrelatedness between historically documented indigenous peoples and archaeological cultures will be discussed and evaluated. It was necessary to compile a substantial data set of known archaeological sites, historical documents, and ethnographies with which to examine these hypotheses. This project relies on previously published sources of historical, archaeological, and ethnographic data. Early historical accounts offer contradicting descriptions of the Southwest, making a discussion of the demographic landscape during this period difficult. An understanding of the history of European exploration and colonization, as well as the various individuals who participated in these endeavors, is necessary to both evaluate the statements and assumptions held within the documentary record and to examine the Protohistoric period in an appropriate historical context. Previous archaeological research has often examined these relationships from narrow perspectives, usually focusing on one specific group and relying heavily on a single set of data. Examining populations in isolation ignores the dynamic and fluid nature of group membership and social relationships. If groups reorganized themselves periodically in the past and, therefore, have roots in multiple antecedent populations, it is necessary to examine the relationships between neighboring groups through time and across regions in order to create a more complete picture of this process. Such an ambitious undertaking necessitates an ethnohistoric approach, wherein multiple lines of evidence are evaluated and compared to construct a regionally specific historical narrative. 18 Revisiting “Old” Data

An ethnohistorical analysis of the Protohistoric period in the Pimería Alta required the compilation and examination of written accounts, oral histories, ethnographic data, and archaeological data. Written accounts that have the ability to provide information directly relevant to the Protohistoric period (A.D. 1450–1700) in the Pimería Alta consist primarily of exploration narratives (e.g., Burrus 1971; Flint and Flint 2005; Kino 1985). Although some of the chroniclers discussed herein were members of the clergy, these narratives detail their participation in larger expeditions and contain descriptions of the location and nature of populations ripe for conversion and reducción. O’odham oral histories were also examined in detail because they contain several references to the people who occupied the casas grandes in southern Arizona. Multiple versions of the O’odham creation account are recorded and reveal intriguing inconsistencies in O’odham concepts of origin, their concep- tion of the Hohokam, and their relationship to Yuman speakers occupying territory along the Gila and Colorado Rivers (Bahr et al. 1994; Manje 1954; Russell 1975; Shaw 1968; Wintle and Murray 2006). Ethnographic data regarding O’odham and Yuman practices have been compared to archaeological data from Hohokam and Patayan sites. Linguists have also examined the development of the Yuman and O’odham languages. Linguistic data suggests that there was a close relationship historically between O’odham and Yuman speakers (Shaul and Andre- sen 1989; Shaul and Hill 1998). River Yuman and Tepiman groups were in sustained long- term contact before the breakup of either proto-language and possibly participated in the Hohokam system. Assemblages from archaeological sites were reanalyzed to evaluate both the original site assessment and to examine the validity of protohistoric artifact typologies. Protohis- toric artifact typologies have been inconsistently applied and used to identify the cultural 19 affiliation of protohistoric remains; however, at this time these typologies are not sufficiently developed to merit an association with a single O’odham group. Rather, these typologies are best described as archaeological horizons. Whetstone Plain is likely a protohistoric ceramic technology (Masse 1981). The attributes of this type distinguish it from prehistoric assemblages, which are characterized by thicker sand-and-mica-tempered bodies, and historical-period ceramic bodies that exhibit very thick organic tempered bodies. Triangular, basally notched projectile points, also referred to as Sobaipuri points (Masse 1981), were likely manufactured over a longer period of time as evidenced by the manufacture of similar styles using bottle glass. At this point, insufficient data are available to justify the association of these types specifically with the Sobaipuri. Collections from the sites where these typologies were initially defined were reexamined as part of this project. Over 20 sites were selected for reanalysis based on location, recovery method, collection strategy, and availability. These sites were all initially recorded as containing protohistoric components. Sites containing subsurface deposits were prioritized; however, relatively few excavated protohistoric sites were available for reanalysis. Several other published analyses of protohistoric remains were pertinent to this analysis; however, the artifacts were not available for analysis. The findings of these and several other analyses that were regrettably unavailable for reanalysis were synthesized to reconstruct demographic change during the Protohistoric period.

A Model of Protohistoric Social Reorganization

Many researchers have conceded that a simple Hohokam-Pima continuity or discontinuity model is highly unlikely (Doelle and Wallace 1991; Doyel 1989; Reid and Whittlesey 1997; Whittlesey 1995; Whittlesey et al. 1994). Given what is known about the fluidity of 20 prehistoric populations and the likelihood that they were highly mobile and reorganized themselves periodically, it is reasonable to argue that modern O’odham populations consist of descendants of people who participated in the Hohokam, Trincheras, and Patayan complexes (Moore 2001; Reid 1998). This model suggests that the Hohokam system encompassed a diverse population with fluid definitions of group membership. Populations within the Proto-Yuman and Proto-Tepiman linguistic groups participated in the Hohokam system, while other Proto-Tepiman speakers split off and migrated south. The Hohokam regional system continued until A.D. 1400, when social or environmental disruption forced populations to decentralize and reorganize. Some populations participating in the Hohokam system migrated north to the Hopi and Zuni areas or south into Mexico, while others remained in the region. Populations also reorganized in Sonora and along the Colorado River. Members of these populations intermixed and coalesced into new communities in the Pimería Alta. These data suggest that O’odham speaking populations interacted with multiple groups during the Protohistoric period. The distribution of ceramic attributes suggests that the O’odham cohabitated with Yuman speaking populations along the northern and western boundaries, and possibly with Sonoran populations along the southern and eastern boundaries. After A.D. 1700, O’odham ceramics become more distinct. Along the northern boundary they begin to share more attributes with ceramics manufactured in the south than with Yuman vessels (Cable 1990). By the end of the seventeenth century, O’odham populations were manufacturing ceramics that were more uniform in shape and style (Fontana and Robinson 1970).

Implications for Cultural Affiliation

The relationship between modern ethnic groups and archaeological cultures is not well understood. Cultural affiliation studies, conducted on behalf of NAGPRA and Section 106 21 federal regulations, are hampered by an incomplete knowledge of this period. If anthropologists cannot understand how modern tribes are related to past archaeological cultures, they cannot effectively repatriate human remains, conduct consultations, or provide testimony for land grants, tribal-status hearings, or traditional cultural property nominations. These competing theories have far-reaching implications not only for understanding demographic change in the Southwest, but for cultural affiliation research. Approaches that examine migration, invasion, displacement, and flexible social practices are important for cultural affiliation research because they emphasize the fluid nature of identity (Ferguson 2004:31). The goal of this dissertation is to understand the relationships between archaeological cultures and historically documented ethnic groups in the Pimería Alta by examining demographic change during the Protohistoric period. Implicit within this framework is the assertion promoted by ethnogentic modelers, that populations are prone to periodically reorganize themselves. There were multiple opportunities between A.D. 1450 and 1700 for social and environmental stress to create conditions favorable for population reorganization. Changes in everyday practice and ethnic markers and archaeological evidence for population reorganization during the Protohistoric period have important implications for cultural affiliation studies. This project demonstrates that the archaeological signatures that can be related to modern tribal entities became visible by the end of the Protohistoric period. The resulting model of demographic change demonstrates that modern tribes have roots in multiple archaeological complexes. This makes cultural affiliation studies more complicated because multiple groups can have valid claims to the same set of archaeological materials. This research may impact the strength of legal claims that multiple descendant groups have to land, natural resources, and sacred sites. 22 Dissertation Format

This dissertation is organized into eight chapters, the first of which introduces the research questions and summarizes the proposed model of Protohistoric demographic change. Chap- ter 2 outlines the background of anthropological and historical inquiry on the Protohistoric period in the Southwest in general, and the Pimería Alta in particular. Chapter 3 discusses previous theoretical frameworks that have been used to examine archaeological remains from this time period and outlines the body of theory used in this endeavor. Chapter 4 details the environmental, linguistic, and archaeological contexts of the Pimería Alta during the prehistoric and historical periods. The ethnohistorical method in general, and the methods used to select and evaluate written accounts, oral histories, ethnographic observations, and archaeological remains, are summarized in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 presents the results of these analyses according to data type, and these results are synthesized in Chapter 7. The synthesis also discusses the evidence used to support three models of Protohistoric demographic change: (1) Hohokam-Pima continuity; (2) Sonoran migration; and (3) social reorganization characterized by selective in-migration, out-migration, and differential ethnic co- habitation. Chapter 8 summarizes these arguments and explores the implications this model may have for cultural affiliation research, while identifying areas for future investigation. 23

CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND

The Protohistoric period has come under intense scholarly inquiry in the Americas and the

Pacific Islands. The diverse ways in which indigenous populations responded to European colonialism and the effects that these encounters had on the development of modern ethnic groups are a source of widespread debate. While the definition and characteristics of this period vary among disciplines and across regions, the broadest possible definition of protohistory is as the transition between prehistory and history (Gilpin 1998). This designation is useful for cross-regional comparisons because it does not rely on specified dates; however, it does assume that there is a universal understanding of when “history” began.

The terms “prehistory” and “history” have been characterized by the absence and presence, respectively, of a system of standardized record keeping (Feder 2007; Orser 2004).

These artificial classifications have become problematic due to the frequent interaction between groups who have adopted these practices and those who have not (Mitchell and

Scheiber 2010; Wolf 1982). Several societies in the Americas had developed systems of writing or record keeping before the arrival of Europeans, but for many non-literate groups, the Protohistoric period was interpreted to encompass the history of those populations prior to the conquest of Mexico and the fall of the Incan Empire. By defining history in relation to the beginning of the colonial period, researchers have been criticized for privileging 24

European written history and reinforcing notions that indigenous societies function outside history (Mitchell and Scheiber 2010; White 1998; Wolf 1982). Additionally, researchers have argued that the use of these terms reinforces interpretations that there is an unbridgeable gap between “precontact” and “postcontact” native societies, which has serious implications for the discipline and cultural affiliation studies (Silliman 2010). Silliman argues that such a gap implies that ethnographies and oral traditions have no utility in archaeological interpretations of native practices. Furthermore, significant breaks between these two

“periods” suggests that historically documented groups have little hope of demonstrating continuity with the archaeological remains of their ancestors when filing claims to items of cultural patrimony.

Some researchers adopted the term “prehispanic” to refer to indigenous history prior to the entrada of Spanish explorers, yet the definition of a period in direct opposition to the arrival of Europeans perpetuates the biases outlined above. Others have suggested that terms such as prehistoric, historical-period, and protohistoric should be avoided in the literature altogether because they reinforce these perceptions by creating artificial boundaries between these time periods (Scheiber and Mitchell 2010). It was also proposed that these terms have little utility because the periods in question begin and end at different times depending on the group or region under examination, and because they carry with them the controversy discussed above (Silliman 2010). Another problem with the use of these classifications is 25 that the terms themselves become equated with cultural processes. Using calendrical time rather than periodized time schemas is possible solution to this issue; however, it has drawbacks for use in situations where documentary evidence is absent and absolute dating in untenable, for example in the Pimería Alta between A.D. 1400 and 1690. In this situation, it is more accurate to rely on a specific period designation, so that readers and researchers understand that these interpretations reflect a wide range of dates.

Any description or interpretation of the past is ultimately a creation of the author

(Thomas 1989). In this case, the Protohistoric period is used to designate an arbitrary time period (A.D. 1450–1700) wherein broad social processes can be examined and discussed.

By recognizing these institutional preconceptions, employing multiple lines of evidence, and evaluating those lines of evidence for inherent biases, researchers can present a more balanced interpretation of the past. Nevertheless, distinctions between prehistory and history are perpetuated within the discipline of archaeology and the perceived theoretical and methodological divisions between prehistoric and historical archaeology.

The Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology Divide

As a discipline, archaeology is highly specialized despite its emphasis on the examination of human variation through time and space. The division between prehistoric and historical archaeology exemplifies this dichotomy. At its inception, historical archaeology was 26 primarily concerned with the material culture of European colonialism, colonization, and consumerism; while prehistoric archaeology was focused on archaeological cultures and cultural evolution (Lightfoot 1995:202; Rubertone 2000; Silliman 2010). This disciplinary segregation was transformed with the expansion of culture contact research.

Theoretical and methodological frameworks have maintained a barrier between these two subfields. Because historical archaeology incorporates the use of documents and oral traditions, it can provide a more nuanced interpretation of the past, specifically in the examination of culture contact and identity (Deagan 1988; McGuire 1982b; Rubertone 2000).

However, a failure to impart the methods necessary to critically evaluate documentary and ethnographic evidence to prehistoric archaeologists has produced cohorts of researchers who are ill-equipped to interpret these materials. One unavoidable side-effect is that those researchers who focus on protohistoric materials are left straddling the two disciplines. It is necessary to have a thorough understanding of how to interpret both the prehistoric archaeological record and the documentary record in order to examine change over time.

Protohistoric research therefore bridges the perceived theoretical and methodological gaps between two subdisciplines and two period classifications. Previous protohistoric research primarily has focused on the consequences of culture contact between Europeans and indigenous societies 27 Previous Protohistoric Research in the Americas

While protohistoric research has fluctuated with disciplinary trends, some common themes

include diffusion and acculturation (Herskovits 1958; Spicer 1962), exploration routes and

early culture contact (Flint and Flint 1997; Reff 1991a), the consequences of sustained co-

lonialism (Kessell 1976, 2002; Weber 2005), vectors of disease and demographic collapse

(Cook 1998; Martin 1994; Ramenofsky et al. 2003; Reff 1991b), the introduction of Euro-

pean domesticates (Pavao-Zuckerman 2007; Pavao-Zuckerman and Reitz 2006), domina-

tion and resistance (Liebmann and Preucel 2007; Singleton 1998; Spielmann et al. 2006),

and ethnogenesis (Cusick 2000; Deagan 1973, 1998; Hill 1996; Lightfoot et al. 1998; Smith

2000; Voss 2008). These approaches will be discussed more thoroughly in Chapter 3.

Instead of adopting the broad definition described above, some researchers have pro-

posed regional definitions for the Protohistoric period. These definitions vary in accordance

with regional chronologies and are usually bounded by the dissolution of large archaeo-

logical cultures and the beginning of sustained European contact in the form of colonies or

missions. For the purposes of this dissertation, the Protohistoric period in the Pimería Alta

is considered to date to A.D. 1450–1700. This definition has been used in earlier examinations of this period (Doelle 1984; Wilcox and Masse 1981) and encompasses the time between the disintegration of the Hohokam regional complex and the establishment of a permanent colonial presence at missions San Gabriel de Guevavi and San Francisco Xavier 28 del Bac. Numerous projects have been dedicated to examining this period in an attempt to clarify the relationship between the Hohokam and the O’odham.

Early Protohistoric Research in the Southwest, 1878–1900

Historical and anthropological investigations of the Protohistoric period are abundant in the

American Southwest. Anthropologists became interested in this period when they began to explore the connections between modern Native American tribes and archaeological ruins in the late nineteenth century. Public concern mounted over what was seen as the rapid disintegration of the traditional lifeways of indigenous groups (O’Sullivan 2007). In 1879, the federal government established the Bureau of American Ethnology (BAE), under the direction of John Wesley Powell, for the purpose of gathering detailed linguistic, ethnological, and archaeological data about these groups before they disappeared.

Much of the earliest anthropological and archaeological research in the American South- west was conducted under the umbrella of the BAE. Frank Hamilton Cushing undertook ethnographic research among the Zuni as part of the first BAE expedition and pioneered the anthropological method of participant observation (Cushing and Green 1979). W. J. McGee led an expedition into the Papaguería in 1894 where he recorded the presence of cerros de trincheras and produced an ethnographic account of the Seri (McGee and Hewitt 1898). Jesse Wal- ter Fewkes excavated at some of the most celebrated archaeological sites in the Southwest, 29 including Casa Grande Ruins and Mesa Verde (Fewkes 1908, 1911, 1919). These projects laid the foundations for the development of Southwestern archaeology and ethnography.

Academic organizations and institutions, such as the Archaeological Institute of Amer- ica; the Museum of Anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley; and the Peabody

Museum of Archeology and Ethnology at Harvard University also sent researchers across the country to conduct archaeological surveys, record indigenous languages and lifeways, and excavate archaeological ruins. Explorers like Adolph Bandelier and Carl Lumholtz traversed large portions of the Southwest and Mexico, reporting on the indigenous groups, archaeological sites, and geological features they encountered (Bandelier 1890; Lumholtz

1912). At part of the Hemenway Southwestern Archaeological Expedition, Cushing conducted excavations at Los Muertos in the Salt River Valley during 1887–1888 (Bandelier et al. n.d.). Alfred Kroeber made important contributions to the ethnography of tribes in Cali- fornia and expanded the concept of culture areas as systems of classification (Bidney 1965;

Kroeber 1916, 1925, 1939). At the Hopi pueblo of Awatovi, J. O. Brew conducted several seasons of excavations (Brew 1937). A. V. Kidder began working in the Mimbres Valley and on the Pajarito Plateau, and would later excavate Pecos Pueblo (Kidder 1915, 1924,

1927, 1958). Kidder also established the Pecos conference and helped train the next generation of researchers who would come to define archaeology and prehistory in the Southwest. 30

Many of the earliest ethnographic inquires focused on Puebloan populations (Cushing and Green 1979; Kroeber 1917). The same researchers who were studying Puebloan customs and recording their languages also noticed the similarities between modern pueblos and archaeological ruins (Kroeber 1916, 1917). The connection between these groups and archaeological sites like Pecos and Awatovi seemed clearly defined. Archaeologists began establishing ceramic chronologies through seriation in order to trace the history of these groups back in time. Subsequent researchers would expand into regions that had previously been ignored, including the Pimería Alta and the Papaguería, bringing with them these assumptions about the relationships between modern tribes and archaeological remains.

Protohistoric Inquiry in Southern Arizona and Northern Mexico, 1900–1950

Early examinations of this period in Arizona progressed independently in the disciplines of ethnography, history, and archaeology. With the expansion of ethnographic inquiry in southern Arizona, numerous ethnological projects were undertaken by BAE and university researchers on various Indian reservations. These early investigations focused primarily on the O’odham and Yuman speakers along the Gila and Colorado Rivers. Research among the Akimel O’odham, who were also referred to as Gila River Pimas, was undertaken by

Frank Russell for the BAE between 1901 and 1902 (Russell 1908, 1975). Researchers at Gila

Pueblo also conducted ethnobotanical research among the Akimel O’odham in the 1920s

(Curtain 1949). Numerous O’odham histories and traditions were recorded by Juan Dolores, 31 a Tohono O’odham member who was trained as a linguist by Alfred Kroeber, beginning in

1911 (Saxton and Saxton 1973). Ethnographic research was likewise conducted among the

Tohono O’odham, also referred to as the Papago. Ruth Underhill lived among the Tohono

O’odham for several summers, and she authored numerous volumes on their social organization, ideology, and history (e.g., Underhill 1936; Underhill 1939, 1946).

A diverse body of ethnographic literature has likewise been published on Yuman speaking groups. Kroeber conducted the majority of his research on Yuman language and culture among the Mohave (Kroeber 1902, 1948, 1955), but he later extended his interest to include

Upper Yuman groups, specifically the Pai bands of northern Arizona (Kroeber 1935). In his landmark survey of indigenous cultures in California, Kroeber (1925) discussed the Yuman language and its distribution throughout southeastern California and southwestern Arizona.

Forde (1931) subsequently published a Yuman ethnography based upon his research among the Quechan, who occupied territory along the Colorado River near the international border. Spier (1933) conducted similar research among the Maricopa on the Gila River. These early ethnographies were fundamental to understanding cultural variation and change over time, but they also addressed historical demography and attempted to define the relationships between modern tribes and the groups encountered by Spanish missionaries during the seventeenth century. 32

Increasing interest in ethnographic research coincided with a resurgence of historical inquiry on the effects of colonialism on indigenous populations. Herbert Eugene Bolton, a historian and former student of Frederick Jackson Turner, author of the famous frontier thesis, conducted the first serious examinations of historical documents from the early Spanish colonial period starting in the beginning of the twentieth century. His inquiries centered on rewriting Spanish colonial history by refuting the tenents of La Leyenda Negra, or the Black

Legend, which belittled, minimized, demonized, or disregarded Spanish roles in New World exploration and colonization (Thomas 1989). Because he was writing in reaction to this popu- lar interpretation, Bolton emphasized the religious and humanitarian motivations of the missionaries, creating an idealistic and romanticized interpretation of Spanish colonial history.

Bolton (1921) examined colonial history across the Southwest and introduced the concept of the Spanish Borderlands. During his lengthy career, he translated the journals of Jesuit missionary Francisco Eusebio Kino, documents relating to the Anza Expedition to San Francisco in 1774, and many others colonial texts (Bolton 1919, 1930, 1960). His exhaustive research and personal exploration of the Pimería Alta produced detailed maps of Kino’s journeys. He authored the first cohesive colonial histories of southern Arizona and northern Mexico between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries and created a vivid, although biased, account of early Spanish success among the Upper Pimans. Subsequent 33 ethnohistorical and archaeological research would heavily reference Bolton’s translations and interpretations (e.g., Ezell 1961; Hayden 1967; Spicer 1962).

Archaeological research at historical-period sites began in the early twentieth century in conjunction with the increasing interest in Spanish colonial history and historic preservation. In 1908, the Spanish mission of San Jose de Tumacácori was designated a national historical monument, and federally funded excavations commenced to identify ways in which to preserve the crumbling façade and church (Pinkley 1936). A more intensive excavation was undertaken in 1935 to identify the layout of the original mission complex to aid in reconstruction efforts (Beaubien 1937). Other mission complexes were examined in Sonora as part of an architectural inventory (DeLong and Miller 1936). While these investigations were important to understanding and preserving the legacy of Spanish missionization, research was entirely focused on architectural inventories and preservation.

The first serious protohistoric archaeological investigations in southern Arizona were undertaken by researchers affiliated with Gila Pueblo. In 1929 Frank Mitasky conducted a large survey in the Papaguería and Northern Mexico, recording sites and collecting ceramics to as- sist Gladwin with his classification system (Gladwin and Gladwin 1929). Gila Pueblo excavations at the large Hohokam site of Snaketown were begun under the supervision of a young

Emil Haury (Gladwin et al. 1937). While these projects did not take place at protohistoric 34 sites, the fundamental goal of this research was to clarify the ceramic chronological sequence and build a complete understanding of culture history in the American Southwest.

Excavations at large Hohokam sites like Snaketown and Los Muertos led Haury to hypothesize that the Pima were the direct descendants of the Hohokam. He suggested that the similarities between Hohokam and Piman subsistence practices, ceramic manufacture and design, and the use of irrigation agriculture indicated that the Pima were the most logical descendant community among historically documented tribes in the Pimería Alta (Haury

1945). At Snaketown, Haury’s initial hypothesis was confirmed when his student, Julian

Hayden, recorded various Piman oral traditions that referred to the Hohokam as Piman ancestors (Bahr et al. 1994). Haury did not identify archaeological remains that demonstrated a continuous occupation of the region after the decline of the Hohokam complex; however, he hypothesized that remnant populations retained some of the core characteristics of Ho- hokam culture until the arrival of European colonists. Subsequent research projects would be dedicated to identifying archaeological sites that demonstrated continuous occupation from the end of the Hohokam Classic period to the beginning of the historical period.

Research trajectories in the Papaguería and the Pimería Alta diverged slightly by the late 1930s. Malcolm Rodgers, an engineer turned archaeologist, had started surveying in the Papaguería, along the Colorado River, and in the eastern California Desert, to elaborate the culture history of the region (Rogers 1928, 1936, 1945). Researchers affiliated with the 35

University of Arizona and the University of California turned their attention away from ceramic typologies to the investigation of cerros de trincheras sites in the eastern portion of the Papaguería (Sauer and Brand 1931; Tanner 1936). Emil Haury and his students continued to examine Hohokam culture history while defining the characteristics of the Mogollon culture (Haury 1936; Haury and Gabel 1941).

By the late 1930s, the Papaguería had recaptured Haury’s attention. It was a region where culture history was still poorly understood from an archaeological perspective, despite the research conducted by Rogers. Haury initiated the Papaguería Project at the Uni- versity of Arizona and began looking for large sites similar to Snaketown that would provide enough information to construct a detailed cultural chronology. Under his direction several students conducted excavations at Jackrabbit Ruin from 1938 to 1939 (Scantling

1939, 1940) and Valshini Village from 1939 to 1940 (Withers 1941, 1944).

After establishing a preliminary culture history sequence for the Papaguería, Haury sought an archaeological site that would bridge the chronological gap between prehistory and the historical period. His efforts led him to Batki on the Tohono O’odham reservation where, according to Bolton and O’odham oral traditions, a large population had lived continually until the villagers were massacred by Apache raiders in the late nineteenth century

(Haury 1950). Haury began fieldwork on March 3, 1941, but a mere hour into the excavations at Batki, he was approached by a tribal delegation who asked him to cease his efforts 36 out of concern that it would anger the victims of the massacre. Instead Haury began excavating at a small rockshelter north of Sells that would ultimately prove to be one of the most important sites in Arizona, Ventana Cave (Haury 1950). The archaeological sequence at Ventana Cave stretches from about 10,000 years ago to the historical period. One of the products of this research was the development of seriations for the tool and ceramic typologies in the western Papaguería and California; however, because it was not a habitation site, it provided little information on the processes of cultural transformation during the

Protohistoric period.

While Haury was consumed with his discoveries at Ventana Cave, Hayden began excavations at University Indian Ruin, a large Hohokam site owned by the University of Arizona that contains a platform mound surrounded by adobe compound walls (Hayden 1957). Inves- tigations at this site were believed to have uncovered a majolica vessel (Hayden 1957:178); however, no such vessel exists within the curated collections. Large-scale excavations at

Hohokam and Trincheras sites continued through the mid-nineteenth century in southern

Arizona, further elaborating the culture history sequence for the region; however, these sites failed to yield convincing evidence of continuous indigenous occupation from the end of the prehistoric period into the historical period. 37

Protohistoric Inquiry in Southern Arizona and Northern Mexico, 1950–Present

By the mid-twentieth century, researchers had shifted their theoretical paradigms away

from elaborating culture history toward understanding the processes involved in cultural

adaptation and change. In his landmark study on acculturation, Spicer (1962) examined the

ways in which the diverse cultural groups in the Southwest adapted to the various colonial

pressures. Ethnographic research continued to be pursued by both academics and anthro-

pologists employed by the federal government (Ezell 1961, 1963b; Fontana and Robinson

1970; Fontana et al. 1962). These accounts became increasingly important as evidentiary pieces in court cases brought before the Indian Claims Commission (Churchill 2000). Re- search conducted by many of the earliest ethnographers in southern Arizona was marshaled to evaluate the validity of tribal claims to compensation and territory (e.g., Dobyns 1974;

Hackenburg 1974a, 1974b; Schroeder 1974; Underhill 1974). Central to the evaluation of

these claims was evidence of historically documented use of the territory in question. These

cases created a new role for the discipline of anthropology as indigenous groups began to

use these data as tools to gain concessions from the federal government. Applied research

in anthropology grew so steadily that a specialized branch, called the Bureau of Ethnic Re-

search (later renamed the Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology), was established at

the University of Arizona to train students in these techniques (Kelly 1952). 38

As the field of applied anthropology grew, it relied heavily on translations of Spanish colonial documents to establish the history of a group in a particular territory. Historical research during the mid-twentieth century was still influenced by Bolton (Bannon 1955; Smith et al. 1966) and scholars emphasized the translation of texts from early explorations and the colonial period. During this period researchers published practical guidelines to navigating foreign archives and conducting documentary research (Burrus 1955, 1959). Additionally, new transcriptions and translations, such as Manje’s journals and Pfefferkorn’s descriptions of Sonora, became widely available (Manje 1954; Nentvig 1951; Pfefferkorn 1949; Polzer

1971). These documents are important for understanding the Protohistoric period because they describe European impressions of indigenous people during the first decades of sustained contact, noting their practices, trade relationships, and beliefs.

Subsequent research on Spanish colonial history split its focus between translations and the compilation of institutional and regional histories. The Documentary Relations of the Southwest (DRSW) was established at the Arizona State Museum during the early

1970s to facilitate the translation of Spanish colonial texts. The histories and translations compiled during this period moved away from the idealistic interpretations of colonialism and chose to emphasize the role of colonial structures, like missions or presidios, in a frontier environment (e.g., Dobyns 1959; Kessell 1970, 1974, 1976; McCarty 1976, 1997; 39

Polzer 1976). These analyses addressed the institutions of colonialism, but did not directly discuss the peoples whom the institution was designed to absorb.

Even though historians had moved past romantic and idealistic discussions of colonialism by the 1970s, their interpretations remained Eurocentric. In part due to the proliferation of acculturation and culture contact studies in anthropology, researchers began attempting to write histories of indigenous groups using data garnered from colonial documents. The biases and difficulties inherent in this process will be discussed in Chapter 5; however, the resultant methods became known as ethnohistory. Ethnohistory uses data from multiple sources, including archaeology, oral history, ethnography, and historical-period documents to reconstruct the history of indigenous groups (Galloway 2006; Sheridan 1988a). This research method emphasizes indigenous populations as participants, rather than passive re- cipients, in the colonial system. The Office of Ethnohistorical Research, which encompassed the DRSW, was established to promote the publication and proliferation of ethnohistorical research in the Southwest (see Sheridan [1999] and Sheridan and Naylor [1971]).

The paradigm shift that led to the spread of ethnohistory and altered anthropological and historical inquiry in the mid-twentieth century was mirrored in archaeology. Understanding the Protohistoric period became the focus of several archaeological investigations undertaken by Charles Di Peso, who joined the privately funded Amerind Foundation in 1948. 40

Di Peso employed a multidisciplinary approach, which he termed “archaeohistory,” com- bining archaeological, ethnographic, and historical data to examine the past (Di Peso 1981).

In 1950, Di Peso began excavations at the presidio of Santa Cruz de Terrenate, which he believed was the protohistoric Sobaipuri ranchería of Quiburi, and at site AZ EE:8:15

(ASM), which he interpreted as the protohistoric Sobaipuri settlement of Santa Cruz de Gay- banipitea (Di Peso 1953). Subsequent survey of the surrounding area resulted in the identification of the José Solas Ruin, which Di Peso suggested was San Salvador de Baicatan.

Excavations in portions of the presidio, church, and peripheral structures at Terrentate/Qui- buri revealed stratified deposits, which Di Peso interpreted as two different cultural phases.

He concluded that the Sobaipuri were descended from an Archaic culture, which he termed the “O’otam,” in the San Pedro River valley that was in contact with the Hohokam and the

Mogollon. This culture later adopted various Puebloan traits and become recognized as the

Sobaipuri (Di Peso 1958). Numerous scholars have criticized Di Peso’s claims, particularly his assertions that the he had correctly identified the rancherías of Quiburi, Gaybanipitea, and Baicatan (Gerald 1968; Lyons 2004; Masse 1981; Seymour 1989; Whittlesey 1994;

Whittlesey et al. 1994). It is generally accepted that Di Peso misidentified all of these sites.

The remains of Sobaipuri houses he identified at Quiburi were likely the remains of temporary structures for the presidial soldiers. 41

Intrigued by his findings at Terrenate/Quiburi, Di Peso decided to excavate the Palo- parado Ruin, which he suggested was the visita of San Cayetano del Tumacácori, because he believed that this site would close the gap between prehistory and the historical period

(Di Peso 1956). Di Peso excavated the site between 1953 and 1954, and identified Hohokam and O’otam occupations. He argued that the burning of structures during the O’otam occupation coincided with the Upper Pima Revolt of 1751. Archaeologists have also disputed his conclusions, instead interpreting the site as a Classic period Hohokam village (Cheek

1974; Doyel 1977; Masse 1981; Whittlesey et al. 1994; Wilcox 1987). Despite Di Peso’s unsuccessful attempts to accurately identify historically documented Sobaipuri rancherías, he recovered numerous protohistoric artifacts and helped define the characteristics of protohistoric assemblages.

Like Di Peso, numerous prehistoric archaeologists began to realize the limitations of culture history as an explanatory framework by the end of the 1950s. These researchers adopted a hypothesis-driven processual approach, wherein culture change was viewed as an adaptive strategy (Binford 1962). Archaeological research became increasingly focused on the role the environment played in cultural change. There was also a tangible shift in the discipline as more projects were being conducted in response to management concerns.

Archaeological surveys were undertaken as part of federal salvage projects along the Col- orado and lower Gila Rivers in western Arizona (Schroeder 1952, 1961; Vivian 1965). 42

Other surveys were conducted as part of land acquisitions and the establishment of natural conservation areas, specifically Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and Cabeza Prieta

Wildlife Refuge (e.g., Ezell 1954; Fontana 1965). Research also extended into areas previously ignored, such as the rugged terrain of the Sierra Pinacate in Sonora (Hayden 1967).

Ruminations on the nature of the Protohistoric period and the feasibility of a Hohokam-

Pima continuum were discussed in the results of these endeavors; however, they were not pursued as primary research objectives.

The increasing trend toward salvage archaeology that began in the 1950s continued into the next decade, when two pieces of federal legislation fundamentally transformed the discipline from a predominantly academic institution to one pursued by government entities and private consulting firms. The 1966 passage of the National Historic Preservation Act

(NHPA), laid the foundations for contract archaeology, commonly referred to as cultural resource management (CRM), by requiring federal agencies to conduct consultation before taking actions that would affect properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places

(NRHP). Three years later, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was enacted, requiring consultation to occur well in advance of the actual undertaking, so that environmental and cultural resources could be properly mitigated rather than quickly salvaged.

Legislation designed to protect these resources continued to be ratified into the 1970s. Ex- ecutive Order 11593 ordered federal agencies to inventory and provide NRHP eligibility 43 recommendations for those historic properties under their jurisdiction. The Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (AHPA) of 1974 provided new sources of funding for CRM by authorizing the use of federal monies for historic preservation. In 1979, Congress extended federal protection for cultural resources on federal lands even further under the Archaeo- logical Resources Protection Act (ARPA). As part of this directive, federal agencies were required to inventory, manage, and preserve all cultural resources within their jurisdiction.

A host of CRM projects were undertaken in southern Arizona in the wake of this precedent- setting legislation, with the result that numerous protohistoric sites heretofore unrecognized or ignored became the focus of concerted archaeological research.

Countless CRM projects have been undertaken across southern Arizona by federal, state, and private agencies. The sites pertinent to this dissertation will be discussed at length in

Chapter 6; however, CRM contributions to protohistoric research are summarized here.

Researchers affiliated with the Arizona State Museum (ASM) conducted several highway salvage projects, during which multiple protohistoric sites were mitigated (Doyel 1977;

Franklin 1980; Masse 1980). Sites dating to these periods have also been recorded as part of the ANAMAX-Rosemont project in the Santa Rita Mountains (Huckell 1980, 1984) and the Tucson Aqueduct surveys for the Central Arizona Project (Madsen 1993). Additionally, protohistoric burials have been encountered during several mitigation projects (Ayres 1970;

Brew and Huckell 1987; Neuzil et al. 2010; Vint 2005). 44

The proliferation of multiple infrastructure improvement projects on the San Xavier, To- hono O’odham, and Ak-Chin Indian Reservations resulted in the documentation and mitigation of several protohistoric and early historical-period O’odham sites (Bell et al. 1980;

Coe 1979; Dart 1994; Doelle 1983; Gasser et al. 1990; Heuett et al. 1987; Kisselburg 1989;

Layhe 1986; Ravesloot 1987; Rosenthal et al. 1978). Further research has been conducted in the Papaguería as part of the continued management of the Barry M. Goldwater Firing

Range (Ahlstrom and Lyon 2000; Doolittle 2004; Doolittle et al. 2005; Sagebiel et al. 2008;

Slaughter et al. 2000; Tagg and Heilen 2009; Thurtle 2001) (for syntheses of this region see

Altschul and Rankin [2008] and McGuire and Schiffer [1982]). Archaeological surveys and excavations have been conducted throughout northern Mexico to identify protohistoric and early historical-period sites (McGuire and Villalpando 1993; Newell and Gallaga 2004).

Archaeological mitigation and preservation projects were undertaken at various early

Spanish colonial sites, including the presidios of San Agustín de Tucson (Ayres 1979; Barnes

1983; Chambers 1955; Elson and Doelle 1987; Haury and Fathauer 1974; Olson 1985;

Pavao-Zuckerman and LaMotta 2007; Thiel and Mabry 2006), San Ignacio de Tubac (Huck- ell and Huckell 1982; Shenk et al. 1975), and Santa Cruz de Terrenate (Morgan 2000; Sug- net and Reid 1994; Waugh 2005); and the missions of San Xavier del Bac (Barnes 1971;

Cheek 1974; Ciolek-Torrello and Brew 1976; Olsen 1974; Robinson 1963), San José de

Tumacácori (Barton et al. 1981; Fratt 1981, 1986; Horton 1998), Los Santos Ángeles de 45

Guevavi (Burton 1992; Robinson 1976), and San Cayetano de Calabazas (Burton 1992;

Stone 1979). Research has also been undertaken to identify protohistoric and early historical- period O’odham and Sobaipuri settlements that missionaries documented and visited prior to the establishment of large mission complexes (Seymour 1989, 1997, 2003, 2007, 2009b).

Several protohistoric syntheses have been compiled for the Southwest and southern Ar- izona as part of CRM projects (Gilpin 1998; Ravesloot and Whittlesey 1987; Wells 2002;

Wilcox and Masse 1981). These syntheses emphasize that the protohistoric period only recently became the primary focus of archaeological research questions. Early examinations of this period focused on creating a complete culture history of the region and identifying the processes and causes of Hohokam decentralization. The connections drawn between the Hohokam and the O’odham were largely based on ethnographic analogy and offered little explanation or description of the demographic landscape of the protohistoric Pimería

Alta. With the growth of the CRM industry, more protohistoric sites were uncovered, but an examination of these remains revealed that the protohistoric archaeological record was thin compared to other time periods. At the same time, new approaches to culture contact research highlighted the demographic consequences of the spread of Old World pathogens.

Some researchers used this evidence to suggest that the Pimería Alta was largely depopulated during the Protohistoric period. The tenents and evidence to support both of these hypotheses are briefly summarized below. 46

Continuity/Persistence

As previously discussed, venerable researchers such as Haury (1945), Ezell (1963a), and

Bahr et al. (1994) argued that the Piman groups inhabiting the Sonoran Desert during the sixteenth century were descendants of the Hohokam. The hypothesized Hohokam-Pima continuum suggested that the O’odham participated in a diluted version of the Hohokam culture. In this model, the Hohokam dispersed from their concentrated habitation centers at the end of the Classic period into rancherías. This hypothesis assumes that there is cultural and historical continuity between the Hohokam and the O’odham. Environmental instability, violence, and disease are all viewed as possible catalysts for the collapse of Hohokam society. Evidence used to support this theory includes Piman origin myths, similarities between subsistence practices, O’odham reoccupation of Hohokam sites, and the reuse of Ho- hokam canals.

Migration/Replacement

The second hypothesis argues that the Hohokam system eventually disintegrated and the population migrated out of the Tucson and Phoenix Basins, leaving the area unoccu- pied. At a later time O’odham groups, possibly from Sonora, migrated up the San Pedro and

Santa Cruz rivers and occupied the empty valleys (Masse 1981). This theory suggests that there was a chronological gap between the Hohokam population migration out of Arizona 47 and the ethnic migration of O’odham groups into the Pimería Alta. Evidence used to support this theory includes the general paucity of archaeological sites, historical documentation describing the Southwest region as despoblado during the sixteenth century, and the lack of continuity between Hohokam material culture and O’odham material culture.

Data Gaps

Anthropological, ethnological, linguistic, archaeological, oral historical, and historical evidence have been marshaled to support both theories; however, the data themselves are incomplete. There is a paucity of archaeological sites that can be definitively associated with this period. This is due to myriad factors including site density, few diagnostic features and artifacts, and a lack of chronometric control.

One of the primary problems inherent in protohistoric archaeology is that very few sites exhibit stratified deposits. The archaeological remains are thin, often terminating no more than 20 cm below the modern ground surface, and represent ephemeral occupations (Masse

1981). Archaeological investigations of sites in the Tucson Basin have yielded some subsurface deposits, but these were primarily burials (Ayres 1970; Brew and Huckell 1987;

Neuzil 2011; Ravesloot 1987; Vint 2005). The sites themselves contain anywhere between one and 15 recognizable rock rings, which formed the foundation of the grass structures used for sleeping and storage (Doyel 1977; Masse 1980, 1981). Recent research conducted 48 along the San Pedro has uncovered several other sites with larger numbers of structures

(James Vint, personal communication 2011); however, the depth of subsurface deposits remains less than 30 cm.

The paucity of archaeological data is further exacerbated by the small number of sites with identifiable protohistoric deposits. This may be due to several factors. One of the primary concerns is that these sites have gone unrecognized because of their ephemeral nature and incomplete descriptions of diagnostic artifacts. Some protohistoric sites have been identified on the surface of large Hohokam habitation sites, but they were not reported on by the principal investigator (e.g., Franklin 1980). This may have to do with excavation methods, as these researchers elected to create typologies based on site material culture rather than equate the remains with regional typologies. It may also be the result of oversight or a willingness to ignore remains that were clearly unassociated with the main occupational component of the site.

Archaeological investigations of protohistoric sites have often been conducted as a small part of larger projects. For this reason, few sophisticated analyses have been conducted at these sites. Ceramic sourcing and petrography have the potential to yield information about exchange networks and identify manufacture loci (Heidke et al. 2001). However, these analyses are expensive and time consuming. Archaeology Southwest (formerly the Center for

Desert Archaeology) has created petrographic models for the entire San Pedro River valley 49 and parts of the Santa Cruz and Gila Rivers, but this research needs to be expanded into the Papaguería and Mexico. Ceramic sourcing and petrographic analysis could potentially yield information about prehistoric population movements, but more analyses need to be conducted before this goal can be realized.

Perhaps one of the largest issues with protohistoric archaeology is the fact that diagnostic artifacts are so rare. For the San Pedro River valley, two artifact types, Whetstone Plain ceramics and Sobaipuri projectile points, are the only diagnostic artifacts that have been consistently reported on protohistoric sites (Di Peso 1953, 1956; Masse 1981; Ravesloot and Whittlesey 1987). Recent research at the Taylor Site may show that unifacial scrapers have the potential to be considered diagnostic protohistoric tools (James Vint, personal communication 2011). This issue is complicated by the presence of Sobaipuri projectile points in historical-period contexts (Gray and Heilen 2010). It has been suggested that So- baipuri points are actually an artifact horizon encompassing projectile points manufactured during the protohistoric and historical periods and stretching from Baja California to Texas

(Goerge M. Jacobs, personal communication 2011). Because there are so few diagnostic artifacts, it is possible that many protohistoric sites have not been recognized. Small flake scatters could easily date to any period, and archaeologists could overlook diagnostic features like rock rings in environments that have been heavily grazed. Protohistoric sites have not yielded distinctive decorated wares. Additionally there are few differences between the 50

ceramic typologies defined for the prehistoric and historical periods in the Papaguería and

along the Colorado and Gila Rivers.

The inability to accurately date deposits using seriation, traditional dendrochronology,

and radiocarbon techniques further complicates protohistoric archaeology. Organic material,

such as charcoal or bone, is often not recovered from protohistoric sites in Arizona, because

of the generally short-lived nature of these sites. Additionally, stratigraphic control over the

material being dated is crucial, especially if that material is noncultural (Dean 1978). Be-

cause many protohistoric sites are not buried, the definitive association of surface artifacts

with calcined bone or charcoal is difficult. It has been demonstrated that the rate of wood

decay in arid environments must be taken into consideration when interpreting radiocarbon

dates garnered from charcoal, as wood can preserve for hundreds of years after falling for

a tree, resulting in dates that are older than the actual episode of burning (Schiffer 1986).

Recent recalibrations of the radiocarbon curve have resulted in a more precise curve;

however, several pronounced “wiggles” persist from A.D. 1450 to 1750 (Reimer et al. 2004).

Human impacts, geographic effects, atmospheric mixing of carbon reservoirs and sun spot

activity caused fluctuations in the production of 14C in the past. These phenomena, called de Vries effects, are manifested as spikes or “wiggles” on the radiocarbon curve. De Vries effects result in multiple intercepts with other points on the curve, producing date ranges 51 with inadequate precision for utility in a historical inquiry. These myriad difficulties make radiocarbon dating impractical for protohistoric deposits.

Archaeomagnetic dating has been conducted on samples from several protohistoric roasting features and hearths at multiple sites (Chavarria 1996; Gasser et al. 1990; Raves- loot 1987). Archaeomagnetic dating relies on the construction of a regionally specific curve that is calibrated using independently dated archaeomagnetic pole positions. The first archaeomagnetic curve for the Southwest extended into the historical period, but the actual chronometric data were not published or released, making many researchers hesitant to rely on this model (DuBois 1975). A master Southwest VGP curve was proposed by the Colo- rado State University (CSU) Archaeomagnetic Laboratory; however, it did not extend past

A.D. 1425 because it was primarily calibrated using radiocarbon and tree-ring samples (La-

Belle and Eighmy 1997; Lengyel and Eighmy 2002). In 1995, the CSU Archaeomagnetic

Laboratory added six dates to the curve, which were calibrated using historical documentation, to expand its coverage into the twentieth century. While this increases the utility of archaeomagnetic dating for protohistoric sites, more samples need to be added to strengthen the curve during this period.

Recently archaeologists interested in this period have begun submitting ceramic samples for luminescence dating. The luminescence dating technique measures the intensity of the emission of light (luminescence signal) from material that has absorbed natural radiation 52

(Feathers 1997, 2000; Wintle 2008). The luminescence signal is measured by the application of heat (thermoluminescence) or by exposing the material to light (optically stimulated luminescence). The intensity of emission is proportional to the time elapsed since the accumulation of radiation began. Luminescence dating calculates the magnitude of the time elapsed by relating the intensity of the light emitted to the natural radioactivity in the surrounding environment. Heating material to about 450 degrees C will generally release the accumulated radiation and set the clock to zero. Measuring luminescence allows researchers to calculate how much time has elapsed since the last significant heating event. In other words, thermoluminescence can date the last time an object was exposed to a significant source of heat. This technique is most commonly used to date ceramics in the Southwest.

Luminescence dating requires the presence of a dosimeter (a material that will accumulate a luminescence signal) and a natural source of radiation (Feathers 1997). The feld- spars and quartzes present in the temper of many ceramics are effective dosimeters. Lumi- nescence also requires a zeroing event, wherein the dosimeters release all the accumulated radiation. For ceramics, this event may correlate to the initial firing of a vessel or the last time a vessel was used in conjunction with a heat source. One important caveat is that the potential for postdepositional firing, that is the heating of the material after it has been dis- carded, must be discounted, otherwise the date that is calculated will not reflect the last use of the ceramic vessel. In addition, enough time cannot have elapsed for radiation to saturate 53 the material, but this is not problematic for protohistoric contexts, as dosimeters require tens of thousands of years of exposure to natural radiation before they become saturated. The luminescence signal must also remain stable through time. If the signal is released periodically at ambient temperature, the measured date will appear too young.

A date is calculated by measuring the accumulated luminescence signal (equivalent dose) against the rate at which the object has been dosed with radiation (dose rate). For thermoluminescence, the equivalent dose is calculated by creating a growth curve; however, this curve must be an accurate model of the physical properties underlying it (Feath- ers 1997, 2003). If the model is inaccurate, extrapolation errors can be severe, particularly for young samples. Equivalent dose can also be calculated by heating the material up to release the luminescence signal and then rebuilding the signal incrementally to create a plot.

This method does not require a model of the underlying physical process, but by setting the clock to zero, researchers can inadvertently alter luminescence sensitivity, thereby producing an inaccurate measurement. With the development of single-aliquot regenerative dose

(SAR) protocols used in optically stimulated luminescence dating, each natural or regener- ated dose measurement is corrected for sensitivity changes using the response to a subsequent test dose, with the result that there is no change in the corrected dose-response curve upon re-measurement (Murray and Wintle 2000; Wintle and Murray 2006). 54

Measuring the dose rate is complicated by the fact that the external dose rate can be difficult to estimate, the rate can change over time, and samples must be corrected to account for moisture content. External dose rate can be estimated by planting a dosimeter at the site for a year or by collecting soil from a three-dimensional area around the sample to model the dose rate. However, these methods only measure current changes in external dose rate rather than changes through time. Creating an accurate model for the dose rate is fundamental to gaining accurate dates. Additionally, artifacts that have been left exposed on the surface are even more difficult to date accurately and precisely. Because soil samples cannot be collected from above the artifact, dose rate estimations become less precise, resulting in larger error ranges. In other words, using luminescence on a surface sherd will generate a reliable date; however, the range of error could cover a span of several hundred years. For these reasons, some researchers caution against using luminescence dating on surface artifacts (Aitken 1985, 1989).

The primary difficulty in evaluating the accuracy of luminescence dates lays in the fact that models of equivalent dose and dose rate are constructed by the individual researcher and currently not subject to the same kinds of external review as radiocarbon dates. Some scholars remain hesitant about using this technique, and it is likely that these doubts are compounded by the expense inherent in luminescence dating (Feathers 1997). Despite these reservations, several researchers have begun using luminescence in protohistoric contexts 55

(Dykeman et al. 2002; Feathers and Rhode 1989; Ramenofsky and Feathers 2002). A recent

examination by Dykeman et al. (2002) compared thermoluminescence and tree-ring dates

from protohistoric Navajo contexts, demonstrating good correspondence between the dates

despite the fact that they related to different events (i.e., the firing of a ceramic vessel versus

the death of a tree). Like all chronometric techniques, luminescence is best used in concert

with other dating methods in order to date multiple events across a site, thereby maximiz-

ing the accuracy of chronological interpretation and minimizing chronometric errors.

In summary, the effective use of luminescence dating requires (1) the identification

of the precise event that is being measured, (2) a secure context that can be directly associ-

ated with the event that is being calculated, (3) no post-depositional firing, (4) limited post- abandonment disturbance, and (5) no exposure to sunlight (for ceramics this is less of a concern because the center of the sherd is used, but cracked sherds should be avoided). For thermoluminescence of ceramics, laboratories require sherds that are 6–7 mm thick and at least 3 m in diameter and enough samples from the surrounding environment to accurately estimate dose rate (Feathers 1997). These requirements are difficult to meet for protohistoric sites in the Pimería Alta because they largely consist of surface scatters that have been

subjected to trampling and grazing for hundreds of years. Additionally, ceramic sherds from

these sites are generally highly fragmented, making the collection of an appropriate sample 56 difficult. Ultimately, the nature of protohistoric deposits makes the use of absolute dating techniques a complicated undertaking.

Conclusions

Protohistoric archaeology has a long history in the Southwest. The few early examinations of this period were conducted in an effort to clarify regional culture history and chronology.

Although limited progress was made during the 1950s under Charles Di Peso, protohistoric archaeology achieved its zenith with the expansion of the CRM industry. CRM projects contributed significantly to our understanding of this period, and they helped clarify the characteristics of protohistoric sites. However, numerous data gaps remain, specifically relating to the size and density of these deposits as well as the difficulties inherent in using absolute dating techniques and sophisticated compositional analyses. Despite these complications, research on the protohistoric period has the potential to yield valuable information about demographic change, culture contact, and ethnic identity in the Southwest. The following chapter will summarize the various theoretical frameworks that have been used to examine this period within archaeology. A discussion of the theoretical approach that will be used in this dissertation will follow.

CHAPTER 3: THEORY

The Protohistoric period (A.D. 1450–1700) is a critical time in the Pan-American past because it was characterized by massive social upheaval and reorganization. This period marks the transition from prehistory to history; a time when the boundaries between historically documented ethnic groups were being shaped and negotiated. Despite its importance, the Protohistoric period is not well understood from an anthropological perspective.

This hampers our understanding of the processes by which large archaeological complexes were transformed after A.D. 1450, further obscuring the relationships among and between archaeological cultures and historically documented ethnic groups.

The processes inherent in ethnic group formation and maintenance are widely debated.

In the Pimería Alta, two distinct theories have been proposed to explain the relationship between archaeological cultures and historically documented populations. The first theory emphasizes cultural continuity and argues that the people encountered by Spanish missionaries in the seventeenth century were the remnant populations of the widespread Hohokam complex that once dominated southern Arizona (Gladwin et al. 1937; Haury 1945). Implicit within this hypothesis is the assertion that modern indigenous ethnic groups are the direct descendants of those archeological cultures. Other researchers have argued that the Pimería

Alta was completely depopulated after A.D. 1450 (Ravesloot and Whittlesey 1987; Reff 58

1990, 1991b). It is hypothesized that populations from Sonora slowly migrated north to re- populate the region prior to the seventeenth century, laying the foundations for the formation of historically documented ethnic groups (Masse 1981).

These competing theories have far-reaching implications not only for understanding demographic change in the Southwest, but for cultural affiliation research. The social and political significance of cultural affiliation research cannot be overstated (Ferguson 2004;

Jones 2005; Liebmann 2008). Examination of the relationships between modern ethnic groups and archaeological cultures can provide legal and political support for claims of cultural patrimony, as well as claims over natural resources. These studies have been central to Indian land claim cases, disputes over the control of water and other natural resources, and legal battles to restrict access to and the development of sacred landscapes. Cultural affiliation research has the ability to grant or deny ethnic groups, researchers, and developers political and social power. Therefore, such research must be conducted responsibly with an understanding its far-reaching implications.

Researchers have employed a diverse body of method and theory to examine the Proto- historic period in the Southwest. Much of this previous research has centered on culture history (Di Peso 1956; Ezell 1963a; Hayden 1967), demographic change (Reff 1990, 1991b), environmental ecology (Dudley 2001; Fritz 1977, 1989), subsistence patterns (Bahr et al.

1994; Pavao-Zuckerman 2007; Sheridan 1988b), oral traditions (Bahr 1971; Bahr et al. 1994; 59

Teague 1993), exchange (Spielmann 1989, 1991), and migration (Hill et al. 2004; Neuzil

2005; Reid 1998; Wilcox 1981). However, one fundamental question implicit within these inquiries is the nature of the relationships between archaeological cultures and historically documented indigenous groups. This dissertation examines these relationships using a theoretical framework derived from anthropological research on ethnic identity. Literature on ethnicity or ethnic identity developed out of two distinct research paradigms, culture history and culture contact studies, both of which are summarized below. A discussion of the fundamental elements of the theoretical framework employed in this dissertation will follow this synopsis.

Culture History

Early attempts to reconcile the relationships between archaeological cultures and modern populations relied on culture history and the direct historical approach. Culture history is a fundamental tool for both anthropologists and historians, yet over time it has been associated with a host of negative connotations. At its most basic level, culture history is an approach by which researchers classify and describe the development of discrete cultures (Trigger

1989). By identifying and compiling lists of cultural traits, the parameters of separate cultural entities can be defined over time and across space. Culture history was the dominant 60 paradigm in American archaeology until the mid-twentieth century, when researchers began to recognize the limitations of this framework.

The greatest weakness of culture history was its inability to explain the forces by which cultures change (Binford 1962; Willey and Phillips 1958). Until the emergence of processual archaeology, diffusion was considered the dominant force behind this process (Trig- ger 1989). Processual archaeology adopted a more systemic, hypothesis-driven approach, wherein cultural change was interpreted as adaptive rather than reactive. However, such inquiries still relied heavily on the knowledge base generated by culture history.

While culture history research does little to explain the processes of culture change, its ultimate utility is as a classificatory tool (Trigger 1989). The creation of artifact typologies and the identification of cultural traits in relation to the formulation of master chronologies was the driving force behind the development of culture history in North

America (Lyman and O’Brien 2006). Artifact typologies are generated based on variation in function, technological style, and design. Typologies can have useful analytical power for the identification of cultural change, but they also represent artificial categories created by the researcher (Arnold 1999; Dunnell 1986; Lyman and O’Brien 2006; O’Brien and Lyman

1999; Read 2007). Typologies are inherently biased because they represent patterns in variation apparent and important to the researcher rather than to the original manufacturers.

Despite the difficulties inherent in the creation of typologies, variation in production across 61 space and through time requires explanation. Typologies can reveal non-random attribute patterns, and many have endured over time, suggesting that, for the most part, they are based on objective observations.

Differences in classificatory techniques have resulted in a division among researchers into so-called “lumpers” and “splitters.” The purpose of a typology is to minimize variation within an artifact type while simultaneously maximizing the differences between individual types. Therefore, artifact types are defined by a combination of “internal cohesion and external isolation” (Cormack 1971:329). Those who lump artifact types together are generally more impressed by external isolation, while those who split artifact groups into many types favor internal cohesion (Adams and Adams 1991). This becomes a methodological problem with the creation of taxonomies and the chronological organization of types, which has particular importance for ceramic analysis in the Southwest (Adams and

Adams 1991; Shepard 1956).

Ceramics are among the most abundant and diverse class of artifacts in the Southwest.

Archaeologists have devoted considerable time and effort to identifying meaningful patterns in the variation of these artifacts over space and time. Building chronologies based on the frequencies of decorated wares was a fundamental goal of early researchers; however, plain wares were largely ignored because the differences between them were not as apparent or as readily distinguishable. Some attempts at distinguishing temporal variability in plain wares 62 have met with limited success (Henderson 1987; Whittlesey 1993). In one such study, whole

Hohokam plain ware vessels from contexts dated by the presence of decorated ceramics were examined to identify attributes that exhibited consistent variation through time (Whittlesey

1993). Plain wares dominate the artifact collections from protohistoric sites; however, such an analysis would be impossible to replicate for these assemblages. No decorated wares have been consistently identified in association with these sites outside of the Colorado and

Gila Rivers and traditional absolute dating techniques have extremely limited utility within these contexts, making chronometric control very difficult. Certain attributes, specifically temper type (Whittlesey 1994), have the potential to demonstrate sufficient variation over time to support the development of protohistoric ceramic typologies, but without precise chronometric control those typologies cannot be adequately tested. Traditionally analysts have been content to identify protohistoric ceramics simply as plain ware. However, some protohistoric ceramic typologies were created and tied directly to particular ethnic groups, but there is very little description of the attributes that distinguish them from other protohistoric plain wares (Di Peso 1956; Fontana et al. 1962; Waters 1982).

The problems perpetuated by the use of artifact typologies have led researchers to record observable ceramic attributes independently of artifact type (Duff 2002; Rice 1987).

Because attributes are empirical observations that are verifiable, they can be considered reasonably objective. A reanalysis of the attributes of ceramics from protohistoric contexts 63 can shed light on whether these typologies reflect qualitative differences that can be tied to specific ethnic groups or whether they merely embody the regional specialization and biases of the analyst.

Within the culture history framework, artifact typologies are used to create lists of traits that form the basis for understanding the spatial and temporal relationships between archaeological cultures. At the height of the culture history paradigm, archaeologists equated culture areas with ethnic groups and considered the spatial boundaries of both to be equivalent and clearly demarcated (Trigger 1989). This approach suffered serious drawbacks because the trait distributions that were used to define archaeological cultures did not coincide with those defining historically documented ethnic groups (Emberling 1997). Culture history operated under the assumption that ethnic groups were characterized by biologically self- perpetuating populations, with a shared set of cultural values, and a communal language

(e.g., Kroeber 1939). However, the distribution of language groups, political boundaries, physical variation, and differences in material culture did not correspond to one another, and the boundaries between these traits were often ambiguous.

While the validity of the archaeological culture concept has come under intense debate, it remains one of the most resilient classificatory tools within archaeology (Roberts and Vander

Linden 2011). Similar to the critiques of time periods discussed in Chapter 2, the culture area concept creates a false sense of dichotomy and reinforces an artificial sense of social 64 isolation between neighboring cultures (Scheiber and Mitchell 2010). Research has shown that the boundaries portrayed between culture areas are indistinct and represent only those observations relevant to researchers, rather than differences apparent and important to past peoples (Thomas 1989). Critics have argued that particular types of artifacts or features do not equate to actual groups (Hodder 1978). Furthermore, the complexities inherent in ethnic identity, which will be discussed below, prevent a straightforward connection between archaeological cultures and group identity (Jones 1997; Wolf 1982).

Direct Historical Approach

In order to associate archaeological complexes with historically documented ethnic groups, researchers have heavily relied on the direct historical approach (Lyman and O’Brien 2001,

2006; Steward 1942). As described by Steward (1942:337) the direct historical approach involves working backward from the known (historical period) to the unknown (prehistoric period). The first step involves the identification of historical-period sites occupied by known groups. The cultural sequences identified at these sites are then carried back in time to protohistoric and prehistoric contexts so that broad cycles of culture change can be identified. This technique is further elaborated by the use of ethnographies, from which historical analogues for past behaviors are made (Lyman and O’Brien 2001, 2006). Researchers attempt to identify homologous material signatures and their transmission through time from 65 archaeological cultures to historically documented groups. This results in the compilation of trait lists, wherein traits would appear continuously or once in a cultural sequence. By examining the persistence of cultural traits, researchers separate older from newer traits and arrange them in chronological order to examine long-term culture change. Because the ultimate goal is an uninterrupted cultural sequence stretching from prehistory to the historical period, a direct relationship between archaeological cultures and historically documented ethnic groups is an inevitable by-product of this approach.

The direct historical approach was used throughout the Southwest to link modern groups to the remains of large abandoned pueblos (e.g., Fewkes 1919; Kidder 1924; Kroeber 1916), and it was later used in the Pimería Alta (e.g., Gladwin et al. 1937). These scholars conducted long-term ethnographic research projects among modern indigenous populations while simultaneously excavating the remnants of large archaeological sites, which appeared startlingly similar to the communities that their research subjects occupied. Given that the prevailing theory explaining culture change centered on diffusion and migration, these researchers assumed that cultural continuity had existed between these archaeological remains and modern peoples.

The direct historical approach emphasizes similarities between source and subject and examines the continuity of certain traits, thereby giving the impression that cultures changed minimally over time (Lightfoot 1995:204; Rubertone 2000). It is a simplistic approach 66 because it underestimates the ability of cultures to change. Furthermore, it implies that cultures did not change substantially after European colonization. The emphasis on continuity suggests that the many facets of colonialism, including epidemic disease, the introduction of Old World domesticates, participation in global exchange networks, and forced migration, would have no discernible impact on indigenous groups.

The direct historical approach also relies heavily on historical analogy. Researchers unaccustomed to working with the ethnographic and documentary records often carelessly combine these data to produce a single interpretation of traditional practices without giving due consideration to their inherent biases (Lightfoot 1995; Lyman and O’Brien 2001,

2006). This approach is both ahistorical and ignores the dynamic nature of human populations over time.

Culture Contact Studies

Culture contact research encompasses myriad approaches that all seek to understand the contexts, processes, and consequences of sustained contact between discrete groups.

While much of this research has focused on contact between Europeans and indigenous peoples in colonial settings, it is important to recognize that culture contact theory is relevant for understanding population dynamics and cultural change in pluralistic communities as well (Jenks 2011; Lightfoot et al. 1998; Riggs 2007; Scotten 2007; Smith 1972; 67

Stein 2005; van Dommelen 2005). Cultural change embodies multiple meanings, including the adoption, substitution, addition, subtraction, syncretism, and innovation of behaviors and goods (Rice 1998).

The study of culture change is central to the discipline of anthropology; however, the first formulation of a paradigm focused directly on the consequences of culture contact, or

“acculturation,” was articulated by Redfield et al. (1936). Acculturation was initially defined as transformations in the cultural patterns of one or more groups that resulted from sustained contact between those groups (Redfield et al. 1936:149). While this definition allowed for the possibility of change among both groups, subsequent use of acculturation theory tended to emphasize the unidirectional assimilation of cultural traits from European to indigenous societies in a colonial context (Cusick 1998). Acculturation theory also implies that cultures are monolithic entities. Power relations played a pivotal role in the development of acculturation theory into the mid-twentieth century (Foster 1960; Spicer 1961, 1962); however, the association with Eurocentric approaches lingered and subsequent researchers abandoned the term “acculturation” in favor of the less polarizing phrase “culture contact research.”

Subsumed under the rubric of culture contact studies are a variety of other research themes. A large body of research is dedicated to the links between culture contact, demographic change, and the environment. The environmental impacts of European colonialism have been examined in relation to European land tenure policies and agricultural practices. 68

Colonial organization of space ultimately eliminated communal land and wrested away control of major waterways (Dudley 2001; Ebright 2008 [1994]; Jenks 2011; Sánchez 2008).

The establishment of a colonial presence affected indigenous settlement patterns through forced relocation (Kessell 2002; Lightfoot 2005) and population resettlement (Barrett 2002).

The spread and impact of Old World diseases has been widely debated among archaeologists, historians, and cultural anthropologists (e.g., Cook 1998; Daniels 1992; Dobyns

1983, 1991; Dunnell 1991; Henige 1986, 1989; Henige 1998; Kealhofer 1996; Kiple and

Beck 1997; Ramenofsky 1987; Ramenofsky et al. 2003; Reff 1990, 1991b). The controversy inherent in disease research involves several related issues: (1) the estimation of precontact population size, (2) the rate of the spread of disease, (3) the estimation of contact- era population loss, (4) the cumulative effects of the colonial process, and (5) the impacts of disease on culture change. Several schools of thought developed regarding these issues; however, these early debates can generally be divided into two groups: (1) those that rely on estimates gained from written records, suggesting slow, episodic disease events that diminished New World population over several hundred years (Kroeber 1939), and (2) those that argue in favor of early catastrophic population loss (e.g., Dobyns 1983; Dunnell 1991).

Early researchers proposed that population levels in the New World were low ca.

A.D. 1400 (no more than 9 million), with substantial geographic gaps between larger population centers that would have slowed the spread of disease. Such interpretations favor 69 episodic disease events and suggest that disease did not have a serious impact on most populations prior to sustained contact (Kroeber 1939). These interpretations often relied on written descriptions from historical-period documents and have been criticized for developing precontact population estimates based on best-guesses rather than quantifiable criteria (Daniels 1992).

Subsequent scholars proposed models of catastrophic population loss, suggesting that

New World population levels could have been as high as 100 million persons prior to

A.D. 1492 (Dobyns 1966). These researchers generally favor the “virgin soil” interpretation, wherein Old World epidemic diseases spread rapidly throughout indigenous communities because people lacked immunity. They theorized that in many cases the first waves of disease preceded European explorers, resulting in demographic collapse and massive social upheaval. Remnant populations encountered by Europeans in the interior would have represented a mere shadow of their former size and complexity. This perspective implies that there is little continuity between prehistoric and historical-period populations, rendering the direct historical approach useless in these instances. It also suggests that oral histories would be an unreliable primary source given the likelihood that such traditions would have died with their bearers during the first few waves of disease. In this view, the spread of

Old World diseases represents an unbridgeable gap between prehistory and history (Dobyns

1991). Proponents of these interpretations have been heavily criticized for their uncritical 70 use of historical documents and reliance on carrying capacity statistics calculated at a pan- regional scale (Daniels 1992).

Recent reevaluation of the disease phenomena has led scholars to conclude that such broad generalizations cannot be made for the New World as a whole (Hull 2009). The legacy of New World pathogens must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, wherein the each group is examined within their specific historical context. Adequate assessments must draw on multiple lines of evidence to consider the specific people involved; the pathogen(s); the sequence and timing of disease and incursion by colonists; traditional knowledge of similar situations (i.e., oral traditions of previous epidemics among other groups); and the available options for cultural and biological survival during the disease episode (Hull 2009:220). The impact of disease on any given population depends on many factors including pre-disease population density, geographic isolation, settlement patterns, subsistence patterns, previous history of disease, environmental productivity, regional interaction, and social organization.

The spread of these pathogens resulted in differential, population loss, in some cases at catastrophic levels. Ensuing famine and the return of disease created such havoc that some remnant populations coalesced and formed new groups (Kelton 2007; Knight 1994; Smith

2000) or migrated to new areas (Bush and Callender 1984; Ethridge and Hudson 1996;

Hoffman 1993). In these instances, cultural practices likely changed dramatically to accommodate new group members or migrations to new locales. While the devastating effects of 71

Old World diseases were documented in the Southwest during the early historical period, little convincing data have been presented to suggest that epidemics caused catastrophic population collapse and social reorganization prior to the arrival of European explorers and colonists. This research question is further complicated by the issues inherent in assigning absolute dates to archaeological remains between A.D. 1450 and 1700.

Other theoretical approaches have focused on the economic implications of culture contact. The introduction of Old World crop domesticates, specifically wheat, and domesticated animals such as horses, cattle, and pigs, had a profound effect on subsistence strategies and regional exchange (Doyel 1989; Ferg 2004; Pavao-Zuckerman 2008; Pavao-Zuckerman and LaMotta 2007; Pavao-Zuckerman and Reitz 2006; Sheridan 1988b). Indigenous groups shifted their subsistence strategies to participate in the global economy, supplying Europe- ans with animal hides, tallow, labor, and captives in exchange for guns, horses, and other goods (Brooks 2002; Brugge 1999; Lightfoot et al. 1998; Pavao-Zuckerman 2007, 2011;

Silliman 2001; Spielmann 1989, 1991). Indigenous populations responded differently to these stimuli, in some cases resisting colonial forces through violence or subversive measures (Deeds 1998a, 1998b; Liebmann and Preucel 2007; Singleton 1998; Spielmann et al.

2006). The availability of European goods and participation in these far-flung networks of exchange solicited diverse responses from indigenous groups, in some cases changing their modes of interaction with other groups and altering their subsistence strategies. 72

The consequences of European colonialism, including massive population loss, resettlement, and shifts in subsistence strategies engendered a climate of social upheaval that contributed to the formation of new ethnic groups. The process by which ethnic identities are reformulated based on shared interactions and a new understanding of group membership and cohesion has been termed “ethnogenesis” (Anderson 1999; Cusick 2000; Deagan

1973, 1998; Hill 1996; Kelton 2007; Lightfoot et al. 1998; Loren 2000; Murphee 2006;

Smith 1972; Smith 2000; Voss 2008). Much of this research has been focused on multi- ethnic households in colonial contexts or situations in which disparate populations were brought together through exchange, migration, captivity, or resettlement. The myriad interactions between diverse groups of people often resulted in the adoption of new practices and a change in the way they perceived themselves and others, sometimes culminating in a “creolized” identity (Cusick 2000; Jenks 2011; Loren 2000).

Examining Ethnogenesis and Ethnic Identity in the Archaeological Record

The processes inherent in the creation, maintenance, negotiation, and expression of ethnic identity are a fundamental subset of culture contact research. Stone (2003) divided archaeological approaches to this paradigm into examinations of conscious and unconscious expressions of identity. Researchers who examine the conscious expression of ethnic identity 73 are heavily influenced by Barth’s (1969) work on the creation, maintenance, and function of ethnic boundaries. Barth (1969) defines ethnic groups as categories of ascription and identification maintained by the group members themselves. In other words, ethnic groups are not defined by culture, language, and race, but rather by criteria created, negotiated, and perpetuated by group members, and that are recognized by other groups, as a distinguishable category. This definition implies that ethnic identity is part of a fluid social process, and it allows for the possibility of change within group membership.

Inherent within this approach is the idea that ethnic identity is consciously expressed in material culture through the maintenance of ethnic boundaries (McGuire 1982b). One problematic tenet within this paradigm is the assumption that these expressions of identity are intentional. It is likely that not all the patterns researchers identify were used intentionally by people to signal their identity. Additionally, there are few ways to verify that the patterns observed by researchers were in fact significant to people in the past. Despise these reservations, some researchers have used this theory to try and isolate the material correlates of ethnic boundary maintenance, sometimes referred to as “ethnic markers.” Changes in these ethnic markers are thought to sometimes reflect changes in ethnic identity. The degree of ethnic boundary maintenance is determined by the differences in values between neighboring ethnic groups and the degree of economic or ecological interdependence among these groups. Some examples of ethnic markers include distinct styles of projectile points 74

(Wiessner 1983), cranial deformation (Derrick and Wilson 1997), and variation in food remains and ceramics (Deagan 1973; Greenwood 1980; McGuire 1982b).

Archaeologists investigating ethnic markers have been critiqued for applying this concept in one-dimensional, simplistic, and shallow ways (Babson 1990; Jones 1997; Single- ton 1998). The use of ethnic markers to signal group membership is problematic because material culture does not exhibit a one-to-one correlation with identity. In order for ethnic markers to be identified and interpreted effectively, it is first necessary to reconstruct the suite of behaviors and social contexts with which they are associated. This suite of behaviors results in multiple material signatures, that when found collectively may signal group membership. Unfortunately, some archaeologists have misused ethnic markers and treated them in a similar way to temporally diagnostic artifacts, by assuming that the presence of one distinctive artifact equates to a single group. Because the concept of ethnic markers has been misapplied so frequently, it has resulted in the perception that ethnic markers are static objects, thereby ignoring the dynamic nature of ethnic identity.

Subsequent approaches have examined the role of the state in the creation and maintenance of ethnic identity (Alonso 1994; Dominguez 1986; Emberling 1997; Evans-Pritchard

1940; Norton 1984). Ethnic groups were often defined by colonial administrators, and the boundaries between them were perpetuated by the colonial bureaucracy. Nowhere is this process more apparent than within the Spanish colonial casta system, wherein formal ethnic 75 identities were defined by the state for the purposes of organizing and counting people of mixed ancestry, while simultaneously controlling the social and political power of certain groups (Katzew 2004). The formation and consequences of nationalism are embedded within these complex relationships between ethnic identities and the state (Alonso 1994; Emberling

1997; Meskell 2001, 2002a, 2002b). The disciplines of history and anthropology have often been used to create and reinforce national identities, but such research can also undermine or bolster claims about authenticity, legitimacy, ownership, and rights (Meskell 2002a; Upton

1996). The role of social memory has also been examined in these contexts, especially as it relates to revising contentious histories (Meskell 2002b; Trouillot 1995). The processes by which people interacted with each other and the state were not always explicit. The intentionality, specifically the conscious signaling and negotiation of ethnic boundaries, built into Barth’s (1969) model did not account for the possibility that differences in ethnic identity might be visible in habitual behaviors, while not consciously expressed.

Researchers borrowed heavily from social theorists to examine the ways in which ethnic identity might be expressed unconsciously in everyday life. Practice theory asserts that the ways in which a person orders and goes about daily life reflects the structure of the social system in which they participate (Bourdieu 1977, 1990). Objective conditions and social structures, such as the environment and the relations of production, determine how everyday practice is structured. Habitus, the structure of practice, is unconsciously learned through 76 the process of socialization (Jenkins 2004; Nash 2003). Habitus exists in the everyday hab- its of individuals and provides the foundation for practices by predisposing people to act in certain ways, thereby reproducing the objective conditions that structure society. In es- sence, people repeatedly reproduce underlying structural principles as they conduct their daily life (Lightfoot et al. 1998; Silliman 2001).

This approach does not support the concept that an objective reality can be distinct from the observer, which suggests that practices transcend consciousness and agency (Bourdieu

1977, 1990; De Certeau 1984). Practice theory contends that these processes are so thoroughly embedded within society that the actor cannot achieve independence from the social network. During periods of social upheaval, some domains of habitus can become part of the collective consciousness and called into question. Archaeologists have adapted these concepts, which have a temporal emphasis, in order to recognize signatures of identity hidden in everyday practices (Lightfoot et al. 1998; White and Beaudry 2009). A fundamental tenet of this approach is that individuals embody social identities, and society is created through the collective actions of individuals (Jenkins 2004). Because identity is negotiated through interaction with others, it is fluid and can vary depending on the context in which it is situated (Ferguson 2004:29). In order to examine these manifestations in the archaeological record, researchers tend to distinguish between the conscious expression and manipulation of ethnic identity and the unconscious expression of cultural norms. Conscious expressions of 77 ethnic identity are considered to be more fluid and easier for individuals to negotiate. Be- cause unconscious practices are embedded within social structures, they are more difficult to alter, but variations in these practices sometimes reflect cultural change. Therefore, a suite of conscious expressions of identity are more likely to yield information about an individual’s ethnic heritage, while the unconscious expression of cultural norms can provide insight into social dynamics and the processes inherent in cultural change.

The theoretical approaches summarized above address individual stages (creation, maintenance, or fragmentation) in the “life history” of ethnic identities. A specific paradigm that seeks to trace these processes over long periods of time is called the ethnogenetic approach

(Moore 2001; Terrell 2001). Proponents of this method assert that human populations periodically reorganize themselves, with the result that new ethnic groups have ties to multiple antecedent groups. Case studies from colonial contexts support this assertion (Cusick 2000;

Deagan 1973, 1998; Lightfoot et al. 1998; Loren 2000). Ethnogenetic modeling is similar to the ethnohistorical method in that it marshals linguistic, ethnographic, archaeological, and historical data to create a graphic depiction of demographic change through time. How- ever, supporters of this theory have traditionally prioritized linguistic and ethnographic data and tied this research in with biological concepts. Discussing ethnic groups as grounded in biological degrees of relatedness is a dangerous proposition. Ethnicity and race are not the same entity. Ethnicity is a socially constructed category, while race was intended to be a 78 biological classification (Thomas 2000). Furthermore, notions of a shared kinship are only one of the many factors defining ethnic group membership. As previously stated, members of these groups may have notions of shared kinship without sharing genetic material. Ulti- mately, ethnic identity is predicated on how people perceive themselves and others, rather than on biological degrees of relatedness. If researchers ignore these tenets, they risk providing fodder for the misuse of science to bolster racist interpretations of biology and human evolution. Additionally, privileging biological concepts of relatedness would have significant political implications, particularly for cultural affiliation research.

Cultural Affiliation Research

With the passage of the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in 1990, museums and repositories across the nation were obliged to open their vaults and inventory their collections of Native American human remains and sacred objects. Owing to the unique political relationship between the United States government and federally recognized Indian tribes, and in recognition of their human rights, NAGPRA was designed to protect Native

American graves and provide a legal framework under which items of cultural patrimony could be returned to those groups. As part of this precedent-setting legislation, all projects that could potentially disturb Native American sites situated on federal or tribal land required consultation with those tribes who claimed cultural affiliation with groups that may 79 have resided in the areas of potential effect. Since 1990, countless researchers, museums, public land managers, and cultural resource management companies have conducted intensive investigations to identify those groups who can claim cultural affiliation with particular archaeological sites and materials.

NAGPRA defines cultural affiliation as: “. . . a relationship of shared group identity which can be reasonably traced historically or prehistorically between a present day In- dian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and an identifiable earlier group” (Congress

1990:168). Cultural affiliation must be established through a preponderance of evidence which demonstrates “a continuity of group identity from the earlier to the present day group”

(Senate 1990:9). To satisfy the legal requirements of this federal mandate, cultural affiliation must be established through multiple lines of evidence that include archaeological, anthropological, historical, geographical, linguistic, oral historical, and biological data.

In an attempt to demonstrate cultural continuity with multiple lines of evidence, many researchers have relied on the direct historical approach. As discussed in the above section, continuity of group identity back into the prehistoric period ignores both the fluid nature of ethnic identity and the social turmoil engendered by colonial contexts. Such a requirement denies the possibility of cultures to change dramatically through time. Nevertheless, researchers are under intense political, social, and disciplinary pressures to establish cultural continuity between modern groups and archaeological cultures. 80

Given the fluidity of human populations in the past it is hardly surprising that more than one group would lay claim to a set of materials, and multiple cultural affiliation claims to the same materials are a common complication in consultations. NAGPRA does not give sufficient guidance on handling cases with multiple claims, and until these conflicts can be settled, the materials remain in the custody of the curation facility (Livesay 1992:289).

In the event that no reasonable link can be made between archaeological materials and their direct lineal descendants, the materials can be transferred to the tribe on whose land the materials were acquired or to the group with the closest demonstrated cultural affiliation (Senate 1990). If the cultural affiliation of certain materials cannot be ascertained, they will be given to the group that traditionally occupied the territory in which the remains were found. These alternatives undermine the spirit of the law, which is to return sacred objects to the practitioners of indigenous religions and to treat human remains with respect so that they can be reburied and provided with ceremonial rights appropriate to the group from which they came.

Researchers who conduct cultural affiliation studies should be aware of the political significance of their work, as well as the consequences it can have for Native American groups

(Beaudry 2009; Ferguson 2004; Meskell 2002a; Silliman 2010; Wylie 2000). Cultural affiliation studies create legal and political support for Indian land claims, disputes over natural resources, access to sacred sites, and the return of archaeological and cultural materials. 81

They have the ability to grant or deny people political and social power. These studies also force anthropologists to consider the political implications of culture history and archaeological classification schemes (Ferguson 2004).

Approaches that examine migration, invasion, displacement, and flexible social practices are important for cultural affiliation research because they emphasize the fluid nature of identity (Ferguson 2004:31). Cultural affiliation research encompasses the relationship modern groups share with their ancestors, and it must also take into account the origins of current Native American identity and how these groups identify with their ancestors in order to define past groups and to understand the material correlates of identity. Few Native

Americans view their ancestors in terms of archaeological cultures; therefore, conceptual- izing ethnogenesis as a braided channel of cultural transmission makes it possible that many contemporary tribes could have valid claims to multiple past identities.

Theoretical Approach to Examining Ethnic Identity during the Protohistoric Period in the Pimería Alta

The goal of this dissertation is to understand the relationships between archaeological cultures and historically documented ethnic groups in the Pimería Alta by examining demographic change during the Protohistoric period. Implicit within this framework is the assertion promoted by ethnogentic modelers, that populations are prone to periodically reorganize 82 themselves (Moore 2001; Terrell 2001). This approach differs drastically from earlier methods of examining demographic change (Moore 1994). The models previously described tend to focus on the historical process by which succeeding groups are derived from a single par- ent population. Instead, ethnogenetic modeling emphasizes the extent to which each new group is rooted in several antecedent populations. Ethnogenetic models rely heavily on a multidisciplinary approach that examines the shifting links between language, culture, and kinship during periods of social or environmental upheaval.

There were multiple opportunities between A.D. 1450 and 1700 for social and environmental stress to create conditions favorable for population reorganization. The disintegration of the Hohokam cultural complex, introduction of Old World diseases, migration of new groups into the region, and/or sporadic contact with European missionaries are all catalysts that could have resulted in population reorganization and ethnogenesis. The identification of one or more instances of social reorganization would demonstrate a lack of cultural continuity from the prehistoric to historical periods.

This theoretical approach will rely on the examination and identification of changes in daily practice. Because practices are embedded within social structures, changes in these practices may reflect cultural change. Such changes may be visible in ceramic manufacture and style, spatial organization, and subsistence patterns. It is important to realize that changes in practice do not always result in shifts in identity; however, substantial changes 83 in multiple practices can shed light on the processes involved in cultural change. Similarly, changes in practices do not necessitate ethnogenesis. The presence of certain artifact types, most notably Whetstone Plain ware, Palomas Buff ware, Parker Buff ware, and Sobaipuri projectile points, have been used (sometimes unintentionally) as markers of cultural affiliation. An evaluation and comparison of the attributes of a sample of these artifacts may reveal whether the typologies reflect empirical differences or researcher biases.

Changes in everyday practice and archaeological evidence for population reorganization during the Protohistoric period would have implications for cultural affiliation studies.

The resulting picture of demographic change would resemble a woven tapestry of cultural affiliation, thereby providing multiple groups with valid claims to the same set of archaeological materials. This research could also legitimize claims that these groups may have to land, natural resources, and sacred sites.

This theoretical approach will borrow heavily from culture contact theory, specifically ethnic identity and practice theories, and ethnogenetic modeling. The ultimate goal of this dissertation is to examine the relationships between historically documented ethnic groups and archaeological remains through the processes inherent in demographic change.

The following chapter will summarize the environmental, cultural, and historical context of the Pimería Alta and identify the data requirements necessary to meet these research goals. 84

CHAPTER 4: CONTEXT

The Pimería Alta encompasses a large area extending across southern Arizona into Sonora and contains multiple environmental zones. It stretches from the Gila River south to the Al- tar and Magdalena river valleys, and east from the San Pedro River to the Colorado River and the Gulf of California (Figure 4.1). Several archaeological cultures coexisted in this region during the fourteenth century, and a complex network of trails crosscuts much of the area. The Pimería Alta was occupied by several linguistic groups during the historical period; however, the Spanish named it for the Piman speakers who lived in rancherías along the major river valleys. As the northernmost frontier of Sonora, the Pimería Alta was on the periphery of Spanish settlement in the Americas and was not a focus of colonial efforts until the end of the seventeenth century. By the time Jesuit missionaries established a permanent presence in the region, indigenous populations had already acquired European trade goods, encountered ranchers and/or slavers, and probably been exposed to epidemic diseases.

Environmental Context

The Pimería Alta is situated within the Basin and Range zone, wherein north-south-trending mountain ranges are separated by basins and through-flowing drainages. The geologic features in this zone were created by block faulting during the Miocene, about 12–13 million 85 Figure 4.1. The Figure Alta. Pimería 86

years ago (Hendricks 1985; Scarborough 2000). The resulting mountain ranges and basins

trend south-southeast to north-northwest. The Pimería Alta can be further subdivided into

High and Low Basin and Range zones. The Papaguería is located within the Low Basin and

Range Zone, while the San Pedro is within the High Basin and Range zone, and the Tucson

Basin serves as a transition zone between them. Elevations in the High Basin and Range

zone vary from 600 to 3,250 m. The basins average between 1,000 and 1,250 m, while the

mountain peaks stand between 2,000 and 3,250 m in elevation. Within the Papaguería basin floors lie below 700 m in elevation and the mountains generally rise less than 1,000 m

above them.

Igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks are abundant within this region. Igneous

rocks include Precambrian and Tertiary granites as well as rhyolites, obsidians, and basalts

ranging in age from Mesozoic to Quaternary (Hendricks 1985). Gniess and schist dating

from the Precambrian and Mesozoic are common metamorphic rocks. Paleozoic, Meso-

zoic, and Cenozoic sedimentary rocks include limestone, sandstone, quartzite, and shale.

The sediments that fill the intermontane basins contain sands, silts, clays, gravels, salt, and

gypsum, and they are generally quite deep, exceeding 2,425 m in some basins. These sedi-

ments are a combination of fluvial, lacustrine, colluvial and alluvial fan deposits.

Soils within this zone are generally related to the associated geomorphic surface. Moun-

tain soils are derived from either granitic and schistose rocks or volcanic rocks and are 87 characterized by shallow gravels (Hendricks 1985; McAuliffe 2000). Soils on mountain ranges higher than 2,730 m are more acidic and exhibit a higher organic content because of the cooler and moister conditions prevalent at higher elevations. Old alluvial surfaces, including pediment, fan, and fluvial terraces, usually exhibit considerable profile development characterized by increasing accumulations of clay in argillic horizons. Young soils on piedmont slopes and active alluvial fans lack profile development and tend to be characterized by sandy or gravelly loams. Floodplains also contain young soils similar to those on active alluvial fans; however, they have a higher organic content and are finer textured.

The wide ranges in topography and elevation in the Basin and Range zone contributes to the diverse climates that characterize this region (Dimmitt 2000). Most of the Pimería

Alta is situated with the Sonoran Desert; however, the eastern edge of this area along the middle Santa Cruz and San Pedro Rivers contains oak woodland, grasslands, and Chihua- huan Desert zones (Figure 4.2). Rainfall across the Pimería Alta is highly variable, and the temperatures and precipitation ranges are extreme. Most of the province is arid or semi-arid due to high temperatures and low precipitation.

The Pimería Alta is characterized by biseasonal rains. Winter rains originate from north

Pacific weather systems and summer rains are usually associated with storms in the Gulf of California and the Gulf of Mexico (Ingram 2000). The higher mountain ranges near the eastern margin of the Pimería Alta exhibit a warm highland climate while the basins are 88

Dimmitt (2000). Environmental zones in the Pimería Alta. Note: Adapted from zones in the Pimería 4.2. Environmental Figure 89 characterized by a warm steppe climate. This region is cooler, more humid, and receives more precipitation than the basins in the west; however, it remains arid. The western margin of the Pimería Alta, referred to as the Papaguería, is characterized by a warm desert climate that exhibits low precipitation, unevenly distributed rainfall, and high temperatures.

Elevation primarily determines the temperature range across the Pimería Alta (McGuire

1982a; Whittlesey et al. 1994). Average annual temperatures range from 20 degrees C in the lower elevations to 13 degrees C in the highlands. Summer temperatures are usually hot throughout the region, with record highs ranging from 40 to 50 degrees C. However, winters are usually mild, resulting in a long frost-free growing season. Daily temperature ranges fluctuate throughout the year, but can range by as much as 15 to 25 degrees C. The high temperatures and arid climate have resulted in relatively low levels of surface water throughout the region.

Several major drainages bisect the Pimería Alta. The Colorado River system is the largest drainage network in the region, forming its western boundary and draining approximately

244,000 square miles (McGuire 1982a). The Colorado River originates in the Rocky Moun- tains, and was characterized by large annual floods and high sediment loads prior to modern dam construction. The river usually starts rising in the spring, achieving its peak flow between

May and July, and depositing about 160 million tons of silt annually. The annual deposition 90 of silt has resulted in the creation of a large delta, covering approximately 3,325 square miles, where it empties into the Gulf of California.

The Gila River system forms northern boundary of the Pimería Alta and drains over

72,000 square miles (McGuire 1982a; Whittlesey et al. 1994). The head of the Gila River is located in the mountains of New Mexico, where snowmelt and rainfall feed the river and its major tributaries before it empties into the Colorado River just north of modern-day Yuma.

During the historical period, the Gila River flowed along most of its length, flooding reg- ularly during the summer and winter rainy seasons. After the nineteenth century, surface flow decreased dramatically due to increased diversion for irrigation. Surface flow occurs in sections along the Gila’s two major tributaries, the Santa Cruz and San Pedro Rivers.

The Santa Cruz is an intermittent stream with long reaches of permanent surface flow and a thriving riparian community, while the San Pedro is a perennial drainage that is fed by snowmelt and runoff from the surrounding mountains.

The third major drainage system is that of the Río del la Concepción in Sonora. Río de la Concepción begins at the confluence of Río Altar and Río Magdalena and flows west, emptying into the Gulf of California. During the historical period, these drainages were one of the few permanent sources of water and supported lush riparian communities (McGuire and Villalpando 1993). Río Altar begins in the mountains west of Nogales and was once part of the Colorado Delta system during the Tertiary period, but it is now above the level 91 susceptible to flooding by the Colorado River due to seismic uplifts. During the prehistoric and historical periods, surface water was scarce outside of these river valleys. In particularly dry portions of the Pimería Alta, such as the Sierra Pinacate and the western Papaguería, people relied on rock tanks, or tinajas, sand tanks, springs, and charcos, or hand-dug water catchments, in order to access water. Many of these water sources are also archaeologically rich locations because they were visited frequently by various groups in the past.

As previously mentioned, the Pimería Alta is primarily situated within the Sonoran

Desert biotic zone; however, oak woodland, grassland, and the Chihuahuan Desert biotic zones are represented in the eastern portion of this region (see Figure 4.2). Additionally, the floodplains and channel margins of the well-watered drainages are characterized by riparian woodland environments. The Sonoran Desert zone has been further subdivided into six zones, two of which are represented in the Pimería Alta (Dimmitt 2000). The Lower

Colorado River valley zone encompasses the western half of the Pimería Alta, stretching east from the Colorado River to Ajo and extending south into Sonora past the Río Mag- dalena along the coast of the Gulf of California. This is the hottest and driest subdivision, with rainfall averaging less than three inches each year. Vegetation is characterized by creosote bush (Larrea tridentate) and white bursage (Ambrosia dumosa) in the valleys and shrubs and cacti in the mountains. The Arizona Upland zone includes most of the eastern half of the Pimería Alta, from Ajo to Tucson and south into Sonora. This is the highest and 92

coldest subdivision, receiving an average of 12 inches of rainfall per annum. This subdivi-

sion supports rich plant and animal communities including columnar cacti, organpipe cac-

tus (Stenocereus thurberi), foothill and blue palo verde (Parkinsonia microphylla and Par- kinsonia florida), ironwood (Olneya tesota), mesquite (Prosopis sp.), and other small cacti.

The grassland zone borders the Sonoran Desert on its eastern margin and supports stands of perennial grasses, desert shrubs, cacti, mesquite, and oak trees (Quercus sp.). Oak wood- lands, or encinales, occur along the eastern margin of the San Pedro River and is characterized by grasses, succulents, oak, juniper (Juniperus sp.), and pine trees (Pinus sp.). The

Chihuahuan Desert zone is situated at a higher elevation and characterized by the presence of grasses, creosote bush (Larrea divarecata), tarbush (Florensia cernua), mesquite (Pro- sopis gracilis), and acacia (Acacia sp.). While many plants occur in more than one zone

(e.g., mesquite and creosote), it is the relative proportion of these plants that defines the boundaries of these biotic communities.

The Pimería Alta climate is characterized primarily by an arid desert environment with seasonally flooding rivers and diverse biotic communities in the basins and uplands (Dim- mitt 2000; Whittlesey et al. 1994). The fluctuating aridity presented challenges to the indigenous populations that exploited the resources of this region. Given the constraints im-

posed by such a climate, people primarily congregated along the river valleys and perennial

drainages; however, the archaeological record has documented persistent human occupation 93 throughout the region, including the dry western desert. The environmental context of the

Pimería Alta changed dramatically by the historical period due to the cumulative effects of the introduction of new plant and animal domesticates, an increase in irrigation agriculture, and the spread of Old World contagions (see Chapter 2 for a more detailed discussion).

Archaeological Context

The years prior to A.D. 1450 were characterized by social change, wherein large archaeological cultures underwent dramatic changes that resulted in demographic shifts characterized by the coalescence of some entities and the dispersal of others. It is important to once again note that archaeological cultures should not be interpreted as group identities, but rather common sets of traits and materials that people manufactured and exchanged as part of everyday life.

Archaeological cultures may represent an amalgamation of many individual groups that can be recognized at a larger scale by a preponderance of certain material signatures.

The Pimería Alta encompassed the shared boundaries of three distinct archaeological cultures at the end of A.D. 1450. The Patayan complex overlapped with the western third of the Pimería Alta, with boundaries extending west into the California deserts and north to the Grand Canyon. The Patayan area was bordered on the east by the Hohokam tradition, which extended beyond the Pimería Alta east toward New Mexico and north along the Verde River. To the south of the Hohokam and Patayan areas was the Trincheras region, 94 which encompassed the entire Río de la Concepción drainage and extended to the Río So- nora in the east. Prior to A.D. 1450, the Pimería Alta was both a borderland and a heartland for each of these archaeological traditions.

Patayan

The Patayan region covers a large area, encompassing much of western Arizona, small segments of Sonora and Baja California near the gulf, and a portion of eastern California along the Colorado River (McGuire and Schiffer 1982). The region is traditionally subdivided into upland and lowland manifestations. The Upland Patayan region is centered on northern Arizona, outside of the boundaries of the Pimería Alta, and is thought to be the archaeological predecessor of historically documented Pai groups, such as the Yavapai and Hualapai. The Lowland Patayan region stretched from the Gulf of California north to

Parker, and west from Gila Bend to the Salton Sea.

The Patayan tradition is poorly documented and remains the least well understood of the southwestern culture areas. Previous research projects have generally focused on surface and survey data rather than excavation and the projects themselves have been small. Pata- yan sites that have been excavated and reported generally lack stratification. Problems have also arisen with the Lowland Patayan chronology and ceramic classification system. The first ceramic chronology was created by Rogers (1945), and he proposed three periods based on 95

differences in vessel morphology and surface treatment, which he dated using associations

with intrusive Hohokam ceramics. Schroeder (1952, 1958) later revised this typology and

chronology to emphasize changes in temper rather than vessel form. Schroeder (1957) pre-

sented an alternate view of Patayan culture, which he termed Hakataya, that covered a larger

region and included Pioneer Hohokam, Lowland Patayan, Upland Patayan, Salado, and Si-

nagua cultures; however, it incorporated so much diversity and included so many different

archaeological cultures that it found limited acceptance within the archaeological commu-

nity (McGuire and Schiffer 1982). Rogers and Schroeders’ systems are incompatible, and

the validity of both has been revaluated by various researchers. Waters (1982) revisited and

refined Rogers’ original typology, defending the associated chronology (Figure 4.3). Wa-

ter’s (1982) revised typology relies heavily on the diagnostic characteristics of rim sherds,

making it ideal for use in this project. Ceramics types dating to the Patayan III period (post-

A.D. 1500) were analyzed as part of this project. Patayan ceramics are defined as buffwares that were constructed using a coiled technique and thinned using a paddle and anvil. Several

Patayan II types persist beyond A.D. 1500; however, a reinforced rim band was introduced

for some vessels. Patayan III ceramics are characterized by recurved rims and they are gen-

erally thinner and more symmetrical than Patayan II types.

Patayan archaeological sites are scattered along the Gila River in the western Papaguería

and in the Gila Bend area (McGuire and Schiffer 1982). Sites are commonly found in the 96 Rillito Rincon Tucson Tanque Verde Tanque Cañada del Oro/Rillito del Cañada Hohokam Basin Tucson Note: Adapted from Dean (1991), Note: Vahki Civano Sacaton Phoenix Basin Hohokam SantaCruz Butte Gila Snaketown Sweetwater Estrella Soho Atil Atil Altar Archaic Oquitoa El Realito El Trincheras Santa Teresa McGuire and Schiffer (1982), and McGuire and Villalpando (1993). (1982), and McGuire Villalpando McGuire and Schiffer Archaic Patayan I Patayan Patayan II Patayan Patayan III Patayan Comparative chronology of regional archaeological traditions. archaeological of regional 4.3. Comparative chronology Figure 800 700 600 500 400 300 900 1800 1700 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 1100 1000 Year (A.D.) Patayan 97 upper bajada and mountain regions, but it is likely that large habitation sites are buried be- neath the alluvium of the Gila and Colorado floodplains (Ezzo and Altschul 1993). Habita- tion sites were most likely concentrated near the floodplain because it contains the most ar- able land in the region, and it is a convenient source for wild plant resources and lithic raw materials. Previously identified Patayan sites fall into three categories. Specialized activity sites include quarries, hunting blinds, trail markers, and cairns. Limited activity sites include flaking stations, pot breaks, and temporary camps with rock rings or sleeping circles.

Ceremonial activity sites include intaglios/geoglyphs, petroglyphs, and tamped areas. Many of these site types, specifically specialized activity and limited activity sites, are associated with trails. A complex trail network has been documented in the Papaguería, and these networks are primarily associated with ceremonial activities and interregional exchange, fa- cilitating the trade of salt and shell from the Gulf of California to the interior (White 2007).

Trincheras

The Trincheras region is centered on the Concepción, Magdalena, and Altar River Valleys in

Sonora, with the boundaries extending north from Desemboque into the Papaguería, and east from the Gulf of California to the Río San Miguel (Gallaga and Newell 2004). While the term trincheras has multiple meanings, the Trincheras cultural tradition is characterized by decorated Trincheras Purple-on-Red specular ceramic types and terraced hillside sites known as 98 cerros de trincheras (Downum et al. 1993). Trincheras also refers to the dry-laid rock con- structions that occur on hillsides across Sonora and southern Arizona. Cerro de trincheras sites occur throughout Sonora, the Papaguería, and the Tucson Basin commonly in association with trail systems and petroglyph panels (Downum 2007). Some cerros de trincheras were occupied during the same time as nearby Hohokam Classic period and Patayan II sites in southern Arizona.

Archaeological research has dramatically increased in the Trincheras region over the last two decades (Downum 2007). Excavations at Cerro de Trincheras and surveys in Sonora and southern Arizona have expanded our understanding of Trincheras chronology (Fish et al.

2007; McGuire and Villalpando 1993; Newell and Gallaga 2004; Villalpando and McGuire

2009). Bowen (1976) published one of the first comprehensive sequences for the Trincheras tradition based upon the results of Wasley’s survey (Wasley 1968). This sequence separated the region into four environmental zones each with four numbered phases. Bowen (1976) did not include a protohistoric phase within this sequence; however, research conducted by

Hinton (1955), Carrico (1983), and McGuire and Villalpando (1993) has demonstrated the presence of protohistoric sites in the Trincheras region. McGuire and Villalpando (1993) proposed a different chronology based upon changes in decorated ceramic frequencies observed during a survey of the Altar Valley (see Figure 4.3). There was difficulty assigning date ranges to the phases due to a general lack of intrusive ceramics in the project area; 99 therefore, the occurrence of Altar Valley ceramic types in southern Arizona in conjunction with datable decorated ceramics was used as a proxy.

It remains somewhat unclear whether cerro de trincheras sites in Sonora represent the same cultural tradition as other sites containing Trincheras ceramics (Whittlesey et al.

1994). Additionally, there is some question as to whether or not the Trincheras tradition is a regional variant of the Hohokam or a separate cultural expression. The function of cerros de trincheras as defensive outposts, loci of ideological power, and/or habitation and agricultural centers has been frequently debated (Downum 2007; Fish and Fish 2004; Fish et al. 1984; LeBlanc 1999; Wallace and Doelle 2001). Cerro de trincheras sites first appeared during the Altar phase in Sonora; however, these site types grew in frequency during the Re- alito phase, which was characterized by population aggregation (Gallaga and Newell 2004).

The production of locally manufactured decorated ceramics ceased during this period and most decorated wares appear to have originated from southern Arizona and Paquimé (Ca- sas Grandes) (McGuire and Villalpando 1993). There appears to have been a dramatic decline in population between the Realito and Santa Teresa phase, which is contemporaneous with the Protohistoric period. Santa Teresa materials are characterized by thin unpolished plainware ceramics and small triangular basally notched projectile points. Several sites exhibiting these characteristics have been recorded in the Altar Valley and these remains have been associated with the O’odham. 100

Hohokam

The Hohokam region encompasses much of southern Arizona from the Mogollon Rim south to the international border and east from the Growler Mountains to the Dragoon Mountains

(Fish et al. 1992). Traditionally, the middle Salt and Gila River Valleys were considered the core of the Hohokam area, while groups inhabiting the smaller drainages were considered to be peripheral local variants (Doyel 1987; Doyel and Plog 1980). More recent research suggests that large populations, monumental architecture, and complex settlement patterns existed in areas previously thought to be uninhabited, such as the Los Robles and Marana communities in the northern Tucson Basin (Downum 1993; Fish and Fish 2002; Fish et al.

1992; Harry 2003).

The Hohokam sequence is a source of contention among southwestern researchers and almost every major contributor has adopted a slightly different naming convention and/or chronological date ranges for each phase (Chenault 1996; Ciolek-Torrello and Swanson

1997; Dean 1991; Downum 1993; Doyel 1987; Fish et al. 1992; Thiel and Diehl 2006). Fol- lowing Dean (1991), the Hohokam sequence can be subdivided into Pre-Classic (A.D. 300–

1150) and Classic (A.D. 1150–ca. 1500) (see Figure 4.3). For much of the sequence, the

Hohokam tradition is characterized by Red-on-Brown and Red-on-Buff decorated ceramics produced by the paddle and anvil technique, pit dwellings covered by a jacal super structure, irrigation agriculture, and participation in the long-distance exchange of shell and turquoise. 101

This pattern persisted into the Classic period during the Soho phase (A.D. 1200–1350) in the Phoenix Basin and the Tanque Verde phase (A.D. 1150–1300) in the Tucson Basin; however, new domestic architecture styles, mortuary practices, and polychrome ceramics were introduced at this time and elaborated during subsequent phases.

During the Civano phase in the Phoenix Basin and the Tucson phase in the Tucson Ba- sin (A.D. 1350–ca. 1500) the Hohokam aggregated into larger settlements and underwent a period of transformation. Rectangular adobe-walled structures often built in groups sharing walled compound spaces replaced pit structures (Fish et al. 1992). Public architecture in the form of platform mounds was constructed and the canal networks were extended to their greatest limits. Inhumations replaced cremations as the predominant mortuary practice.

Additionally, locally manufactured polychrome ceramics classified as Roosevelt redwares or Salado polychromes dominated the ceramic assemblages. These shifts in residential and public architecture, ceramic manufacture, and mortuary practice have been continually associated with the Salado concept (e.g., Clark 2001; Dean 2000; Loendorf 2001; Wood 2000).

The nature of the Salado phenomenon has been under intense scrutiny since it was first introduced by Gladwin and Gladwin (1930). Salado was coined to refer to the remains of people who developed distinctive features in the Roosevelt Lake area and colonized the upper Salt River Valley. Debates have focused on six elements traditionally used individually or in groups to define the Salado concept: (1) characteristic archaeological features or 102

traits; (2) a population or distinct group of people; (3) a culture; (4) a spatial boundary with

a core area, specifically the Tonto Basin; (5) migration; and (6) a temporal range or chro-

nology (Dean 2000). Contention surrounds the implications of Salado and whether it rep-

resents a regional culture (Haury 1976b), a group or groups of migrants (Haury 1945), a

shift in ceramic technology (Reid et al. 1992), a mercantile system (Di Peso 1974, 1976),

a response to sociocultural instability (Nelson and LeBlanc 1986), or an ideology that en-

compassed many different groups (Crown 1994). Recent investigations along the middle

Gila and San Pedro rivers and in the Safford and Aravaipa valleys suggest that while the

Tonto Basin exhibits a dense concentration of Salado remains, the characteristic material

correlates may have originated among Tusayan and Kayenta migrants (Hill et al. 2004; Ly-

ons et al. 2011; Neuzil 2005).

The end of the Hohokam Classic period, defined by the decline of Hohokam culture and

the Salado phenomenon, has been roughly dated to A.D. 1450–1500 throughout most of the

Pimería Alta. These date ranges reflect the reliable extent of absolute dating techniques and

not necessarily the end of the Hohokam presence in the Southwest. As previously discussed

in Chapter 2, the utility of radiocarbon and archaeomagnetic dating after A.D. 1450 wanes, and no reliable tree-ring dates have been retrieved from archaeological contexts postdating this time period (Dean 1991). The date ranges suggested above represent a “best guess” based on the presence of Civano and Tucson phase ceramics, and most researchers agree 103 that the Hohokam complex disappeared around A.D. 1500. It has been suggested that the chronology in the Phoenix Basin be refined to include a post-Classic period defined by the

Polvorón phase (Chenault 1996, 2000). In this scheme the Civano phase lasted only 50 years

(A.D. 1300–1350) and was followed by the Polvorón phase (A.D. 1350–1500), which is characterized by a return to pithouse architecture, the dominance of Salado polychrome and redware ceramics to the exclusion of locally made buffwares, and an increase in the use of obsidian. Chenault (1996, 2000) suggests that this period represents the decline of the Ho- hokam system, wherein canal irrigation decreased across the Phoenix Basin and the population slowly diminished and dispersed.

The decline of the Hohokam complex has been one of the most contentious topics in southwestern research. Drought and environmental degradation (Ackerly 1982; Weaver

1972); massive flooding (Nials et al. 1989); warfare (Teague 1993; Wallace and Doelle

1998); deterioration of networks of exchange (Wilcox and Sternberg 1983); and the spread of disease (Di Peso 1956; Fink 1991; Reff 1990, 1991b; Roberts and Ahlstrom 1995) have all been proposed as causal factors contributing to the decline of the Hohokam tradition.

Phrases such as “social collapse,” “catastrophic population loss,” and “regional abandonment” have been used to describe this phenomenon, implying that the end of the Hohokam complex occurred quickly, leaving very few people behind in its wake (Fish and Fish 1993).

Regardless of the causes and timing of the Hohokam decline, it is evident that the people 104 who lived in the area following this phenomenon participated in a social system distinct from that which had been defined as Hohokam. Massive population reorganization characterized much of the Southwest during this period, and the resulting demographic landscape serves as the focus of this dissertation.

Linguistic Context

The nature of the demographic landscape in the Pimería Alta during the Protohistoric period is one of the enduring conundrums of southwestern anthropology. As previously discussed in Chapter 2, the definition and identification of discrete groups relies on numerous lines of evidence and can occur at multiple levels. Traditionally, indigenous peoples have been grouped into cultures, some of which have been loosely used as correlates of ethnic identity.

Such a practice confounds and obscures the complicated nature of social relationships during the Protohistoric and early historical periods in the Pimería Alta. Traditional nomencla- ture is often confusing and carries with it implicit expectations and ideas; for example, the term “Papago” can be simultaneously associated with specific settlement and subsistence patterns, a particular place on the landscape, and a modern Native American tribe. This summary of the Protohistoric cultural milieu in the Pimería Alta is organized by linguistic group and proceeds with a brief discussion of various names given to subgroups of people who primarily spoke that language. More detailed discussions of these groups follows in 105

Chapters 6 and 7, but this summary serves as an introduction to the convoluted demographic landscape that the Spanish described in the Pimería Alta ca. A.D. 1700 (Figure 4.4).

Tepiman

The Tepiman group of languages is a branch of the Southern Uto-Aztecan family that is spoken by indigenous peoples in southern Arizona, Sonora, Chihuahua, and Durango (Shaul and Hill 1998). The distribution of these languages across the landscape trends north-south and is often referred to as the Tepiman corridor. The Tepiman linguistic group can be further divided into the Tepecano, Tepehuán, O:b No’ok (Lower Piman), and O’odham (Upper

Piman) (Figure 4.5) (Campbell 1997). Tepecano is now extinct, but it was primarily spoken in the vicinity of Jalisco. Tepehuán exhibits three main varieties and is spoken throughout parts of Jalisco, Durango, and Sonora. O:b No’ok, more commonly referred to as Lower

Piman, is spoken in central Sonora and is separated from the O’odham by the Opata, a non-

Tepiman speaking group (Campbell 1997; Spicer 1962). The O’odham were called the Pi- mas Altos, or Upper Pimans by the Spanish, and it was speakers of this language group for whom the Pimería Alta was named.

The O’odham should not be considered a tribal entity during the Spanish colonial period. Rather they encompassed multiple autonomous groups who were distinguished from those around them by the language they spoke and the territory they occupied (Doyel 1989; 106 A.D . 1350. Regional archaeological traditions ca. 4.4. Regional archaeological Figure 107

Southern Uto-Aztecan Family Tepiman Tepecano Tepehuan O:b No’ok (Lower Piman) O'odham (Upper Piman) Hokan Grouping Yuman Pai Subgroup (Northern Yuman) Upland Walapai Havasupai Yavapai Paipai River Subgroup (Central Yuman) Mojave Maricopa Quechan Delta Subgroup Cocopa Diegueño Iipay Tiipay Kumeyaay Kiliwa Cochimí Eyak-Athapaskan Family Northern Athapaskan Pacific Coast Athapaskan Apachean Navajo Apache Jicarilla Lipan Kiowa Apache Oklahoma Apache Plains Apache Western Apache San Carlos White River Cibecue Tonto (Northern and Southern) Chiricahua Mescalero Figure 4.5. Linguistic hierarchy. 108

Sheridan 1988b). Modern O’odham speakers can be further subdivided based on dialect and region (Hill 2004; Saxton et al. 1998). The Hia C-ed O’odham dialect has not been adequately researched, but Tohono O’odham exhibits five regional variants, while Akimel

O’odham has four. The larger subdivisions loosely resemble the current divisions between tribal entities and they have been associated with historically described O’odham groups.

The Spanish categorized O’odham speakers in southern Arizona into different groups based on their geographical and adaptive differences (Ezell 1963b; Fontana 1974; Sheri- dan 1988b, 2006b; Spicer 1962). Perhaps the most well documented O’odham subgroup was the Sobaipuri, who occupied dispersed rancherías along the San Pedro and Santa

Cruz Rivers. O’odham clustered in the southwest portion of the Pimería Alta along the

Río Concepción were called Sobas, named for the leader under whom they were likely organized. Pima referred to O’odham living north of the Opata along the San Miguel and

Sonora Rivers, although the term came to be associated with all O’odham populations who lived along rivers and participated in a more sedentary lifestyle. The term Papabota, or

Papago, was used to elliptically refer to O’odham inhabiting the north and west portions of the Pimería Alta between the Colorado River and the Tucson Basin. These O’odham were believed to be highly mobile foragers rather than agriculturists. Another group of

O’odham speakers, the Kohatk, who may have occupied the area between Ak-Chin and the Tucson Mountains, were described as both Pima and Papago. This may be a reference 109 to their use of a mixed subsistence strategy. Indigenous groups occupying the Gila River were often called Gileños; however, it was most often associated with O’odham speakers inhabiting rancherías along the upper stretches of the Gila near its confluence with the Salt River. The term Areneños (var. Pimas de las Areñas) was used in the late eighteenth century to designate O’odham living near the sand dunes in the vicinity of the Si- erra Pinacate (Ezell 1955, 1963b). This group has been equated with nineteenth-century descriptions of the Sand Papago and the modern Hia C-ed O’odham.

While the Spanish clearly articulated differences between O’odham groups, it is difficult to assess whether or not these classifications reflected actual distinctions upheld by

O’odham speakers. O’odham were mobile and flexible in their subsistence patterns in general, and it is possible that the Spanish made their observations and generalizations based entirely on the practices of one group during a specific season (Fontana 1974). For example, a group of O’odham who encountered the Spanish while foraging might be recorded as

“Papago” despite the fact that they occupied a ranchería along the Santa Cruz River three seasons previously. In order to evaluate the validity of these terms it will be necessary to examine Spanish descriptions of these groups from a temporal and geographic perspective. 110

Yuman

The Yuman-Cochimí group of languages is a branch of the controversial Hokan grouping and is spoken by indigenous peoples in Arizona, California, and Baja California (Campbell

1997; Shaul and Hill 1998). The Yuman linguistic family can be further divided into four groups confined to distinct regions (see Figure 4.5). The Kiliwa group occupies a portion of Baja California. The Delta-California Subgroup consists of the Diegueño groups, specifically the Iipay, Tiipay, and Kumeyaay of California, and the Cocopa of Arizona, Cali- fornia, and Baja California. The Pai subgroup (Northern Yuman) includes both the Upland

Yuman groups of northern Arizona, specifically the Walapai, Havasupai, and Yavapai, and the Paipai people of Baja California. The River subgroup (Central Yuman) encompasses the

Mojave, Maricopa, and Quechan peoples living along the Colorado and Gila rivers in Cali- fornia and Arizona. The Central Yuman subgroups and the Cocopa are the most pertinent to this discussion because they inhabited the regions bordering the Pimería Alta along the

Colorado and Gila rivers and frequently interacted with O’odham subgroups.

Like the O’odham, Yuman speaking peoples should not be considered a political or social confederation, but rather autonomous collectives that speak mutually intelligible languages.

The Spanish clearly distinguished between Yuman and O’odham speaking groups in the documentary record; however, their distribution during the Protohistoric and early historical period is equally muddled due to frequent population movement in response to shifting 111 alliances and violence (Ezell 1963b; Spier 1933). Spanish accounts record the Quechan (var.

Cutchana, aka. Yumans) initially occupying the western bank of the lower Colorado River, below its confluence with the Gila. By the beginning of the eighteenth century they had moved north toward the Gila and often clashed with the O’odham nearby. Another Yuman- speaking population was documented as occupying territory along the eastern bank of the

Colorado and maintaining cordial relationships with people on the Gila. It has been argued that the Halchidhoma are the most likely candidate for this group because they too had a record of peaceful relations with the O’odham of the lower Gila. The Opa and Cocomari- copa were another set of Yuman speaking groups living in the vicinity of the lower Gila and

Colorado Rivers. Ezell (1963b) has argued that by the eighteenth century the Cocomaricopa occupied the Gila River west of Gila Bend while the Opa held the Gila east to the Hassay- ampa. The Tutumnaopas (var. Chuchuma Opa) were recorded as occupying the north bank of the Gila near the Painted Rock Mountains and the Guicamcopas (var. Quiquima) may have lived along the Colorado below the Gila.

Politics and shifting alliances between Yuman and O’odham speakers had serious implications for populations living along these waterways. Access to trade goods, natural resources, and territory was impacted as alliances were formed or dissolved. Hostilities between groups along the Colorado River were documented by Spanish explorers as early as the sixteenth century. Throughout the historical period, shifting alliances and warfare 112 between these groups, specifically the Quechan and Cocopa and their Yuman- and O’odham- speaking allies, resulted in dramatic population movement along the banks of the Colorado.

The Quechan entered into a formidable alliance with the Mohave during the later part of the eighteenth century (Dobyns et al. 1963; Kroeber and Fontana 1986). By 1830, Quechan and

Mohave warriors had forced the Halchidoma, Kohuana, and Halikwamai out of the Colo- rado River territory. These groups moved to territory along the middle Gila, into the western mountains, or south into Sonora. Hostilities increased between the Quechan and Cocopa, and continued between the Quechan and the O’odham and Maricopa along the middle Gila.

These tensions culminated in one final battle on the Gila in 1857, when the Maricopa, with the aid of their O’odham neighbors, defeated the Quechan attackers and their Mohave allies.

Apachean

The Apachean group of languages is a branch of the Eyak-Athapaskan family spoken by indigenous peoples in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Oklahoma. The Apachean linguistic group can be subdivided into Navajo and Apache, which includes the Jicarilla, Lipan,

Kiowa Apache, Western Apache, Chiricahua, and Mescalero dialects (Campbell 1997). The

Chiricahua and Western Apache, which consist of several subgroups including San Carlos,

White Mountain, Tonto, and Cibecue, are primarily associated with New Mexico, eastern

Arizona, and northern Sonora (see Figure 4.5). 113

The Apache are considered relatively recent migrants to the Southwest, although the timing of their arrival is debated (e.g., Ferg 1992; Seymour 2008). Coronado may have encountered Apaches during his expedition to Cíbola in 1540 (Forbes 1959), and they are mentioned in Spanish documents relating to the Pimería Alta by the 1680s (Spicer 1962).

The Spanish often linked Apaches with the Jocomes and Janos, two groups about which little is known (for discussions on Jocomes and Janos origins see Forbes [1959] and Sey- mour [2009a]). Together these groups were characterized as nomadic bands participating in a mixed foraging and raiding economy. By 1700, the Apache occupied the eastern fringes of the Pimería Alta, the transitional zone between the Gila River and the Mogollon Rim, and much of western New Mexico (Basso 1983; Sheridan n.d.; Spicer 1962). While the Apaches,

Jocomes, and Janos were held responsible for many depredations on the Spanish frontier, it is possible that their collective actions were misrepresented at times. Blame could have been assigned to these groups as a collective merely because the Spanish could not differ- entiate between them. Additionally because of the general prejudice against these groups, they may have been used as scapegoats in an attempt to escape punishment. 114 Historical Context

The cultural landscape during the fourteenth century as interpreted and described by archaeologists was drastically different that that encountered by European explorers and missionaries in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Early historical accounts offer contradicting descriptions of the Southwest, making a discussion of the demographic landscape during this period difficult. An understanding of the history of European exploration and colonization, as well as the various individuals who participated in these endeavors, is necessary to both evaluate the statements and assumptions held within the documentary record and to examine the Protohistoric period in an appropriate context. For the purposes of this dissertation, the early historical period in the Pimería Alta can be divided up into three phases:

(1) initial exploration, (2) colonization, and (3) reorganization.

Initial Exploration

The Spanish exploration, or entrada, into the Southwest began not long after the conquest of Mexico. Several expeditions may have traveled through portions of the Pimería Alta during the mid-sixteenth century, but debate remains regarding the exact routes these explorers took. Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca chronicled the exploits of what may have been the first expedition to reach the Southwest (Adorno and Pautz 1999; Cabeza de Vaca 1986;

Reséndez 2007). Departing from Spain in 1527 as part of the ill-fated Narváez expedition 115 to La Florida, Cabeza de Vaca, Captain Alonso del Castillo de Maldonado, Andrés Doran- tes de Carranza, and his slave Esteban survived a shipwreck off the coast of Texas and later traveled overland across the continent to arrive in Mexico City on July 24, 1536. The journey had taken nearly nine years, during which the four survivors traveled through parts of the American South and northern Mexico.

Cabeza de Vaca and his companions returned with reports of prosperous settlements in the north. These accounts inflamed Spanish interest in local legends of wealthy cities similar to Tenochtitlán located in, as yet, unexplored territory (Flint 2008; Flint and Flint 1997,

2005; Kessell 2002; Reff 1991a). Antonio de Mendoza, the Viceroy of New Spain asked the survivors of the Narváez expedition to conduct reconnaissance in these northern regions.

While Maldonado and Cabeza de Vaca declined the request, Dorantes offered the services of his slave, Esteban, in his stead. Mendoza later recruited Franciscan friar Marcos de Niza to join Esteban, who set out with a large party of native guides in 1539. As the expedition traveled north, Niza recorded the exchange of large quantities of bison hides and turquoise, which his guides told him originated in wealthy cities farther to the north. Esteban separated from the main party, taking several natives with him to identify the source of these trade goods. Reports that Esteban had been killed after clashing with the Zuni reached Niza, and he chose to return to Mexico and make his report to the viceroy. Niza later recounted that 116 he saw the city where Esteban was killed from a great distance. He identified it as one of the Seven Cities of Cíbola and described it as a kingdom grander than Mexico City.

Upon returning to Mexico in August 1539, Niza reported the death of Esteban and the existence of Cíbola (Bolton 1990; Flint 2008; Flint and Flint 1997, 2005; Winship 1896).

In the fall of that same year another expedition was launched under the command of Cap- tain Melchior Díaz, who traveled through portions of northern Sonora and possibly southern Arizona. Díaz confirmed the presence of turquoise in these regions, although he noted that quantities were not as large as previously reported. He also gathered information about

Esteban’s death and the purported Seven Cities of Cíbola. Local natives had heard of these large cities, but they described buildings made of stone and brick. Ultimately Díaz concluded that there was little evidence of the wealth that Mendoza was expecting. Upon his return to Mexico in the spring of 1540, Díaz encountered and joined the Coronado expedition some 150 miles north of Compostela.

Francisco Vásquez de Coronado, Governor of Nueva Galicia, undertook a large expedition to Cíbola, bringing with him over 350 Spaniards, including Marcos de Niza; 1,300 native allies; 1,500 horses and mules; as well as numerous heads of sheep and cattle (Bolton

1990; Flint and Flint 1997, 2005; Winship 1896). A separate contingent under the command of Captain Hernando de Alarçón was sent by sea with the intent to rendezvous with and resupply the main company farther north. While the exact route is widely debated, it is 117 possible that the party traversed parts of the Pimería Alta en route to Zuni. On July 7, 1540, the main company reached the Zuni pueblo of Hawikuh. After taking the city by force, de- tachments were ordered to explore the surrounding regions. It had become evident that the wealth hinted at by Marcos de Niza was vastly overstated and Coronado commanded Díaz to escort the Franciscan back to Mexico. Upon reaching Los Corazones, Díaz parted with

Niza and launched another reconnaissance mission to the Gulf of California to discover the fate of the supply contingent commanded by Alarçón. Having underestimated the geography of the region, Alarçón reached the confluence of the Gila and Colorado Rivers before turning back and returning to Mexico without having encountered Coronado. Díaz found evidence of Alarçón’s departure and explored farther along the Colorado, possibly encountering Yuman speakers. He continued exploring until he sustained an injury to his thigh, from which he died in 1541. The main party of the Coronado expedition, having failed to find substantial wealth in Cíbola or Quivira, departed from the Rio Grande in 1542. Further attempts to colonize New Mexico were made at the end of the sixteenth century by Juan de Oñate y Salazar. He dispatched an expedition that reached the lower Colorado River in

1604 in an effort to locate a suitable port to resupply the small colony in New Mexico. Af- ter Oñate returned from the Colorado, the Spanish sent no further envoys into the Pimería

Alta until the late seventeenth century. 118

Colonization

Spanish colonization of the Pimería Alta began as an outgrowth of the successful mining and ranching ventures in Sonora as well as the Jesuit missionary effort among the indigenous peoples of central Sonora and Sinaloa (Sheridan 2006; Spicer 1962). Moving steadily north- ward from the Sinaloa River, Jesuits established missions among the Tarahumara, Mayo,

Yaqui, Seri, and Opata, whose northeastern boundary was shared with the Upper Pima (here- after referred to as O’odham) (Bolton 1908; Spicer 1962). Many Opata people had been absorbed into the regional colonial economy and the Spanish were eager to acquire more labor for the mines and ranches. The O’odham to the north were viewed as a profitable, if unruly, source of labor; thus, a missionary effort was considered to the most viable way to appropriate both the workers and land that the colonists could then readily access. Aware of these motivations, Eusebio Francisco Kino, the Jesuit missionary who would later establish over twenty missions and visitas in the Pimería Alta (Figure 4.6; Table 4.1), obtained a cedula from the Governor-President of Guadalajara in 1686, which exempted natives from forced labor and tribute to secular parties during the missionary program.

With the authority of the viceroyalty of Guadalajara and the cooperation of the officials in Sonora, Kino entered the Pimería Alta in 1687 via the Río San Miguel and traveled to the O’odham settlement of Cosari, where he established a mission fifteen miles north of the

Opata mission at Cucurpe (Kessell 1970; Sheridan 2006b; Spicer 1962). Kino christened his 119 in the Pimería Alta ca. A.D. 1700. Alta ca. visitas in the Pimería Figure 4.6. Jesuit missions and Figure 120

Table 4.1. Missions Established by Eusebio Kino in the Pimería Alta

Name Year Founded Nuestra Señora de los Dolores 1687 Nuestra Señora de los Remedios 1687 San Ignacio de Cabórica 1687 San Pedro y San Pablo del Tubutama 1687 Santa Teresa de Atil 1687 Santa Maria Magdalena 1687 San José de Imuris 1687 Nuestra Señora del Pilar y Santiago de Cocóspera 1689 San Antonio Paduano del Oquitoa 1689 San Diego del Pitiquito 1689 San Luis Bacoancos 1691 San Cayetano del Tumacácori 1691 San Gabriel de Guevavi 1691 San Lázaro 1691 San Xavier del Bac 1692 San Cosme y Damián de Tucson 1692 La Purísima Concepción de Nuestra Señora de Caborca 1693 Santa María Suamca 1693 San Valentín de Busanic 1693 Nuestra Señora de Loreto y San Marcelo de Sonoyta 1693 Nuestra Señora de la Ascención de Opodepe 1704 Los Santos Reyes de Sonoita 1692 121 first mission Nuestra Señora de los Dolores and it became his headquarters from which he would direct his proselytization efforts across the Pimería Alta. Francisco Cantor and Coxi of Cosari, later baptized as Carlos, served as Kino’s translators and guides during these early years. Kino was also frequently accompanied by Capt. Juan Mateo Manje on his sojourns, among other military and religious figures. Rather than focusing his efforts on one settlement, Kino elected to travel frequently throughout the Pimería Alta and generate interest among the widespread rancherías along the Río Magdalena and Río Altar. In 1691, Kino made his first visit to the O’odham inhabiting the Santa Cruz River valley. He remained the only permanent Jesuit missionary in the Pimería Alta until 1693, when Augustín Campos was placed at San Ignacio and Daniel Januske was assigned to Tubutama. The following year Francisco Javier Saeta was installed at Caborca. Mission herds and agricultural fields flourished during these years; however, the social unrest in New Mexico coupled with population dislocation led to increased instances of raiding in the Pimería Alta. Growing dis- satisfaction with the Spanish colonial system, tensions between Opata and O’odham neophytes, and the unwarranted execution of three Sobaipuri men led to a rebellion in 1695. A small faction of O’odham from Tubutama killed their Opata overseer and two assistants and traveled south, gaining supporters from smaller settlements, before they entered Caborca and killed Saeta and three neophytes (Polzer 1971; Sheridan 2006b; Spicer 1962). 122

The Pima Rebellion of 1695 was quickly quelled by a contingent of Spanish and Seri soldiers led by Domingo Jironza Petrís de Cruzate, commander of the Compañía Volante.

They marched on Caborca killing those few O’odham who remained and burning the agricultural fields; however, the instigators had already fled (Sheridan 2006b; Spicer 1962).

Kino began to repair relations between the O’odham and Spanish by arranging the peaceful surrender of the rebels at El Tupo. As one of the O’odham leaders pointed out the first man whom he believed participated in the murders at Caborca, a Spanish soldier decapitated the accused. The O’odham, who had come to El Tupo with the understanding that the ne- gotiations would be peaceful, began to flee and were stopped by Spanish soldiers and their

Seri allies. Almost 50 O’odham were killed in the resulting confusion, most of whom were probably innocent of conspiracy in the murders at Caborca. The massacre at El Tupo led to the full escalation of violence in the Pimería Alta. The missions at Tubutama, Caborca,

San Ignacio, and Imuris were attacked and burned. The Compañía Volante followed in the wake of this destruction by attacking the O’odham at Tubutama and Sáric, but the rebels had scattered once again leaving the Spanish no other choice but to negotiate.

While efforts were made to repair and rebuild the missions that had been destroyed in the Altar and Magdalena valleys, Kino renewed his attempts to convert the O’odham along the Santa Cruz and San Pedro Rivers (Spicer 1962). Kino distributed cattle, established visitas, and arranged for a Sobaipuri delegation to travel to Baserac in 1697. He later traveled 123 to settlements along the Gila and San Pedro rivers, attending a gathering at Quiburi where the Sobaipuri demonstrated their enmity with the Apache by conducting a scalp dance. The following year the Sobaipuri settlement of Gaybanipitea was attacked by a group of Apache and Jocome warriors. They were surprised and routed by a contingent of Sobaipuri soldiers.

Despite this success, Coro, a Sobaipuri leader, moved his people out of the San Pedro River valley west to Los Reyes until they could muster more military support to defend their settlements from ever increasing Apache raids.

In 1701, Kino attempted to expand the Jesuit presence among the Sobaipuri by install- ing Juan de San Martín as the resident priest at Guevavi and placing Francisco Gonzalvo at

San Xavier del Bac (Sheridan 2006b). Martín remained at Guevavi for six months before he abandoned the mission and Gonzalvo died of a fever within a year of his appointment. The

Sobaipuri continued to lobby the Spanish for missionaries and soldiers to aid them against the Apache and Jocome, but the Jesuits were overwhelmed as they continued rebuilding after the 1695 uprising (Spicer 1962). Spanish settlers were also pressuring the Jesuits to secularize mission lands and institute a system of conscripted labor (repartimiento). Juan

Mateo Manje, Kino’s one time travel companion, became Alcalde Mayor of Sonora and issued a report suggesting that the missionary period should be considered over.

Kino died in 1711 and, although he was replaced by Luis Xavier Velarde at Dolores three years later, the mission system that Kino had established in the Pimería Alta began 124 to decline (Spicer 1962). Indigenous populations at Dolores, San Ignacio, Tubutama, and

Caborca diminished as epidemics and raiding took their toll. Groups that had gathered at

Bac, Suamca, and Quiburi in anticipation of receiving missionaries began to disperse. So- baipuri living along the lower San Pedro and led by Humari relocated to the Gila River in response to continued pressure from nomadic groups. The northern missions and visitas remained unstaffed until the 1730s (Sheridan 2006b). Spanish settlers continued to lobby for the secularization of church land; however, the captain of the Fronteras presidio, who had been one of the Jesuits’ chief critics, was removed from office in 1732 (Sheridan 2006b).

He was replaced by Juan Bautista de Anza, who supported continued Jesuit efforts on the frontier. The Jesuits experienced a small resurgence in response to this shift in local power and later that year they assigned three missionaries to the Santa Cruz River valley missions

(Sheridan 2006b; Spicer 1962). Ignaz Xavier Keller was sent to Suamca, Johann Baptist

Grazhoffer assumed control of Guevavi, and Phelipe Segesser was installed at Bac. Grazhof- fer died within the year, and many accused the O’odham of poisoning him. He was replaced by Gaspar Stiger shortly thereafter, but things did not proceed smoothly from this moment on. In 1734, the O’odham abandoned the northern missions taking livestock and altar pieces with them (Kessell 1970; Sheridan 2006b). Although Anza and Segesser were able to per- suade the neophytes to return, the event symbolized the beginnings of a growing discontent among the O’odham. Five epidemics afflicted the northern missions over the course of two 125 decades, decimating the O’odham population. The Spanish presence continued to grow in the region with the expansion of mining and ranching enterprises. By 1750, nine missionaries were permanently stationed in the Pimería Alta, and the region was rife with tension.

Reorganization

Increasing colonial pressures on the O’odham, including forced sedentism, coerced labor in the mission fields, resettlement, and epidemic disease contributed to social tensions that eventually culminated in the Upper Pima Rebellion of 1751 (Kessell 1970; Spicer 1962).

The events leading up to the actual rebellion are well documented, yet debate remains about the intentions of those involved. Luís Oacpicagigua of Sáric, an accomplished O’odham soldier and Spanish appointed military leader, killed 18 Spanish neighbors whom he had told to take refuge inside his house on the pretext of hiding during an Apache raid (Sheri- dan 2006b). Additional attacks occurred across the Pimería Alta at Caborca, Pitiquito, Oqui- toa, Atil, Tubutama, Sonoita, Busani, Agua Caliente, Baboquivari, Arivaca, Guevavi, Bac, and Tubac. Over a month after Oacpicagigua first killed his neighbors at Sáric, he was defeated near Arivaca and fled to the mountains. He eventually negotiated his surrender three months later, conditional upon amnesty from the Spanish and the removal of Keller from

Suamca. Conflicting testimony from those involved reported that Oacpicagigua had been taunted and poorly treated by Jesuit missionaries, especially Keller, who resented his power 126 and autonomy, while others testified that he had been planning the revolt for over a year, but that he needed a pretext under which to act.

In response to this wave of violence, the Spanish scrambled to reorganize and secure the northern frontier. Francisco Xavier Pauer was installed at Guevavi and a garrison was established at the settlement of Tubac (Kessell 1970; Sheridan 2006b). Despite these measures,

Oacpicagigua’s followers continued to attack Spanish installations, including San Xavier del Bac. By 1758, the skirmishes had subsided and the O’odham were enduring yet another wave of epidemic disease. Populations at the missions plummeted and the Jesuits instituted a policy of reducción to replenish their dwindling numbers. The remaining Sobaipuri along the San Pedro were resettled in 1762 at Tucson, Soamca, and Sonoita. The Sobaipuri had engaged in an unending battle with the Apache along the San Pedro, and once they were resettled, Apache raids increased in the San Luis and Santa Cruz valleys. The Spanish settlements at San Luis, Buenavista, and Santa Bárbara were abandoned as colonists sought the relative safety of the presidios. In response to the increased need for military action across the Spanish frontier, the Marqués de Rubí conducted a tour of military installations in New

Spain (Weber 1992). The changes suggested by Rubí to military organization were only one facet of the Burbon Reforms, which would change the course of history in the Pimería Alta.

In Catholic Europe, resentment had been growing against the Society of Jesus since the early eighteenth century (Kessell 1970; Weber 1992). The Portuguese expelled the Jesuits 127 from their lands in 1759, after they were implicated in a plot to assassinate King Joseph I.

The French followed suit in 1764 after a lengthy trial that began as a bankruptcy hearing and ended with the denunciation and dissolution of the Society. In Spain, Carlos III charged the

Jesuits with sedition, and expelled them from all Spanish territories in 1767. It is thought that this was a pretext to curb the political and economic power of the Society in Spain and facilitate secular reforms. The Jesuit missions in the Pimería Alta were assigned to the

Franciscan Order, but their powers were limited to the spiritual realm (Sheridan 2006b).

The management of mission herds and crops was delegated to civil commissioners and the

O’odham neophytes were granted civil autonomy.

As the Franciscans took up their new position in the Pimería Alta, the missions were barely surviving (Kessell 1970; Sheridan 2006b). The mission at Guevavi languished and was finally abandoned in 1775. After the release the Regulations of 1772, presidios began replacing missions as focal point of Spanish efforts in the Southwest. The presidio at Tu- bac was used as a base of operations from which to open a land route to California in 1774

(Sheridan 2006b; Weber 1992, 2005). Juan Bautista de Anza, the commander at Tubac, along with Franciscan missionary Francisco Garcés, traveled from the presidio to Monterey,

California. Because Anza had taken many of the soldiers on the expedition, the garrison at

Tubac was removed to Tucson in 1775, leaving the few remaining settlers at the mercy of the raiding groups. In 1776, the presidio at Terranate was relocated to the San Pedro River 128 valley in an attempt to neutralize the increasing threat posed by the Apache. The presidials at Terranate sustained numerous casualties from continued Apache raiding and the garrison eventually returned to the south after only four years on the San Pedro River. In need of additional soldiers to protect the growing ranches and settlements in the Pimería Alta, the

Comandante General of the Provincias Internas, Teodoro de Croix, assigned a formal company of O’odham soldiers to San Ignacio. The establishment of native presidios was one facet of a new Spanish approach to taming the frontier. In his Instructions of 1786, Vice- roy Bernardo de Gálvez ordered his commanders to launch coordinated offensives against

Spanish enemies, make alliances to recruit native soldiers, and bribe agitators with food to keep the peace. These policies would hold sway in the Pimería Alta for the remainder of

Spanish colonial rule.

Research Themes

Previous archaeological research has been predominantly geared toward examining the large prehistoric archaeological complexes that dominated the Southwest during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (e.g., Chenault 1996; Downum et al. 1993; Fish et al. 1992). Ex- aminations of late Hohokam Classic period sites and the spread of Salado have captured the attention of researchers for decades. Likewise the history of Spanish colonization in the Pimería Alta has been examined by both historians and anthropologists. Many of these 129 projects (with some notable exceptions) have emphasized enduring Spanish installations such as missions and presidios, rather than examining indigenous peoples on the periphery of colonial efforts (e.g., Barton et al. 1981; Beaubien 1937; Burton 1992; Fratt 1981; Kes- sell 1970, 1974; Shenk et al. 1975). Only in the last few decades with the rise of ethnohistory has this pattern changed.

This dissertation reevaluates archaeological, ethnographic, oral historical, and documentary evidence to examine the relationship between archaeological cultures and historically documented ethnic groups to create a more nuanced understanding of the protohistoric demographic landscape in the Pimería Alta. Previous models of continuity and replacement will be evaluated in addition to a third model that posits a more complicated relationship, that of a braided network of interrelatedness, between historically documented indigenous peoples and archaeological cultures. It was necessary to compile a substantial data set of known archaeological sites, historical documents, and ethnographies with which to test these hypotheses.

Data Requirements

This project relies on previously published sources of historical, archaeological, and ethnographic data. Historical-period documents from the periods prior to and during the earliest sustained contact with Europeans were examined for references to indigenous daily 130 practices, persistent places, and native oral traditions. These documents were also evaluated to identify how the Spanish perceived and defined the differences between these groups.

Ethnographic research was critically evaluated and cross-referenced for the persistence of certain practices, place names, and traditions. Oral traditions were reviewed in a similar manner. In order to evaluate models of protohistoric demographic change, a thorough review of both archaeological “gray literature” and academic publications was conducted.

Sites selected for reanalysis were chosen from each region within the Pimería Alta. Sites exhibiting subsurface deposits, multiple activity areas, and substantial sample sizes were prioritized for reanalysis. Because the goal was to examine protohistoric population dynamics, sites postdating the protohistoric period, such as missions and presidios, were excluded.

The methods use to select and evaluate each data set are detailed in the following chapter. 131

CHAPTER 5: METHODS

The objective of this dissertation is to examine population dynamics during the Protohistoric period in the Pimería Alta in order to understand the relationship between archaeological cultures and historically documented ethnic groups. Previous research has examined these relationships from narrow perspectives, usually focusing on one specific group and relying heavily on a single set of data. Examining populations in isolation ignores the dynamic and fluid nature of group membership and social relationships. If groups reorganized themselves periodically in the past and, therefore, have roots in multiple antecedent populations, it is necessary to examine the relationships between neighboring groups through time in order to create a more complete picture of this process.

An examination of population dynamics during the Protohistoric period necessitated a thorough literature review of previous research in order to assess the validity of existing archaeological typologies and verify that those types correspond to differences in practice among discrete ethnic groups. Models previously proposed to characterize social demography in the Pimería Alta during the Protohistoric period also will be revaluated as part of this project to examine their strengths and weaknesses. Because understanding the roots of historically documented ethnic groups requires that the possibility of reorganization be taken into account, this analysis must be conducted from a regional perspective. Such an 132 ambitious undertaking necessitates an ethnohistoric approach, wherein multiple lines of evidence, including written accounts, oral history, ethnographic observations, and archaeological data, are evaluated and compared to construct a regionally specific historical narrative.

Ethnohistory

Ethnohistory can be minimally defined as “the use of historical documents and historical method in anthropological research” (Wood 1990:81). Ethnohistorical research uses historical documents to construct a history of a group or to understand cultural processes and change (DeMallie 1993; Galloway 2006; Picha 2009; Wood 1990). The term “historical record” encompasses not only written accounts, but any source of information on the past.

This includes maps, photographs, ethnographies, oral traditions, and archaeological data.

For any given ethnohistorical research project, the relevant documents, including those listed above, are compiled and examined using the historical method, which is defined as the critical evaluation of the authenticity and credibility of a specific document. Therefore, ethnohistory is understood as the process by which written accounts, oral traditions, ethnographic data, and archaeological evidence are evaluated and combined to interpret the histories of indigenous groups.

Historical documents can be categorized as primary or secondary sources (Wood 1990).

Primary sources consist of those materials that were produced by someone directly involved 133 in the event or events under examination. In terms of the written record, primary documents include those accounts and maps produced by European explorers and colonists. Secondary sources can be defined as those accounts or summaries produced after the event by individuals not directly involved in the episode in question. These sources include transcriptions and translations of written accounts and oral traditions, as well as published histories. For any independent analysis, it is always preferable to work with as many primary sources as possible. This prevents the replication of transcription and translation errors and previous researcher biases and mistakes from unduly influencing the results. Unfortunately, in many cases, working with primary sources is not always feasible. Original written documents may not be readily accessible, the people who initially detailed certain oral traditions may no longer be alive, and the artifacts under examination may have been culled or repatriated.

In these cases secondary sources are invaluable because they provide access to information that has otherwise been lost.

Historical documents must be critically evaluated for authenticity and bias before they can be used reliably in the construction of historical narrative (Wood 1990). The authenticity of a historical document is evaluated through external criticism. This requires investigating whether or not the account appears to have been written at the purported time and by the attributed author. Forged or fabricated sources are obviously unreliable and should not be used to reconstruct history. The credibility, or biases, of the authors of these documents 134 are examined through internal criticism. This process should be applied to each particular sentiment in a document because of the myriad agendas or biases any given author could present. Evaluating biases is fundamental when examining written records because the authors themselves produced these accounts for a reason, be it for posterity, entertainment, or to achieve an external goal, such as gaining funds for an expedition or political support for a particular course of action. The credibility of a given source can be ascertained by examining the purpose of the document, the competency of the author or witness, the author’s proximity to the described event, and comparison with documents written by other authors describing the same event. The numerous historical documents that are here examined in this way are discussed below.

The Written Word

Those researchers interested in constructing the histories of indigenous groups during the Pro- tohistoric period must rely on evidence from the periods prior to and during the earliest contact with Europeans (Galloway 2006). Written sources from the Pimería Alta during this time period are limited to the accounts of European explorers and missionaries. Exploration of this region may have begun as early as 1539 when Marcos de Niza traveled to Zuni Pueblo. The expedition led by Francisco Vasquez de Coronado and chronicled by Pedro de Castañeda may also have traversed sections of the Pimería Alta the subsequent year. Melchior Díaz explored 135 portions of the Papaguería when traveling along the Colorado River. However, the most detailed early descriptions of the region and its peoples are found in the accounts of Spanish missionaries and soldiers who repeatedly travelled throughout the Pimería Alta to convert its inhabitants. The diaries of Eusebio Francisco Kino and his frequent companion Juan Mateo

Manje contain some of the most thorough accounts of the peoples inhabiting this region during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Additionally, Juan María de Salvati- erra, a Jesuit missionary from California, wrote of his experiences while accompanying Kino on one of these journeys. These documents are particularly useful for examining the Proto- historic period because they describe indigenous groups before the Spanish established a permanent colonial presence in the Pimería Alta.

Because of time constraints it was not possible to read all the accounts of these expeditions in their original Spanish. Instead translations were used as a guide to identify pertinent passages that could help address the research questions outlined above. Once these passages were identified, transcriptions of these documents were obtained from published sources or the Office of Ethnohistorical Research in the Arizona State Museum at the Uni- versity of Arizona. The passages were then translated by the author to avoid perpetuating any earlier translation errors. These accounts were evaluated individually to assess the inherent biases, which will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6. 136

Written accounts were mined for several kinds of data, including names of ethnic groups and their distribution, oral traditions, daily practices, and sacred and persistent places. Of particular interest were how the Spanish perceived and defined the differences between groups, whether they relied on language, appearance, the testimony of their translators, subsistence practices, or all of the above. These data were gathered and compared to other lines of evidence, including oral histories, in order to gain an understanding of the social landscape in the Pimería Alta during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.

Oral Traditions and Memory

Oral traditions and oral history are controversial sources of information for researchers because they do not represent eyewitness accounts of specific events that were frozen in time.

Rather they are the accumulation of group experiences and impressions, wherein time may have been condensed to accommodate the limits of human memory (Galloway 2006; Van- sina 1985). While oral history is created and maintained differently than written accounts, it is a valuable source of information about the relevance of certain events, how a group views their collective past, and how knowledge of the deep past is balanced against retain- ing memories of the recent past.

Oral traditions must be subjected to the same criticisms as written accounts. One difficulty in evaluating oral traditions lies in the fact that the circumstances in which these data 137 were gathered are not always explicit. Early ethnographers did not usually include the transcriptions of these conversations, making the biases introduced during data collection and translation difficult to evaluate. Despite these potential problems, oral traditions are an important part of ethnohistorical research because they present a different formulation of the past based upon a collective memory.

Oral traditions used in this dissertation primarily come from O’odham speakers. Oral histories recorded by Bahr et al. (1994), Bahr (2001), Curtain (1949), Russell (1908), Sax- ton and Saxton (1973), Shaw (1968), and Underhill (1946) were mined for data concerning group origins, relationships between the O’odham and their neighbors, and sacred spaces.

Additionally, similar accounts were compared to identify persistent themes. Yuman oral traditions detailed by Forde (1931) and Spier (1933) were also examined using the same methods. Some oral traditions were recorded independently; however, most of them were included in larger ethnographic accounts of these groups.

Ethnographies

Published ethnographies about the groups inhabiting the Pimería Alta are abundant. Eth- nographic research among the O’odham and Yuman speakers began in the early twentieth century and continued under various researchers into the 1970s (Castetter and Bell 1942;

Ezell 1961; Fontana 1974; Fontana et al. 1962; Forde 1931; Hackenburg 1974a, 1974b; 138

Moore 1925; Rogers 1936, 1945; Russell 1908; Saxton and Saxton 1973; Shaw 1968;

Spier 1933; Underhill 1936, 1939, 1946, 1974). As with written accounts and oral traditions, the information on indigenous practices recorded in these ethnographies cannot be used indiscriminately.

The data collected from these ethnographies must be examined for their credibility and compared to other sources of data. The ethnographic conditions, such as formal interviews, casual conversations, or participant observation, can influence the quantity and quality of data and must also be taken into consideration. It is imperative that researchers remember that the practices described in these texts do not represent an account of “traditional indigenous culture,” rather they describe the perceived characteristics of those groups at the time the ethnographers were conducting their research. It must be recognized that groups change significantly over time, but valuable data are held within these reports. Discussions relating to persistent places, ethnobotany, ceramic manufacture, and treatment of the dead were particularly useful for the present study because these activities are visible in the archaeological record.

Archaeological Data

An analysis of the archaeological data was not only essential to examining the material signatures of groups during the Protohistoric period in the Pimería Alta, it was fundamental to 139 evaluating hypotheses about population dynamics during this period. In order to identify the quantity and quality of previously completed archaeological research at protohistoric sites, it was necessary to conduct a through literature review of both “gray literature” and published reports. Several queries of the Arizona site files database (AZSITE) were conducted early on as part of this process.

The AZSITE queries for this project were defined by both spatial and attribute data. The boundaries of the Pimería Alta were established and delivered to AZSITE in an ESRI ArcGIS file. For the purposes of this research, the northern boundary of the Pimería Alta was established as a 25-mile linear buffer north of the Gila River. The eastern and western boundaries were considered to be similar to current state lines. A southern boundary was not established because the Pimería Alta extends into Mexico as does some AZSITE coverage. Within these established spatial parameters, four separate queries were conducted based on time period, inclusive calendar years, cultural affiliation, and diagnostic artifacts. The first search criterion identified archaeological sites that had been associated with the Protohistoric (var. protohistoric and proto historic) period. The second database query identified sites that were occupied between A.D. 1450 and 1700. The third criterion identified sites that were affiliated with Sobaipuri, O’odham, Yuman, Yavapai, or Apache ethnic groups. The last query identified all sites that contained Whetstone Plain, Sobaipuri Plain, Patayan III, Apache Plain, and

Tizon Brownware ceramics and Sobaipuri projectile points. Several search criteria resulted 140 in the inclusion of prehistoric or historical-period sites in the dataset; however, this was intentional so that sites that might not have been categorized as “protohistoric” would be identified by other criteria, such as diagnostic artifacts or cultural affiliation.

The AZSITE database is not a comprehensive list of all archaeological sites within

Arizona. It does not list sites on federal land that have not been issued state site numbers.

AZSITE also does not distribute information about sites situated on Indian reservations without permission from tribal authorities. The data available from AZSITE are based on the archaeological site cards submitted to ASM upon the completion of a project. Because of this, the completeness and accuracy of information on the site cards is dependant on the individual or institution that submits them. Despite these drawbacks, AZSITE remains the largest and most comprehensive source of cultural resource information in Arizona. Site information was also collected for the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR) in the Papaguería from the archaeological database maintained by the Luke Air Force Base (LAFB) Range

Management Office (RMO). The same search criteria were used to identify protohistoric sites on the BMGR as were used in the AZSITE database query.

The results of these queries were collected into one large dataset to facilitate the selection of a sample of protohistoric sites for this project. In order to evaluate material from across the Pimería Alta, multiple sites were selected from each zone within the project area, including the Santa Cruz and San Pedro River valleys, the Gila River valley, the Santa Rita 141

Mountains, the Tucson Basin, the Sierra Pinacate, and the Papaguería. Site distribution within different environments (i.e., valley floors,bajadas , terraces) was taken into consideration. Because the ultimate goal was to examine population dynamics prior to the Euro- pean colonization of the Pimería Alta, sites with substantial historical-period Euroamerican occupations, such as missions and visitas, were avoided.

Archaeological sites that met the above criteria were selected for reanalysis; however, a few areas were not well represented within the sample (Figure 5.1). This was due to a paucity of suitable artifact collections from some areas, such as the Altar Valley or the Sierra

Pinacate. Along the Gila River and in the Phoenix Basin, there are several collections that are suitable for reanalysis, but because they are held by tribal institutions, access to nontribal members is prohibited. The reports from these sites will be discussed as part of this dissertation, but unfortunately these collections could not be reanalyzed. Material from the Tohono

O’odham Indian reservation was available because the collections were curated at ASM. As a result, the majority of the sites selected for reanalysis are located in the Santa Cruz and

San Pedro River valleys, on the Tohono O’odham Indian reservation, and on the BMGR.

This distribution facilitates an examination of population dynamics in a region dominated by the Hohokam and Patayan archaeological cultures and later occupied by O’odham and

Yuman speaking groups. 142 Location of selected protohistoric archaeological sites in the Pimería Alta. sites in the Pimería archaeological 5.1. Location of selected protohistoric Figure 143

The collections selected for reanalysis were examined at various archaeological repositories including ASM, the Amerind Foundation, and the Tucson office of Statistical Research,

Inc., where materials from the BMGR were temporarily stored prior to curation. The reanalysis was confined to ceramics and flaked stone tools because these materials are the most ubiquitous at protohistoric sites and because typologies for these materials are frequently used as markers of cultural affiliation. One of the fundamental goals of the reanalysis was to verify the results detailed in the site report so that the data presented in the report could be used with confidence. In the event that the artifacts were not cataloged or labeled in accordance with the original classification scheme, the schema was reconstructed from the report as much as possible. Some of the collections had been partially repatriated or culled prior to curation, which altered artifact frequencies during reanalysis. These problems are addressed in Chapter 6.

Diagnostic Material Culture

A suite of material characteristics are associated with the Protohistoric period and in particular with the Sobaipuri, in the Pimería Alta. This is due in large part to the fact that the Pro- tohistoric period has been examined more intensively along the Santa Cruz and San Pedro

Rivers, which is the historically documented territory of the O’odham population that the

Spanish referred to as Sobaipuri. Investigations in the Altar Valley, Sonora demonstrate that 144 artifacts and features from protohistoric sites closely resemble those found along the San Pe- dro and Santa Cruz rivers (McGuire and Villalpando 1993). The suite of diagnostic artifacts associated with the protohistoric Sobaipuri sites was first formerly articulated by Di Peso

(1953) in his monograph on the excavations at Santa Cruz de Terrenate (AZ EE:4:11[ASM]) and Santa Cruz del Pitaitutgam (AZ EE:8:15[ASM]). As previously discussed in Chapter 2,

Di Peso believed that he had relocated the protohistoric Sobaipuri rancherías of Quiburi

(AZ EE:4:11[ASM]) and Santa Cruz de Gaybanipitea (AZ EE:8:15 [ASM]). Subsequent evaluation of his claims has demonstrated that while he did locate and excavate the ruins of the presidio of Santa Cruz de Terrenate, it was not the location of the Sobaipuri settlement of Quiburi (Gerald 1968; Lyons 2004; Seymour 1989; Sugnet and Reid 1994). It has also been suggested that Di Peso mistook Santa Cruz del Pitaitutgam for Santa Cruz de Gayba- nipitea (Seymour 1989, 2011; Vint 2007).

Di Peso’s conclusions regarding Quiburi and Gaybanipitea may have been erroneous; however, he identified two ceramic types that he associated with the Sobaipuri. Sobaipuri

Plain was defined a thick-walled plainware that exhibited a rim coil and a carbon core. Di

Peso considered this to be similar to Papago Plain and argued that it was probably manufactured after A.D. 1700. It has been argued that the Sobaipuri Plain vessels identified at

Terrenate were actually manufactured by the presidial soldiers rather than the Sobaipuri 145

(Whittlesey 1994). Whetstone Plain, the second type defined by Di Peso was found in significantly lower quantities than Sobaipuri Plain at both Terrenate and Pitaitutgam.

Di Peso reported collecting 942 sherds and 8 reconstructible vessels, consisting of three jars and five bowls, of Whetstone Plain from Terrenate and Pitaitutgam. He defined these as ceramics as manufactured by paddle and anvil and characterized by mixed angular and rounded sand inclusions without a carbon core. The ceramics exhibit a hand-smoothed surface lacking striation marks or polishing. He noted that the temper may contain a few mica particles. Whetstone Plain vessel forms are dominated by globular jars with straight or recurved rims, while bowls exhibit straight or slightly recurved rims (Figure 5.2). These ceramics lack a rim coil and range in thickness from 0.20 to 1.30 cm, with an average of 0.30 cm.

Subsequent refinements of the Whetstone typology by Masse (1981:37) describe

Whestone Plain as characterized by a bumpy appearance and a sandy finish caused by paddle and anvil thinning and hand finishing. The sherds range in color from reddish to grayish brown and carbon streaks are rare. Vessel walls average from 4 to 6 mm thick and common vessel forms include globular or ellipsoidal jars with slightly outflaring rims and vertical necks and small bowls with outflaring rims (Figure 5.3). Seymour (2011) provides the most recent description of Whetstone Plain. It is defined as a fine-pasted ware with minor voids from the unintentional inclusion of minor fragments of vegetable material. These ceramics lack a carbon streak; however, they may have gray cores. Sherd color ranges from tan to 146

Figure 5.2. Reconstructed Whetstone Plain jar from Presidio Santa Cruz de Terranate (Amerind Catalog Number Q/57). 147

Figure 5.3. Uncataloged Whetstone Plain rim sherds from Alder Wash Ruin. 148 brown and sherds are usually not fire-clouded. Vessels are often thin walled, although some fragments of storage vessels and jars can be thicker. Jars are the most common vessel form, but bowls are also present. Based upon surface treatment, she suggests that Whetstone Plain can be subdivided into four varieties, including matte, smoothed, wiped, and slightly polished. Seymour (2011:216) has argued that the Whetstone Plain typology is too inclusive and incorporates a wide range of ceramic types. Whetstone Plain is found throughout much of the Pimería Alta, and as such, may not be a diagnostic Sobaipuri artifact type.

The most recognized artifact type attributed to the Protohistoric period is the Sobaipuri projectile point. Ironically Di Peso (1953:169) wrote that none of the six projectile point types identified at Terrenate could be considered diagnostic of the Sobaipuri because they lacked sufficient context in association with Sobaipuri features and artifacts. The term “So- baipuri projectile point” was not used in the subsequent reports from relatively intensive data recoveries at England Ranch Ruin, Alder Wash Ruin, or Second Canyon Ruin, all of which exhibited Sobaipuri components. The term appears to have first appeared in print in

Masse (1981:39–40), who described Sobaipuri projectile points as “small triangular chips of siliceous stone exhibiting a deep basal notch.” He noted that the average length of these points is 2 cm and the edges are usually serrated, which is achieved through bifacial retouch along the margins (Figure 5.4). Masse (1981) identified the Type 5 points from Terrenate

(Di Peso 1953:170), the points recovered at England Ranch Ruin, and 41 points recovered 149

Figure 5.4. “Sobaipuri” projectile points from Alder Wash Ruin. (ASM Catalog Numbers— Row 1: A-46481-X-1, A-46481-X-2, A-46484-X-2, A-46487-X-1, A-46487-X-2, A-4688-X-1. Row 2: A-46488-X-2, A-46499-X-2, A-46489-X-1, A-46490-X-1, A-46491-X-1, A-46491-X-2. Row 3: A-46492-X-1, A-46492-X-2, A-46494-X-1, A-46496-X-2, A-46497-X-1, A-46497-X-2. Row 4: A-46498-X-1, A-46498-X-2, A-46499-X-1, A-46500-X-1, A-46500-X-2, A-46502-X-1. Row 5: A-46501, A-46505, A-46503-X-1, A-46504-X-2, A-46508-X-2, A-46509-X-1.) 150 from Alder Wash Ruin (Teague 1980:12) as Sobaipuri projectile points. He noted that these specimens are similar to Papago styles, with the exception that Papago projectile points lack serration. This terminology was subsequently adopted by Brew and Huckell (1987) and Justice (2002).

This classification scheme appears quite straightforward initially because the attributes are neatly defined; however, a reanalysis of projectile points associated with these sites has demonstrated that many of the specimens from the above sites do not exhibit all of the attributes described as characteristic of the Sobaipuri type. For example, not all of the projectile points from England Ranch Ruin have serrated edges (Figure 5.5). At Alder Wash, only 10 projectile points exhibit both serrated edges and basal notches. Substantial variation exists within this type as projectile points exhibiting straight bases and mild or no serration have routinely been identified as Sobaipuri projectile points and are commonly present within sites attributed to the Sobaipuri. Additionally, many projectile points do not conform to the manufacture scheme identified by Masse (1981). Specimens that have been bifacially thinned, rather than manufactured from a flake, are often classified as Sobaipuri projectile points.

These inconsistencies and the variation in point morphology have been discussed at length elsewhere (see Loendorf [2004], Ravesloot and Whittlesey [1987], and Vint [2005]), but in general, it is agreed that triangular basally notched (or concave) projectile points are associated with late prehistoric and O’odham sites. Another artifact type thought to be characteristic 151

Figure 5.5. Projectile points and bifaces from England Ranch Ruin. (ASM Catalog Numbers— Row 1: 76-40-1—76-40-10. Row 2: 76-40-37, 76-40-13—76-40-21. Row 3: 76-40-22, 74-40-24—76-40-32. Row 4: 76-40-33—76-40-36, 76-40-38—76-40-43. Row 5: 76-40-44—76-40-47, 76-40-50—76-40-55. Row 6: 76-40-56, 76-40-126, 76-40-150.) 152 of Sobaipuri sites are unifacially retouched tools, usually identified as scrapers, which have been retouched along a steep angle (Figure 5.6). Masse (1981:40) terms these artifacts “edge trimmed.” Like Sobaipuri projectile points, they are usually manufactured from high-quality raw materials, such as chert and chalcedony (James Vint, personal communication 2010).

Sobaipuri architecture is somewhat distinctive, in that the remains of structures routinely consist of cobble outlines, ranging in length from 2 to 3.5 m and in width from 1.5 to 2 m

(Masse 1981; Vint 2007). Cobble outlines as wide as 9 m have been reported at Sobaipuri sites; however, this probably reflects the displacement of cobbles rather than the original

Figure 5.6. Uncataloged unifacial scrapers from AZ EE:2:83(ASM). 153

structural dimensions. Sobaipuri structures were probably constructed using a pole frame

covered by grass mats or brush. They are frequently oriented along a north-south axis with

entryways located in the east walls. Some structures have associated intramural features,

such as hearths, trivets, or platforms; however, these features are usually not elaborate. Struc-

tural fill is usually shallow, no more than 10–15 cm, and the structures usually lacks a prepared floor. The remains of intramural hearths are usually small depressions characterized by burned patches of soil. Other features that have been recorded at Sobaipuri sites include roasting pits, cobble concentrations, and platforms (Seymour 2011; Vint 2007).

Within the flaked stone tools category, all available projectile points, bifacially flaked tools, and scrapers were reexamined. The recorded attributes were compiled and defined following Justice (2002) and included catalog number, provenience, whether the artifact was complete or fragmentary, the percentage of completeness, portion, maximum length or length, maximum width or width, maximum thickness, weight, material type, color, axial length, basal width, basal indentation, and maximum width position. Axial length is the measurement from the tip of a projectile point to the top of the concavity in the base. Basal width is the measurement at the maximum width of the haft. Basal indentation is the mea-

surement from the basal edge to the maximum basal concavity. The maximum width position

is the measurement from the basal edge to the position of maximum width on the body of the 154 projectile point. These measurements are illustrated in Figure 5.7. The attributes were then compared for the entire sample to evaluate whether variation clustered within certain zones.

The ceramic collections from the selected sites were sampled both to expedite analysis and to provide a baseline from which to properly gauge variation in vessel thickness. In order to balance time constraints with the desire to gain the maximum amount of information from each sherd, only rim sherds were analyzed from the bulk collections. If whole vessels or reconstructed vessels were available, those were also examined, but measurements were

Figure 5.7. Projectile point measurements. 155 confined to the rims. The ceramic assemblages were dominated by plainwares and were examined following Rice (1987). The recorded attributes included catalog number, provenience, portion, form, thickness, temper, the presence or absence of a carbon core, the presence or absence of a rim coil, the presence or absence of mica, weight, size, orifice diameter, and rim percentage complete. For some collections, rim sherds were scarce so body sherds were analyzed to verify the results detailed in the report. These body sherds were not included in the subsequent statistical analyses used to examine the validity of ceramic plainware typologies. The recorded attributes of rim sherds were analyzed to examine whether they conformed to expectations detailed in published typologies. These typologies were also evaluated to examine whether they reflect differences in ceramic manufacture between ethnic groups or the regional biases of the typologists

All measurements were made in millimeters using Fowler Ultra Cal Mark III digital calipers. Weight was recorded in grams and was ascertained using an O’Haus C305-S digital scale. Ceramic temper was analyzed by making a fresh break on the edge of a sherd and examining it under 15X magnification using a binocular microscope with a fluores- cent ring light illuminator. Following analysis, artifacts were photographed using a Sony

7.2 megapixel CyberShot digital camera with and without an external flash. While the artifact reanalysis was the most time-consuming aspect of this dissertation, it was necessary both as a tool for evaluating the results presented in archaeological reports and as a means 156 to examine the validity of archaeological typologies used as markers of cultural affiliation.

These results are one facet of a larger dataset that can be used to construct a historical narrative of indigenous population dynamics during the Protohistoric period.

Conclusions

In order to examine population dynamics during the Protohistoric period, it was necessary to adopt an ethnohistoric approach wherein written accounts, oral traditions, ethnographic observations, and archaeological data were critically evaluated and compared to construct a historical narrative. This project necessitated a thorough literature review of previous research in order to assess the validity of existing archaeological typologies and verify that those types correspond to differences in practice among discrete ethnic groups. The following chapter details the results of this multidisciplinary approach. 157

CHAPTER 6: RESULTS

An ethnohistorical approach to examining the Protohistoric period in the Pimería Alta necessitated an examination of historical-period documents, ethnographic descriptions, oral traditions, and archaeological data. A sample of material from each of these data sets was reexamined, and the results are presented in detail in the following discussion.

The Written Word

Written accounts that have the ability to provide information directly relevant to the Proto- historic period (A.D. 1450–1700) in the Pimería Alta consist primarily of exploration narratives. Although some of the chroniclers discussed herein were members of the clergy, these narratives detail their participation in larger expeditions and contain descriptions of the location and nature of populations ripe for conversion and reducción. The details recorded during these entradas offer a rare glimpse of indigenous populations prior to the establishment of permanent colonial institutions. Exploration accounts differ dramatically from later missionary texts, which are usually focused on the conversion process and frontier politics. For the purposes of this discussion, written accounts can be divided into those from the sixteenth century and those from the seventeenth century. 158

Exploration Accounts from the Sixteenth Century

The first documented exploration of the Southwest was conducted by survivors of the

Narváez expedition. In his 1542 relación, Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca chronicled the progress of this entrada from his departure from the southwest coast of Spain on June 17, 1527, to his return to Seville in 1537. The translation and transcription available in Adorno and

Pautz (1999) contains the most detailed critical evaluation and description of this expedition to date. The document was written some five years after Cabeza de Vaca returned to Spain at a time when he was attempting to gain a political promotion in Nueva España. Some of his descriptions of the excesses of the natives and evils perpetrated by Spanish slavers on the frontier might have been embellished for the benefit of his Spanish audience. He may also have exaggerated or simply misunderstood his own status among the indigenous groups with whom he was traveling. His descriptions leave the reader with the impression that because of his fame as a healer he was being escorted back to Mexico by various natives; however, it has been suggested that he and his companions were actually being traded among the inhabitants (Adorno and Pautz 1999). Despite these considerations, his descriptions of the landscape and the peoples he encountered during his eight year sojourn are relatively reliable. By the summer of 1535, Cabeza de Vaca and his companions were traveling rather quickly through northern Mexico and lacked familiarity with the languages; therefore, this portion of the narrative is not as descriptive and informative as earlier passages. The party 159 likely traveled along the Rio Grande before cutting southwest into Chihuahua and probably ventured no farther north than modern El Paso and no farther west than the Río Sonora.

The Narváez expedition did not enter the Pimería Alta; however, they did encounter Span- ish slavers in northern Mexico in 1536. Certainly the Spanish had unofficially entered the northern frontier by the 1530s; therefore, it seems likely that gossip, Spanish trade goods, and New World disease from Spanish settlements in Sinaloa would have preceded Spanish exploration into the Pimería Alta.

The first reconnaissance expedition to be sent into the American Southwest was chronicled by Marcos de Niza, a Franciscan friar who was chosen by Viceroy Antonio Mendoza to verify reports of wealthy settlements to the north. Esteban the Moor, one of the survivors of the Narváez expedition, was chosen to accompany Niza. The route this expedition followed has been widely debated among researchers, as has the credibility of Niza’s relación

(see Hallenbeck 1949; Hartmann 1997; Reff 1991a; Sauer 1937; Wagner 1934). An inland and a coastal route through northern Mexico have been proposed; however, regardless of whether Niza followed the Gulf of California before turning inland or traveled north following the Río Sonora, his journey would have taken him near or through portions of the

Pimería Alta. The intelligence Niza brought back to Mexico following the death of Este- ban at Cíbola encouraged the viceroy to continue his plans to fund a large expedition north. 160

Researchers are divided on whether Marcos de Niza was a charlatan or a victim of hear- say and an overripe imagination. He was a contemporary and correspondent of Bartolomé de las Casas, and he appeared to be sympathetic toward indigenous populations as demonstrated by his report of Spanish depredations in Peru (Flint and Flint 2005). He was judged competent to undertake the journey because of his familiarity with theology, cosmography, and navigation. Upon his return to Mexico in 1539, Niza dictated this report and was selected as ministro provincial of the province of Santo Evangelio in Mexico City. The expectation of such a promotion may have prompted Niza to exaggerate his findings. It has also been suggested that he might have intentionally fed false information to Coronado in an attempt to undermine the forthcoming expedition (Day 1940); however, there is little evidence to support this assertion (Flint and Flint 2005). In his 1539 relación, many of the references made to the existence of wealthy kingdoms originate from the reports of indigenous peoples encountered on the journey. Niza showed these people samples of precious metals and was informed that the inhabitants of an inland valley had golden vases and other objects.

He also detailed the supposed frequency of turquoise inland and the presence of pearls along the coast. When he saw the settlement where Esteban had been killed Niza wrote,

“. . . where I positioned myself to see it, the settlement [Cíbloa] was grander than Mexico

City” (translation by the author) (Flint and Flint 2005:87; . . . donde me puse a vella la po- blaçion es mayor que la çuidad de mexico”). Niza’s description of the northern territory is 161 overly enthusiastic, and he compares the region to that of the Mexico and Peru. However, his discussion of trade items such as turquoise, pearls, and bison robes are valid and con- cur with descriptions of the wide exchange networks crossing the Southwest and the Plains

(Spielmann 1989). According to the subsequent testimony of his acquaintances, Niza later elaborated on these details, describing the north as immeasurably wealthy (Flint and Flint

2005). These claims inflamed the imagination of local authorities, advancing plans already in place for a large expedition to Cíbola.

The translation and transcription of Marcos de Niza’s 1539 relación from the Archivo

General de Indias in Seville (Flint and Flint 2005) was reexamined to identify descriptions of the landscape and peoples encountered during his reconnaissance. As he traveled through northern Sonora, Niza recalled, “I arrived at a moderate village called Vacapa where they made me a grand reception and gave me much food, which they have in abundance because all the land is irrigated” (translation by the author) (Flint and Flint 2005:81; “llegue a una rezonable poblaçion que se llama Vacapa donde me hicieron gran rresçebimientto y me di- eron mucha comida de la qual tenian en abundançia por ser todo tierra que se rriega”). This might be a description of indigenous populations along the Río Sonora or Río Magdalena, as Niza described waiting in this area for two weeks while his messengers traveled to and from the coast to bring back news of the peoples living there. He also encountered pinatados, whose territory bordered that of Cíbola, and may be a reference to the Suma and Jumano 162

populations who tattooed their faces and bodies. It has been argued that Niza’s population

descriptions of this region may be used to support the theory that the Hohokam were still

resident in the Southwest during the mid-sixteenth century. Reff (1991a) has argued that

the Hohokam were the Totonteac nation described in the document and that xicaras muy

lindas is a reference to Gila Polychrome ceramics. It is possible that the Totonteac references Hohokam or Trincheras ruins; however, jícaras describes bowls made from gourds rather than ceramics. It is unlikely that the Hohokam were resident in the Phoenix and Tuc- son Basins during this period as most scholars agree that populations had dispersed due to environmental instability or social conflict by A.D. 1500.

After Niza returned to Mexico and made his report to Mendoza, preparations began in

earnest to dispatch a larger party to reach Cíbola. In November of 1539, Mendoza sent Mel-

chior Díaz, Captain and Alcalde Mayor of Culiacán, and Juan de Zaldívar with a group of

16 mounted men on a second reconnaissance mission to verify Niza’s report. The expedition

spent the winter at a place he called Chichilticale, and there has been some debate about the

location of this camp, which Díaz described as a ruined structure (Brasher 2009; Duffen and

Hartmann 1997). However, the location of Chichilticale is of little relevance for this discus-

sion, because there are no descriptions of the people living around it. On their way south to

report their findings to Mendoza, Díaz and Zaldívar encountered the Coronado expedition at

Chiametla. Díaz remained with Coronado while Zaldívar continued south to Colima, where 163 he presented Mendoza with a brief and discouraging summary of the information they had been able to gather regarding the wealth of Cíbola. This report is preserved in a letter Men- doza wrote to the King of Spain in 1540; however, it contains no other hints that the expedition might not encounter the wealth previously expected in this document. A translation and transcription of this document, housed in the Archivo General de Indias in Seville, is included in Flint and Flint (2005). As expected, much of the report is concerned with what indigenous people have said about Cíbola, but there is also a brief description of the populations the expedition encountered. The letter reads, “Melchior Diaz says that the people he found on the road do not have a single settlement except in a valley that is 150 leagues from Culiacán that is well populated and they have houses with flat roofs” (translation by the author) (Flint and Flint 2005:241; “Dize Melchior diaz que la gente hallo por el camino no tiene asiento ninguno eçebto en un valle que esta çiento y çincuenta leguas de Culuacan que esta bien poblado y tienen casas de terrado”). This may be a description of populations living along the Río Sonora, in which case it would likely refer to the Opata.

Upon encountering the Coronado expedition already en route to Cíbola, Díaz reported that he could not substantiate Niza’s claims regarding the wealth of Cíbola (Flint and Flint

2005). While Coronado met privately with Díaz, the disappointing news spread quickly throughout the company and was recorded in the relación of Pedro de Castañeda de Nájera.

The details of the entire Coronado entrada, as well as small explorations dispatched from 164 the main company, were described in this narrative from the 1560s. Although the account was written about 20 years after the Coronado expedition returned to Mexico, it contains a surprising amount of detail, more so than other narratives authored by Juan Jaramillo and

Cristóbal de Escobar. A translation and transcription of the 1596 copy of this narrative from

Flint and Flint (2005) was used for this discussion. It has been suggested that the document was drafted for Alonso de Zorita. Zorita was an oidor of the Real Audencia de Nueva Es- paña and he was contemplating making another expedition north around the same time as this account was written (Flint and Flint 2005:379). Castañeda’s relación was written with a tone of wistfulness, and he was quite critical of Niza for misleading the public and Coro- nado for abandoning the expedition without having fully explored the region.

Castañeda’s relación contains few descriptions of the people encountered during the initial journey between Culiacán and Chichilticale. He does state that the people they encountered made no opposition to the expedition because they were familiar with Niza and Díaz.

While this might suggest that Coronado followed the same route as both Niza and Díaz, it could just as easily imply that word had spread throughout the region of the previous expeditions. Castañeda writes, “The general [Coronado] had crossed the settled region and arrived at Chichilticale, the beginning of the unsettled region, and he did not see anything good . . .” (translation by the author) (Flint and Flint 2005:445; “el general hubo atravesa do lo poblado y llegado a chichilticale prinçipio del parte del despoblado y no vio cosa buena”). 165

The terms poblado and despoblado have caused significant consternation among historians because they can be translated several different ways. Poblado can be translated as a settlement (i.e., village) or as a description of a settled region (i.e., populated). Similarly, despoblado can be taken to mean depopulated (i.e., empty) or lacking settlements (i.e., without villages). This has serious implications when discussing semisedentary or nomadic populations that inhabit a region. The decision of Flint and Flint (2005) to translate the terms as settled and unsettled was adopted for this discussion, thereby leaving the way open for am- biguity regarding populations in these regions. Therefore, Chichilticale can be described as situated on a boundary between land that has settlements and land that does not. It is later described as situated at the transition between a desert region and a pine forest (Flint and

Flint 2005:417). The people inhabiting the area between Petlatlán and Chichilticale are described as being very similar to each other. They have houses made of mats and drink wine made from cactus fruit. In the transitional region near Chichiltcale, people are described as,

“. . . living in rancherías without villages . . .” (translation by the author) (Flint and Flint

2005:473; . . . ”viven en rrancherias sin poblados” . . .). This description supports the assertion that people lived in the region, but not in compact settlements like groups to the south or Puebloan populations to the north.

After the advance party of the Coronado expedition had plundered Hawikuh, and the main body of the expedition had established a post at Señora, likely in the Sonoran Valley 166

(Reff 1997), Melchior Díaz was dispatched to find Alarcón and the supply ships that he was

to have sailed up the Gulf of California (Flint and Flint 2005). The narrative that follows con-

tains a rich description of the people and landscape along the gulf coast. Díaz encountered

a region populated by tall and muscular people, “who were naked and made their houses

in chozas of large straw tufts, in the manner of shepherds, below the ground that cannot

be seen over the earth more than the straw tuft” (translation by the author) (Flint and Flint

2005:447; “gente desnuda y que hacia su habitaçion en choças de paja largas a manera de sa-

hurdas metidas debaxo de tierra que no salia sobre la tierra mas de la paja” . . .). A large and powerful river, which the Spanish named Río de Tizón, ran through the region. Therefore, the preceding text might be a description of Yuman groups living along the lower Colorado

River (Ives 1959). Díaz attempted to cross the Río de Tizón; however, the people of that area attacked the party. They eventually crossed the river after evading their attackers and

traveled through Baja California to the volcanic region surrounding Cerro Prieto. Sometime

later, Diaz later sustained a lance injury and died en route back to Mexico. The Coronado

expedition continued to send exploration parties to various regions, including other pueblos,

the Plains, and parts of northern Arizona. By 1542, Coronado, who had been injured in a rid-

ing accident, was petitioned by his soldiers to return to Mexico after having explored much

of the Southwest and finding no evidence of the fabled riches contained therein. After the 167

Coronado expedition returned to Mexico, officially sanctioned Spanish expeditions would not enter the Pimería Alta again until the seventeenth century.

Seventeenth Century Accounts

The Coronado expedition, although deemed unsuccessful by contemporaries and historians, paved the way for the Spanish colonization of New Mexico (Bolton 1908, 1990; Flint

2008). In 1598, Don Juan de Oñate y Salazar, in company with Vicente de Zaldar and hundreds of Spanish settlers, established a colony at the pueblo of Caypa, which they named San

Juan and would later become Santa Fe. Oñate dispatched numerous expeditions to explore the regions beyond the Rio Grande. He led a small expedition from 1604 to 1605 down the

Colorado River to the Gulf of California. This journey was chronicled by two Franciscan friars, Francisco de Escobar and Gerónimo de Zárate Salmeron. Escobar’s narrative was referenced for this discussion, and it has been translated several times (Bolton 1908; Ham- mond and Rey 1953; Sheridan 2006a). The translation and transcription used herein was conducted by the “Hopi Project” researchers in the Office of Ethnohistorical Research in the Arizona State Museum at the University of Arizona.

The 1604–1605 Oñate expedition traveled along the western boundary of the Pimería

Alta and encountered several distinct Yuman-speaking groups. Escobar’s narrative contains a relatively thorough description of the diverse groups inhabiting the lower Colorado River, 168

particularly their dress (or lack thereof), their subsistence practices, and most especially,

the territories they occupied. He noted that the populations along the Colorado River all

spoke similar languages, had minimal or no clothing, grew maize and beans, and gathered

mesquite. During the seventeenth century, it appears that tensions already existed between

some Yuman groups. Escobar writes, “. . . they feared the enemy Indians that all those from

the other bank of the river were, that in that unsettled wild [region] they might come out

and kill them . . .” (translation by the author) (Escobar 1605:16, “Y temer los yndios En-

emigos que to dos los de la otraanda del rrio lo heran’ que en aquel monte despobla do

los slaen a matar” . . .). Escobar identified eight distinct groups and their territories relative to each other and major landmarks (i.e., the confluence of the Gila River and the Colorado

Delta). The following groups were identified in Escobar’s relación: Amacava (probably

the Mohave), Bahacecha, Ozara, Alebdoma (Halchidhoma), Coguana (Kohuana), Haglii

(Halyikwamai, Kikima), Tlalliquamalla (also Halyikwamai, Kikima), and the Cocapa (Cu-

cupa) (Sheridan 2006a:2).

Following the 1604–1605 Oñate expedition, further exploration would not be conducted

until Kino entered the southern portion of the Pimería Alta in 1687. By far the most detailed

descriptions of the populations in the Pimería Alta come from the relaciones written during

this period. Before coming to the Pimería Alta, Eusebio Francisco Kino had participated

in Admiral Atondo’s expedition to conquer and convert the indigenous peoples of Baja 169

California from 1683 to 1685. He served as both chaplain and cartographer during this endeavor, and his extensive explorations of this area would prepare him for similar expeditions in the Pimería Alta. He also witnessed the massacre of several natives in 1683, making him keenly aware of the depredations natives suffered under Spanish colonial rule. He might have continued his efforts in Baja California if the funding for his enterprise had not been suspended. Instead he was sent to expand the Spanish presence along the northern frontier of Sonora. Remembering his experiences in Baja California, he requested a royal cedula that would provide exemptions from tribute and forced labor for his prospective neophytes from secular groups and also protect labor sources for the missions. While Kino authored several documents, it is his complete journals, Favores Celestiales, written over the course of several years (1699–1710), which form the core of the data examined herein. Kino compiled this history at the request of the Father General of the Jesuit Order (Bolton 1919). It is at once a record of the successes of the Jesuit effort in the Pimería Alta and a description of the landscape and the indigenous populations who live there. The translation referenced for this project is available in Bolton (1919), and transcriptions of the documents were taken from Kino (1985) and Burrus (1971).

Capt. Juan Mateo Manje, nephew to General Domingo Jironza Petrís de Cruzate, Al- calde Mayor of Sonora, started his career as an ensign in the Companía Volante under his uncle’s command (Burrus 1971). He followed in his uncle’s footsteps and served as Alcalde 170

Mayor of Sonora from 1701 to 1703 and also became a general. As previously mentioned, in 1707 he was part of a petition that accused the Jesuits of not attending to the needs of

Spanish colonists. This petition asked that the missionary period be declared complete, which would have enabled the colonists to use the neophytes for their labor and exact tribute from them. The petition was unsuccessful, and Manje was briefly imprisoned for his involvement. Toward the end of his life, he wrote a memoir of his nine journeys with Kino.

This account was written in two parts, the first completed in 1720 and the last finished in

1721. These collected works were eventually published under the title Luz de Tierra Incog- nita (Burrus 1971; Manje 1954).

Juan María Salvatierra, Father Visitor of the Sonoran missions, had worked among the

Tarahumara prior to his promotion in 1690. He had corresponded with Kino several times and through these interactions was inspired to take up the missionary effort that Kino was forced to abandon in Baja California. Salvatierra accompanied Kino and Manje on an expedition to the Gulf of California in 1701, with the goal of finding a safe and reliable route from the Pimería Alta to Baja California. This excursion was documented in Kino’s Fa- vores Celestiales, Manje’s Luz de Tierra Incognita, and in Salvatierra’s journal. Salvatierra wrote his narrative of this expedition shortly after its completion, and the translation and transcription used herein was produced by researchers in the Office of Ethnohistorical Re- search as part of the O’odham-Pee-Posh Project. 171

It is not within the scope of this dissertation to provide a comprehensive history or description of these texts. Translations, examinations, and histories of these texts are published elsewhere (Bolton 1919, 1960; Burrus 1971; Manje 1954; Salvatierra 1971). A comprehensive ethnohistory project for the O’odham and Pee-Posh is currently underway in the Office of Ethnohistorical Research at ASM, for which many of these documents have already been transcribed and translated. The purpose of this review is to isolate descriptions of the groups these individuals encountered, how they differentiated between groups, and the ranges of these groups, so that these data can be compared to the ethnographic and archaeological records to identify broad patterns of mobility and interaction. Kino’s accounts tend to be more concise than descriptive, in that they provide names and dates, but do not contain many details. These entries are useful for identifying the territories of certain groups; for example, in 1690, Kino wrote that, “the Soba territory extended west and northwest from Tubutama to the Gulf of California in 1690” (translation by the author) (Kino 1985:23; “Los pimas del Soba que llegan hasta el mar de California al poniente y noroeste.”). In his description of the Sobaipuri from San Xavier del Bac and San Cayetano del Tumacácori, Kino men- tions they inhabit fertile valleys (Kino 1985:23; “Y habiendo visto S.R. [Salvatierra] tanta gente tan dócil y tan affable con tan lindos y tan fértiles y amenos valles de indio traba- jadores . . .”). While visiting the Sobaipuri at Quiburi in 1697, Kino writes, “We found the

Pima children of Quiburi very jovial and amicable. . . .” (translation by the author) (Kino 172

1985:40; “Hallamos a los hijos de pimas de Quiburi muy joviales y muy amigables . . .”).

This statement can be interpreted in two ways: (1) both Sobaipuris and Pimas lived at Qui-

buri, or (2) Kino classified the Sobaipuri as Pimas. In subsequent descriptions, Pima is used to describe peoples all over the Pimería Alta. It most likely is a general term that references groups who speak O’odham, live along rivers, and inhabit agricultural communities. This definition is given further credence by Kino’s description of six or sevenrancherías of Pi-

mas Sobaipuris situated near Casa Grande along the Gila between the San Pedro and Santa

Cruz rivers (Kino 1985:40).

Kino traveled to the ranchería of Tusonimo in 1694, near the ruins of Casa Grande,

where he received information about the friendly Opa and Cocomaricopa peoples who oc-

cupied territory along the Colorado River and the Río Azul (Río Verde) and spoke a differ-

ent language. Kino most likely based this division on information received from the Sobai-

puri as well as observable linguistic differences. Nevertheless, this passage states that the

Cocomaricopa and Opa are friendly with the O’odham of Tusonimo, which suggests that

the alliance between these groups had been established prior to the seventeenth century.

Kino later noted that he encountered Cocomaricopas at San Andres, a O’odham ranchería,

further strengthening the supposition that there was substantial interaction between these

groups by this time (Kino 1985:41). Kino recorded that the Cocomaricopa and Opa were

connected to the Pima, writing “. . . y emparentada con los pimas . . .” (Kino 1985:44). His 173 use of the word emparentada implies a group connection through marriage. Kino recorded meeting with a contingent of Pimas, Opas, Cocomaricopas, and Yumas on the Gila River near its confluence with the Colorado in 1699. He also noted that the Yumas, Cutganes, and

Alchedomas occupied the lower Colorado River.

In contrast to Kino’s perfunctory descriptions of indigenous people and their customs,

Manje’s observations seem almost verbose. He completed his narrative 20 years after his last expedition with Kino; however, his journals are quite descriptive. After traveling among the Soba, Manje explained that the group was named after their leader. He wrote, “The principal Soba, for whom this Pima Nation took its name, the name of the land and the nation, he came to give obedience as unarmed as they are naked . . .” (translation by the author)

(Burrus 1971:297; “el principal Soba, de quien tomó esta nación pima el nombre de tierras y nación del Soba y venía a dar la obedencia tan desarmados como desnudos”. . . .). Like

Kino, Manje described these people as Pimas, but he noted that they wore almost no clothing. Nearing the Gulf of California after he had passed the village where the principal Soba lived, he encountered natives who were pobres y desnudos, living off of roots, insects, and shellfish. Manje does not note that these natives speak a language other than Pima; therefore, it is possible that this was a description of the Tohono or Hia C-ed O’odham. He mentioned a similar group after traveling through the Papaguería in 1701, describing them as, “A naked and poor people who only sustain themselves with roots, locusts, and lizards that they 174

call iguanas, and some shellfish . . .” (translation by the author) (Burrus 1971:475; “gente desnuda y pobre que sólo se sustena con raíces langostas y lagartos que llaman iguanas y algún marisco . . .”). At the ranchería of Cups, which may be located in the Papaguería,

Manje recorded that the inhabitants told him of “wild natives” living among large houses situated along a river that runs east to west (Burrus 1971:311). Manje used the phrase indios caribes, which leaves the statement ambiguous as to whether Manje recorded the impressions of the residents of Cups or his own impressions based on the description of their dwellings. Manje also recorded part of a Pima oral tradition when he wrote down what he heard regarding the origin of Casa Grande. The guides told him that the site had been the house of a chief known as Siba, which in O’odham means Bitter Man. He is said to have come from the north and returned there after a battle with the Apache. This is the earliest written rendition of the O’odham tradition regarding the Hohokam, and it will be discussed at length later in this chapter.

When traveling along the Santa Cruz and San Pedro rivers in 1697, Manje noted that the

inhabitants were well dressed (Burrus 1971:336). Upon arriving at Quiburi, he wrote, “And

Captain Coro, the principal Indian of the Pima Nation, made us a splendid reception . . .”

(translation by the author) (Burrus 1971:336; “Y el capitán Coro indio principal del la nación

pima nos hizo un espléndio recibimiento . . .”). Manje was clearly referring to the Sobaipuri

in this context; however, he used the descriptive term Pima. When he and Kino returned 175 from reconnoitering the Gulf of California with Salvatierra, he used the term Sobaipuri to refer to the residents of San Xavier del Bac. It is also in this statement that he used the term papabota to refer to the Papaguería, writing, “And father Eusebio Kino and I crossed the entire Pimería Papabota unto the east [where] we were to visit the Sobaipuri Indians of San

Xavier del Bac” (translation by the author) (Burrus 1971:480–481; “Y el padre Eusebio

Kino y yo atravasando toda la pimería papbota hacia el oriente fuésemos a visitor los indios sobaípuris de San Javier del Bac”). When Manje accompanied Kino to the confluence of the Gila and Colorado rivers in 1699, he described reaching a ranchería along the Gila.

He wrote, “We found about 600 gentile Indians [with] a mix of Pimas and the Yuma Nation of a completely distinct language . . .” (translation by the author) (Burrus 1971:392; “nos hallamos entre 600 indios gentiles mezclados pimas y nación yuma de lengua totalmente distinta” . . .).” With this description, Manje substantiated Kino’s observation that these two groups were closely allied by implying that rather than being visitors at a Piman ranchería, people of both groups lived in a settlement together. Manje noted that he was informed that the Halchidoma populated the Colorado River, and he recalled encountering a population of Pimas and Cocomaricopas west of Gila Bend (Burrus 1971:239–240). He also wrote that certain groups were at war with others. When approaching the Colorado from the Gulf of

California, Manje recorded that this was the territory of the Quíquimas. He wrote, “They corroborate his feeling with news of the Pimas and Yumas of the Quíquima Nation from 176 the end of the rivers in the ocean . . .” (translation by the author) (Burrus 1971:477; “Cor- roboran su sentir con el dicho de los pimas y yumas de que la nación quíquima del desemboque de los ríos en el mar . . .”). These observations create an intriguing image of population dynamics along the Gila and Colorado Rivers at the end of the seventeenth century.

The account provided by Manje stands out as an incredibly descriptive narrative, while the journals of Juan Maria Salvatierra can best be described as clerical and formal. Sal- vatierra related the events during his expedition to the Gulf of California in a precise and succinct manner, always reminding the reader of the purpose of his voyage. His narrative is particularly valuable because it contains several descriptions absent from both Manje’s and Kino’s accounts. In relating the circumstances of a Jocome and Apache attack, wherein

Manje attempted to apprehend the culprits, he wrote that Manje approached the place where the enemy pastured their horses and came upon “. . . three dead bodies with Piman hair- styles and one dead horse that was starting to rot . . .” (translation by the author) (Burrus

1971:596; “. . . tres cuerpos muertos con cabelleras al uso del pimas y un caballo muerto empezado a desollar . . .”). In this brief passage, Salvatierra noted that the O’odham could be distinguished by their style of hair, but he neglected to record the specifics of that style.

Salvatierra also mentioned that the expedition passed through El Soba’s ranchería, where many O’odham had taken ill (Salvatierra 2011). Once the expedition reached Sonoita, Sal- vatierra corroborated previous statements that the Pima nation mixed with the Cocomaricopa 177

nation here. He also stated that these certain groups had been feuding with the Quiquima. He

wrote, “The Quiquima or Quiquimosa Nation, with which they had been warring, but now

they will be in the midst of a truce . . .” (translation by the author) (Burrus 1971:606; “. . . la

nación quíquima o quiquimosa con la cual ellos hanían tenido Guerra pero ahora estarán

medio de treguas . . .”). He also mentioned that there was a branch of the Quiquima called the Yumyum (Salvatierra 2011). These details are important not only as a means to corroborate other accounts, but for their value in describing the political and social landscape of the Pimería Alta at the end of the seventeenth century.

Ethnographic Accounts

Oral Traditions

Oral traditions contain a wealth of ethnographic information; although, the use of such data

is often controversial. Oral traditions provide insight into the relationship between a popula-

tion and its surroundings, including the landscape and neighboring groups. For this discus-

sion, O’odham oral histories are of particular interest because their origin accounts contain

several references to the people who occupied the casas grandes in southern Arizona. Mul-

tiple versions of the O’odham creation account have been recorded (Bahr et al. 1994; Manje

1954; Russell 1975; Shaw 1968; Wintle and Murray 2006); however, the earliest written ac-

count was recorded by Manje during his 1694 visit to the Casa Grande Ruins. As previously 178 discussed, Manje was told by his O’odham guides that the ruins had been the domain of Siba, who had come from the north and fought a long war with the Apache (Burrus 1971). In this brief description, Siba had returned to the north while some of his people went elsewhere.

A similar but lengthier account was recorded in 1775 by Pedro Font in a O’odham village near Casa Grande (Wintle and Murray 2006). In this account Siba was an angry chief who built Casa Grande and became angry with his servants, Wind and Storm-cloud. He turned them out of his house, but then lost the ability to grow crops. He eventually went in search of his servants and brought them back to his house, where he reaped crops once again. Af- ter a long time, Siba and his servants left the house, and they were not heard from again.

While these are truncated versions of the original histories, it is important to note that they have several important themes that are not present in later versions. In these versions, Siba

(a name that bears a striking resemblance to the O’odham word siwañ, which means chief) is only one man and portrayed as small-scale chief (Bahr et al. 1994). They also contain two different conclusions. In Manje’s text, Siba leaves after fighting a war with the Apache, while in Font’s account Siba leaves without a reason. These accounts lack any mention of

Elder Brother or his resurrection. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, there is no indica- tion that the O’odham believed that they had any relationship to Siba.

Subsequent accounts recorded by Underhill (1946), Russell (1975), and Bahr et al. (1994) are more detailed and contain different renditions of the end of the Hohokam. The creation 179 myth detailed in Underhill (1946) states that Earthmaker created the earth and flattened it so that it met the sky. From the union of earth and sky sprang I’itoi, Coyote, and several other supernatural beings. Earthmaker then created an immortal race of people, who began mur- dering each other for relief from never ending life. In order to wipe out this evil race of hu- mans, Earthmaker and I’itoi produced a flood, after which I’itoi emerged as the leader of the supernatural beings and took the name Elder Brother. During this flood, people are said to have fled to Broad Mountain, Greasy Mountain, and the Crooked Mountain (the Superstition

Mountains) (Bahr 2001; Ezell 1961; Russell 1975; Shaw 1968). The white line visible on the

Superstition Mountains is recorded in these accounts as the limits of the flood.

After the flood receded, Elder Brother created a new race of people out of clay, who gradually became the Tohono O’odham, Akimel O’odham, Maricopa, and Apache (Under- hill 1946). Elder Brother chose the Tohono O’odham for himself and taught them many rituals. Eventually Elder Brother grew old, and he became hostile to his people, who decided to kill him. These people, who are identified as the Hohokam, killed Elder Brother three times, but each time he came back to life. On their fourth attempt, the Hohokam enlisted the help of Yellow Buzzard and the Sun, who managed to kill Elder Brother with an iron bow. He remained dead for four years, after which he revived and traveled underground to enlist help from the O’odham there. These O’odham emerged in the east and marched 180 west, driving the Hohokam out of the region. After the conquest, the O’odham settled the empty Hohokam landscape.

In the oral tradition recorded by Shaw (1968), I’itoi made his home on Indented Rock

(Baboquivari Peak). Siwañi, a chief who lived in a casa grande, fought with I’itoi and killed him. I’itoi was resurrected and each day Siwañi came back and killed I’itoi again, until he appeared to finally die after the third time. However, I’itoi had risen again and sought assistance from the people living in the east. The leader of these people was indecisive, and he suggested that I’itoi ask his elder brother who lived in the north, promising that if his elder brother gave I’itoi assistance, he would join him. I’itoi traveled to the leader in the north, who directed him to his elder brother in the west. In this manner, I’itoi traveled to all four directions until he came to the eldest brother in the south, near Baboquivari Peak. This leader called forth all of his people from underground who wanted to prove their manhood and they fought with I’itoi against Siwañi. Rattlesnake killed the first of Siwañi’s people and as a reward was given his choice of territory. Rattlesnake chose to settle along the river, while the hunters chose to settle the land below Baboquivari Peak.

Other versions of this oral tradition narrate the fall of the Hohokam as resulting from a conflict between Elder Brother and powerful religious elites (Bahr et al. 1994; Teague

1993). In these accounts, Elder Brother lived at a mound among the Hohokam after the creation, but the Hohokam sivañi became angry with Elder Brother and tried to kill him. 181

After repeated assassination attempts, Elder Brother assembled an army of supporters from among the O’odham; however, the sources vary on where the O’odham came from. Some suggest that they emerged from a hole in the ground, while others say they came from the

San Pedro River valley or northern Mexico. These different versions create confusion as to whether the O’odham were the Hohokam or the people who Elder Brother assembled into an army to fight the Hohokam. Several scholars argue that the O’odham claim they are both the Hohokam and the emergent O’odham (Bahr et al. 1994; Underhill 1946). Bahr et al.

(1994) assert that the ensuing conflict was a civil war, rather than a conquest. The emergent armies marched on the Hohokam, specifically targeting the sivañi at Casa Grande, Sweet- water, Casa Blanca, Los Muertos, and Pueblo Grande (Teague 1993). During this period of conquest, some oral traditions record that there was a flood, to which children were sac- rificed. After they successfully conquered the Hohokam, the O’odham dispersed across southern Arizona and into the pueblo regions. One tradition specified that four companies of O’odham fought the sivañi. Two groups that were associated with the color red were El- der Brother’s people, while the two companies associated with the color white lived in the north (Bahr 2001). After the battle, Maam settled in the south and spread west, Vaav stayed in the south, Apk settled in the Gila Valley, and Apap moved to the north and spread west

(Bahr 2001). Because there are several different versions of this event, it remains unclear 182 whether the O’odham expelled the Hohokam from the area or simply absorbed the remaining people into their society.

Teague (1993:444) suggests that the Hopi have recorded this migration of O’odham peoples in their own oral traditions. She argues that a reference to the migration of the Water and other related clans from a homeland in the south is in fact a description of the O’odham.

One Hopi oral tradition recalls that the people of Palatkwapi, the southern homeland, were irrigation farmers. Their priests began abusing their sacred offices, so the people left Palat- kwapi. Another Hopi tradition states that the people become lazy while the priests remained honorable and virtuous (Teague 1993:445). The ensuing social rebellion led to a flood in which several children died; however, sources differ as to whether the children were sacri- ficed to stop the flood or were victims of it. After leaving Palatkwapi, the villagers stopped at other settlements before continuing on to the Hopi Mesas.

O’odham histories also record the origins of Yuman-speaking groups. These people were among the armies fighting the siwañi (Bahr 2001). As they were marching toward the west following Chief Medicine Man, they encountered a river. Chief Medicine Man held the river open so that his army could cross, but he was injured by an arrow before all of his people made it to the other side of the river. The people left stranded on the other side of the river were told that they could settle there and they eventually populated the whole of the Colorado River. In the oral traditions recorded by Russell (1975:215), the groups along 183 the Colorado had all been unified; however, the Maricopa decided to leave and settle in the

Salt River valley among the O’odham.

Ethnography

Many researchers have attempted to reconstruct the traditional territorial ranges of different O’odham populations. A careful application of ethnology can be useful in identifying patterns between populations and isolating groups that may have interacted in the past (Jor- gensen 2005). According to Kelly (1974:23–24) there are three subdivisions of the Tohono

O’odham: (1) western nomadic populations (Hia C-ed O’odham/Sand Papago) living between the Gila and Ajo Mountains; (2) ak-chin horticulturists (Tohono O’odham proper) occupying the region between the Ajo and Baboquivari mountains; (3) and Sobaipuris residing between the Baboquivari mountains and San Pedro River valley. Hackenburg (1974a) argued that the Sand Papago (Hia C-ed O’odham) lived much farther west and placed their eastern boundary near the Growler Mountains, while the Papago (Tohono O’odham) were located between the Growler and Baboquivari Mountains. He noted that the Hia C-ed O’odham were allied with the Quechan and hostile to the Quiquima, but the Tohono O’odham were allied with the Akimel O’odham. Russell (1975) recorded a more elaborate set of alliances for the Akimel O’odham, naming the Kohadt, Tohono O’odham, Sobaipuri, and Maricopa as their allies. 184

The distribution of indigenous groups becomes even more complicated along the lower

Colorado River, as these groups were recorded at different positions along the river throughout the historical period. Kroeber (1925:726–728) recorded that the Mohave were allied with the Quechan against the Halchidoma, Cocopa, Kohuana, and Maricopa. Because the

Akimel O’odham and the Tohono O’odham were allies of the Maricopa, they were considered enemies of the Mohave. The Yavapai and Apache were nominal allies of the Mohave due to their strained relationships with the O’odham. He also notes that the Quechan territory was primarily on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with the Gila.

The Cocopa are documented as holding the lowest position on the Colorado along the west bank, but they may have originated in Baja California (Kroeber 1925:796). The Halyikwa- mai (Kikima) were situated upstream of the Cocopa. Escobar recorded them occupying the east bank, while Garces reported them along the east bank nearly two centuries later. Other groups that occupied territory along the river include the Kohuana, on the east bank and the Kamia. Kroeber indicated that linguistic similarities with the Quechan suggest that the

Halchidoma and the Maricopa, which later absorbed the Halchidoma, were relative new- comers to the Colorado River (Kroeber 1925:791). Escobar placed them below the confluence of the Gila, Kino recorded them above the confluence, and Garces encountered them even farther north. As for the Ozaras mentioned by Escobar in 1604, Kroeber (1925:783) argues that they were likely an O’odham population. Ezell (1955, 1963b) has argued that 185 the Ozaras are the Areneños (Sand Papago, Hia C-ed O’odham). While the alliances and territories of these clearly changed over time, it can be reasonably argued that the distinctions recorded in the Spanish narratives reflect legitimate group boundaries identified and maintained by the groups themselves, rather than categories invented by colonial authorities for management purposes.

The close relationship between O’odham and Yuman speakers is borne out in linguistics. The concept of the linguistic area is particularly useful for identifying groups that interacted with each other over long periods of time (Shaul and Andresen 1989). A linguistic area is a region in which two genetically unrelated languages develop common traits, such as shared words, the identification of which allows researchers to reconstruct past spheres of interaction. As previously discussed, the groups that historically occupied the Pimería

Alta speak languages from two distinct linguistic stocks (Shaul and Hill 1998). The Yuman language is a branch of the larger Hokan linguistic group. Tepiman is a branch of the South- ern Uto-Aztecan linguistic group, which includes the Akimel O’odham, Tohono O’odham, and possibly the Zuni. Culture area studies have demonstrated that the region of origin of a system of cultural variation will exhibit the greatest diversity (Shaul and Hill 1998:383).

This theoretical approach coupled with an analysis of linguistic similarities, such as cognate densities, shared sound changes, loan words, and morphosyntactic borrowings among the Yuman and Tepiman language groups suggest that River Yuman and Tepiman groups 186 were in sustained long-term contact before the breakup of either proto-language. The contemporary Akimel and Tohono O’odham are descendants of the Proto-Tepiman, while the

Maricopa are descendants of the Proto-Yuman. Therefore, the Proto-Tepiman linguistic group could have ranged as far as the Colorado-Gila confluence. Furthermore, the extreme divergence of Ati Piman in the north from the Tepmian linguistic group and the similarities between Tepehuan languages in the south suggest a northern origin for the Proto-Tepiman linguistic group.

Ethnographic evidence is another important data set because it provides observations about existing indigenous communities, which can be used as analogs to interpret the archaeological record. Ethnography also can function both as a supplement and as a check to documentary and archaeological data sets (Sheridan 1988a). In their ethnographies about the Akimel O’odham and the Tohono O’odham, Russell (1975) and Underhill (1939) record that these groups manufacture ceramics using a combination of coiling and pinching and paddle and anvil. Russell (1975:124) notes that the Akimel O’odham consider the Kohadt to be the most skilled O’odham potters. The Hia C-ed O’odham are thought to have acquired ceramics through exchange, particularly with their Quechan allies, rather than manufacturing vessels themselves (Ezell 1955; Hayden 1967).

The Hia C-ed O’odham are currently perceived as perhaps the most distinct of the

O’odham subgroups. In several conversations with Tohono O’odham elders, repeated 187 references were made to the fact that the Hia C-ed O’odham were the most insular group.

They were also known for eating insects and lizards in the past, so much so that they were still known by the nickname Lizard Eaters among the Tohono O’odham (Tohono O’odham elder, personal communication 2010). These descriptions are further substantiated by repeated references in the documentary record to indios pobres y desnudos who ate insects and shellfish in what was thought to be the Hia C-ed homeland (Burrus 1971; Fontana 1974).

O’odham and Yuman speaking groups share a mutual respect and wariness for items and places associated with death. The Mohave burn their dead and their associated property to prevent the spread of malevolent spirits (Kroeber 1925:750–751). The Cocopa take this one step further and destroy all family property immediately after a death (Kelly 1977).

Underhill (1939:191) noted that there had been traditions of this practice among the To- hono O’odham, but her consultants denied it, replying to her pointed queries by stating that if they destroyed all family property after each death they would have nothing left. Russell

(1975:194) wrote that when a person in an Akimel O’odham house died, his own house was burned and his personal possessions destroyed. Underhill (1939) noted that after a death the Tohono O’odham family would pull down the house, but if a person seemed like they were about to die, his family removed him from the house so that they would not be required to destroy the structure. After a death, ceremonial items belonging to that individual were passed on to a successor and the body was interred. Cremation was only practiced for 188 those killed by an enemy or by witchcraft in order to destroy malevolent magic. Underhill

(1939) noted that if many deaths had occurred in quick succession, the family would leave everything that could not be carried and seek refuge among distant relatives. They felt it was wiser to leave fields and houses while they were riddled with spirits.

The O’odham regard archaeological remains with the same respect and aversion (Rus- sell 1975). This does not mean they avoid such places altogether. The placement of offerings at archaeological sites has been documented among the O’odham, specifically at

Casa Grande (Ezell 1961). Concentrations of mountain goat horns have been recorded and interpreted as O’odham offerings. The use of Hohokam canals has also been documented among the O’odham (Underhill 1939:8). However, Spanish documents from the late seventeenth century suggest that the Akimel O’odham may have relied on floodwater agriculture rather than irrigation (Doelle 1981:63; 1984). The O’odham living along the

Gila River had lower population densities than the southern groups, and none of the early exploration texts mention irrigation among these groups (Doelle 1981). During the early nineteenth century, the O’odham built wattle and daub houses, which was variously interpreted as evidence that they had a connection to the inhabitants of Classic period archaeological sites; however, traditional O’odham homes consisted of semi-subterranean dome brush structures (Underhill 1939). 189

Certain aspects of O’odham social organization also may reflect a connection with the

Hohokam. Members of the White moiety are descendants of the group that Elder Brother brought from the underworld, while the Red moiety contains the descendants of the people who were in possession of the land prior to the conquest (Russell 1975:197). Underhill

(1939) suggests that this means that the Red moiety is composed of the survivors of the Ho- hokam. Bahr (1970) has argued that this interpretation is based on too literal a translation of the oral tradition. Underhill (1946) underlines the importance of the presumed conquest of the Hohokam in the Tohono O’odham ritual complex. Tohono O’odham oral tradition holds that they learned some of their rituals, such as the rainmaking ceremony, before they conquered the Hohokam, while others, such as the planting of prayer stick roots, are episodes mentioned during the conquest (Underhill 1946:13). Underhill (1946) further states that some O’odham religious ceremonies reflect the needs of an organized agricultural group, while others replicate the requirements of mobile hunters and gatherers. She suggests that this may be the result of Hopi transmission to the O’odham, but Teague (1993:447) argues that this is contrary to both Hopi and O’odham oral traditions.

Ethnological evidence supports a connection between the O’odham and the Hopi as well (Teague 1993; Underhill 1939). Ethnological analysis reveals that the Hopi Wuwtsim and Powamuyu rituals share similarities with the O’odham Wiikita ceremony, all of which require the manufacture of prayer sticks (Teague 1993:447). In addition, the priests who 190 perform these ceremonies wear similar styles of body paint. The themes of the Wuwtsim and Wiikita rituals are world renewal, and both are held prior to the winter solstice (Fontana

1989; Teague 1993; Underhill 1939, 1946). Furthermore, the Hopi, O’odham, and the Zuni exhibit similar ceremonial paraphernalia, including shell trumpets associated with the Water

Serpent (Teague 1993:448-449). The Hopi attribute these similarities to their southern origin.

Archaeology

As discussed in Chapter 5, a thorough literature review and records search was conducted to identify protohistoric sites in the Pimería Alta with associated collections (Table 6.1). The sites discussed below were chosen for reanalysis based on a series of factors, including location, recovery method, collection strategy, and availability. These sites were all initially recorded as exhibiting a protohistoric component based upon the presence of diagnostic artifact types. Existing collections from each site were reanalyzed in order to evaluate both the original site assessment and to examine the validity of protohistoric artifact typologies.

Sites exhibiting subsurface deposits were prioritized; however, relatively few excavated protohistoric sites were available for reanalysis. In some cases materials from protohistoric contexts had already been repatriated, or the materials were housed in tribal repositories with no-access policies. Within the last decade, several additional protohistoric sites have been excavated along the San Pedro River, but the materials are still under examination

191

Tools Analyzed Tools

Flaked Stone Stone Flaked 0 0 8 0 31 18 23 13

Analyzed

Projectile Points Points Projectile 0 0 0 3 4 9 31 61 Analyzed

continued on next page Ceramics Ceramics 2 0 9 0 0 12 88 145 none hearths 1 cache Features 5 hearths ~6 surface 1 platform 7 rock rings 6 rock rings 38 talus pits 56 talus pits 1 inhumation 850–950, period period period period 1450–1860 1450–1860 500–Proto - 1700 ± 100 . Temporal Temporal Affiliation . . . . Historical d . Prehistoric/ d d d d Protohistoric Protohistoric . . . . Protohistoric- a historic period early Historical a a a a Site Type Site artifact scatter artifact scatter artifact scatter artifact scatter artifact scatter artifact scatter artifact scatter artifact scatter with feature(s) with feature(s) with feature(s) with feature(s) with feature(s) with feature(s) Method Recovery Recovery collection collection collection collection excavation excavation excavation excavation excavation survey/surface survey/surface survey/surface survey/surface ASM ASM ASM ASM ASM ASM ASM ASM Location Collection Archaeological Sites Summary 6.1. Archaeological Table n.d. 1980 1993 1993 1987 1993 Report Report Citation Madsen Madsen Huckell Madsen Franklin Curridan Brew and Coe 1979; Masse n.d. Doyel 1977 ley ley River Basin Basin Basin Basin Valley Desert Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Location Western Western San Pedro San Pedro - River Val - River Val Santa Cruz Ruin Ruin D-344 Second Bechtel Canyon England Site Name Site Burial Site Alder Wash Wash Alder Ranch Ruin Ranch AA:7:187 (ASM) AA:7:430 (ASM) BB:11:20 (ASM) (ASM) DD:8:129 (ASM) AA:12:98 (ASM) AA:7:158 (ASM) (ASM) AZ AZ AZ AZ DD:1:21 AZ Site Number Site AZ AZ AZ BB:6:9

192

Tools Analyzed Tools

Flaked Stone Stone Flaked 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Analyzed

Projectile Points Points Projectile 1 0 1 3 0 0 1 5 Analyzed

continued on next page Ceramics Ceramics 4 2 7 0 24 38 0 (4) (224) 1 (16) - - pit 2 rock Features 1 spring trash areas alignments church bas - 4 rock rings 4 rock rings 3 rock rings adobe struc 1 rockshelter 1 rockshelter tion 2 corrals 21 rock rings 2 depressions tures quarters 2 rockshelters 1 adobe struc ture 1 roasting

- 700–1200 period period period period period period period . Paleoin Temporal Temporal Affiliation Protohis - Protohis - Historical Historical Historical undefined d . Protohistoric/ Protohistoric/ Protohistoric– a dian–Historical early Historical toric–Historical toric–Historical Site Type Site artifact scatter artifact scatter artifact scatter artifact scatter artifact scatter artifact scatter artifact scatter artifact scatter with feature(s) with feature(s) with feature(s) with feature(s) with feature(s) with feature(s) with feature(s) with feature(s) Method Recovery Recovery collection collection excavation excavation excavation excavation excavation excavation survey/surface survey/surface Inc. Inc. ASM ASM ASM ASM Location Amerind Amerind Collection Research, Research, Statistical Statistical Foundation Foundation 1984 1984 1984 2008 1993 Report Report DiPeso DiPeso Citation Seymour and Doak Tagg et al Tagg Tagg et al Tagg et al Tagg Tagg et al Tagg Vint 2007 Vint Reid 1994 1953; Sey - 1953; Sey - Sugnet and mour 1989; mour 1989; Haury 1950 ley River Valley Desert Desert Desert Location Western Western Western Western Western Western San Pedro San Pedro - River Val Santa Rita Santa Rita Santa Rita Mountains Mountains Mountains - - tea Cave A-45 renate de Ter Ventana Ventana Presidio Site Name Site Di Peso’s Di Peso’s Santa Cruz Gaybanipi BMGR-99- (ASM) (ASM) (ASM) (ASM) (ASM) (ASM) (ASM) (ASM) Site Number Site AZ EE:2:80 AZ EE:2:83 AZ EE:2:95 AZ EE:4:11 AZ EE:8:15 AZ Z:12:5 AZ Z:5:18 AZ Z:7:163

193

Tools Analyzed Tools

Flaked Stone Stone Flaked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Analyzed

Projectile Points Points Projectile 1 2 5 1 6 4 1 2 1 17 Analyzed

continued on next page Ceramics Ceramics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 31 46 - clusters Features structures 1 rock ring tures 2 rock 1 rockshelter 8 thermal fea .– c . 1698– Archa - b . . 1900 d . 1850 d . a Temporal Temporal Affiliation a 3500 ca. ic–Patayan III) (Middle Site Type Site artifact scatter artifact scatter with feature(s) with feature(s) Method Recovery Recovery collection collection collection collection collection collection collection collection collection collection survey/surface survey/surface survey/surface survey/surface survey/surface survey/surface survey/surface survey/surface survey/surface survey/surface Inc. ASM Location Amerind Amerind Amerind Amerind Amerind Amerind Amerind Amerind Collection Research, Statistical Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation Report Report Citation al 2008 Hayden Hayden Hayden Hayden Hayden Hayden Hayden n.d., 1967 n.d., 1967 n.d., 1967 n.d., 1967 n.d., 1967 n.d., 1967 n.d., 1967 Sagebiel et Haury 1950 Hayden n.d. Sierra Sierra Sierra Sierra Sierra Sierra Sierra Sierra Desert Desert Location Western Western Western Western Pinacate Pinacate Pinacate Pinacate Pinacate Pinacate Pinacate Pinacate Tule Bote Batki Site 3 Tanks Tinaja Tinaja Camp, Sunset Emilia Papago of Road Tinaja de Tinaja Site Name Site Huarache Tinaja del Tinaja Tinaja del Tinaja Tinaja del Tinaja Tinajas de Tinajas los Chivos Badilla, SE 03-D-50 (ASM) HPS-3 HPS-4 HPS-13 BMGR- Site Number Site AZ Z:16:6 HPS-17 HPS-20 HPS-22 HPS-23 HPS-31

194

Tools Analyzed Tools

Flaked Stone Stone Flaked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Analyzed

Projectile Points Points Projectile 1 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 Analyzed

continued on next page Ceramics Ceramics 0 0 0 1 2 2 3 1 2 Trash Trash houses houses houses houses Features mounds, O’odham O’odham O’odham O’odham trash mounds

period period period period period Temporal Temporal Affiliation Historical Historical Historical Protohistoric/ Protohistoric/ Protohistoric/ sic–Historical Hohokam Pio - neer–Sedentary Hohokam Clas - village village village village village Site Type Site Method Recovery Recovery collection collection collection collection collection collection collection collection collection survey/surface survey/surface survey/surface survey/surface survey/surface survey/surface survey/surface survey/surface survey/surface ASM ASM ASM ASM ASM Location Amerind Amerind Amerind Amerind Collection Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation Report Report Citation Hayden Hayden Hayden Hayden n.d., 1967 n.d., 1967 n.d., 1967 n.d., 1967 Wood 1972 Wood Wood 1972 Wood Wood 1972 Wood Wood 1972 Wood Wood 1972 Wood Sierra Sierra Sierra Sierra Location Pinacate Pinacate Pinacate Pinacate Gila River Gila River Gila River Gila River Gila River Pedro Tinaja Tinaja Chivos Caballo GR-198 GR-1553 GR-1566 GR-1579 GR-1506 GR-1517 GR-1521 GR-1660 GR-1647 GR-1651 Site Name Site Hueso del Tinaja San Tinaja Don Pedro U:13:123 (ASM) U:13:124 (ASM) U:13:125 (ASM) U:13:129 (ASM) U:13:130 (ASM) Site Number Site HPS-49 HPS-56 AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ

195

Tools Analyzed Tools

Flaked Stone Stone Flaked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Analyzed

Projectile Points Points Projectile 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Analyzed

continued on next page Ceramics Ceramics 5 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 none none None house houses houses houses Features O’odham O’odham O’odham O’odham 1 O’odham houses, hu - man remains trash mounds,

period period period period period period period period Temporal Temporal Affiliation Historical Historical Historical Historical Historical Hohokam Historical Protohistoric/ Protohistoric/ Protohistoric/ Protohistoric/ Protohistoric/ Protohistoric/ sic–Historical Hohokam Pio - Pioneer period, neer–Sedentary Hohokam Clas - village village village village Site Type Site artifact scatter artifact scatter artifact scatter artifact scatter with feature(s) Method Recovery Recovery collection collection collection collection collection collection collection collection survey/surface survey/surface survey/surface survey/surface survey/surface survey/surface survey/surface survey/surface ASM ASM ASM ASM ASM ASM ASM ASM Location Collection 1972 Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood 1971a Report Report 1971b 1971a, 1971b, Citation Wood 1972 Wood Wood 1972 Wood Wood 1972 Wood Wood 1972 Wood Wood 1972 Wood Location Gila River Gila River Gila River Gila River Gila River Gila River Gila River Gila River GR-1599 GR-1615 GR-1622 GR-1632 GR-1638 GR-1704 GR-1772 GR-1976 GR-1984 GR-2155 GR-2305 GR-2286 GR-1855 GR-1942 GR-1972 Site Name Site U:13:131 (ASM) U:13:136 (ASM) U:13:144 (ASM) U:13:145 (ASM) U:13:171 (ASM) (ASM) (ASM) (ASM) Site Number Site AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ U:13:36 AZ U:13:41 AZ U:13:45

196

Tools Analyzed Tools

Flaked Stone Stone Flaked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Analyzed

Projectile Points Points Projectile 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Analyzed

continued on next page Ceramics Ceramics 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 none none Features petroglyph -

toric/ period period Temporal Temporal Affiliation unknown Historical neer–Classic lonial–Seden tary, Protohis - tary, Hohokam Co - Hohokam Pio - Site Type Site artifact scatter artifact scatter artifact scatter Method Recovery Recovery collection collection collection survey/surface survey/surface survey/surface ASM ASM ASM surface surface surface surface surface surface survey/ survey/ survey/ survey/ survey/ survey/ Location Collection collection collection collection collection collection collection ASM ASM ASM ASM ASM ASM Wood Wood 1971b Report Report Citation Wood 1972 Wood Wood 1972 Wood Location Gila River Gila River Gila River Gila River Gila River Gila River Gila River Gila River Gila River GR-922 GR-385 GR-1208 GR-1530 GR-1795 GR-1792 GR-2018 GR-2362 GR-2237 Site Name Site (ASM) (ASM) (ASM) Site Number Site AZ U:13:85 AZ U:13:98 AZ U:14:14 NA NA NA NA NA NA

197

Tools Analyzed Tools

Flaked Stone Stone Flaked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Analyzed

Projectile Points Points Projectile 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Analyzed Ceramics Ceramics 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Features Temporal Temporal Affiliation Site Type Site Method Recovery Recovery surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface survey/ survey/ survey/ survey/ survey/ survey/ survey/ survey/ Location Collection collection collection collection collection collection collection collection collection ASM ASM ASM ASM ASM ASM ASM ASM Report Report Citation Location Gila River Gila River Gila River Gila River Gila River Gila River Gila River Gila River GR-517 GR-1710 GR-1743 GR-1582 GR-1469 GR-1693 GR-2223 GR-1915 Site Name Site . Site Number Site NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Note : Numbers in the ceramics analyzed field represent total number of rim sherds. that appear parentheses body sherds analyzed 198 by the initial researcher(s) and, thus, were not available for use. As a result, only 10 of the collections reanalyzed contain deposits from subsurface contexts. Sites reported from surveys have much smaller collections and in many cases contained fewer than 10 diagnostic artifacts. Therefore, while sites with surface collections make up a large portion of the site sample, the contribution of surface-collected artifacts represents one-third (n = 246) of the total sample of reanalyzed artifacts (n = 724). The following discussion presents the results of this analysis. The raw data are presented in the appendixes.

Archaeological Sample

As discussed in Chapter 5, Spanish colonial sites, such as missions and presidios, were avoided for this analysis; however, it was necessary to examine materials from Spanish colonial sites where the artifact typologies had first been identified in order to become familiar with these materials. Whetstone Plain was first identified and defined during the excavation of the Spanish presidio of Santa Cruz de Terrenate and at the Sobaipuri ranchería of Santa

Cruz del Pitaitutgam. These collections had most certainly been culled prior to curation, so that far fewer materials were available for reanalysis than were originally used to define the type. Di Peso (1953) excavated these sites on behalf of the Amerind Foundation from 1950 to 1951. Eight reconstructed vessels, 15 rim sherds, and three projectile points were examined from the Terrenate assemblage. Seven rim sherds were examined from Pitaitutgam, 199 and one reconstructed vessel was examined from an isolated find. It was difficult to examine temper and surface treatment for the reconstructed vessels, because a thick plaster had been spread over the surface of each vessel when it was reconstructed. Additional rim sherds from Terrenate and Pitaitutgam were displayed on sherd teaching boards; however, these specimens could not be removed from the boards or broken to establish a fresh edge for temper analysis; therefore, they were not included in the reanalysis. Jars and bowls were equally represented in the Terrenate assemblage, although this is likely due to an artifact culling procedure. Material from Terrenate was predominately sand tempered, but one rim sherd contained a combination of sand and sherd temper. Three sherds contained carbon streaks, and one specimen exhibited a rim coil. It is possible that these sherds were merely mislabeled, because they more closely resembled Sobaipuri Plain. Rim thickness ranged from 4.58 to 9.88 mm, with an average of 6.77 mm. Material from Pitaitutgam was sparse.

Of the seven rim sherds present in the assemblage from this site, one was a Roosevelt Red- ware and two exhibited such a large quantity of micaceous schist that they closely resembled

Gila Plain. The four remaining plainware sherds were sand tempered and lacked a carbon core. One sherd exhibited a rim coil and rim thickness ranged from 5.13 to 8.71 mm, with an average of 6.10 mm.

England Ranch Ruin contains the largest Protohistoric period assemblage reanalyzed for this project. This site was one of four excavated in 1976 by ASM as part of the Baca 200

Float Project, a highway salvage initiative (Doyel 1977). Located on a terrace on the west bank of the Santa Cruz River, England Ranch Ruin was a single-component site consisting of a series of oval structures outlined by cobbles situated near the edge of the terrace.

Six structures, five extramural hearths, and one stone platform were excavated. The houses ranged in size from 4 to 6 m long and 2 to 3 m wide. The depth of cultural deposits varied from 0 to 25 cm; however, the cultural deposits were generally no deeper than 10 cm. The house floors lay 2–5 cm below ground surface and were approximately 2–3 cm thick. Floor surfaces were unprepared, and only two of the six structures exhibited floor features. En- tryways proved difficult to identify, but in three cases they were visible in the center of the east wall of the structure. Hearths were encountered east of the structures on the modern ground surface, exhibiting no evidence of formal preparation and ranging in depth from

10 to 25 cm. Hearth fill contained some faunal material, ceramics, and flakes, as well as some large pieces of charcoal. Two samples were submitted for radiocarbon dating, but their results were not published in the initial report. The samples yielded calibrated dates of

A.D. 990–1040 (160 ± 100 B.P.) and A.D. 1505–1905 or A.D. 1530–1810 (230 ± 50 B.P.)

(Ravesloot and Whittlesey 1987:90).

Recovered artifacts from England Ranch Ruin included 14 manos; 14 metates; 532 flaked stone tools, including 138 cores, 3 hammerstones, 50 projectile points, and numerous preforms; 9,943 flakes; 8,287 ceramic sherds, including 8,028 plainware and 240 redware; and 201

37 fragments of shell (Doyel 1977). Fifty projectile points were identified as Upper Piman because they were characterized by a high proportion of concave bases. These specimens exhibited evidence of bifacial thinning and retouch along the edges. The ceramic assemblage contained primarily plainware sherds; although, red slipped ceramics composed 3 percent of the assemblage, and a few fragments of decorated sherds were recovered. Few ceramics were encountered within structure fill, and most of the artifacts were recovered from grid squares scattered throughout the site. The ceramic assemblage included both jars and bowls; however, jars were more common. Ceramic surface finish was variable across the assemblage. Four percent of the sample exhibited scoring marks from wiping with a veg- etal brush, and 25 percent exhibited polishing marks. Vessel thickness ranged from 0.28 to

1.1 cm with an average of 0.5 cm. The plainware vessels were tempered with angular quartz, leading Doyel (1977) to suggest that they used crushed rock rather than sand. Temper particles were occasionally visible on the surface, and mica was usually not present. Ceram- ics were manufactured using the paddle-and-anvil technique combined with hand finishing.

Doyel (1977) concluded that this assemblage could not be reasonably equated with either

Sobaipuri Plain or Whetstone Plain, noting that the material was “allied with, but not iden- tical to, Whetstone Plain” (Doyel 1977:126).

Reanalysis of the England Ranch Ruin assemblage yielded somewhat different results than those detailed in the site report. Unfortunately, the collection had been culled prior to 202

curation, and the sample size was drastically reduced. Within the curated assemblage from

England Ranch Ruin were several boxed type collections identified as Whetstone/Prehis-

toric Wares, Trincheras Plain, Redware, and an untyped selection. One cause for concern

was that Doyel (1977:Figure 75) made no mention of encountering Trincheras Plain at

England Ranch Ruin; however, these ceramics are present in images within the site report.

One hundred and forty-five rim sherds were reanalyzed from the curated assemblage, con-

stituting only 1 percent of the original collection. Fourteen sherds exhibited traces of mica, but this only occurred in redwares and Trincheras Plainwares. Forty-three sherds exhibited both sherd and sand temper. Sherd-and-sand temper was identified in sherds from all present types, a trend that was not reported by Doyel (1977). The majority of the sample was sand tempered with small quartz inclusions, which Doyel (1977) had reported as crushed rock. One sherd exhibited an obliterated folded rim, which was not mentioned in the original site report. Rim sherd thickness ranged from 4 to 10 mm, with an average of 7.3 mm, which was well above the average of 0.5 cm reported by Doyel (1977). This discrepancy may be explained by differences in methods. For this project, only rim sherds were mea-

sured to control thickness variability across a single vessel, whereas Doyel (1977) recorded

sherd thickness regardless of vessel portion.

Sixty-three projectile points and 11 scrapers were also examined. Two projectile points

were of Archaic types and were probably scavenged by the inhabitants of England Ranch 203

Ruin. All of the analyzed projectile points were manufactured from high-quality raw materials, such as jasper, chert, and obsidian. Fourteen specimens were complete, while the others were in various staged of fragmentation. Of the projectile point fragments, 11 lacked a base, making any type assessment risky. Thirty-two specimens in the identifiable sample conformed to the Sobaipuri type, which is consistent with Doyle’s (1977) findings. These projectile points were all bifacially thinned, and it is possible that projectile points without basal notches are preforms or small bifaces. Scrapers from England Ranch Ruin were manufactured from high-quality chert or rhyolite. Six scrapers exhibited retouch and use wear, conforming to descriptions of finely-made tools common at Sobaipuri sites (James Vint, personal communication 2010).

Alder Wash Ruin contains the second-largest assemblage in this discussion. In the absence of a final report, all site data were obtained from the incomplete draft report on file at ASM

(Masse 1980). Like England Ranch Ruin, Alder Wash Ruin was excavated by ASM from

1970 to 1971 through a highway salvage initiative. One of three sites excavated during the

Peppersauce Wash Project, Alder Wash Ruin is a multicomponent Hohokam and Sobaipuri site situated on a terrace just west of the San Pedro River. The Hohokam component at Alder

Wash Ruin included occupational debris from the late Colonial, Sedentary, and early Clas- sic periods. Based on the similarities of surface materials with those found at Santa Cruz de

Pitaitutgam, a Sobaipuri occupation was identified on the surface of the site. This component 204 was assigned to the historical period because of the presence of European glass trade beads and domestic cow remains. The Sobaipuri component consisted of the remains of cobble outlines of seven structures ranging in shape from circular to oval; however, more houses could have been present and may have been obscured by alluvial deposits. Structures ranged in length from 3.6 to 9.22 m and in width from 2 to 3.84 m, with entrances facing northeast.

Sobaipuri cultural deposits ranged in depth from 15 to 36 cm below modern ground surface.

Some structures exhibited possible hearths near their entrances. A hearth was also uncovered in the center of a large structure. Several possible extramural hearths were encountered, but

Masse (1980) suggested that these features could have been associated with Salado activities. Extramural activity areas were investigated, but no meaningful patterns were identified in artifact deposition.

In contrast to England Ranch Ruin and Santa Cruz de Pitaitutgam, many artifacts were present in the structure fill at Alder Wash Ruin. Excavations recovered 1,614 plainware and eight redware ceramic sherds. Masse (1980) identified all plainwares recovered from

Sobaipuri contexts as Whetstone Plain and hypothesized that the redware sherds may have been prehistoric wares. Jars outnumbered bowls five to one in the Alder Wash Ruin assemblage, and all ceramics were reported as tempered with locally available fine to medium- size quartz sands with occasional flecks of naturally occurring mica. Some sherds contained large quantities of mica, which may be a byproduct of the temper source or the result of the 205 intentional inclusion of crushed mica in the clay body. Sherds ranged in thickness from 0.2 to 1.1 cm. The vessels were manufactured using a paddle and anvil combined with finger shaping, resulting in a dull exterior and bumpy finish. The flaked stone assemblage from the protohistoric component was not separated from the Hohokam component for analysis. As a result, the flaked stone analysis was presented as an intersite typology in the report. Types II–IV as defined by Teague (1980) contained 39 projectile points from Sobai- puri contexts. Forty fragments of worked and unworked marine shell were also recovered in protohistoric contexts.

Eighty-eight rim sherds were reanalyzed for this project, and the results were generally consistent with the site report. Four ceramics exhibited sherd and sand temper, while the rest were tempered with fine to medium quartz sands. Fourteen sherds contained a carbon streak, despite the fact that type definitions for Whetstone Plain specifically state that carbon streaking should be absent. Rim thickness ranged from 4.21 to 8.17 mm, with an average of

5.82 mm. Eighteen flaked stone tools from Sobaipuri contexts were reanalyzed, including five bifaces, three bifacially flaked tools, and 10 unifacial scrapers that exhibited retouch along the scraping edge. Thirty-one projectile points were reanalyzed, 19 of which were recovered from Sobaipuri contexts. Two projectile points lacked a basal notch and serrated edges; however, they were identified in the assemblage as Sobaipuri projectile points. Fifteen projectile points exhibited characteristics consistent with the Sobaipuri typology. In terms of 206 manufacture technique, about half of the specimens were bifacially thinned, while the other points were manufactured from a flake by retouching the edges. These manufacturing techniques were employed regardless of raw material type. The sequence of tasks that result in the completion of an object or goal, known as the chaîne opértoire, is considered a learned process indicative of deep seated culturally bound practices (Vint 2005). The fact that two different manufacture processes were used regardless of material type has some important implications. It is possible that the process of manufacture was irrelevant to the maker and that the process varied based on the size of the raw material available, the skill of the artisan, and whether an artifact was made leisurely or quickly. It is also possible that the use of two distinct manufacture practices reflects the presence of two groups. Vint (2005) has made a compelling argument that these differences are the product of technological variation rather than different cultural practices linked to distinct ethnic groups.

Second Canyon Ruin, a multicomponent site consisting of Hohokam, Salado, and protohistoric deposits was excavated by ASM to mitigate the effects of a proposed right-of- way (Franklin 1980). The site is situated on a terrace located west of the San Pedro River.

The 1969–1970 excavations focused primarily on the Hohokam and Salado components.

The presence of surface hearths postdating the Salado occupation, possibly associated with protohistoric or historical-period nomadic populations, was briefly noted in the report. The total number of hearths was not recorded; however, Franklin (1980) mentioned that the 207

hearths were not associated with any contemporaneous architectural features, but were scat-

tered above Rooms 7 and 19, Pithouse 2, and Plazas I, II, and III. The hearths were situated

on or near the modern ground surface and ranged from 10 to 15 cm deep. Artifacts such as

Whetstone Plain and Sobaipuri Plain ceramics or Sobaipuri projectile points were not re-

ported to be associated with these features. Material from Second Canyon Ruin was clas-

sified according to a site-specific typology, rather than regional typologies. Type V projectile points (n = 11) were characterized by concave bases and lacked side notches. Nine of these projectile points were reanalyzed (two are currently unaccounted for), and five of the nine were recovered from surface contexts. Like the artifacts from Alder Wash Ruin, half of the specimens were bifacially thinned, while the others were manufactured from flakes.

All the projectile points were manufactured using high-quality raw materials, specifically chert and jasper.

Collections from three protohistoric sites identified in the Santa Rita Mountains be-

tween the San Pedro and Santa Cruz Rivers were also reexamined for this project (Huckell

1980). These sites were excavated in 1979 as part of the ANAMAX-Rosemont Land Ex-

change Project; however, the boundaries of the area of potential effect were redrawn fol-

lowing the testing phase with the result that these sites are now located on the Coronado

National Forest. Situated on a high island in Barrel Canyon, AZ EE:2:80(ASM) was identi-

fied as a multicomponent site consisting of Hohokam and Sobaipuri deposits. Four cobble 208

rings representing the outlines of oval structures were identified on the surface of the site.

However, no artifacts that could be associated definitively with this component were re-

covered during the testing phase. The tested structure was 3.10 m long and 2 m wide and the feature fill was 5 cm deep. The assemblage from the excavated structure consisted of one basalt projectile point from the Hohokam component, 16 ceramic sherds, one scraper, and one utilized flake. All ceramics were analyzed, including the body sherds, because the collection was so small. The reexamined ceramic assemblage contained 12 plainware and four Red-on-Brown sherds, which were consistent with established Hohokam typologies.

These results were consistent with those published in the report, suggesting that no protohistoric artifacts were recovered from AZ EE:2:80(ASM).

AZ EE:2:95(ASM) is situated on the same prominent landmark as AZ EE:2:80(ASM).

The remains of three oval structures, characterized by cobble outlines, were identified on the surface of the site. One of these structures, measuring 4.25 m long by 2.25 m wide, was excavated to a depth of 5 cm. Artifacts recovered during surface collection and excavation included two projectile points, one utilized flake, one flake fragment, one mano, and a glass bead. Only one projectile point was available for reanalysis, but it was consistent with the at-

tributes defined for Sobaipuri projectile points and was bifacially thinned. The ceramic assem-

blage consisted of four sand tempered body sherds that exhibited few mica inclusions. The

results from this reanalysis were consistent with the findings published in the testing report. 209

Excavations at AZ EE:2:83(ASM) produced the largest protohistoric assemblage of the three ANAMAX-Rosemont sites; however, the sample remained small when compared to that recovered from England Ranch Ruin and Alder Wash Ruin (Huckell 1980).

AZ EE:2:83(ASM) was situated on a hill along the western edge of Barrel Canyon and consisted of the remains of four structures, two rock alignments, two depressions, and a possible hearth and trivet. Two structures were excavated, ranging from 3.70 to 5 m in length and from 2.50 to 2.25 m in width. The assemblage included 223 sherds, 47 pieces of flaked stone, two manos, one hammerstone, one tabular knife, one glass bead, and one brass tin- kler. The majority of the ceramic assemblage was identified as Whetstone Plain; however, two sherds were tentatively classified as Sobaipuri Plain. Reanalysis of the ceramic assemblage identified 29 ceramics with sand and sherd temper, 24 of which exhibited a carbon core. Many of these ceramics resembled Sobaipuri Plain or Papago Plain. These discrep- ancies may be explained by the fact that Huckell (1980) only examined 61 sherds from the assemblage, because he believed the others were too small to be classified into types.

Only four rim sherds were present in the ceramic assemblage, three of which were jar fragments. A reanalysis of the flaked stone assemblage was consistent with the results reported by Huckell (1980).

Protohistoric materials have also been reported from the Tucson Basin. The Bechtel

Burial was excavated in 1975 during a monitoring project at the Ina Road Wastewater 210

Treatment Facility (Brew and Huckell 1987). A flexed inhumation was encountered near the confluence of the Santa Cruz River and Cañada del Oro Wash. Associated artifacts included four projectile points, 18 bifaces, five retouched flakes, ten pieces of flaked stone, one nodule of hematite, and a fragment of worked antler. Unfortunately, the antler artifact and one flake were later misplaced; however, a reanalysis of these materials was consistent with the original findings. Four of the retouched flakes appear to be finely manufactured unifacial scrapers. The projectile points are also finely made, but they were manufactured from flakes and retouched along the margins, rather than bifacially thinned.

Additional protohistoric remains from the Tucson Basin were tentatively identified at three sites during an archaeological survey undertaken as part of the Central Arizona Proj- ect from 1985 to 1986 (Madsen 1993). AZ AA:7:158 (ASM) consisted of a cluster of 38 talus pits on a hillside along the west bank of the Santa Cruz River. Talus pits originate on volcanic hillsides exhibiting talus slides. The pits are created when talus, or large irregular cobbles, is removed from the hillside. AZ AA:7:187(ASM) consisted of a cluster of 58 talus pits, nine of which were excavated. Ceramic vessels were encountered within 2–5 percent of these pits. Madsen (1993) reported that ceramics recovered from these pits more resembled

Papago Plain that Whetstone Plain. These ceramics exhibit rim coils, a characteristic associated with historical-period indigenous ceramics, and may be a variant of Papago Plain. He argued that the lack of carbon streaking and associated European material culture suggests 211 that these ceramics roughly date to A.D. 1450–1775. After a reanalysis of these ceramics

(n = 14) and several conversations with the author, it has been concluded that these artifacts probably do not date to the Protohistoric period, but rather to the early historical period. A survey in the Durham Basin was conducted as part of this project, resulting in the identification of a cache of flaked stone artifacts at AZ AA:7:430(ASM). Although no diagnostic ceramics or projectile points were recovered, this site was thought to date to the Protohis- toric period (John Madsen, personal communication 2011). The collection consists of five bifaces, one notched tool, 15 unifacial scrapers exhibiting retouch, and ten scrapers with use wear. The objects were manufactured from high-quality chert. The unifacial scrapers resemble similar tools associated with the Bechtel Burial, lending credence to the assertion that this is a protohistoric cache.

Protohistoric materials have been reported along the Gila River as well (e.g., Cable

1990; Loendorf 2004). From 1970 to 1972, archaeological survey and site recording was conducted on the Gila River Indian Reservation to inventory all cultural resources on tribal land (Feathers 2003; Mitchell and Scheiber 2010; Murray and Wintle 2000). One of the goals of the Historic Sites Survey Project was to document the location of O’odham villages. During the course of this survey, field members collected ceramics from the surface of sites dating to the Protohistoric or early historical period (George M. Jacobs, personal communication 2011). A reanalysis of 43 partially reconstructed vessels was conducted for this 212 project. Ceramic types included Glazed Polychrome (n = 1), Black-on-Red (n = 4), White- on-Brown (n = 1), Red-on-Brown (n = 1), Red-on-Buff (n = 7), Red-on-White (n = 2), undifferentiated redware (n = 11), undifferentiated buffware (n = 1), and undifferentiated plainware ceramics (n = 15). The assemblage consisted of 19 bowls and 25 jars. Fireclouding and sooting were common on the exteriors, and 23 vessels exhibited carbon streaking. All but four vessels were tempered with subangular sand and quartz inclusions, and micaceous schist was frequently present. The temper was sometimes visible on the surface of plainware vessels. Rim thickness ranged from 4.28 to 12.51 mm, with an average of 7.75 mm.

These ceramics appear to date to the historical period rather than the protohistoric period, based on thickness, decoration, and the presence of carbon streaking.

Several protohistoric sites have also been recorded in the western Papaguería. As previously discussed in Chapter 2, the O’odham ranchería of Batki was one of the earliest sites investigated for its potential to yield protohistoric deposits. Through conversations with the

Tohono O’odham, Haury (1950) identified the purported ranchería of Nuestra Senora del la Merced del Batki, which Kino had first visited in 1698 and which was later attacked by

Apaches in the mid-nineteenth century. Batki was situated east of the Quijotoa Mountains, eight miles north of modern-day Sells, on the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation. Field- work began in 1941 as part of the Papaguería Project; however, a delegation of O’odham from Gu Oidak requested that the project be halted out of concern that excavations at Batki 213 would disturb malignant forces. The small amount of material collected from the surface was presented in the Ventana Cave volume; however, the materials were not discussed in detail.

Eleven reconstructed vessels, 17 projectile points, and one Spanish lance head were reexamined for this discussion. The ceramic assemblage consisted of four jars, six bowls, and one scoop. Nine of the vessels were plainware, one was redware, and one exhibited faded

Red-on-Brown decoration. Rim coils were present on five vessels, and four vessels exhibited carbon streaking. The ceramics were tempered with coarse sand inclusions; however, sherd and sand temper was present. Rim thickness ranged from 6.09 to 8.27 mm, with an average of 7.03 mm. The frequency of rim coils and carbon streaking, when taken along- side the surface contexts of these vessels, indicate that this assemblage was associated with a later historical-period occupation at Batki. Of particular interest in this assemblage is the frequency (n = 5) of basal fragmentation on some vessels. The regular shape of the breakage patterns on the base of these vessels appears intentional, rather than accidental, and may reflect the ritual destruction of objects following the attack on theranchería (Figure 6.1). The ritual destruction of personal property has been documented among Athapaskan, Yuman, and

O’odham groups (e.g., Escobar 1605; Kroeber 1925; Underhill 1939). Objects owned by the recently deceased were often damaged to prevent subsequent use of the item and avoid the spread of malevolent influences. Given that Batki was the site of an instance of violence, it would not be surprising if the O’odham ritually destroyed the remains at the ranchería to 214

Figure 6.1. Ritually destroyed bowl from Batki (ASM Catalog Number A-3761).

prevent such an occurrence. Hayden et al. (2011:51) remarked that the O’odham burned the structures at Batki because the Apache raided the village. This claim lends further support to the hypothesis that the O’odham ritually destroyed these vessels.

The projectile point assemblage from Batki consisted of 12 artifacts with attributes

generally consistent with those associated with Sobaipuri projectile points. Three of these 215 specimens were manufactured from flakes, while nine were bifacially thinned. Unlike other assemblages, basalt was the dominant raw material used here, despite the presence of obsidian in the nearby Sauceda Mountains. Chert, chalcedony, and jasper were also used, but less frequently. One projectile point was manufactured from green bottle glass. The indigenous practice of flaking glass has been well documented at historical-period sites (Escobar

1605). Of particular importance in this instance is the persistence of the “Sobaipuri” style.

In addition to 12 Sobaipuri projectile points, three side-notched points and a stemmed projectile point were recovered from the surface at Batki.

After the excavations were halted at Batki, Haury (1950) began work at Ventana Cave, a large rockshelter situated in the Castle Mountains near Anegam Wash. The stratified deposits at this site represent one of the longest records of habitation in the Southwest. Arti- facts recovered from Ventana Cave included 37 triangular projectile points with concave base, which were identified as Papago points. Over 31,400 sherds were recovered during excavation, 94 percent of which were plainware. Haury (1950:345) noted the presence of nonmicaceous, well smoothed, thin-walled ceramics manufactured using the paddle-and- anvil technique. He noted that these sherds ranged in thickness from 2.5 to 4 mm. Malcom

Rogers identified one sherd as a Patayan II rim. Unfortunately, these thin sherds were not identified in the curated collection at ASM. The collections from Ventana Cave had been culled substantially prior to curation. Provenience information for each specimen included 216 unit number and level, designated in 50 cm increments; therefore, ceramic reanalysis was limited to samples that originated in units and levels with associated triangular projectile points with concave bases. The general disorderliness of the assemblage and the fact that much of the material had been culled or loaned out to other institutions prevented a detailed analysis of materials from protohistoric contexts. Five projectile points classified according to this typology were available for analysis, and they came from contexts entirely within the Upper Cave. Four of these artifacts were associated with the upper 30–50 cm of soil, and one originated in a 50–100 cm level. These projectile points were manufactured from obsidian, jasper, basalt, and rhyolite. Three specimens were bifically thinned, and two were manufactured from flakes. Thirty-eight rim sherds were identified in proveniences associated with these projectile points. Seven rim sherds had been classified as Papago Black- on-Red, one was designated as Papago Red-on-Buff, six were identified as redware, two were typed as Papago Plain, and 22 were undifferentiated plainware. Reanalysis was unable to distinguish black decorative motifs on the Papago Black-on-Red sherds; therefore, they were reclassified as redware. Sand tempered ceramics were most common; however, seven sherds, two of which were from decorated wares, exhibited sherd and sand temper.

Twenty-three sherds had rim coils, and 14 exhibited carbon streaking. Rim thickness ranged from 4.56 to 12.44 mm. 217

ASM conducted further research on the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation in 1976 in preparation for the construction of a health services complex near Sells (Coe 1979). The survey resulted in the identification and surface collection of AZ DD:1:21(ASM), an artifact scatter that may date to the protohistoric or early historical period. The assemblage

(n = ~300) contained nine rim sherds, three fragmented projectile points, and eight flaked stone tools chosen for reanalysis. The ceramics consisted of one Red-on-Buff, one redware, and seven plainwares. All ceramics were sand tempered, with coarse sub-rounded inclusions and occasional flecks of mica. Five ceramics exhibited carbon streaking, and rim coils were absent. Rim thickness ranged from 5.24 to 10.14 mm, with an average of 7.53 mm.

The projectile point assemblage consisted of two Archaic specimens and one artifact whose attributes were consistent with the Sobaipuri type. This projectile point was manufactured from a jasper flake and exhibited serrated edges. The the flaked stone tool assemblage consisted of four bifaces and four unifacial scrapers, which exhibited retouch along the scraping edge. These tools were manufactured using chert, jasper, chalcedony, quartz, and rhyolite. Further fieldwork would be necessary before it could be confidently assigned to the

Protohistoric period.

Protohistoric deposits have been reported within the boundaries of the Barry M. Gold- water Range. Artifacts from three sites were reanalyzed for this study. AZ Z:7:163(ASM) was recorded as part of a mitigation survey of areas impacted by the clean-up and disposal 218 of explosive ordinance on the East Tactical Range in 1999 (Tagg et al. 2008). The site consisted of two small rockshelters with an associated artifact scatter in the southern portion of the Sand Tank Mountains. AZ Z:7:163(ASM) contained the remains of a pot break on the floor of the larger rockshelter. These ceramics were identified as Papago Plain manufactured by paddle and anvil with evidence of a folded rim. The collected sample consists of two rim sherds that refit. They are sand tempered and range in thickness from 7.77 to

8.13 mm. The sherds lack carbon streaking and have scoring marks associated with hand wiping or smoothing. AZ Z:5:18(ASM) was initially recorded by SWCA, Inc. in 1992 and revisited by Statistical Research, Inc. (SRI) during the Area B Roads Survey Project in 2003

(Seymour and Doak 1993). The site was located in the Sauceda Mountains and consists of a rockshelter with an associated artifact scatter. The initial site record reported the presence of four plainware sherds, 10 pieces of flaked stone, a mano fragment, and a slab metate inside the rockshelter. A midden, which was eroding down the slope, was situated just outside the dripline and contained artifacts similar to those encountered under the overhang.

SRI reported the presence of a Sobaipuri projectile point from this site. The point is quite large, but exhibits serrated edges and a concave base consistent with the Sobaipuri type. The point was manufactured from obsidian, and it is likely that is was bifacially thinned from a marakenite (Apache tear), given that the Sauceda Mountains is a source for these materials. BMGR-03-D-50 was identified during a 2003 survey on the East Tactical Range by 219

SRI (Sagebiel et al. 2008). The site was located in the foothills of the Sauceda Mountains and consisted of a rockshelter situated on the northwest side of an inselberg surrounded by eight thermal features, two rock clusters, a rock ring, and a widespread artifact scatter. A total of 3,054 artifacts were recorded on site and 74 were collected for further analysis. The density and composition of the artifact scatter suggested that the rockshelter was used frequently from the Archaic to the Protohistoric or early historical period. A Sobaipuri projectile point was collected from an artifact concentration near the southeastern site boundary and was found associated with a biface fragment, a modified flake, 51 pieces of flaked stone, eight fragments of debitage, and one plainware body sherd. Flaked stone material included obsidian, chalcedony, chert, rhyolite, and metasediment. The ceramic sherd was described as an indeterminate grayish brown plainware with fine sand and mica inclusions. BMGR-

03-D-50 was interpreted as a habitation and resource gathering/processing site. The intensity of the occupational debris was likely related to the location and size of the rockshelter, which provided a panoramic view of the surrounding region. Reanalysis of the collected projectile point confirms that it is consistent with the Sobaipuri type; however, it is rather large. Like the specimen from AZ Z:5:18(ASM), the projectile point is made from obsidian and bifacially thinned. In the absence of further data, it is best to reserve judgment on the temporal association of all the sites from the BMGR. 220

Protohistoric deposits have also been reported in the Sierra Pinacate, a volcanic region in northwest Sonora characterized by sparse vegetation and an extremely arid climate

(Hayden 1967). Hayden conducted numerous surveys in the Pinacate and identified more than 42 archaeological sites. He summarized his findings in Hayden (1967); however, he never published individual site descriptions. He and Paul Ezell argued that the Pinacate was occupied by the Areneños (Hia C-ed O’odham), who used Yuman ceramics, during the protohistoric and historical periods. In order to identify sites where he documented this pattern, his notes were reviewed, and sites containing projectile points consistent with the Sobaipuri type were reanalyzed. Twenty-nine triangular projectile points with concave bases were examined from twelve sites. Material types were restricted to obsidian (n = 24), chalcedony (n = 1), and bottle glass (n = 4). Projectile points from three of these sites were identified as exhibiting attributes sufficiently consistent with Sobaipuri attributes to merit further analysis. A total of 78 rim sherds from these four sites was examined. From HPS-

20, 46 rim sherds were analyzed, from HPS-13, 31 rim sherds were examined, and from

Don Pedro one rim sherd was identified. All ceramics fit the attributes associated with

Lower Colorado Buff wares. At both HPS-20 and HPS-13, the ceramic assemblages contained both direct and recurved rims. Hayden made a total of 18 visits to HPS-20 (Tinaja del Tule) from 1960 to 1982. He recorded the presence of modern rock rings, an intaglio, several trails, rock cairns, groundstone, gyratory crushers, abundant shell, and numerous 221 ceramic sherds, including Sweetwater Red-on-Brown and Trincheras Purple-on-Brown.

Hayden visited HPS-13 (Tinaja del Bote) 19 times from 1961 to 1985. He noted the presence of intaglios, a few fragments of groundstone, and Yuman ceramics. Both sites were situated on the southwest side of the Pinacate Preserve. No notes were identified for the

Don Pedro Site.

Additional Archaeological Samples

Several other published analyses of protohistoric remains are pertinent to this discussion; however, the artifacts were not available for analysis. Nevertheless, the findings are summarized below to highlight some of the important considerations brought to light by these projects. Five of the projects presented herein could not be reanalyzed because the material came from mortuary contexts that had been repatriated prior to the beginning of analysis. In

1970, a protohistoric burial was uncovered during the excavation of a latrine at San Xavier del Bac in the Tucson Basin (Ayres 1970). The individual was interred with a necklace of

187 shell beads, two bone awls, one antler fragment, two pieces of animal bone, and a Zuni polychrome bowl, enabling archaeologists to date the inhumation to ca. A.D. 1700. Two inhumations with associated triangular concave base projectile points were recovered from the San Xavier Bridge site in 1985–1986. Twenty-three projectile points were recovered; however, the authors did not associate the remains with the Protohistoric period because 222 of flaws in the definition of “protohistoric” remains and the presence of similar projectile points in Hohokam Classic period contexts (Ravesloot and Whittlesey 1987). The Center for Desert Archaeology excavated two sets of human remains associated with more than

100 Sobaipuri projectile points and several arrow fragments (Vint 2005). An analysis of these remains suggested that the two individuals might have been killed by their own community for deviant behaviors, such as witchcraft. Five Sobaipuri projectile points were recovered from two historical-period burials excavated in 2006 as part of the Joint Courts Ar- chaeological Project; however, images of these projectile points demonstrate that they only superficially conform to Sobaipuri point attributes (Hall et al. 2010:Figure 39, 75). These projectile points exhibit deeply concave bases, but they are sidenotched and do not appear deeply serrated. EcoPlan uncovered a possible protohistoric inhumation in 2010 during excavations in preparation for the expansion of Interstate 10 in Tucson (Neuzil et al. 2010).

The individual was interred with a necklace of over 800 shell beads, a substantial portion of which came from the coast of California and date to the Protohistoric period.

A survey conducted in the Altar Valley of Sonora in 1988 resulted in the identification of eight sites exhibiting attributes normally associated with the protohistoric Sobaipuri

(McGuire and Villalpando 1993). Whetstone Plain ceramics were recorded at these sites and compared with samples from the Amerind and the ASM. The Altar Valley ceramic assemblages fit within the acceptable range of variation in regards to thickness, color, rim 223 morphology, vessel form, and surface treatment; however, they exhibited a larger degree of mica in the temper than samples from the comparative collections. McGuire and Villal- pando (1993:33) suggested that the Altar Valley ceramic assemblages fit within the larger category of Whetstone Plain, but further analysis may identify different varieties. These assemblages are currently housed in Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH) facilities in Sonora and arrangements could not be made to view them in time to incorporate a reanalysis into this dissertation.

Perhaps the most disappointing omission from this project are assemblages recovered from the Ak-Chin Indian Community during a 1985 data recovery project undertaken in anticipation of developing uncultivated land on the west side of the reservation (Cable

1990). These collections were subsequently curated at a museum where collection access is restricted to tribal members only. For this project, the term “protohistoric” was used to describe materials dating to both the Protohistoric period (A.D. 1400–1700) and early in the historical period (A.D. 1700–1850) (Deaver 1990:15.11). The ceramics were unique in that they shared similarities with both Patayan III and Sobaipuri assemblages. Assemblages from Frog Pot (AZ T:16:23[ASM]) and Whimsey Flat (AZ T:16:71[ASM]) were used to define the protohistoric ceramic tradition. The analysis identified two ceramic complexes.

Complex I contained ceramics with folded rims, stucco finish, and Red-on-Buff decoration, while Complex II lacked these attributes entirely. Four clay bodies characterized both 224

Complex I and II and included thinned walled buff plain, micaceous plain, coarse sand-

tempered plain, and crushed schist plain. Historical-period ceramics were identified from

a site occupied ca. A.D. 1900–1930. Two clay bodies were present in this assemblage. The

first body was characterized by buff clay heavily tempered with sand and sometimes ground

potsherds with a cream scum wash on the surface. The second body consisted of coarse sand

tempered brown clay that was frequently carbon streaked. Red-on-Buff, Black-on-Buff, and

Black-on-Red decorated styles were noted.

An independent analysis of ceramic assemblages in association with absolute dates

from Painted Horse (AZ T:16:20[ASM]), Frog Pot (AZ T:16:23[ASM]), Whimsey Flat

(AZ T:16:71[ASM]), AZ T:16:86(ASM), and AZ T:16:55(ASM) was conducted to clarify the attributes and chronology of the protohistoric ceramic tradition (Cable 1990). Radio- carbon dating calibrated to a 95 percent confidence level yielded unsurprisingly wide date ranges (e.g., A.D. 1430–1950), but the author relied on 1-sigma calibrated midpoint ranges and archaeomagnetic dates, as well as the presence of diagnostic material culture to generate a tentative chronology for ceramic production. Of particular note is that Complex I,

which exhibits folded rims and decorated ceramics, is the earliest to appear. Additionally the

ceramic assemblage is difficult to assign to a particular group precisely because it exhibits

attributes associated with both the Yuman and O’odham groups. Cable’s (1990) findings

did not support the stringent division in ceramic complexes proposed by Deaver (1990). 225

He encountered folded rims and a stucco finish in both Complex I and II assemblages, implying that the largest qualitative difference between these two types lies in the presence of decorated ceramics. Cable (1990:23.13) concluded that the ceramic chronology demonstrated a progression away from Lower Colorado attributes, characterized by a decrease in folded rims and the discontinued use of painted decoration. After these attributes were discontinued, the ceramics more closely resembled wares found among the Sobaipuri and

Tohono O’odham. This sequence began during the protohistoric period persisted until the late nineteenth century.

Summary

A large amount of data, including written accounts, oral traditions, ethnographic observations, and archaeological analyses, was examined for this project. Perhaps the most striking theme within and between data sets is the fact that many of these observations are contradic- tory. Oral traditions disagree on the relationship between the O’odham and the Hohokam, and written accounts record the presence of substantial populations organized into distinct groups, which is not necessarily borne out in the archaeological record. Artifact typologies exhibit a wide array of variation and do not always conform to expectations. In the following chapter these data will be synthesized and used to evaluate three models of the Protohistoric 226 period, specifically the continuity hypothesis, the migration hypothesis, and a third model emphasizing modes of population reorganization. 227

CHAPTER 7: SYNTHESIS

Analysis of multiple lines of data is necessary to thoroughly examine the Protohistoric period in the Pimería Alta. This chapter will evaluate data presented in Chapter 6 to examine the validity of associating specific artifact typologies with historically documented ethnic groups as well as assess the strength of three models of protohistoric demographic change.

The implications these conclusions have for cultural affiliation research will be addressed.

Artifact Typologies

Whetstone Plain

As demonstrated in the preceding chapter, the Whetstone Plain typology has been inconsistently defined and applied by researchers. The presence of carbon streaking, sherd and sand tempered vessels, and folded rims within Whetstone Plain assemblages implies that either analysts have overlooked these specimens or that the attributes characteristic of Whetstone

Plain are not sufficiently defined. Sherd thickness is of particular concern given that protohistoric ceramics are often initially identified based on this attribute. During previous analyses of these ceramic assemblages, thickness was measured regardless of vessel portion, which may account for the wide range reported by Di Peso (1953). Masse (1981) proposed a much smaller range; however, the average rim sherd thickness at Terrenate and Pitaitutgam, the 228 type sites for Whetstone Plain, falls outside this range, as do other sites along the San Pedro and Santa Cruz Rivers (Table 7.1). Vessel thickness often varies depending on the portion measured, so that the base or the rim may be several millimeters thicker than the neck or the body. Admittedly, the assemblages examined for this project represent only sample of the entire body of Whetstone Plain ceramics; however, if vessel thickness is a defining attribute of protohistoric ceramics, measurements should be consistently taken from the same portion to account for variability within a vessel body. If the average thickness of rim sherds at sites with previously identified Whetstone Plain assemblages is calculated, it ranges from

5.84 to 7.25 mm, rather than from 4 to 6 mm, as proposed by Masse (1981).

The Whetstone Plain definition has been applied inconsistently with the result that assemblages representing this type do not stand up under closer scrutiny. Furthermore, the

Whetstone Plain typology as it has been applied in the past is not a type that can be accurately and consistently associated with Sobaipuri sites. Whetstone Plain has been identified at sites located outside the boundaries of the traditional Sobaipuri heartland (McGuire and Villalpando 1993; Seymour 2011). Additionally, several examined assemblages share some characteristics of Whetstone Plain within the Pimería Alta (Cable 1990; Deaver 1990;

Doyel 1977). This analysis suggests that attributes associated with Whetstone Plain are generally characteristic of assemblages from the Protohistoric and early historical periods across the Pimería Alta, not only at Sobaipuri sites. Until further research is conducted, 229

Table 7.1. Average Rim Thickness, by Site Site Site Name Count Average Thickness AZ AA:7:158 (ASM) 12 7.04 AZ AA:7:187 (ASM) 2 5.66 AZ BB:6:9 (ASM) Alder Wash 87 5.84 AZ DD:1:21(ASM) 7 8.12 AZ DD:8:129 (ASM) England Ranch Ruin 118 7.11 AZ EE:2:83 (ASM) 4 7.25 AZ EE:4:11 (ASM) Terranate 24 6.78 AZ EE:8:15 (ASM) Gaybanipitea 4 6.1 AZ U:13:124 (ASM) 1 7.04 AZ U:13:130 (ASM) 1 9.91 AZ U:13:131 (ASM) 2 7.41 AZ U:13:145 (ASM) 1 8.47 AZ U:13:171(ASM) 1 4.28 AZ U:13:98 (ASM) 1 5.91 AZ U:14:14 (ASM) 1 8.85 AZ Z:12:5 (ASM) Ventana Cave 27 6.8 AZ Z:16:6 (ASM) Batki 9 7.08 AZ Z:7:163 (ASM) 2 7.95 HPS-13 8 5.74 Don Pedro Site 1 4.51 GR-1469 1 7.93 GR-1582 1 10.56 GR-1693 1 7.27 GR-1710 1 7.87 GR-1743 1 7.71 GR-1795 1 8.24 GR-2223 1 8.24 GR-2362 1 6.77 230 larger assemblages of Whetstone Plain ceramics are identified, and their attributes quan- tified, it is wiser to err on the side of caution and treat these ceramics as horizon markers rather than ethnic markers.

Sobaipuri Projectile Points

The classification of triangular projectile points with concave bases as Sobaipuri projectile points is debated (Loendorf 2004; Ravesloot and Whittlesey 1987). Sobaipuri projectile points are scattered across the Pimería Alta; however, like Whetstone Plain, specimens do not routinely exhibit all the necessary attributes associated with the typology. Artifacts with this shape are found in quantity along the Gila River, in the Sierra Pinacate, and in the Papaguería (e.g., Loendorf 2004; Sagebiel et al. 2008; Scotten 2007). Sometimes these projectile points lack serration or a concave base. Additionally, two methods of manufacture have been identified: (1) bifacial thinning, and (2) edge modification of a flake. It has been suggested that this could represent two schools of learning; however, manufacture technique could also be linked to artisan skill and/or raw material availability and quantity

(Vint 2005). The persistence of these forms into the historical period, as evidenced by the manufacture of these projectile points using green glass, indicates that they are not solely confined to the Protohistoric period. 231

Summary

Ceramic and flaked stone typologies are inconsistently applied and used to identify the cultural affiliation of protohistoric remains; however, at this time these typologies are not sufficiently developed to merit an association with a single O’odham group. Rather, these typologies are best described as archaeological horizons. An archaeological horizon can be generally defined as an artifact style that appears over a widespread region within a limited period of time, and may cross cultural boundaries (Kroeber 1944; Willey 1945; Willey and

Phillips 1958). The concept has been primarily associated with South and Mesoamerican archaeology where horizons serve as markers for interrelating chronological sequences of various local cultures. Horizons have been applied with some success in the American South- west and the Plains, and accurately characterizes Whetstone Plain ceramics and Sobaipuri projectile points in the Pimería Alta (Lehmer and Caldwell 1966; McFadden 2011).Whet- stone Plain is likely a protohistoric ceramic technology, the attributes of which distinguish it from prehistoric assemblages, which are characterized by thicker sand- and mica-tempered bodies, and historical-period ceramic bodies that tend to have very thick organic-tempered bodies. Sobaipuri projectile points probably date to a longer time period, including both the

Protohistoric and historical periods, as evidenced by the manufacture of similar types using bottle glass. At this point, insufficient data exist to justify the association of these types specifically with the Sobaipuri. 232 Continuity Hypothesis

During the earlier years of anthropological and historical inquiry, many researchers considered it likely that the O’odham were the direct descendants of the Hohokam (Dobyns

1966; Ezell 1963a; Haury 1945, 1976a; Underhill 1939, 1946). This assumption was based the observations that both groups inhabited the same territory, engaged in irrigation agriculture, and resided in dispersed rancherías. The continuity model posits that the Hohokam regional system declined between A.D. 1350 and 1400, and the remnant population reorganized itself into loosely affiliated rancherías and participated in a diluted version of the former Hohokam social system (Ezell 1963a; Haury 1976a).

As demonstrated in Chapter 6, several versions of the O’odham creation story exist. The accounts recorded in Underhill (1946) and Bahr et al. (1994) are often cited in support of a Hohokam-Pima continuity. These creation stories record that Elder Brother became hostile to his people, the Hohokam, who decided to kill him (Underhill 1946). The Hohokam killed Elder Brother three times, but each time he came back to life. On their fourth try they enlisted the help of Yellow Buzzard and the sun, who killed Elder Brother with an iron bow. Elder Brother revived and traveled underground to enlist help from the O’odham. The

O’odham emerged and marched west, driving the Hohokam out of the region. The traditions vary on where the O’odham came from, including a hole in the ground, the San Pe- dro River valley, or northern Mexico. After the conquest, the O’odham settled the empty 233

Hohokam landscape. Other versions of this oral tradition narrate the fall of the Hohokam as a result of conflict between Elder Brother and powerful religious elites (Teague 1993).

After they successfully conquered the Hohokam, the O’odham dispersed across southern

Arizona and into the pueblo regions. It remains unclear from these creation stories whether the O’odham expelled the Hohokam from the area or simply absorbed the remaining people into their society.

Some ethnographic evidence supports this connection between the O’odham and the Ho- hokam (Underhill 1939). Underhill (1946) has demonstrated the importance of the Hohokam conquest in the Tohono O’odham ritual complex, including the rainmaking ceremony and the planting of prayersticks. Ethnographic records show that the Akimel O’odham manufacture red pottery with a paddle and anvil, which is similar to Hohokam Red-on-buff ceramics (Underhill 1939:6). The O’odham also inhabit old Hohokam sites and use old canals

(Underhill 1939:8). Certain aspects of O’odham social organization, specifically the moiety organization, hint at relationships between the O’odham and the Hohokam.

Linguistic evidence can also be marshaled in support of the continuity hypothesis. Avail- able linguistic evidence strongly suggests that the Tepiman language group participated in the Hohokam regional system (Shaul and Hill 1998:377). Culture area studies demonstrate that the region of origin of a system of cultural variation will exhibit the greatest diversity

(Shaul and Hill 1998:383). This theoretical approach, coupled with an analysis of linguistic 234 similarities, such as cognate densities, shared sound changes, loan words, and morphosyntactic borrowings among the Yuman and Tepiman language groups suggest that River Yu- man and Tepiman groups were in close contact before the breakup of either proto-language.

Therefore, the Proto-Tepiman linguistic group could have ranged as far as the Colorado-Gila confluence. Furthermore, the extreme divergence of Ati Piman in the north and the similarities between southern Tepehuan languages suggest a northern origin for the Proto-Tepiman linguistic group. Current linguistic data suggest that the Proto-Tepiman speech community was situated in the Hohokam core region by A.D. 1000 (Shaul and Hill 1998:388). The data indicate that the Hohokam were a multi-ethnic community composed of Proto-Yuman,

Proto-Tepiman, and possibly Proto-Zuni groups (Shaul and Hill 1998:389). The assertion that the Hohokam regional system was a multi-ethnic community is supported by linguistic evidence that demonstrates sustained, long-term contact between Proto-Tepiman and Proto-

Yuman linguistic groups. The contemporary Akimel and Tohono O’odham are descendants of the Proto-Tepiman, while the Maricopa are descendants of the Proto-Yuman. The ancestors of these modern groups may have participated directly or indirectly in the Hohokam system or lived on its margins and moved into the region at the end of the Classic Period.

Documentary history, specifically the account of Marcos de Niza, has been used as evidence of a Hohokam-Pima continuum (Reff 1991a:646). Although his account is short, Niza reports that Pimans were living in permanent villages, using irrigation canals to water their 235

fields, producing food surpluses, and usingxícaras muy lindas, or very pretty gourd bowls.

Reff (1991a) equates these descriptions with the remnant Hohokam population, citing the

mention of xícaras to indicate the presence of Gila Polychrome. Reff (1991a) suggests that

the mention of the western kingdom of Totonteac may be a reference to great houses that

were still populated by the Hohokam in the Santa Cruz and Gila Basins. This exploration

text is particularly significant because it suggests that northern Mexico and southern Ari-

zona were inhabited by large populations during the sixteenth century (Reff 1991a:645).

Eusebio Francisco Kino encountered dispersed populations living in rancherías engaging

in irrigation agriculture, flood-water farming, and/or hunting and gathering (Bolton 1919;

Burrus S. J. 1971; Sheridan 1988b). Some scholars argue that European infectious diseases traveled along indigenous trade corridors and wiped out the large populations of northern

Mexico and southern Arizona during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Dobyns 1991;

Jackson 1994; Reff 1991b). This is not to say that epidemic disease wiped out the Hohokam.

Instead, Reff (1991b) argues that the Hohokam had declined by A.D. 1400; however, moder-

ately dense remnant populations continued to inhabit the Hohokam region. He suggests that

while some communities were abandoned during the initial Hohokam decline, the popula-

tions did not experience a demographic collapse until European diseases came through the

region during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries (Reff 1991b:83). He postu-

lates that the dispersed groups Kino encountered were the remains of populations ravaged by 236

Old World diseases. Disease, coupled with ensuing famine, the loss of the elders who held

ritual knowledge, and the destruction of the next generation, crippled population growth and

resulted in the demographic collapse of the region (Dobyns 1966, 1991; Reff 1990, 1991b).

Many archaeologists have postulated that the O’odham are the descendants of remnant

populations that continued farming along the major river valleys after the collapse of the

Hohokam regional system (Ezell 1963a; Haury 1945, 1976a). The Hohokam regional sys-

tem declined during the end of the Classic Period between A.D. 1350 and 1400. Various

explanations for the decline of the Hohokam include environmental degradation, channel

incision, aggregation, and social conflict (Doelle and Wallace 1991; Fish and Fish 1993;

Grebinger and Adam 1974; Whittlesey et al. 1994). Unfortunately, these theories cannot explain the wholesale disappearance of the Hohokam from the archaeological record (Fish

et al. 1992). In trying to account for the disappearance of the large populations that inhabited

southern Arizona, scholars have argued that people were incorporated into other communi-

ties to the north and south during the Late Classic Period (Fish and Fish 1993:107). More

recent research has concluded that the Hohokam did not experience an abrupt collapse at

all, but rather population levels gradually declined after coalescence, resulting in a popula-

tion shift in response to migrations from the north (Hill et al. 2004).

Archaeological evidence for the continued occupation of southern Arizona after

A.D. 1400 is sparse. The distribution of Salado polychromes suggests an ephemeral presence 237 in the Tucson Basin (Fish and Fish 1993:108). In the Phoenix Basin, the Classic Period is followed by a less complex archaeological pattern termed the Polvorón Phase (Henderson and Hackbarth 2000). A similar trend occurs in the Tucson Basin and is characterized by a return to pithouse architecture and the use of platform mounds for residential space (Whit- tlesey et al. 1994). The use of rounded residential structures has been cited as evidence of a continuum (Ezell 1963a:62). Furthermore, the presence of protohistoric ceramics at the

Hotts Hawk site suggests continuity from the Polvorón Phase (Henderson 1993; Zedeno and

Stoffle 1995). However, the general lack of archaeological data is further complicated by difficulties associated with assigning dates to sites from these late periods. An absence of dendrochronology samples and wiggles on the radiocarbon and archaeomagnetic curves make assigning absolute dates nearly impossible for this period (Doelle and Wallace 1991:240).

No prehistoric sites in southern Arizona are securely dated after A.D. 1450 (Whittlesey et al.

1994); therefore, only relative dates can be assigned to these sites. The paucity of protohistoric sites in the Tucson Basin further compounds the issue (Ciolek-Torrello and Swanson

1997). Some scholars argue that the archaeological record supports a different kind of continuum (Di Peso 1956; Hayden 1970). Hayden (1970) suggested that the O’odham are the descendants of Amargosan populations, who inhabited Arizona since the Archaic Period. A group of these ancestral O’odham may have brought the Hohokam complex up from Me- soamerica to Snaketown, where it expanded until A.D. 1400, when it was pushed out by 238 neighboring Sobaipuri populations from the east. Hayden (1970) argues that the Amargo- san/Hohokam descendants survive as the Buzzard and Red Ant moieties of the O’odham.

Di Peso (1953) likewise suggested an older origin for the O’odham. Based on excavations at the Paloparado Ruin, Santa Cruz de Terrenate, and Santa Cruz de Pitaitutgam, Di

Peso (1953) concluded that the modern O’odham were the descendants of the Ootam, an archaeological culture native to southern Arizona that existed prior to the Hohokam, whom he viewed as riverine migrants from Mexico (Di Peso 1956:563). He suggested that the Oo- tam spread out across the landscape after the Hohokam left southern Arizona in A.D. 1250, thereby attributing the Classic Period to the Oootam rather than the Hohokam. Di Peso

(1953) defined the Ootam as a mixture of traits from several archaeological cultures including the Hohokam and the Anasazi. The Ootam were characterized by polished red ware ceramics, brown plain ware pottery, red-on-brown ceramics, three-quarter-grooved axes, and pithouses arranged around a central plaza. Di Peso (1953) also found Salado Polychrome ceramics in association with Sobaipuri-like ceramics, and he hypothesized that the Sobai- puri were the descendants of the Salado. He later amended this statement by suggesting that the Western Pueblo Tradition, rather than the Salado, were ancestral to the Sobaipuri

(Di Peso 1958).

Oral historical, ethnographic, linguistic, historical, and limited archaeological evidence can be used to support a model of Hohokam-Pima continuity. In this model, Tepiman groups 239 participated in the multi-ethnic Hohokam regional system, which eventually declined, or was conquered in A.D. 1400. Some of the Hohokam migrated north and were absorbed by the

Hopi, while others may have traveled south into Sonora. The remnant populations continued to inhabit southern Arizona, participating in a diluted version of the Hohokam system.

Migration Hypothesis

Ambiguities imbedded within oral traditions, ethnography, linguistics, documentary history, and archaeological data suggest that discontinuity between the Hohokam and O’odham is also possible. The discontinuity model posits that after the Hohokam decline, southern Ari- zona was almost completely abandoned. Migrants from Sonora may have repopulated the region during the Protohistoric period, utilizing the irrigation canals already in place, while gradually incorporating the existing ruins into their oral traditions (Fritz 1989; Masse 1981).

While oral traditions were used to support a model for continuity, many researchers are reticent about their utility (Mason 2000). Aside from difficulties in assessing the veracity and applicability of oral traditions, this data set often lacks a definitive chronology, individual traditions do not necessarily rely on information relayed in other stories, and some stories are selectively included while others are omitted (Vansina 1985). These problems are readily apparent in O’odham oral history. There are many versions of the O’odham creation myth, and they are inconsistent with regards to the relationship between the O’odham and 240 the Hohokam (Bahr 1970). The earliest written versions of O’odham oral traditions regarding Casa Grande were recorded by Manje and Font, and they make no reference to any relationship between the two groups. It is in later traditions, recorded in the twentieth century, that the resurrected deity is introduced as the leader of the O’odham and the vanquisher of the Hohokam (Bahr et al. 1994). This theme may have been incorporated into later versions due to the influence of Christianity. It is equally likely that Manje and Font were selective in what they wrote or that the O’odham oral traditions changed over time to incorporate

Hohokam ruins and emphasize a Christ-like figure. Teague (1993) argues that the accounts of Hohokam settlements, where the sivañi were overthrown, are too accurate and precise to have been created to explain away the existence of prehistoric communities in the region.

Oral historical descriptions of now-invisible palisades and the omission of earlier Hohokam mound sites suggest detailed knowledge of Hohokam society (Teague 1993:440).

While ethnographic evidence was used to support continuity, inconsistencies in practices between the O’odham and Hohokam are readily apparent. The O’odham bury their dead, rather than cremate them as is recorded among the Hohokam (Masse 1981:42; Underhill

1939:9). Furthermore, the presence of wattle-and-daub houses was cited as evidence for continuity; however, these were in use only during the historical period and may have been adopted from the Yaqui or the Spanish. Traditional O’odham homes were semi-subterranean dome brush structures. The widespread use of irrigation was also cited as evidence for 241 continuity; however, Manje and Kino make no mention of groups along the Gila engaging in irrigation, whereas the practice was noted among groups in the south (Doelle 1981:63;

1984). Scholars suggest that the concept of Hohokam and Pima relatedness may have been adopted through association, wherein constant queries about large Hohokam ruins within their homeland have led the O’odham to create links to them. This is further bolstered by the note made by Russell (1975:24) in the early twentieth century, wherein he stated that the

Akimel O’odham claim to know nothing about the large Hohokam ruins. Several scholars argue that the Akimel O’odham do not believe in a Hohokam-Pima continuum, rather they believe they came from the east (Dudley 2001:28; Russell 1975:26).

The linguistic evidence is, in some ways, ambiguous regarding the Hohokam-Pima continuum. Linguistic evidence strongly supports the assertion that Tepimans participated in the

Hohokam system; however, it is also consistent with the hypothesis that the O’odham are recent arrivals to southern Arizona who replaced the Hohokam (Shaul and Hill 1998). The data support two possibilities: either some Tepimans participated in the Hohokam regional system while others did not, or the Tepiman are the Hohokam, and a southward expansion at a late date separated southern O’odham groups from the Hohokam tradition. In addition,

Shaul and Hill (1998) concede that assigning dates to linguistic interaction is imprecise.

There are numerous problems with documentary histories. Exploration texts are particularly difficult to assess because they were often written many years after the events that are 242 recorded and were often exaggerated for political or religious reasons. This criticism is frequently applied to Niza’s account of his expedition to Cíbola in 1539 (Reff 1991a). Clearly

Niza exaggerated when he reported that Cíbola was grander than Mexico City (Reff 1991a).

He also reported wealthier kingdoms to the north, but this information came from his native guides, and it was common for indigenous groups to exaggerate the wealth of their neighbors as a way of encouraging explorers to move on (Weber 1992). The groups inhabiting northern Sonora had already felt the effects of Spanish slaving, and were unlikely to want the Spanish to remain in their territory. Therefore, his description of wealthy kingdoms in the north is likely not reliable. Furthermore, the fact that Niza recorded only two unpopu- lated areas cannot be extended to mean that southern Arizona had a large population (Reff

1991a:645). The route Niza took is debatable, and it is possible that he did not pass through southern Arizona, although several scholars believe he may have traveled along the San

Pedro River and encountered the Sobaipuri (Doelle 1984; Fontana 1974:173). However, it is often unclear which groups the Spanish referred to in their documents, as they divided people based on their own perceptions, which did not always reflect how Native Americans saw themselves (Fontana 1989:36). An even larger problem is the hypothesis that epidemic disease caused a demographic collapse in Sonora. There is little archaeological evidence of lingering populations after the Hohokam decline in A.D. 1400, and there is no evidence of a demographic collapse in the 1600s (Doelle and Wallace 1991). 243

Archaeological evidence or lack thereof, is the most intriguing data set commonly cited in support of the discontinuity model. While scholars such as Di Peso (1953), Ezell (1963a),

Haury (1976a), and Hayden (1970) all attempted to uncover archaeological evidence to link prehistory and history, data supporting sustained habitation in southern Arizona after the Hohokam decline is sparse (Doelle and Wallace 1991; Ravesloot and Whittlesey 1987;

Reid and Whittlesey 1997). Of course, an absence of archaeological material from this period does not mean that there was not a protohistoric population in southern Arizona. This gap could be the result of sampling biases, problems associated with absolute dating, the ephemeral nature of protohistoric sites, or a failure to recognize protohistoric material culture. Masse (1981) argues that Sobaipuri ceramics have their origin in Mogollon Sonora, rather than the Hohokam. He also notes that the ceramics present at England Ranch Ruin bear a striking resemblance to ceramics from the Río Sonora. Masse (1981) argues that So- baipuri projectile points are similar to Soto points found in Chihuahua, while others note similarities to projectile points found in Texas (Seymour 2009a, 2011). The archaeological record also contradicts descriptions found in historical documents, suggesting that populations along the San Pedro River relied more on hunting and gathering, rather than agriculture, and that they did not always live at seasonal villages (Masse 1981:44-45). Masse

(1981:47) concludes that the O’odham are recent immigrants to southern Arizona from So- nora in response to population shifts associated with the conquest of Mexico and slave raids 244 in northern Mexico. He suggests that the Hohokam collapsed and were likely absorbed by the immigrant O’odham populations. Other scholars have suggested that the O’odham are related to the Yuma (Whittlesey et al. 1994). This is consistent with linguistic evidence that these groups were closely connected during prehistory (Shaul and Andresen 1989; Shaul and Hill 1998). In addition, Whittlesey et al. (1994:208) point out that the use of rim coils on protohistoric O’odham pottery is remarkably similar to Patayan ceramics.

In sum, inconsistencies in oral traditions, ethnographic data, and historical documents, in conjunction with inconclusive evidence from linguistic models and archaeology, suggest that there is not enough evidence to support a Hohokam-O’odham continuum (Reid and

Whittlesey 1997:109). While there are many models for discontinuity, most scholars suggest that the Hohokam declined by A.D. 1400 and may have migrated north into the Homol’ovi area and then onto the Hopi Mesas or the Rio Grande pueblos (Teague 1993). As a result of pressure from central Mexico, O’odham groups moved into the vacant Pimería Alta from

Sonora or from the east.

Social Reorganization

Many researchers concede that a simple continuity or discontinuity model is highly unlikely (Doelle and Wallace 1991; Doyel 1989; Reid and Whittlesey 1997; Whittlesey 1995;

Whittlesey et al. 1994). Given what is known about the fluidity of prehistoric populations 245 and the likelihood that they were highly mobile, and reorganized themselves periodically, it is reasonable to argue that modern O’odham populations consist of descendants of people who participated in the Hohokam, Trincheras, and Patayan complexes (Moore 2001; Reid

1998). Recent archaeological investigations support interpretations emphasizing regional variation and ethnic co-residence in Arizona (Hill et al. 2004; Whittlesey 1995).

This model suggests that the Hohokam system encompassed a diverse population with fluid definitions of group membership. Populations within the Proto-Yuman and Proto-

Tepiman linguistic groups participated in the Hohokam system, while other Proto-Tepi- man speakers split off and migrated south. The Hohokam regional system continued until

A.D. 1400, when social or environmental disruption forced populations to decentralize and reorganize. Some populations participating in the Hohokam system migrated north to the

Hopi and Zuni areas or south into Mexico, while others remained in the region. Populations also reorganized in Sonora and along the Colorado River. Members of these populations intermixed and coalesced into new communities in the Pimería Alta.

Such a model reconciles O’odham and Hopi oral tradition, ethnographic data, and linguistic evidence. It also may explain why there are so few protohistoric sites in the Pimería

Alta. If these groups were highly mobile during reorganization, as suggested by this model, their remains would be ephemeral. Therefore, this model proposes that the modern O’odham likely represent an amalgamation of peoples who participated in the Hohokam, Trincheras, 246

Sonoran, and Patayan traditions. While this model is considerably more complicated than a one to one correlation with the Hohokam, it addresses the complexities of demographic change and accounts for the persistence and presence of different material signatures in various subregions of the Pimería Alta.

Oral traditions can be marshaled to support a multi-ethnic social reorganization of the

Pimería Alta during the Protohistoric period. While it is possible that O’odham oral traditions changed over time, creating links to the Hohokam, the relationship between the O’odham and the Yuman tribes inhabiting the Lower Colorado River is also defined. In O’odham oral traditions the Yumans were part of the emergent armies marching with the Chief Medicine

Man who helped fight and expel thesiwañi (Bahr 2001). The army approached a river, and the Chief Medicine Man held it open so that they might cross it; however, he was shot with arrows before everyone made it to the far bank. Those members of the army left behind became the Yumans. In these versions of O’odham oral tradition, the Yumans are therefore part of the O’odham who emerged to aid Elder Brother in the war against the Hohokam, implying that the O’odham consider the Yumans to be ancient allies and perhaps kin.

Ethnographic data demonstrate that there were compelling relationships between the

O’odham, the Hohokam, Puebloan groups, and Yuman populations. The Hohokam conquest was an important part of the rainmaking ceremony, and these traditions were reflected in moiety organization (Underhill 1946). The O’odham employed paddle-and-anvil 247 manufacturing techniques, used Hohokam canals, and left offerings at Hohokam sites (Ezell

1961; Underhill 1939). The O’odham also shared some similarities with the Hopi and Zuni in their use of similar ceremonial paraphernalia (Teague 1993). The Hopi Wuwtsim and

Powamuyu rituals share similarities with the O’odham Wiikita ceremony. The Wuwtsim and

Wiikita ceremonies are both held prior to the winter solstice. These ceremonies require the manufacture of prayer sticks and priests wear comparable face decorations and utilize similar religious paraphernalia. By the historical period, O’odham and Yuman speaking groups shared a mutual respect and wariness for items and places associated with death (Kroeber

1925; Russell 1975; Underhill 1939). These groups destroyed the homes of recently deceased peoples and avoided contact with personal items belonging to the dead.

Linguistic data also provide evidence of the antiquity of these multi-ethnic interactions.

Linguistic similarities among the Yuman and Tepiman language groups suggest that River

Yuman and Tepiman groups were in sustained long-term contact before the breakup of either proto-language. The Proto-Tepiman linguistic group may have ranged as far as the

Colorado-Gila confluence. The data indicate that the Hohokam were a multi-ethnic community composed of Proto-Yuman, Proto-Tepiman, and possibly Proto-Zuni groups (Shaul and Hill 1998:389).

Observations about the distribution and interactions of different groups in the Pimería

Alta during the seventeenth century reaffirm these relationships. Kino and Manje both noted 248 the friendly relationship between O’odham along the Gila River and the Opa and Cocomar- icopa, groups who spoke a distinct language and lived farther to the west of the O’odham

(Kino 1985). Kino went so far as to insinuate that the groups were related by marriage.

Manje noted that both O’odham and Yuman speakers lived within the same ranchería along the Gila (Burrus 1971).

These relationships are borne out in the archaeological record. Ceramics uncovered during the Ak-Chin West Side Farms Project demonstrated a blend of Yuman and O’odham ceramic traits during the Protohistoric period (Cable 1990; Deaver 1990). Whittlesey et al.

(1994) has remarked on the similarities among these technologies, particularly the addition of the rim coil to O’odham ceramics, which may have originated on Yuman vessels. The divergent alliances among different O’odham and Yuman groups along the Gila and Colo- rado rivers are well documented (Ezell 1955, 1963b; Hayden 1967). The Hia C-ed O’odham were allied to the Quechan, while the Akimel O’odham were allied to the Maricopa. The ceramic technology of O’odham living near the Gila and Colorado Rivers was more similar to their Yuman neighbors, while O’odham materials at England Ranch Ruin have been likened to materials prevalent along the Río Sonora (Masse 1981). Artifacts from the Altar

Valley are also similar to ceramics found along the Santa Cruz and San Pedro Rivers (Mc-

Guire and Villalpando 1993). 249

These data suggest that O’odham speaking populations interacted with multiple groups during the Protohistoric period. The distribution of ceramic attributes suggests that the

O’odham cohabitated with Yuman-speaking populations along the northern and western boundaries, and possibly Sonoran populations along the southern and eastern boundaries.

After A.D. 1700, O’odham ceramics become more distinct. Along the northern boundary, they begin share more attributes with ceramics manufactured in the south than with Yuman vessels (Cable 1990). By the end of the seventeenth century, O’odham populations were manufacturing ceramics that were more uniform in shape and style (Fontana and Robinson

1970), often painted with vibrant decorative motifs.

Cultural Affiliation Research

The model of protohistoric demographic change presented above has important implications for cultural affiliation research in the Pimería Alta. Ethnographic, oral historical, documentary, and archaeological data have been used to demonstrate that O’odham-speaking populations had considerable contact with Yuman-speaking populations and Río Sonoran groups during the Protohistoric period. This model of social reorganization posits that populations participating in the Hohokam, Trincheras, and Patayan complexes reorganized after A.D. 1450, resulting in an amalgamation of these groups that would later be identified by the Spanish as O’odham and Yuman speakers. If these populations had their roots in 250 multiple archaeological traditions, modern O’odham and Yuman descendents could claim cultural affiliation to multiple archaeological cultures. Modern O’odham and Yuman tribes could conceivably claim affiliation to Hohokam, Trincheras, Patayan, and Salado sites in addition to protohistoric remains found in the Pimería Alta. Further research is necessary, particularly along the Gila, Colorado, and Concepción Rivers and in the Sierra Pinacate, to identify additional protohistoric sites that might shed further light on these relationships and clarify the nature of demographic change in those regions. Chapter 8 will summarize the conclusions presented in this dissertation and outline opportunities for further research. 251

CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSIONS

While the Protohistoric period is important to our knowledge of culture history and central to our understanding of culture change and the effects of Spanish colonialism on indigenous populations, this period is not well understood from an anthropological perspective. Inconsistencies in written accounts and oral histories and ambiguities in ethnographic descriptions and the archaeological record hinder the reconstruction of a complete picture of this period. These difficulties obscure our understanding of the relationships among and between archaeological cultures and historically documented ethnic groups.

Some researchers rely on the direct historical approach to examine the relationship between archaeological complexes and historically documented ethnic groups, and generate models of cultural affiliation. These studies attempt to demonstrate ethnic continuity over deep time; however, such explanations tend to ignore or obscure the fluid nature of group 252 identity and the social turmoil engendered by colonial contexts in an effort to produce a clear line of cultural descent (Lightfoot 1995). Practice theory facilitates the examination of group identity through the identification of deeply held daily practices that reflect the structure of a group’s social system (Bourdieu 1977). This body of theory emphasizes the fluidity and multi-scalar nature of group identity rather than obscuring these complexities. Researchers can use these practices to trace patterns of social reorganization and identify instances where new identities are created (Deagan 1998; Hill 1996). Populations and groups periodically reorganize themselves in response to environmental or social stimuli (Moore 2001; Terrell

2001), but employing practice theory in tandem with the ethnohistorical method enables researchers to trace population reorganization through time, often with the result that a single group may have ties to multiple antecedent populations.

Typologies as Ethnic Markers

Previous research in the Protohistoric period in the Pimería Alta has had the unfortunate and unintentional consequence of engendering links between artifact typologies and historically documented ethnic groups, specifically the Sobaipuri. Whetstone Plain ceramics and Sobaipuri projectile points were employed as ethnic markers for Sobaipuri occupations

(Masse 1981); however, this reanalysis of assemblages from Protohistoric sites across the

Pimería Alta demonstrates that these typologies are inconsistently applied, and artifacts that 253 exhibit these attributes are found well outside the region traditionally associated with the

Sobaipuri (for discussions of this controversy see Cable [1990], Loendorf [2004], Raves- loot and Whittlesey [1987], Vint [2005]). Further complicating the issue is the fact that few protohistoric sites have been intensively excavated and reported, particularly outside of the

San Pedro River drainage. Additionally, many extant collections have been culled, so that the full range of variability reported is no longer available to be verified.

The Whetstone Plain ceramic typology was first defined by Di Peso (1953) and subsequently refined by Masse (1981) and Seymour (2011). However, this reanalysis of plainware ceramics from protohistoric sites, including those with assemblages characterized by Whetstone Plain ceramics, demonstrates that there is a substantial range of variability within the type as previously defined by analysts in relation to thickness, temper, and carbon streaking. Assemblages from non-Sobaipuri sites in the Río Altar are reported as containing

Whetstone Plain (McGuire and Villalpando 1993), and collections from the Papaguería also exhibit attributes shared with this type (Deaver 1990; Haury 1950). These inconsistencies are not surprising given that plainware ceramics are difficult to type. The lack of decoration and surface treatment, the small size of sherds, and a dearth of rims and whole vessels makes the definition of distinctive styles difficult to define and quantify. This does not mean that the attributes associated with Whetstone Plain are not useful in analysis. These attributes represent a range of locally manufactured plainware ceramics distinct from vessels 254 manufactured by the Hohokam and by O’odham during the historical period. At this time, the way that Whetstone Plain ceramics were defined in the past reflects its utility as an archaeological horizon, rather than a style associated with a specific ethnic group.

The situation is similar with Sobaipuri projectile points. Small triangular projectile points with deeply concave bases and serrated margins were identified at several sites along the San Pedro and Santa Cruz River. This type was initially defined and associated with the

Sobaipuri by Masse (1981) and reiterated by Brew and Huckell (1987) and Justice (2002).

Like Whetstone Plain, a significant amount of variation exists within this typology, usually in the absence of serration or a deeply concave base. Additionally, these projectile points are manufactured using two different techniques regardless of material type and site location. Like Whetstone Plain, Sobaipuri projectile points are found throughout the Pimería

Alta, suggesting that they cannot be considered indicative of only Sobaipuri peoples. As argued by Vint (2005), until assemblages associated with Janos, Jocome, and Suma populations are identified, it is not even possible to assume that only O’odham peoples manufactured this style of projectile point. Triangular projectile points with deeply concave bases and serration along the margins were manufactured into the historical period, suggesting that currently this artifact type is better utilized as indicative of a broad time period, rather than ethnic identity. At this point, insufficient data have been reported to justify the primary association of these projectile points specifically with the Sobaipuri. 255 A Model of Hohokam-O’odham Continuity

Several archaeologists and ethnographers posited that the O’odham were the direct descendants of the Hohokam (Dobyns 1966; Ezell 1963a; Haury 1945, 1976a; Underhill 1939,

1946). They based this hypothesis on historically documented behavioral patterns and oral traditions. Both the Hohokam and the O’odham occupied roughly the same territories, engaged in irrigation agriculture, participated in a large exchange network to procure shell and salt, and manufactured ceramics using a paddle-and-anvil technique. Linguistic evidence also suggests that the Proto-Tepiman language has roots in the Phoenix Basin and that speakers of this language may have participated in the Hohokam system. Moreover, some oral traditions recorded in the twentieth century state that the O’odham rose up to conquer the

Hohokam chiefs. These theories disagree as to whether the O’odham were once Hohokam or the Hohokam were absorbed by the O’odham after the conquest. According to proponents of this theory, the Hohokam regional system declined between A.D. 1350 and 1400, and the remnant population settled into loosely affiliated rancherías and participated in a diluted version of the former Hohokam social system (Ezell 1963a; Haury 1976).

There are several problems with this hypothesis, including the selective use of ethnographic and historical-period descriptions, and a lack of supporting physical evidence. Per- haps the most glaring inconsistency lies in the fact that archaeologists have been unable to adequately demonstrate the continuous occupation of Hohokam sites into the Protohistoric 256 period (Ravesloot and Whittlesey 1987). This difficulty lies in the paucity of remains excavated in the Phoenix and Tucson Basins from this period and the inability to assign verifiable absolute dates to those remains that have been recovered. Twentieth-century ethnographic observations regarding the use of irrigation agriculture among the Akimel O’odham are not supported by observations made by the Spanish explorers and missionaries during the seventeenth century (Doelle 1981). Furthermore, earlier oral traditions that were recorded by

Manje and Font during the Spanish colonial period make no mention of the O’odham conquest of the Hohokam or hint at a kinship between the two groups (Bahr et al. 1994). This is further supported by ethnographic observations stating that the Akimel O’odham did not believe in a Hohokam continuum during the early twentieth century (Russell 1975). Ulti- mately, this hypothesis has not found widespread acceptance in the archaeological community due to these ambiguities.

A Model for Sonoran Migration

Detractors of the continuity hypothesis remark on these inconsistencies, and instead suggest a southern origin for the O’odham. The dearth of material remains indicating the continued occupation of Hohokam sites after A.D. 1450 is considered the strongest evidence for discontinuity (Masse 1981; Ravesloot and Whittlesey 1987). It has been argued that

Whetstone Plain ceramics and the assemblage from England Ranch Ruin are more similar 257 to ceramics found in the Río Sonora and the Río Altar than Hohokam plainwares (Fritz

1989; Masse 1981; McGuire and Villalpando 1993). Linguistic data are not inconsistent with this hypothesis, as it is possible that only some Proto-Tepiman speakers participated in the Hohokam system (Shaul and Andresen 1989). Ethnographic observations regarding burial customs, specifically the O’odham practice of inhumation rather than cremation, are cited as evidence that the O’odham are not descended from the Hohokam (Masse 1981;

Underhill 1939). Two oral traditions recorded in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries state that the Hohokam abandoned Casa Grande without reason, or perhaps in response to warfare with the Apache (Bahr et al. 1994).

The migration model posits that after the Hohokam decline, southern Arizona was almost completely abandoned. Migrants from Sonora may have repopulated the region during the Protohistoric period, utilizing the irrigation canals already in place, while gradually incorporating the existing ruins into their oral traditions (Fritz 1989; Masse 1981). This theory has also been questioned as assemblages from the Ak-Chin Indian Reservation and

England Ranch Ruin exhibit characteristics similar to Patayan, Apache, and Yuman assemblages (Ravesloot and Whittlesey 1987). It is also possible either that earlier O’odham origin myths were not recorded accurately, that they were not related in full to those who recorded them, or that they were related with a specific purpose. Currently, comparatively little work focusing on protohistoric sites has been published in Sonora, although this trend 258 is changing, and recent fieldwork carried out by current University of Arizona graduate students may shed light on these relationships. However, at this time the data are equally ambiguous regarding a Sonoran origin for the O’odham.

A Model of Protohistoric Social Reorganization

Researchers concede that a simplistic continuity or migration model lacks the power to reconcile these divergent data sets and adequately explain the complexity of demographic change during the Protohistoric period (Doelle and Wallace 1991; Doyel 1989; Reid and

Whittlesey 1997; Whittlesey 1995; Whittlesey et al. 1994). The model developed in this dissertation proposes that populations in the Greater Southwest reorganized ca. A.D. 1400–

1450. In the Pimería Alta, the decline of these large regional traditions created the conditions necessary for massive reorganization that resulted in a population consisting of the descendants of people who had participated in the Hohokam, Trincheras, and Patayan complexes (Moore 2001; Reid 1998). Some populations participating in the Hohokam system migrated north to the Hopi and Zuni areas, while others remained in the region. Populations also reorganized in Sonora and along the Colorado River. Members of these populations intermixed and coalesced into new communities.

The close relationships between the O’odham, Yuman speakers inhabiting the Lower

Colorado River, and Puebloan groups are evident in oral traditions and ethnographic data. 259

Relationships between the O’odham and Puebloan groups are manifested in similar ceremonial paraphernalia and specific ritual complexes (Teague 1993). Ethnographic records indicate shared reverence and trepidation toward archaeological sites and things associated with the recently deceased (Kroeber 1925; Russell 1975; Underhill 1939). The origins of Yuman speakers are discussed in several O’odham oral traditions (Bahr 2001), with the implica- tion that the O’odham consider the Yumans to be ancient allies and, in some traditions, kin.

Linguistic data affirm these ties by suggesting the Proto-Tepiman and Proto-Yuman speakers were in sustained, long-term contact (Shaul and Hill 1998:389). Written accounts document the alliances persisting between these groups during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Kino also notes that these groups cohabitated and inferred that they were tied together by marriage (Kino 1985). Archaeological data, specifically the widespread characteristics associated with plainware ceramic manufacture, support this model, suggests inter- mingling and coresidence among Yuman, O’odham, and Río Sonoran populations (Cable

1990; Deaver 1990; Ezell 1955, 1963a, 1963b; Masse 1981). The distribution of ceramic attributes suggests that the O’odham cohabitated with Yuman speaking populations along the northern and western boundaries, and possibly Sonoran populations along the southern and eastern boundaries. After A.D. 1700, O’odham ceramics became more formally made, exhibiting intricate painted decoration. 260

Such a model reconciles existing oral traditions, ethnographic observations, linguistic data, and archaeological data. It accounts for the persistence and presence of different material signatures in various subregions of the Pimería Alta and reconciles these material signatures with written accounts of O’odham and Yuman interactions. During this period of reorganization, groups were likely mobile and their remains ephemeral, thereby accounting for the paucity of substantial protohistoric sites in the Pimería Alta. Unlike the previous models, this explanation does not rely on the dominance of one group, but implies that reorganization resulted in a mixing of populations that was reflected in the archaeological record.

Future Avenues of Research

Further research must be conducted to substantiate this proposed model of demographic change. Analyses of written accounts along the Río Sonora may shed light on the nature of populations living there and any relationships they may have had with populations in the

Pimería Alta. More detailed discussions of demographic change are hampered by the fact that curated collections from protohistoric sites have been culled and so few of these sites have been excavated. The identification and excavation of additional protohistoric sites along the Gila, Sonora, and Concepción rivers would provide new information and allow for a comparison with assemblages from the San Pedro and Santa Cruz Rivers. Ongoing research in the San Pedro Valley promises to provide additional comparative data as well. 261

The use of petrographic analyses on existing collections and new data sets may provide further insights to population mobility. The continuation of Hayden’s research in the Sierra

Pinacate would reveal further details about the populations inhabiting that region. Inves- tigations at multicomponent sites near persistent places, such as tinajas, would likely provide valuable data from protohistoric contexts. Such investigations should be extended to the Papaguería as well, considering the fact that protohistoric remains are primarily found associated with water sources or rockshelters in these areas. The accumulation of additional comparative data sets in the future is fundamental to examining population movement during this period. Additional research at protohistoric sites would create opportunities for col- laboration and consultation with descendent communities, particularly because many sites with the potential to yield subsurface deposits are located on tribal land. Pursuit of this line of academic inquiry should and must be undertaken with the cooperation and participation of descendent communities.

This model of protohistoric demographic change has important implications for cultural affiliation research in the Pimería Alta. Ethnographic, oral historical, documentary, and archaeological data are marshaled to demonstrate that O’odham speaking populations had considerable contact with Yuman-speaking populations, Puebloan groups, and possibly Río So- noran groups during the Protohistoric period. This model of social reorganization posits that populations participating in the Hohokam, Trincheras, and Patayan complexes reorganized 262 after A.D. 1450 in the Pimería Alta, resulting in an amalgamation of these groups that would later be identified by the Spanish as O’odham and Yuman speakers. If these populations had their roots in multiple archaeological traditions, O’odham and Yuman descendents could claim cultural affiliation to multiple archaeological cultures. Modern O’odham and Yuman tribes could claim affiliation to Hohokam, Trincheras, Patayan, and Salado sites in addition to protohistoric remains found throughout the Pimería Alta.

Broader Implications

This research examines the Protohistoric period from an ethnohistorical perspective, high- lighting some of the potential pitfalls of using the direct historical approach to reconstruct the relationship between archaeological cultures and historically documented ethnic groups.

The direct historical approach assumes material continuity between archaeological cultures and known groups, relying upon an overly simplistic view of the construction and expression of ethnic identity and ignoring the nature of demographic and cultural change. This trend caused particular problems in the Pimería Alta because archaeological typologies that were equated with the Sobaipuri were not well defined and based on very little data.

Using archaeological typologies as conscious expressions of ethnic identity is not un- common; however, in many instances these patterns are unclear. What archaeologists may perceive as a conscious expression of identity may not have been important to people in 263 the past. For example, the use of certain flaking techniques can be interpreted as an indica- tion of group membership, but it also might be the product of raw material availability or expediency (Vint 2005). Ultimately these interpretations are limited by our ability to gauge whether or not archaeological observations about the significance of an item accurately reflects what people in the past viewed as important. Intentionality is another aspect of ethnic identity that is inherently problematic. Researchers must use caution in ascribing degrees of intentionality to manufacturing and decorative style. The specific style of projectile points may be an intentional manufacturing decision that signals group membership, an unconscious expression of everyday practice, or the result of resource availability (Vint 2005;

Wiessner 1983). The tendency to use typologies as markers of cultural affiliation is a trend perpetuated throughout the discipline. Once introduced into the literature base these trends become convention, and the use of typologies as markers of cultural affiliation becomes reinforced through subsequent use.

This research serves as a cautionary tale. Before scholars can conceive of or examine the complexities of ethnic identity as expressed in the archaeological record, they must first and continually evaluate their data to ensure that what they perceive as evidence of ethnic identity reflects real patterns of cultural practice. It is not always possible to identify ethnic identity through material practices, and if such patterns are visible they are not always obvi- ous. In some cases it may not be possible to accumulate enough data to adequately examine 264 ethnic identity. Particularly among mobile groups, practices that may reflect ethnic affiliation are not always visible in the archaeological record. Hair styles, body ornamentation, and clothing do not preserve, and are only recorded in oral traditions and written accounts.

Ultimately, archaeological typologies and culture areas cannot be taken at face value and equated with ethnic identity. There is not a one-to-one correlation between an artifact and ethnic identity; rather, it is necessary to examine the practices and behaviors that produce materiality and shape residential spaces to understand the suite of practices that construct and/or express ethnic identity. 265

APPENDIX A: cERAMICS, BY sITE 266 - - Comments fire clouds, coarse mica temper, fire clouds, coarse mica temper, fire clouds, coarse mica temper, extra coil applied where rim flares out to coarse temper, body, mica extra coil applied where rim flares out to coarse temper, body, mica extra coil applied where rim flares out to coarse temper, body, mica extra coil applied where rim flares out to coarse temper, body, mica coarse temper, mica coarse temper, rim partially obliter ated, coarse temper, fire clouds, mica rim partially obliter ated, coarse temper, fire clouds, mica continued on next page 40 10 10 10 25 30 Rim 12.5 17.5 12.5 22.5 Present Percentage Percentage 6 7 6 6 9 11 11 13 10 10 Orifice Radius 6 7 11 11 11 14 Size Sherd Sherd

(g) 8.82 78.4 16.9 27.3 82.4 91.5 Weight Weight no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Present Rim Coil yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no no no no Core Core Carbon Present AZ AA:7:158 (ASM) Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd and 7.06 7.71 7.04 7.41 5.88 6.31 7.51 7.78 7.82 7.26 (mm) Thickness jar jar jar Form Vessel Vessel RV/jar RV/jar RV/jar RV/jar RV/jar RV/jar RV/bowl rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion Type Recorded Recorded Plainware Plainware Plainware Plainware Plainware Plainware Plainware Plainware Plainware Plainware Talus Pit 1 Talus Talus Pit 1 Talus Talus Pit 1 Talus Talus Pit 1 Talus Talus Pit 1 Talus Talus Pit 1 Talus Talus Pit 1 Talus Provenience Talus Pit 17 Talus Talus Pit 17 Talus Talus Pit 17 Talus Catalog Catalog Number none none none none none none none none none none 267 - - - Comments fire clouds, coarse mica temper, rim partially obliter ated, coarse temper, fire clouds, mica gray core with pockets of charcoal, mica, pol ished exterior gray core with pockets of charcoal, mica, pol ished exterior mica mica mica mica mica mica mica mica mica continued on next page 5 5 5 5 15 50 10 10 7.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Rim 2.5–5 Present Percentage Percentage 9 9 6 7 7 6 9 7 10 12 8.5 7.5 5.5 Orifice Radius 6 7 4 3 3 3 4 4 5 3 3 10 Size Sherd Sherd

9 (g) 9.3 3.9 4.3 6.2 3.9 9.8 2.8 4.7 40.7 16.3 21.8 Weight Weight no no no no no no no no no no no yes yes Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no yes yes yes yes yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no no no no no no yes Core Core Carbon Present AZ BB:6:9 (ASM) AZ AA:7:187 (ASM) Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd and 6.4 5.9 5.9 6.7 6.31 5.41 6.93 6.63 8.17 5.54 6.34 5.65 5.09 (mm) Thickness jar jar jar? Form bowl bowl Vessel Vessel RV/jar rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion Type Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Untyped Recorded Recorded Plainware Plainware Plainware Plainware Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone 54 #0/10 #1/15 #1/57 #5/14 #5/23 #5/43 #1-#1 Feature 66 Provenience Talus Pit 18 Talus Talus Pit 18 Talus Talus Pit 36 Talus Talus Pit 36 Talus Catalog Catalog Number none none none none none none none none none none none none none 268 Comments mica mica mica mica mica mica mica mica mica mica mica two pieces refit, mica mica mica continued on next page 5 5 5 5 5 5 10 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 7.5 Rim 5–7.5 2.5–5 Present Percentage Percentage 7 9 7 9 7 9 9 6 6 9 11 10 11 13 Orifice Radius 3 4 4 5 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 5 5 3 Size Sherd Sherd

9 (g) 2.5 9.7 9.9 5.2 3.7 8.9 1.5 2.6 3.3 8.4 2.6 11.6 11.5 12.5 Weight Weight no no no no no no no no no no no no no Present Rim Coil unknown unknown no no no no no no no no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no no no no yes yes yes yes yes Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper 4.8 4.9 4.53 6.13 5.64 5.97 6.19 7.41 7.91 4.27 5.73 4.98 6.49 5.05 6.26 (mm) Thickness jar jar jar Form Vessel Vessel rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion Type Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Recorded Recorded Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone #5/8 0/15 10/6 0-11 #5/52 #5/56 #5/58 #5/62 #5/63 10/11 #5/95 ##-14 10/153 #5-188 #5-188 Provenience Catalog Catalog Number none none none none none none none none none none none none none none none 269 Comments mica mica mica mica mica mica mica mica mica mica mica mica mica mica continued on next page 5 5 5 5 5 2.5 7.5 7.5 2.5 7.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Rim Present Percentage Percentage 5 9 8 9 8 7 7 7 7 9 6 11 12 13 Orifice Radius 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 Size Sherd Sherd

(g) 10 2.7 3.7 2.1 8.3 9.7 5.7 6.7 8.2 6.9 4.2 3.9 2.5 2.5 3.6 Weight Weight no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no no no no no no no yes yes Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd and 5.3 6.49 6.01 4.19 6.48 5.12 6.35 7.74 6.32 4.63 6.03 4.83 4.99 4.41 5.77 (mm) Thickness jar jar jar Form Vessel Vessel rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion Type Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Recorded Recorded Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone 63 66 4/1 4/8 14/5 5/50 5/64 1-36 18-2 65-7 none none 34-15 63-15 65-16 Provenience Catalog Catalog Number none none none none none none none none none none none none none none none 270 mica Comments mica mica mica mica mica mica mica mica mica interior slipped red, mica mica mica continued on next page 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Rim Present Percentage Percentage 8 9 7 7 9 7 6 8 11 10 13 13 12 10 Orifice Radius 4 3 3 5 3 3 5 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 Size Sherd Sherd

5 2 (g) 7.3 5.7 3.1 4.2 5.4 9.1 4.4 5.5 3.9 6.2 5.9 2.9 11.8 Weight Weight no no no no no no no no no no no no no no Present Rim Coil unknown no no no no no no no no no yes yes yes yes yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no no no no no no no no yes Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd and 6.01 6.33 6.96 4.89 5.41 5.59 5.74 5.71 5.51 4.67 5.17 7.01 4.71 6.51 4.93 (mm) Thickness jar jar jar Form Vessel Vessel rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion Type Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Possible Recorded Recorded Late Plain Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone X24-? X11-2 X14-5 X29-2 X34-4 X36-1 X36-?? X#4-21 X19-94 X34-## X34-10 X34-21 X34-22 X34-22 X34-22 Provenience Catalog Catalog Number none none none none none none none none none none none none none none none 271 Comments mica mica mica mica mica mica mica mica mica mica mica mica mica mica continued on next page 5 5 5 5 2.5 2.5 7.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Rim 2.5–5 5–7.5 2.5–5 Present Percentage Percentage 9 9 6 7 9 8 8 8 11 12 13 12 10.5 14.5 Orifice Radius 3 3 4 4 3 5 4 3 2 3 3 3 3 4 3 Size Sherd Sherd

3 (g) 2.3 5.8 7.8 6.7 8.7 2.4 1.8 2.4 6.1 3.2 4.4 7.8 1.6 11.4 Weight Weight no no no no no no no no no no no no no Present Rim Coil unknown unknown no no no no no no no no no no yes yes yes yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no no no no no no no no yes Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper 4.37 4.78 5.33 6.57 6.67 7.23 6.75 5.34 5.42 6.05 7.27 4.12 5.85 6.53 5.45 (mm) Thickness jar Form Vessel Vessel rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion Type Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Recorded Recorded Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone X5/22 X38-2 X43-1 X43-1 X43-1 X50-9 X50-9 X50-9 X52-2 X38-25 X41-16 X48-## X50-## X50-10 X50-15 Provenience Catalog Catalog Number none none none none none none none none none none none none none none none 272 mica Comments mica mica mica mica mica mica mica mica mica mica mica mica continued on next page 5 5 5 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Rim 2.5–5 2.5–5 2.5–5 Present Percentage Percentage 8 9 8 7 9 8 7 11 11 10 11 12 10 10 Orifice Radius 5 3 4 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Size Sherd Sherd

2 (g) 4.4 6.3 2.4 1.6 8.7 4.1 2.5 3.1 3.4 1.6 4.5 3.1 3.9 13.3 Weight Weight no no no no no no no no no no no no Present Rim Coil unknown unknown unknown no no no no no no no no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no no no no no no yes yes yes Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd and 6 6.2 4.8 7.22 6.37 4.36 5.53 4.59 5.95 5.78 5.07 6.44 6.18 5.32 7.24 (mm) Thickness jar Form Vessel Vessel rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion Type Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Recorded Recorded Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone X6/42 X52-4 X59-1 X64-1 X64-7 X65-7 X65-7 X65-7 X54-36 X55-35 X58-14 X59-14 X65-15 X65-15 X65-22 Provenience Catalog Catalog Number none none none none none none none none none none none none none none none 273 mica Comments mica mica mica red slipped exterior polished, and interior, slightly outflaring rim, mica coarse temper mica, fire cloud mica coarse temper, mica coarse temper, faint red interior lines, mica mica, fire cloud mica mica continued on next page 5 5 5 5 2.5 Rim <2.5 2.5–5 2.5–5 2.5–5 2.5–5 Present Percentage Percentage 6 7 7 9 11 15 17 14 14 17 Orifice Radius 3 3 4 3 4 2 4 2 3 3 5 2 2 Size Sherd Sherd

(g) 2.7 4.1 8.7 4.8 5.2 1.4 1.7 5.1 5.4 8.9 1.2 3.4 13.2 Weight Weight no no no no no no no no Present Rim Coil unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown no no no no no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Core Core Carbon Present AZ DD:1:21 (ASM) AZ DD:1:129 (ASM) Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper 7 5.27 6.29 7.71 5.73 5.24 8.51 8.16 8.68 5.67 5.71 8.66 (mm) 10.14 Thickness Form Vessel Vessel rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion Type Buff Plain Plain Plain Plain Red-on- Recorded Recorded Redware Plainware Plainware Plainware Plainware Plainware Plainware Plainware Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone X68-4 surface surface surface surface surface X66-3# X66-35 X66-35 (Bag 145) (Bag 155) (Bag 161) (Bag 161) (Bag 267) Provenience surface (Bag 28) surface (Bag 29) surface (Bag 61) surface (Bag 46) Catalog Catalog Number none none none none A19/S A20/S A4¹/S B19/S B4¹/S B9/S C3¹/S C3¹/S NE PER 274 Comments small lip on exterior of rim continued on next page 2.5 7.5 2.5 Rim <2.5 2.5-5 5-7.5 2.5–5 2.5–5 5–7.5 5–7.5 2.5–5 Present Percentage Percentage 8 9 8 9 11 17 10 15 12 16 10 Orifice Radius 3 3 5 4 5 2 4 4 3 2 5 4 2 3 Size Sherd Sherd

1 8 (g) 3.8 2.5 6.2 9.3 6.3 1.9 2.9 3.2 14.8 10.6 17.9 10.9 Weight Weight no no no no no no no no no no no no no Present Rim Coil obliterated no no no no no no no no yes yes yes yes yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no no no no yes yes yes yes Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd and sherd and sherd and sherd and micaceous micaceous micaceous 4.3 7.15 5.83 8.44 6.32 7.88 7.69 8.69 9.21 6.16 6.73 8.81 8.06 5.91 (mm) Thickness jar jar Form Vessel Vessel rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion

Type Plain Plain Plain Plain wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ Recorded Recorded not typed not typed not typed not typed not typed not typed not typed Trincheras Trincheras Trincheras Trincheras Trincheras Trincheras Trincheras Trincheras Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric none none none none none none none none none none none O:14:21 O:14:21 O:14:21 OA-H-33, OA-H-33, OA-H-33, Provenience Catalog Catalog Number 06-4 E14-4 1-16 1-16 2-8 3-10 3-7 7-14 7-6 76-4 79-4 C4-2 E12-2 E14-4 275 Comments rim is concave on the surface, rather than concave on the side, suggesting it may be a scoop red-slipped continued on next page 2.5 2.5 2.5 Rim 2.5–5 2.5–5 2.5–5 2.5–5 2.5–5 2.5–5 2.5–5 5–7.5 Present Percentage Percentage 9 6 9 9 11 11 11 10 12 12 7.5 Orifice Radius 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 4 5 Size Sherd Sherd

4 3 (g) 3.8 4.7 2.8 1.9 2.2 2.2 3.4 7.6 12.4 Weight Weight no no no no no no no no no no Present Rim Coil obliterated no no no no no no yes yes yes yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no yes yes yes yes yes yes Core Core Carbon Present ceous Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd and sherd and sherd and micaceous micaceous mica 6.23 5.16 5.21 7.77 6.84 4.26 5.73 6.31 6.47 6.91 7.04 (mm) Thickness jar jar jar jar Form bowl Vessel Vessel rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion

Type Plain Plain Plain Plain wares wares Plain/ Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ Recorded Recorded not typed not typed Trincheras Trincheras Trincheras Trincheras Trincheras Trincheras Trincheras Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric none none none none none none none O:14:21 O:14:21 OA-H-33, OA-H-34, OA-H-33, COLL #2, COLL OA-H-29, O:14:17-2 Provenience COLL A-2, COLL O:14:22-A-2 Catalog Catalog Number E14-4 H10-4 E14-4 E9-7 F13-4 F13-4 F13-4 F13-4 F13-4 F13-4 G13-3 276 Comments lip overhanging the exterior of rim continued on next page 2.5 2.5 Rim <2.5 <2.5 2.5–5 2.5–5 Present Percentage Percentage 9 10 12 10 17 14 Orifice Radius 4 3 2 3 5 3 3 3 3 Size Sherd Sherd

2 3 (g) 3.5 2.6 3.1 2.5 1.6 11.9 11.3 Weight Weight no no no no no no no no no Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no no yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no yes yes Core Core Carbon Present ceous Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd and sherd and mica 6.57 7.21 5.74 7.39 5.18 7.29 6.42 5.61 (mm) 10.91 Thickness jar Form Vessel Vessel Scoop? rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion

Type wares wares Plain/ Plain/ wares Plain/ wares wares Plain/ Plain/ wares Plain/ Recorded Recorded Redware not typed not typed Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric none none none none none O:14:21 COLL #2, COLL OA-H-29, OA-H-33, COLL #2, COLL OA-H-34, OA-H-29, O:14:17-2 O:14:17-2 Provenience |COLL A-2, |COLL O:14:22-A-2 Catalog Catalog Number H19-4 H8-12 H3-2 H3-4 H3-4 H3-4 H4-4 H7-3 H8-12 277 Comments continued on next page 5 5 Rim <2.5 2.5–5 2.5–5 5–7.5 2.5–5 2.5–5 2.5–5 Present Percentage Percentage 9 7 7 8 11 10 10 12 15 Orifice Radius 5 3 3 3 6 2 3 4 2 3 5 Size Sherd Sherd

(g) 9.4 5.4 5.7 2.5 1.7 3.5 7.2 2.6 5.8 19.9 15.2 Weight Weight no no no no no no no no no no no Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no no no no yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no yes yes yes yes yes Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd and sherd and sherd and micaceous 8.55 8.31 8.91 5.06 5.44 6.62 6.79 9.66 5.67 8.36 9.29 (mm) Thickness jar jar jar Form Vessel Vessel rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion

Type wares wares Plain/ Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ Recorded Recorded Redware Redware not typed not typed not typed not typed Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric none none none none none none none none none O:14:21 OA-H-33, OA-H-34, Provenience COLL A-2, COLL O:14:22-A-2 Catalog Catalog Number H8-12 H9-10 H8-4 H8-4 H8-4 H8-4 H8-4 H8-4 H8-4 H9-10 H9-10 278 Comments prominent shoulder below the rim, small rim diameter suggests this might be a seed jar or a scoop continued on next page 5 Rim <2.5 2.5–5 2.5–5 2.5–5 2.5–5 2.5–5 Present 12.5–15 Percentage Percentage 11 11 10 23 12 12 9.5 7.5 Orifice Radius 3 4 5 3 5 3 3 2 3 3 3 Size Sherd Sherd

(g) 6.8 9.9 5.3 2.7 7.7 1.4 2.9 5.4 2.8 12.8 15.8 Weight Weight no no no no no no no no no no no Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no yes yes yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd and sherd and micaceous micaceous micaceous 7.1 8.38 70.5 7.55 8.23 8.37 6.58 5.81 7.18 6.35 7.13 (mm) Thickness jar jar jar Form Vessel Vessel rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion

Type Plain Plain Plain wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ Recorded Recorded Redware Redware not typed not typed Trincheras Trincheras Trincheras Trincheras Trincheras Trincheras Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric none none none none none none none none none OA-H-34, OA-H-34, Provenience COLL A-2, COLL COLL A-2, COLL O:14:22-A-2 O:14:22-A-2 Catalog Catalog Number H9-10 I10-5 H9-22 H9-22 H9-22 I-10 I10-5 I10-5 I10-5 I10-5 I10-5 279 lip along the rim Comments continued on next page 2.5 2.5 7.5 Rim 2.5–5 2.5–5 2.5–5 2.5–5 2.5–5 Present Percentage Percentage 7 8 10 17 10 20 10 14.5 Orifice Radius 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 2 2 Size Sherd Sherd

4 5 (g) 3.6 3.9 2.6 4.3 5.8 3.7 1.5 Weight Weight no no no no no no no Present Rim Coil unknown obliterated no no no no no no no no no Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no yes yes yes yes yes yes Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd and sherd and 6.5 6.85 7.18 6.97 6.15 8.64 9.45 7.33 5.61 (mm) Thickness jar jar Form Vessel Vessel rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion

Type wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ Recorded Recorded Redware not typed Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric none none none O:14:21 O:14:21 O:14:21 O:14:21 COLL #2, COLL OA-H-29, OA-H-33, OA-H-33, OA-H-33, OA-H-33, OA-H-34, O:14:17-2 Provenience COLL A-2, COLL O:14:22-A-2 Catalog Catalog Number I10-5 I-2 I10-5 I10-5 I10-5 I10-5 I10-9 I12-4 I19-5 280 Comments lip along the rim red slipped, smudging rim lip on the interior, red slipped, smudging rim lip on the interior, continued on next page 5 5 7.5 2.5 2.5 Rim <15 <2.5 5–7.5 2.5–5 2.5–5 5–7.5 2.5–5 Present Percentage Percentage 5 9 9 7 7 5 11 11 10 28 10 Orifice Radius 3 3 5 4 3 3 4 3 2 3 4 4 Size Sherd Sherd

4 (g) 2.7 4.8 2.3 4.2 6.8 4.7 1.6 1.9 8.8 5.2 12.4 Weight Weight no no no no no no no no no no no no Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no no no no no yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd and sherd and sherd and micaceous 8.4 4.7 6.63 6.66 4.62 5.04 5.93 6.63 6.93 6.36 7.65 5.35 (mm) Thickness jar jar jar Form Vessel Vessel rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion

Type wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ Recorded Recorded Redware Redware Redware Redware Redware not typed not typed not typed Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric none none none none none none none none none none OA-H-34, OA-H-34, Provenience COLL A-2, COLL COLL A-2, COLL O:14:22-A-2 O:14:22-A-2 Catalog Catalog Number I-4 I8-4 I7-4 I7-4 I7-4 I7-4 I7-4 I7-4 I8-22 I8-22 I8-22 I8-4 281 Comments lip along the rim continued on next page 2.5 2.5 Rim 2.5–5 2.5–5 2.5–5 2.5–5 2.5–5 2.5–5 Present Percentage Percentage 8 11 11 15 12 16 12 14 Orifice Radius 3 3 4 2 3 4 3 3 4 Size Sherd Sherd

7 (g) 3.3 2.4 6.3 3.9 7.6 5.6 6.1 13.8 Weight Weight no no no no no no no no no Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no no no Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no yes yes yes yes yes Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd and sherd and sherd and 7.14 4.73 6.36 8.04 8.13 6.23 5.81 7.29 9.42 (mm) Thickness jar Form bowl Vessel Vessel Seed jar? rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion

Type wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ Recorded Recorded Redware Redware Redware Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric none none none none none OA-H-34, COLL #2, COLL OA-H-34, COLL #2, COLL OA-H-29, OA-H-29, O:14:17-2 O:14:17-2 Provenience COLL A-2, COLL COLL A-2, COLL O:14:22-A-2 O:14:22-A-2 Catalog Catalog Number I8-4 I8-4 I8-4 I8-4 I8-4 I9-12 I9-12 I9-12 I9-12 282 Comments continued on next page 7.5 2.5 Rim <2.5 2.5–5 2.5–5 2.5–5 2.5–5 5–7.5 7.5–10 Present Percentage Percentage 4 7 8 11 15 15 21 10 10 Orifice Radius 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 Size Sherd Sherd

4 5 (g) 7.4 4.9 4.2 4.6 5.8 10.3 1.31 Weight Weight no no no no no no no no no Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no no no Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no yes yes yes yes Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd and sherd and sherd and sherd and sherd and 6.9 6.61 9.79 6.76 7.65 7.68 7.39 6.07 8.56 (mm) Thickness jar jar jar jar Form bowl Vessel Vessel Seed jar? rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion

Type wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ Recorded Recorded Redware Redware Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric none none none none none none none O:14:21 OA-H-33, OA-H-34, Provenience COLL A-2, COLL O:14:22-A-2 Catalog Catalog Number I9-12 I9-12 I9-4 I9-4 I9-4 I9-4 I9-4 I9-4 I9-4 283 Comments continued on next page 5 2.5 7.5 Rim <2.5 2.5-5 5–7.5 2.5–5 2.5–5 Present Percentage Percentage 9 9 7 11 11 12 10 10 Orifice Radius 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 6 3 Size Sherd Sherd

8 (g) 6.3 6.4 2.8 4.2 8.8 4.4 3.7 9.6 3.1 21.3 Weight Weight no no no no no no no no no no no Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no no no yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no yes yes yes yes yes yes Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd and sherd and sherd and sherd and micaceous micaceous 6.11 7.76 8.47 7.22 6.21 6.35 5.95 6.52 8.96 6.21 7.96 (mm) Thickness jar jar jar jar jar jar Form bowl Vessel Vessel Seed jar? rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion

Type Plain Plain wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ Recorded Recorded Redware Redware Redware Redware not typed Trincheras Trincheras Trincheras Trincheras Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric none none none none none none none none O:14:21 OA-H-34, OA-H-34, OA-H-33, Provenience COLL A-2, COLL COLL A-2, COLL O:14:22-A-2 O:14:22-A-2 Catalog Catalog Number I9-4 I9-4 J11-2 K10-4 K10-4 K10-4 K11-4 K11-4 K11-4 K9-4 K9-4 284 Comments prominent shoulder below the rim, small rim diameter suggests this might be a seed jar or a scoop continued on next page 2.5 2.5 Rim 2.5–5 2.5–5 2.5–5 2.5–5 5–7.5 2.5–5 2.5–5 Present Percentage Percentage 9 7 9 9 11 10 12 12 5.5 Orifice Radius 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 Size Sherd Sherd

3 5 1 6 (g) 3.6 3.3 5.4 4.9 2.1 Weight Weight no no no no no no no no no Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no yes yes yes yes Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd and sherd and 5.6 7.17 6.58 5.96 6.75 5.67 4.95 7.62 5.74 (mm) Thickness Form Vessel Vessel rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion

Type Plain Plain wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ Recorded Recorded not typed Trincheras Trincheras Trincheras Trincheras Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric none none none none none O:14:21 O:14:21 OA-H-34, OA-H-34, OA-H-33, OA-H-33, Provenience COLL A-2, COLL COLL A-2, COLL O:14:22-A-2 O:14:22-A-2 Catalog Catalog Number K9-4 L-13 L13-5 L14-5 M3- M4-2 N8-6 N9-4 N9-4 285 Comments refits with two sherds continued on next page 5 2.5 Rim <2.5 <2.5 2.5–5 5–7.5 2.5–5 2.5–5 5–7.5 Present Percentage Percentage 8 8 9 11 15 16 10 17 13 Orifice Radius 3 3 1 5 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 2 Size Sherd Sherd

(g) 2.6 3.8 0.4 8.7 1.7 2.5 6.6 2.1 2.6 6.9 8.4 3.2 Weight Weight no no no no no no no no no no no no Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no no no yes yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no no no yes yes yes Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd and sherd and sherd and 6.7 6.82 7.37 5.34 5.49 6.72 8.66 6.62 4.98 7.06 6.08 6.39 (mm) Thickness jar jar Form Vessel Vessel rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion

Type wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares wares Plain/ Plain/ Recorded Recorded Redware Redware Redware not typed not typed not typed not typed Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric none none none none none none none O:14:21 O:14:21 OA-H-33, OA-H-34, OA-H-33, COLL #2, COLL OA-H-29, OA-H-34, O:14:17-2 Provenience COLL A-2, COLL COLL A-2, COLL O:14:22-A-2 O:14:22-A-2 Catalog Catalog Number NA NA none O11-2 O6-4 O6-4 O6-4 P0-2 P10-3 P10-3 P10-3 P10-3 286 Comments prominent shoulder below the rim, small rim diameter suggests this might be a seed jar or a scoop continued on next page 2.5 2.5 Rim <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 2.5–5 2.5–5 2.5–5 7.5–10 7.5–10 Present Percentage Percentage 9 5 9 11 11 12 15 10 10 Orifice Radius 2 3 3 3 5 4 3 3 3 2 Size Sherd Sherd

(g) 2.6 2.9 3.4 4.6 7.3 2.6 3.4 4.9 2.1 10.4 Weight Weight no no no no no no no no no no Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no no yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no yes yes yes yes Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd and sherd and sherd and sherd and 7.9 7.1 5.11 6.92 7.22 9.36 7.43 8.48 5.46 6.99 (mm) Thickness Form Vessel Vessel rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion

Type wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ Recorded Recorded Redware not typed not typed not typed not typed Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric none none none none none none OA-H-34, OA-H-34, OA-H-34, COLL #2, COLL OA-H-29, O:14:17-2 Provenience COLL A-2, COLL COLL A-2, COLL COLL A-2, COLL O:14:22-A-2 O:14:22-A-2 O:14:22-A-2 Catalog Catalog Number P10-3 P10-3 P8-4 P8-4 P9-4 P9-4 P9-4 Q10-4 Q10-4 T5-4 287 Comments micaceous schist micaceous schist refits with two sherds continued on next page 2.5 2.5 Rim 5–7.5 2.5–5 2.5–5 2.5–5 2.5–5 2.5–5 Present Percentage Percentage 8 8 11 10 12 12 15 9.5 Orifice Radius 4 3 4 3 2 4 3 4 4 3 Size Sherd Sherd

6 3 (g) 6.7 3.1 4.5 2.2 7.3 5.1 8.5 10.1 Weight Weight no no no no no no no no Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no no yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no no yes yes Core Core Carbon Present AZ EE:2:80 (ASM) Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd and sherd and sherd and 6.84 6.83 7.54 6.36 5.77 7.03 7.52 7.26 4.91 6.63 (mm) Thickness jar jar Form Vessel Vessel rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim body body Vessel Vessel Portion

Type Plain tiated tiated wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ wares Plain/ Eroded, Eroded, Recorded Recorded not typed not typed not typed Trincheras Trincheras Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric Prehistoric - undifferen - undifferen

none none none none none none 0–5 cm 0–5 cm O:14:21 Feature 1, Feature 1, COLL #2, COLL OA-H-29, OA-H-33, O:14:17-2 Provenience Catalog Catalog Number T7-4 T9-4 T9-4 U3-5 U7-4 U7-4 U7-4 U7-4 F4-1 F4-1 288 - - micaceous schist micaceous schist mica mica micaceous schist, char coal flecks mica, charcoal flecks mica mica micaceous schist mica micaceous schist, char coal flecks Comments mica mica continued on next page 7.5 Rim Present Percentage Percentage 13 Orifice Radius 4 2 2 2 6 3 3 4 2 3 3 4 4 2 Size Sherd Sherd

6 (g) 6.5 2.4 1.6 1.1 3.5 2.4 6.2 2.2 3.9 2.9 1.2 32.7 10.3 Weight Weight Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no no no no no no no no Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no no no no no no no Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd, sand and organic and organic organic and organic organic and organic 7.4 6.8 6.63 6.02 7.95 6.95 5.29 5.54 5.73 6.39 4.58 6.83 6.09 6.17 (mm) Thickness jar jar Form Vessel Vessel rim body body body body body body body body body body body body Neck Vessel Vessel Portion I I I Type Plain Plain Plain tiated tiated tiated brown brown brown brown II Type II Type II Type Eroded, Eroded, Eroded, Red-on- Red-on- Red-on- Red-on- Recorded Recorded not typed - undifferen - undifferen - undifferen Plain Type Plain Type Plain Type

0–5 cm 0–5 cm 0–5 cm 0–5 cm 0–5 cm 0–5 cm 0–5 cm 0–5 cm 0–5 cm 0–5 cm 0–5 cm 0–5 cm 0–5 cm 0–5 cm Feature 1, Feature 1, Feature 1, Feature 1, Feature 1, Feature 1, Feature 1, Feature 1, Feature 1, Feature 1, Feature 1, Feature 1, Feature 1, Feature 1, Provenience F4-1 Catalog Catalog Number F4-1 F4-1 F4-1 F4-1 F4-1 F4-1 F4-1 F4-1 F4-1 F4-1 F4-1 F4-1 F4-1 289 mica Comments mica mica mica mica continued on next page Rim Present Percentage Percentage Orifice Radius 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 Size Sherd Sherd

(g) 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.3 0.9 2.1 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.5 Weight Weight Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no no no no Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no no no no Core Core Carbon Present AZ EE:2:83 (ASM) Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper 5.7 5.15 5.81 5.51 5.02 4.99 5.28 4.12 4.89 (mm) 10.07 Thickness Form Vessel Vessel body body body body body body body body body body Vessel Vessel Portion Type Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Recorded Recorded Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone ------house house house house house house house house house house Provenience Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of F3-2 Catalog Catalog Number F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 290 mica Comments continued on next page Rim Present Percentage Percentage Orifice Radius 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Size Sherd Sherd

(g) 0.9 0.3 1.1 0.3 0.5 0.4 1.2 0.4 1.3 1.3 Weight Weight Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no no no yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no no no no Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper 4.9 5.24 5.06 3.68 6.04 6.15 5.36 4.03 4.21 4.29 (mm) Thickness Form Vessel Vessel body body body body body body body body body body Vessel Vessel Portion Type Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Recorded Recorded Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone ------house house house house house house house house house house Provenience Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of Catalog Catalog Number F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 291 Comments mica mica continued on next page Rim Present Percentage Percentage Orifice Radius 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 Size Sherd Sherd

(g) 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.4 0.7 Weight Weight Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no no no no Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no no no no Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper 5.89 5.43 5.24 5.13 4.45 5.58 5.21 6.27 4.05 4.94 (mm) Thickness Form Vessel Vessel body body body body body body body body body body Vessel Vessel Portion Type Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Recorded Recorded Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone ------house house house house house house house house house house Provenience Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of Catalog Catalog Number F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 292 Comments continued on next page Rim Present Percentage Percentage Orifice Radius 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 Size Sherd Sherd

(g) 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.6 1.2 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 Weight Weight Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no no no no Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no no no no Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper 4.5 4.5 3.86 5.06 5.66 5.05 4.83 5.78 4.18 3.93 (mm) Thickness Form Vessel Vessel body body body body body body body body body body Vessel Vessel Portion Type Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Recorded Recorded Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone ------house house house house house house house house house house Provenience Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of Catalog Catalog Number F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 293 Comments mica mica continued on next page Rim Present Percentage Percentage Orifice Radius 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 Size Sherd Sherd

(g) 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.3 Weight Weight Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no no no no Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no no no no Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper 4.25 4.85 6.64 4.77 4.83 4.41 5.24 4.02 4.88 4.22 (mm) Thickness Form Vessel Vessel body body body body body body body body body body Vessel Vessel Portion Type Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Recorded Recorded Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone ------house house house house house house house house house house Provenience Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of Catalog Catalog Number F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 294 Comments mica mica continued on next page Rim Present Percentage Percentage Orifice Radius 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 4 Size Sherd Sherd

6 (g) 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.4 Weight Weight Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no no no no Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no no no no Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper 4.03 3.82 4.29 4.27 4.29 4.53 4.27 4.32 5.39 5.83 (mm) Thickness Form Vessel Vessel body body body body body body body body body body Vessel Vessel Portion Type Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Recorded Recorded Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone ------house house house house house house house house house house Provenience Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of Catalog Catalog Number F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 295 mica mica Comments mica continued on next page Rim Present Percentage Percentage Orifice Radius 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 4 3 Size Sherd Sherd

(g) 3.5 2.5 1.2 1.8 1.3 2.5 1.5 1.9 7.1 1.8 Weight Weight Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no no no no Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no no no no Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper 4.65 5.35 4.97 5.88 4.46 4.85 4.97 4.25 6.03 4.33 (mm) Thickness Form Vessel Vessel body body body body body body body body body body Vessel Vessel Portion Type Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Recorded Recorded Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone ------house house house house house house house house house house Provenience Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of Catalog Catalog Number F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 296 Comments mica mica mica mica continued on next page Rim Present Percentage Percentage Orifice Radius 3 3 3 3 4 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 Size Sherd Sherd

(g) 3.4 2.2 1.5 3.1 5.3 0.8 1.1 2.2 6.5 4.3 0.7 1.9 2.7 Weight Weight Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no no no no no no no Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no no no no no no no Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper 4.2 5.1 9.05 4.62 5.38 5.59 4.99 6.45 9.75 6.45 6.32 4.81 (mm) 11.17 Thickness Form Vessel Vessel body body body body body body body body body body body body body Vessel Vessel Portion Type Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Recorded Recorded Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone - - - - - house house house house house surface surface surface surface surface surface 0–5 cm 0–5 cm Provenience Feature 1-4, Feature 3-1, Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of Catalog Catalog Number F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F0-57 F0-149 F0-34 F0-25 F0-26 F0-51 F1-4 F3-1 297 Comments mica mica mica mica, sooting on one side continued on next page Rim Present Percentage Percentage Orifice Radius 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 Size Sherd Sherd

(g) 2.5 2.5 4.2 0.7 3.1 2.4 0.8 0.6 0.9 1.4 0.7 1.5 2.8 0.8 1.4 Weight Weight Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no no no no no no no yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper 7.5 5.6 6.11 6.71 7.28 5.14 4.63 5.82 6.03 6.49 5.58 5.86 7.34 5.56 5.15 (mm) Thickness Form Vessel Vessel body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body Vessel Vessel Portion Type Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Recorded Recorded Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface Provenience Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Catalog Catalog Number F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 298 Comments mica mica sooting on one side continued on next page Rim Present Percentage Percentage Orifice Radius 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Size Sherd Sherd

3 (g) 1.5 0.9 0.8 6.2 0.7 1.8 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.7 1.2 0.8 0.8 1.9 Weight Weight Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no no no no no no no yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper 4.8 8.5 6.71 5.65 9.78 4.79 4.96 6.48 5.42 4.95 8.07 4.32 5.15 4.86 7.17 (mm) Thickness Form Vessel Vessel body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body Vessel Vessel Portion Type Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Recorded Recorded Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface Provenience Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Catalog Catalog Number F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 299 mica Comments mica mica mica mica mica continued on next page Rim Present Percentage Percentage Orifice Radius 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Size Sherd Sherd

(g) 0.8 2.7 0.9 1.2 1.3 1.3 0.7 1.3 1.4 1.2 3.2 0.8 1.3 1.7 0.8 Weight Weight Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper 5 7.4 5.11 5.07 4.89 5.02 4.01 5.25 5.81 5.22 8.59 5.66 4.99 4.52 5.16 (mm) Thickness Form Vessel Vessel body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body Vessel Vessel Portion Type Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Recorded Recorded Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface Provenience Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Catalog Catalog Number F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 300 mica Comments sooting on one side mica continued on next page Rim Present Percentage Percentage Orifice Radius 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 Size Sherd Sherd

2 (g) 1.4 3.5 1.3 5.3 1.3 3.7 4.6 8.5 1.5 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.4 1.5 Weight Weight Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no no no no no no yes yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper 4.8 4.4 5.65 8.68 3.92 9.65 5.03 5.98 7.82 3.91 4.72 4.66 6.56 6.43 (mm) 10.25 Thickness Form Vessel Vessel body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body Vessel Vessel Portion Type Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Recorded Recorded Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone

surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface 0–5 cm 0–5 cm 0–5 cm 0–5 cm 0–10 cm Provenience Feature 2-3, Feature 2-3, Feature 2-3, Feature 2-3, Test Pit 2-2, Test Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Catalog Catalog Number F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F2-3 F2-3 F2-3 F2-3 TP 2-2 TP F35-49 F35-49 301 mica Comments mica mica mica mica continued on next page Rim Present Percentage Percentage Orifice Radius 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Size Sherd Sherd

1 (g) 0.8 1.5 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.7 Weight Weight Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no no no yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper 4.5 4.92 6.91 7.08 3.26 4.32 3.73 4.27 5.45 4.64 4.36 (mm) Thickness Form Vessel Vessel body body body body body body body body body body body Vessel Vessel Portion Type Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Recorded Recorded Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone ------house house house house house house house house surface surface surface Provenience Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of Catalog Catalog Number F35-49 F35-49 F35-49 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 302 mica mica mica Comments continued on next page Rim Present Percentage Percentage Orifice Radius 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 4 3 3 Size Sherd Sherd

2 (g) 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.6 1.9 5.1 1.9 Weight Weight Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no no no no Wiping Present Striations Striations yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper 4.3 4.34 4.37 4.29 4.32 4.35 5.94 4.82 5.06 4.45 (mm) Thickness Form Vessel Vessel body body body body body body body body body body Vessel Vessel Portion Type Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Recorded Recorded Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone ------house house house house house house house house house house Provenience Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out Feature 2, out side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of side NE end of F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 Catalog Catalog Number F3-2 F3-2 F3-2 303 mica mica Comments mica continued on next page Rim Present Percentage Percentage Orifice Radius 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 Size Sherd Sherd

2 2 2 (g) 2.4 1.6 0.7 1.1 1.4 0.5 7.9 1.7 1.1 1.7 1.1 4.81 Weight Weight Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no Wiping Present Striations Striations yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper 7.4 6.4 4.8 7.04 5.25 5.72 6.08 6.63 5.38 6.89 5.76 4.81 5.42 4.21 5.58 (mm) Thickness Form Vessel Vessel body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body Vessel Vessel Portion Type Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Recorded Recorded Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone - house surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface 0–5 cm 0–5 cm 0–5 cm 0–5 cm Provenience Feature 1-4, Feature 1-4, Feature 1-4, Feature 1-4, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Feature 2, out side NE end of F0-50 Catalog Catalog Number F3-2 F0-16 F0-62 F0-54 F1-4 F1-4 F1-4 F1-4 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 F07-142 304 mica Comments mica mica mica mica mica mica continued on next page Rim Present Percentage Percentage Orifice Radius 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 Size Sherd Sherd

3 (g) 1.7 4.2 1.1 1.4 2.9 3.9 0.9 1.7 2.3 1.4 2.2 1.6 0.7 2.3 Weight Weight Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no no no no no no no no yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd and sherd and 5.66 5.34 4.07 5.88 6.98 7.42 6.61 7.09 6.71 6.17 5.74 7.74 6.49 6.67 6.68 (mm) Thickness Form Vessel Vessel body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body Vessel Vessel Portion Type Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Recorded Recorded Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone

surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface 0–5 cm 0–5 cm 0–10 cm 0–10 cm 0–10 cm 0–10 cm Provenience Feature 2-3, Feature 2-3, Test Pit 2-2, Test Test Pit 2-2, Test Test Pit 2-2, Test Test Pit 2-2, Test Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, F2-3 Catalog Catalog Number F07-142 F07-142 F2-3 TP 2-2 TP TP 2-2 TP TP 2-2 TP TP 2-2 TP F35-49 F35-49 F0-143 F35-49 F35-49 F35-49 F07-142 305 mica voids from organic voids from organic temper mica Comments mica continued on next page Rim Present Percentage Percentage Orifice Radius 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 4 2 2 3 Size Sherd Sherd

1 6 (g) 2.2 3.4 1.5 3.1 7.6 0.8 0.6 5.2 0.8 0.7 4.7 Weight Weight Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no no no no no no no Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd and sherd and sherd and sherd and sherd and sherd and sherd and sherd and sherd and sherd and sherd and sherd and sherd and 6.5 8.2 7.38 9.67 6.35 6.68 4.09 5.23 3.91 8.48 7.24 (mm) 10.76 12.29 Thickness Form Vessel Vessel body body body body body body body body body body body body body Vessel Vessel Portion Type Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Recorded Recorded Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone - -

house surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface interior interior Feature 1, Feature 1, Provenience vated house vated house Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Feature 2, out side NE end of surface of exca surface of exca F0-52 F0-61 F0-17 F0-53 F0-18 F0-58 F0-59 F3-2 Catalog Catalog Number F07-142 F3-9 F07-142 F07-142 F3-9 306 mica mica mica mica mica Comments mica mica mica mica mica mica mica mica continued on next page Rim <2.5 <2.5 Present Percentage Percentage Orifice Radius 4 5 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 1 2 2 4 5 2 Size Sherd Sherd

1 (g) 5.5 1.9 8.3 1.1 1.8 0.8 5.2 3.6 0.5 1.9 1.4 7.7 6.4 10.8 Weight Weight no Present Rim Coil unknown no no no no no no no no no no no no yes yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd and sherd and sherd and sherd and sherd and sherd and sherd and sherd and sherd and sherd and sherd and sherd and sherd and 4.8 5.3 7.3 8.28 7.58 4.87 4.82 7.44 7.18 7.68 6.09 7.63 4.51 7.88 (mm) 10.82 Thickness jar jar Form Vessel Vessel rim rim body body body body body body body body body body body body Neck Vessel Vessel Portion Type Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Recorded Recorded Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone - -

face house surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface 0–5 cm 0–5 cm 0–5 cm 0–10 cm 0–10 cm Provenience Feature 1-4, Feature 2-3, Feature 2-3, Test Pit 2-2, Test Test Pit 2-2, Test Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, Feature 2, out side NE end of Feature 2-1, sur Catalog Catalog Number F1-4 F2-1 F019-23 F019-23 F07-142 F07-142 F2-3 TP 2-2 TP TP 2-2 TP F35-49 F35-49 F35-49 F2-3 F3-2 F0-55 307 Comments mica mica mica mica not from Quiburi, mica mica exterior obscured by reconstructing plaster continued on next page 60 50 2.5 Rim 100 Present Percentage Percentage 11 10 12 10.5 Orifice Radius 2 3 5 2 2 2 Size Sherd Sherd

(g) 2.9 3.3 9.1 1.3 0.9 0.6 Weight Weight no no no no no no no no no Present Rim Coil no no no no yes yes yes yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no yes yes Core Core Carbon Present AZ EE:4:11 (ASM) AZ EE:4:11 AZ EE:2:95 (ASM) Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd and sherd and 5.11 8.23 8.37 5.36 4.84 5.02 6.92 9.88 8.51 (mm) Thickness jar jar jar jar jar Form Vessel Vessel RV RV RV rim rim body body body body Vessel Vessel Portion Type Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Recorded Recorded Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone SO#31 surface surface Feature 1 Feature 1 Feature 1 SO#31 and Provenience both houses 2-4 m NE of 2-4 m NE of 2-4 m NE of Wash in NW in NW Wash minute series in floor fill of Sherd cluster, Sherd cluster, goon Quad 15 Floor of House Floor of House of Alamos Tres cevice in Johnny 2 m south of F. 1 2 m south of F. corner of Sec 15, SO#32, scattered Lyons Hills, west Lyons T14S, R21E Dra - Catalog Catalog Number F0-56 F019-23 F0-3 F0-2 F0-2 F0-2 1725 57 58 308 mica mica polished exterior, mica polished exterior, Comments mica mica exterior carbonized deposits, mica burned, mica fire clouds, recon - structed mica polished interior continued on next page 5 95 90 65 50 80 7.5 7.5 Rim 7.5–10 Present 15–17.5 Percentage Percentage 8 7 5 8 11 11 11 11 10 14.5 Orifice Radius 5 6 5 7 13 Size Sherd Sherd

(g) 15.3 16.8 89.5 15.5 21.2 Weight Weight no no no no no no no no no no Present Rim Coil no no no no no yes yes yes yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no yes Core Core Carbon Present unknown unknown unknown unknown Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper 5.32 6.82 4.75 5.68 6.25 5.65 6.03 6.36 7.98 7.02 (mm) Thickness jar jar jar jar Form bowl bowl bowl bowl Vessel Vessel RV RV RV RV RV rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion Type Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Recorded Recorded Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone - - - none none none none Q/181 Q/100 SO#34 and SO#34 and with Q/222 Provenience both houses both houses in floor fill of in floor fill of ner under olla ner over Q/180 Floor of House Floor of House Floor of House Floor of Houses Floor of Houses SO#53 NW cor SO#53 NW SO#53 NW cor SO#53 NW SO#75 NW cor SO#75 NW SO#36 scattered SO#36 scattered ner in association Catalog Catalog Number 181 180 221 61 59 none none none none none 309 mica Comments fire clouds reconstructed, mica slightly folded rim, partially obliterated rim mica interior polished, red slipped white ash and rock mica temper, mica mica burned, mica mostly obliterated rim, slightly folded rim, mica continued on next page 5 5 15 10 10 95 2.5 2.5 Rim 12.5 12.5 5–7.5 5–7.5 2.5–5 7.5–10 Present Percentage Percentage 4 9 9 9 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 12 15 17 Orifice Radius 4 5 7 6 7 7 7 6 4 5 4 4 4 10 Size Sherd Sherd

5 (g) 33 8.7 6.2 7.8 7.4 5.7 14.5 27.2 20.9 22.9 79.8 34.1 19.5 Weight Weight no no no no no no no no no no no no no yes yes Present Rim Coil no no no no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no no no no no no no yes yes Core Core Carbon Present AZ EE:8:15 (ASM) Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd and 4.58 7.82 7.85 7.94 6.44 7.29 7.81 7.85 5.57 5.04 5.27 7.34 6.54 5.89 5.13 (mm) Thickness jar jar jar jar Form bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl Vessel Vessel RV rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion Type Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Recorded Recorded not typed not typed not typed not typed Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone Whetstone none none none none Q/55 Q/55 Q/55 Q/81 Q/81 Q/81 Q/85 Q/122 Q/BP2 Provenience SW corner of SW House SO#57 West wall pump West Catalog Catalog Number none none none none none none none none none 173 none none none none none 310 mica mica Comments refits with 2nd sherd, charcoal flecks in temper refits with 2nd sherd, charcoal flecks in temper mica mica mica buff ware, mica buff slightly outflaring rim, mica mica mica mica mica continued on next page 5 5 5 15 10 2.5 2.5 2.5 7.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Rim 12.5 12.5 Present Percentage Percentage 6 7 9 7 6 7 6 8 11 11 11 15 13 13 10 Orifice Radius 3 3 3 9 5 4 5 5 5 3 4 3 3 6 11 13 Size Sherd Sherd

(g) 11 16 4.4 2.4 2.3 7.6 3.6 7.1 2.9 3.1 87.3 40.1 10.6 10.5 14.1 126.8 Weight Weight no no no no no no no no no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Present Rim Coil no no no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no no no no no no yes yes yes yes Core Core Carbon Present AZ Z:12:5 (ASM) AZ Z:7:163 (ASM) Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd and sherd and sherd and sherd and 4.9 5.4 5.8 8.71 5.91 5.39 5.18 8.13 7.77 4.56 4.57 5.15 5.43 5.48 5.59 5.83 (mm) Thickness jar jar jar jar Form Vessel Vessel rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion Type Buff Plain Plain Plain Papago Papago Papago Papago Red-on- Recorded Recorded not typed not typed not typed Plainware Plainware Plainware Plainware Plainware Plainware Plainware Plainware Plainware none none none none none none none surface surface P4 0-.50 O4 0-.50 O4 0-.50 N4 0-.50 O4 0-.50 N4 0-.50 M4 0-.50 Provenience Catalog Catalog Number none none none none none none none none A-5919 none none none none none none none 311 - - - mica slipped interior and ex polished, mica, terior, fire clouds mica Comments mica carbonized exterior, carbonized exterior, mica mica mica red slipped interior mica, and exterior, polished slipped interior and exterior slipped interior and ex partially obliter terior, ated rim, polished continued on next page continued on next page 5 5 5 10 10 10 15 15 2.5 7.5 2.5 Rim 12.5 Present Percentage Percentage 5 7 8 6 7 9 8 11 12 10 14 12 Orifice Radius 7 3 3 3 5 5 4 6 5 4 3 7 6 Size Sherd Sherd

(g) 16 4.9 3.3 3.2 8.7 8.4 5.4 9.6 9.3 3.7 13.7 30.5 14.1 Weight Weight no no no no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no yes yes yes yes yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no no no yes yes yes yes Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper 7.2 5.99 6.44 6.55 6.57 6.63 6.02 6.75 6.32 6.42 6.81 6.88 7.22 (mm) Thickness jar Form Vessel Vessel rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion Red Red Red Type Plain Papago Papago Papago Papago Recorded Recorded Redware Redware Black-on- Plainware Plainware Plainware Plainware Plainware Plainware Plainware Black-on- Black-on- none none none R6 0-.5 F2 0-.50 R3 0-.50 N4 0-.50 N4 0-.50 O4 0-.50 N4 0-.50 O4 0-.50 M5 0-.30 M5 0-.30 Provenience Catalog Catalog Number none none none none none none none none A-59120 none none none none 312 - - - - three stacked rim coils, possibly papaya, smudged interior slipped interior and oblit partially exterior, erated rim, polished, mica Comments mica slipped interior and ex partially obliter terior, ated rim, polished red slipped interior and exterior slipped interior and oblit partially exterior, erated rim, polished, mica partially obliterated rim mica eroded interior, slipped eroded interior, mica, fire exterior, clouds, coarse temper mica continued on next page continued on next page 5 10 15 10 15 10 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 Rim Present Percentage Percentage 8 6 8 7 8 6 5 9 7 8 9 12 12 Orifice Radius 6 5 4 7 6 9 9 3 8 4 7 6 5 Size Sherd Sherd

(g) 8.3 4.8 7.8 18.7 12.7 22.1 22.3 62.3 46.1 22.8 31.1 30.1 15.3 Weight Weight no no no no no no no yes yes yes yes yes yes Present Rim Coil no no no no no no no yes yes yes yes yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no no yes yes yes yes yes Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd and sherd and sherd and 7.8 7.6 9.11 7.28 7.61 7.46 8.16 7.51 8.29 8.51 8.63 8.76 (mm) 10.32 Thickness jar jar jar jar jar jar Form Vessel Vessel rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion Red Red Red Red Type Papago Papago Papago Papago Recorded Recorded Redware Redware Redware Black-on- Plainware Black-on- Plainware Black-on- Plainware Plainware Black-on- Plainware Plainware none none none none S5 0-.5 F .0-.50 F2 0-.50 F1 0-.50 F2 0-.50 L2 0-.50 F# .0-.50 F# .0-.50 M2 0-.50 Provenience Catalog Catalog Number none none none none none none none none none none none none none 313 - - - outflaring rim, fire clouds, folded rim slightly obliterated, polished, ritually de stroyed clouds fire rim, straight slightly outflaring rim, fire clouds, obliterated folded rim partially obliterated rim Comments slightly outflaring rim, fire clouds, red slipped, ritually de stroyed straight rim, fire clouds, ritually de stroyed fire clouds outflaring rim, burned, fire clouds, partially obliterated folded rim prominent folded rim, long neck, fire clouds, exterior red paint on neck continued on next page continued on next page 50 75 90 50 2.5 Rim 100 100 100 100 Present Percentage Percentage 8 9 5 11 18 12 10 7.5 Orifice Radius 5 Size Sherd Sherd

(g) 20.1 Weight Weight no no no no yes yes yes yes yes Present Rim Coil no no no no yes yes yes yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no yes yes yes yes Core Core Carbon Present AZ Z:16:6 (ASM) Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd and 6.25 6.56 6.85 6.09 7.43 6.22 6.15 7.56 (mm) 12.44 Thickness jar jar jar jar Form bowl bowl bowl bowl Vessel Vessel Scoop RV RV RV RV RV RV RV RV rim Vessel Vessel Portion Type Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Plain Brown Papago Papago Papago Papago Papago Papago Papago Red-on- Recorded Recorded Redware Papago Red surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface L2 0-.50 Provenience 3762 3758 Catalog Catalog Number none 3760 3757 3766 3763 3761 3759 314 - - slightly outflaring rim, fire clouds slightly outflaring rim, obliterated folded rim, fire clouds ritually de stroyed slightly outflaring rim, burned, fire clouds, ritually destroyed? recurved rim, par tially obliterated with charcoal flecks in the temper Comments recurved rim, slight lip on exterior recurved rim recurved rim recurved rim recurved rim continued on next page continued on next page 5 70 60 10 10 15 15 7.5 Rim 100 5–7.5 Present Percentage Percentage 7 7 5 7 3 5 8 15 15 14 Orifice Radius 6 4 3 4 4 5 3 Size Sherd Sherd

(g) 5.8 4.1 9.1 8.1 4.2 13.5 14.7 Weight Weight no no no no no no no no yes yes Present Rim Coil no no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations HPS-13 no no no no no no no no no yes Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd and 8.01 8.04 7.06 8.27 5.73 6.21 6.86 6.05 6.49 7.71 (mm) Thickness jar Form bowl bowl Vessel Vessel RV RV RV rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion Type Plain Plain Plain Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Papago Papago Papago Recorded Recorded Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface Provenience Catalog Catalog Number 3765 Lot 001 3764 3756 Lot 001 Lot 001 Lot 001 Lot 001 Lot 001 Lot 001 315 direct rim Comments direct rim, mica recurved rim direct rim direct rim, mica direct rim direct rim direct rim recurved rim, mica continued on next page 5 5 10 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 Rim 12.5 2.5–5 Present Percentage Percentage 8 6 5 5 5 3 13 10 10.5 Orifice Radius 3 4 5 4 6 4 3 4 5 7 Size Sherd Sherd

9 4 (g) 13 2.1 4.1 8.8 5.3 3.9 14.6 16.9 Weight Weight no no no no no no no no no no Present Rim Coil no no no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no no no yes Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper 5.1 6.33 5.79 5.77 6.97 7.46 5.76 4.87 6.39 4.26 (mm) Thickness Form Vessel Vessel Scoop rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion Type Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Recorded Recorded Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Buffware Buffware Colorado Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface Provenience Catalog Catalog Number Lot 001 Lot 001 Lot 001 Lot 001 Lot 001 Lot 001 Lot 001 Lot 001 Lot 001 Lot 001 316 recurved rim Comments recurved rim recurved rim recurved rim recurved rim, mica direct rim, partially reconstructed, rim notched direct rim, partially reconstructed direct rim, partially reconstructed recurved rim continued on next page 5 5 5 15 10 25 25 7.5 7.5 Rim 12.5 Present Percentage Percentage 6 7 4 9 9 3 4 8 16 12 Orifice Radius 9 7 6 3 6 4 6 11 14 14 Size Sherd Sherd

4 (g) 7.1 40.9 19.3 22.4 12.8 87.3 76.5 41.7 14.6 Weight Weight no no no no no no no no no no Present Rim Coil no no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no no no no Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper 7.1 6.33 6.37 4.92 5.69 6.39 6.14 5.34 6.47 4.84 (mm) Thickness jar jar Form bowl Vessel Vessel Scoop rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion Type Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Recorded Recorded Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface Provenience Catalog Catalog Number Lot 001 Lot 001 Lot 001 Lot 001 Lot 001 Lot 001 Lot 001 Lot 001 Lot 001 Lot 001 317 - - - - direct rim Comments recurved rim, mica recurved rim recurved rim, quartz and mica, red triangle design on exterior recurved rim, quartz and mica, coarse tem per recurved rim, polished exterior direct rim, brown par allel lines on exterior recurved rim, obliter ated reinforced rim recurved rim, red dec oration on both interior and exterior continued on next page 5 5 5 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 7.5 Rim 5–7.5 Present Percentage Percentage 9 8 6 8 4 8 11 10 10 Orifice Radius 8 4 3 3 3 4 4 5 3 4 Size Sherd Sherd

(g) 3.8 1.8 1.7 2.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 3.4 48.5 10.1 Weight Weight no no no no no no no no no yes Present Rim Coil no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations HPS-20 no no no no no no no no no no Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper 5.5 4.3 5.59 5.23 4.44 5.68 5.66 6.23 4.82 7.66 (mm) Thickness Form bowl Vessel Vessel rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion Type Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Recorded Recorded Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface Provenience Catalog Catalog Number Lot 002 Lot 002 Lot 002 Lot 002 Lot 011 Lot 011 Lot 011 Lot 011 Lot 011 Lot 011 318 - recurved rim, red exte mica gray interior, rior, Comments recurved rim, very little temper recurved rim, folded partially obliterated rim, red decoration on exterior recurved rim, large recurved rim, large folded rim direct rim, coarse temper direct rim, very little scum coat temper, direct rim recurved rim, polished on both exterior and interior recurved rim, slight lip on exterior of rim recurved rim, slight lip on exterior of rim continued on next page 5 5 5 5 15 20 2.5 2.5 Rim Present Percentage Percentage 6 9 4 5 7 8 11 17 Orifice Radius 2 3 2 4 9 6 4 4 4 3 Size Sherd Sherd

(g) 1.7 3.3 1.1 4.7 6.6 6.7 4.2 1.5 41.3 14.6 Weight Weight no no no no no no no no yes yes Present Rim Coil no no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no no yes yes Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper 6.1 6.49 5.87 8.09 4.49 5.43 6.36 5.86 5.61 4.69 (mm) Thickness jar Form Vessel Vessel rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion Type Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Recorded Recorded Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface Provenience Catalog Catalog Number Lot 011 Lot 011 Lot 011 Lot 011 Lot 011 Lot 011 Lot 011 Lot 011 Lot 011 Lot 011 319 recurved rim, charcoal flecks in temper Comments recurved rim, slight lip on exterior of rim recurved rim, rim notched direct rim, slight lip on exterior of rim recurved rim, slight lip on exterior of rim direct rim direct rim, quartz, rim notched direct rim direct rim, slight lip on exterior of rim continued on next page 5 5 5 5 15 7.5 2.5 2.5 Rim 2.5–5 Present Percentage Percentage 6 8 8 7 4 7 3 9 7.5 Orifice Radius 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 Size Sherd Sherd

(g) 2.6 1.2 3.8 4.7 2.7 2.2 2.4 3.2 4.7 3.9 Weight Weight no no no no no no no no yes yes Present Rim Coil no no no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no no no yes Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper clay and 6.6 5.5 6.4 5.7 7.1 6.33 6.66 6.51 4.43 4.63 (mm) Thickness Form Vessel Vessel rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion Type Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Recorded Recorded Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Buffware Colorado Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface Provenience Catalog Catalog Number Lot 011 Lot 011 Lot 011 Lot 011 Lot 011 Lot 011 Lot 011 Lot 011 Lot 011 Lot 011 320 - - direct rim, coarse temper Comments direct rim recurved rim direct rim direct rim recurved rim, mica direct rim, garnet and quartz recurved rim, pockets rim of ash in temper, has slight lip on ex terior recurved rim, coarse barnacle pres temper, ent in temper continued on next page 5 5 5 5 5 20 10 7.5 7.5 Rim 5–7.5 Present Percentage Percentage 4 5 8 9 9 7 11 11 14 17 Orifice Radius 5 4 6 4 5 4 5 4 6 5 Size Sherd Sherd

(g) 6.4 5.6 7.9 9.8 9.6 8.6 7.4 13.4 21.1 12.2 Weight Weight no no no no no no no no no yes Present Rim Coil no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no no no no no yes Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper shell and sherd and 6.1 7.5 4.42 4.25 5.56 7.12 6.96 5.31 5.39 7.83 (mm) Thickness Form Vessel Vessel rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion Type Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Recorded Recorded Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface Provenience Catalog Catalog Number Lot 011 Lot 011 Lot 011 Lot 011 Lot 011 Lot 011 Lot 011 Lot 011 Lot 011 Lot 013 321 - recurved rim, mica Comments recurved rim, quartz, rim is partially obliter ated direct rim, mica recurved rim, very little temper direct rim, incised hatching on exterior recurved rim, mica, coarse temper direct rim, Patayan I eccentric form, looks like ash temper direct rim, garnet and quartz recurved rim recurved rim, coarse smudged temper, polished red interior, exterior continued on next page 5 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 7.5 7.5 Rim 2.5–5 2.5–5 2.5–5 Present Percentage Percentage 9 8 7 7 8 8 7 7 12 14 Orifice Radius 3 4 5 4 3 3 6 4 3 3 Size Sherd Sherd

2 4 5 (g) 6.7 8.1 7.6 5.5 2.1 4.1 17.7 Weight Weight no no no no no no no no no yes Present Rim Coil no no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations Don Pedro no no no no no no no no no no Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper clay and 5.8 6.36 8.44 5.85 6.08 6.22 5.55 6.72 4.38 5.98 (mm) Thickness jar Form Vessel Vessel rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim rim Vessel Vessel Portion Type Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Recorded Recorded Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Buffware Colorado Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware Buffware surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface Provenience Catalog Catalog Number Lot 013 Lot 013 Lot 013 Lot 013 Lot 014 Lot 014 Lot 015 Lot 015 Lot 015 Lot 015 322 - - irregular rim, handle on the side, fire clouds, micaceous schist outflaring rim, red no paint on exterior, slip, micaceous schist, fire clouds slightly outflaring rim, fire clouds, micaceous schist, white lines on exterior un exterior, slipped outflaring rim, mica ceous schist, exterior hatching design straight rim, coarse red slipped temper, fire clouds, exterior, lug handle attached, micaceous schist Comments continued on next page continued on next page Rim Present Percentage Percentage Orifice Radius 2 50 50 70 90 33 Size Sherd Sherd

5 7 11 (g) 10 0.9 9.5 Weight Weight no no no no no no Present Rim Coil no no no no yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no yes yes Core Core Carbon Present AZ U:13:125 (ASM) AZ U:13:124 (ASM) AZ U:13:123 (ASM) Type sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper 5.79 4.51 7.04 7.01 6.99 (mm) 12.51 Thickness jar jar Form bowl bowl bowl Vessel Vessel RV RV RV RV RV rim Vessel Vessel Portion Type Pima Lower Brown on-Buff on-Buff Recorded Recorded Colorado Buffware Pima Red White-on- Pima Red- Pima Red- Pima Plain surface surface surface surface surface surface Provenience A-46865 Catalog Catalog Number Lot 109 A-46871 A-46893 A-46850 A-46851 323 - - - - outflaring rim, mica ceous schist, design on exterior and top of rim, polished outflaring rim, fire clouds, micaceous schist, red design ex terior and on rim lip, polished outflaring rim, pink/ red slipped, polished, fire clouds, micaceous schist straight rim, coarse mi - clouds, fire temper, caceous schist, highly eroded exterior straight rim, mica ceous schist outflaring rim, mica ceous schist, polished, fire clouds Comments slightly outflaring rim, slipped interior and fire clouds, exterior, micaceous schist continued on next page continued on next page Rim Present Percentage Percentage Orifice Radius 50 40 25 85 25 20 Size 22.5 Sherd Sherd

9 9 9 (g) 10 10 15 11.5 Weight Weight no no no no no no no Present Rim Coil no no no no no no yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no yes yes yes yes Core Core Carbon Present AZ U:13:130 (ASM) AZ U:13:129 (ASM) AZ U:13:131 (ASM) Type sand sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd and 5.65 6.77 4.91 7.65 7.35 9.91 6.61 (mm) Thickness jar jar jar Form bowl bowl bowl bowl Vessel Vessel RV RV RV RV RV RV RV Vessel Vessel Portion Type on-Buff on-Buff Recorded Recorded Pima Red Pima Red Pima Buff Pima Red- Pima Red- Pima Plain Pima Plain surface surface surface surface surface surface surface Provenience A-46892 A-46859 A-46895 A-46858 Catalog Catalog Number A-46837 A-46872 A-45870 324 - - - - Comments slightly outflaring rim, fire clouds, micaceous schist, carbonized de diag - posits on interior, onal lines of red paint no slip on exterior, outflaring rim, red slipped, polished, mi caceous schist, course carbon de - temper, fire posits on exterior, clouds slightly outflaring folded rim, no slip, red car swirls on exterior, bonization on interior, firing clouds, mica ceous schist flat rim, outcurving sides, fire clouds, red/ pink slip wide outflaring rim, thick red bands with chevrons, no slip, fire clouds, scraping on carbon flecks interior, micaceous in temper, schist straight rim, red/pink slip, highly eroded, micaceous schist, fire clouds continued on next page Rim Present Percentage Percentage Orifice Radius 70 40 75 20 Size 22.5 12.5 Sherd Sherd

9 11 (g) 10 10 20 1.5 Weight Weight no no no no no yes Present Rim Coil no no no no yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no no no yes Core Core Carbon Present AZ U:13:136 (ASM) Type sand sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd and 8.57 7.75 8.68 9.52 5.85 (mm) 10.01 Thickness jar jar jar jar Form bowl bowl Vessel Vessel RV RV RV RV RV RV Vessel Vessel Portion Type on-Buff on-Buff on-Buff Recorded Recorded Pima Red Pima Red on-Brown Pima Red- Pima Red- Pima Red- Pima Red- surface surface surface surface surface surface Provenience Catalog Catalog Number A-48108 A-48109 A-46883 A-46898 A-48107 A-48106 325 - - - rim is slightly flared out, coarse temper, micaceous schist, fire clouds, slipped exte rior slightly outflaring rim, micaceous schist, slipped exterior and interior outflaring rim, red slipped, interior and exterior glazed green ish yellow designs, polychrome, highly eroded, badly burned outflaring rim, pol ished, micaceous schist, coarse temper Comments slightly outflaring rim, micaceous schist, fire clouds, thin body continued on next page continued on next page Rim Present Percentage Percentage Orifice Radius 60 30 30 25 50 Size Sherd Sherd

7 11 (g) 15 15 6.5 Weight Weight no no no no no Present Rim Coil no no no no no Wiping Present Striations Striations no yes yes yes yes Core Core Carbon Present AZ U:13:41 (ASM) AZ U:13:36 (ASM) AZ U:13:144 (ASM) AZ U:13:145 (ASM) AZ U:13:171 (ASM) Type sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd and 6.2 4.86 7.82 8.47 4.28 (mm) Thickness jar jar Form bowl bowl bowl Vessel Vessel RV RV RV RV RV Vessel Vessel Portion Type Glazed Papago on-Red Recorded Recorded Pima Red Pima Plain Pima Plain Pima Black- surface surface surface surface surface Provenience none A-46861 Catalog Catalog Number A-46889 A-46878 A-46855 326 - - straight rim, red slipped interior and fire clouds, exterior, micaceous schist outflaring rim, red slipped, fire clouds, black swirls on exteri some design along or, interior rim flat rim, slightly in curving sides, fire clouds wide outflaring rim, white slipped, red paint, thick organic hatching and swirls on micaceous exterior, schist, fine temper slightly outflaring rim, fire clouds, micaceous schist, exterior paint with hatches slightly outflaring rim, fire clouds, micaceous schist Comments continued on next page continued on next page Rim Present Percentage Percentage Orifice Radius 90 90 15 25 Size 100 12.5 Sherd Sherd

5 (g) 16 17 9.5 7.5 10.5 Weight Weight no no no no no no Present Rim Coil no no no yes yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations no no no yes yes yes Core Core Carbon Present AZ U:13:98 (ASM) AZ U:13:45 (ASM) AZ U:14:14 (ASM) AZ U:13:85 (ASM) Type sand sand sand sand sand sand? Temper Temper 5.03 6.38 5.91 8.46 8.85 (mm) 11.17 Thickness jar jar jar Form bowl bowl bowl Vessel Vessel RV RV RV RV RV RV Vessel Vessel Portion Type on-Red on-Red Recorded Recorded on-White on-White Pima Red- Pima Red- Pima Plain Pima Plain Pima Black- Pima Black- surface surface surface surface surface surface Provenience A-46870 A-45871 A-46876 A-46885 Catalog Catalog Number A-46888 A-46880 327 - - outflaring rim, slipped interior and exterior, exterior polished, fire clouds, carbonized patches on exterior, mica coarse temper, ceous schist Comments slightly outflaring rim, fire clouds, micaceous schist, carbonized deposits on exterior, coarse temper outflaring rim, coarse micaceous temper, schist, fire clouds, two bands of carbonized material around body and rim outflaring rim, red slipped, dark carbon deposits on exterior, micaceous schist, pol ished on exterior and interior continued on next page continued on next page Rim Present Percentage Percentage Orifice Radius 50 40 95 30 Size Sherd Sherd

(g) 13 10 12 11.5 Weight Weight no no no no Present Rim Coil no no no yes Wiping Present Striations Striations GR-517 GR-1582 GR-1469 GR-1530 no no yes yes Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand Temper Temper 8.22 7.93 (mm) 10.56 10.61 Thickness jar jar jar jar Form Vessel Vessel RV RV RV RV Vessel Vessel Portion Type Recorded Recorded Pima Red Pima Red Pima Plain Pima Plain surface surface surface surface Provenience Catalog Catalog Number A-46886 A-45868 A-46874 A-46864 328 - Comments widely outflaring rim, mica coarse temper, ceous schist, polished, fire clouds, portions covered with white modern paint, red slipped interior slightly outflaring rim, coarse temper, carbonized deposits on fire clouds, exterior, micaceous schist outflaring rim, coarse polished, fire temper, clouds, micaceous schist outflaring rim, coarse micaceous temper, schist, red slipped polished on interior, exterior flat rim, wide lug handle, coarse temper, micaceous schist, fire clouds continued on next page Rim Present Percentage Percentage Orifice Radius 95 85 90 25 30 Size Sherd Sherd

(g) 12 13 15 9.5 11.5 Weight Weight no no no no no Present Rim Coil no no yes yes yes Wiping Present Striations Striations GR-1693 GR-1710 GR-1743 GR-1792 GR-1795 no no yes yes yes Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand sand Temper Temper sherd and sherd and 7.27 7.87 7.71 8.24 (mm) 11.83 Thickness jar jar jar jar Form bowl Vessel Vessel RV RV RV RV RV Vessel Vessel Portion jar Type Recorded Recorded Pima Red Pima Plain Pima Plain Pima Plain Pima Plain surface surface surface surface surface Provenience Catalog Catalog Number A-46863 A-45869 A-46879 A-46867 A-46884 329 - - - - - straight rim, coarse fire clouds, temper, micaceous schist, lightly eroded exterior, slipped interior and exterior deco exterior, rated with faint black lines flat rim, small upside down “u-shaped” handle, coarse temper, red slipped interior and black carbon exterior, ized remains on exte micaceous schist rior, Comments terior, carbon deposits terior, coarse on exterior, micaceous temper, schist outflaring rim, red slipped interior and polished ex exterior, slightly outflaring rim, little red paint remains, carbonized deposits on polished exte exterior, coarse temper rior, continued on next page Rim Present Percentage Percentage Orifice Radius 90 40 Size 100 22.5 Sherd Sherd

(g) 10 12 12 10 Weight Weight no no no no Present Rim Coil no no no no Wiping Present Striations Striations GR-1915 GR-2237 GR-2018 GR-2223 no no no yes Core Core Carbon Present Type sand sand sand sand Temper Temper 6.08 9.21 6.98 8.24 (mm) Thickness jar jar Form bowl bowl Vessel Vessel RV RV RV RV Vessel Vessel Portion Type on-Red Recorded Recorded Pima Red Pima Red Pima Plain Pima Black- surface surface surface surface Provenience Catalog Catalog Number A-46868 A-46890 A-46866 A-46857 330 flat rim, fire clouds Comments Rim Present Percentage Percentage Orifice Radius 30 Size Sherd Sherd

9 (g) Weight Weight no Present Rim Coil yes Wiping Present Striations Striations GR-2362 no Core Core Carbon Present Type sand Temper Temper 6.77 (mm) Thickness Form bowl Vessel Vessel RV Vessel Vessel Portion Type Recorded Recorded Pima Plain surface Provenience Catalog Catalog Number A-46860 : RV refers to reconstructed vessels. Note : RV 331

APPENDIX B: PROJECTILE POINTS, BY SITE 332 - - - - Remarks small portion of the tip is missing, con - cave base, pro nounced serra - tion along edges one base tang broken, deeply concave base, pronounced ser ration along edges pronounced ser ration along edges, concave base pronounced ser ration along edges, concave base serrated edges continued on next page edge edge edge edge edge Process trimmed trimmed trimmed trimmed trimmed

Manufacture Manufacture Weight (g) Weight

0.6 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4

Position (mm) Position Maximum Width Width Maximum

1.6 1.47 0.73 1.28

tion (mm) tion

- Indenta Basal

5.59 4.97 3.36 4.78 3.88

(mm) Basal Width Width Basal

9.3

10.4 8.84

11.31 (mm) Axial Length Length Axial

14.25 14.53 15.47 10.92

ness (mm) ness

- Thick Maximum

2.52 2.56 1.72 2.85 2.17 Width (mm) Width

8.22

(mm) Maximum Width Width Maximum

9.3

10.4 8.84 11.31 Length (mm) Length

26.1 16.71

Length (mm) Length AZ BB:6:9 (ASM)

AZ AA:12:98 (ASM) Maximum Maximum

17.49 18.87 13.48 Portion Present Portion base whole

of base

and most complete complete body and tip, blade,

plete

- Com Percent

99 90 100 100 100

Fragment (F) Fragment

Whole (W) or or (W) Whole F F W W W Color

red

gray gray pink black Material chert chert chert basalt jasper Form point point point point point Recorded Recorded projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Burial 1 Burial 1 Burial 1 Burial 1 upper fill in Area A stripping, Feature 1, Provenience

75-88-1 Catalog Catalog Number 75-88-2 75-88-3 75-88-4 A-46481-X-2 333 Remarks serrated edges, both tangs on base broken, edge of basal tip visible, notch broken off small side notches, slightly serrated no basal notch, straight edges serrated edges serrated edges, one tang and tip broken serrated edges continued on next page edge edge edge edge Process thinned thinned trimmed trimmed trimmed trimmed

bifacially bifacially

Manufacture Manufacture Weight (g) Weight

0.1 0.4 0.7 0.2 1.3 0.2

Position (mm) Position Maximum Width Width Maximum 0

1.66 3.02

tion (mm) tion

- Indenta Basal

3.8 5.1

5.02 2.49

(mm) Basal Width Width Basal

11.39 13.01 13.43 (mm) Axial Length Length Axial 17

11.59 19.52 19.83

ness (mm) ness

- Thick Maximum

1.76 2.39 3.55 2.59 5.26 2.43 Width (mm) Width

9.47 8.27

10.51 (mm) Maximum Width Width Maximum

11.41 13.01 13.43 Length (mm) Length

11.27 10.49 14.92

Length (mm) Length Maximum Maximum 17

19.92 22.37 Portion Present Portion base whole whole whole half of of base

and most and body body and tip, body, tip, body,

some base plete

- Com Percent

60 85 75 100 100 100

Fragment (F) Fragment

Whole (W) or or (W) Whole F F F W W W Color pink purple brown opaque opaque opaque reddish

- - - - Material ny ny ny ny lite chert chal chal chal chal rhyo - cedo - cedo - cedo - cedo - Form point point point point point point and In - Recorded Recorded digenous projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Hohokam area area trash (Oval Fill of central mound surface general in work in south location floor fill stripping stripping Feature 2, Feature 37 general fill general fill House 18), Feature 30, Feature 34, Feature 34, Feature 34, Provenience

Catalog Catalog Number A-46484-X-2 A-46502-X-1 A-46487-X-2 A-46487-X-1 A-46503-X-1 A-46488-X-1 334 Remarks serrated edges serrated edges, one basal tang broken serrated edges, one basal tang broken serrated edges continued on next page edge edge edge Process thinned trimmed trimmed trimmed

bifacially

Manufacture Manufacture Weight (g) Weight

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.1

Position (mm) Position Maximum Width Width Maximum

1.02 0.89

tion (mm) tion

- Indenta Basal

11.3 4.51 7.35 2.03

(mm) Basal Width Width Basal

9.05 8.23

(mm) Axial Length Length Axial

9.99 12.97 13.08 15.07

ness (mm) ness

- Thick Maximum

1.83 2.78 2.63 1.59 Width (mm) Width

8.3

11.74 (mm) Maximum Width Width Maximum

9.08 8.23 Length (mm) Length

18.86 17.52

Length (mm) Length Maximum Maximum

11.99 14.78 Portion Present Portion whole whole

of base of base

and most and most tip, body, tip, body, tip, body, tip, body,

plete

- Com Percent

85 85 100 100

Fragment (F) Fragment

Whole (W) or or (W) Whole F F W W Color gray white white opaque

- Material ny chert chert chal chert cedo - Form point point point point Recorded Recorded projectile projectile projectile projectile Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri - tion side upper (Oval (Oval gravel in low - surface er fill to loose 10 floor fill stripping wall sec cm of fill Use area- at base of near main wall stone floor level Feature 37 Feature 51 depression House 18), House 21), Feature 50, Feature 44, on the west Provenience

Catalog Catalog Number A-46490-X-1 A-46489-X-1 A-46488-X-2 A-46492-X-1 335 - Remarks serrated edges, base has mostly but broken off, 1/3 of a tine re mains base missing serrated edges serrated edges, base missing serrated edges continued on next page edge edge edge Process thinned thinned trimmed trimmed trimmed

bifacially bifacially

Manufacture Manufacture Weight (g) Weight

0.2 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.2

Position (mm) Position Maximum Width Width Maximum

1.94 1.27

tion (mm) tion

- Indenta Basal

3.52 3.88

(mm) Basal Width Width Basal

9.92

11.02 (mm) Axial Length Length Axial

8.46 14.95

ness (mm) ness

- Thick Maximum

2.87 1.98 3.08 2.46 4.14 Width (mm) Width

9.43 7.83

12.97 (mm) Maximum Width Width Maximum

9.99 11.06 Length (mm) Length

13.26 16.14 15.64

Length (mm) Length Maximum Maximum

11.36 17.59 Portion Present Portion tip tip body whole whole

part of tip and

body and body and

plete

- Com Percent

70 60 50 100 100

Fragment (F) Fragment

Whole (W) or or (W) Whole F F F W W Color gray white white purple opaque

- Material ny chal chert chert chert chert cedo - Form point point point point point and In - Recorded Recorded digenous projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Hohokam - edge fill?) rocks (Oval (Oval (Oval (Oval (Oval general circle of fill (floor floor lev el on east fill within floor level Feature 51 Feature 51 Feature 51 Feature 51 Feature 54 general fill House 21), House 21), House 21), House 21), House 26), Provenience

Catalog Catalog Number A-46508-X-2 A-46491-X-1 A-46491-X-2 A-46509-X-1 A-46492-X-2 336 - Remarks serrated edges serrated edg es, tip and base broken serrated edges, both tangs on base missing, edge of basal notch visible continued on next page edge Process thinned thinned trimmed

bifacially bifacially

Manufacture Manufacture Weight (g) Weight

0.4 0.8 0.5

Position (mm) Position Maximum Width Width Maximum

0.97

tion (mm) tion

- Indenta Basal

4.26

(mm) Basal Width Width Basal

8.66

(mm) Axial Length Length Axial

18.1 16.86

ness (mm) ness

- Thick Maximum

3.82 3.94 4.69 Width (mm) Width

9.39

14.41 (mm) Maximum Width Width Maximum

8.66 Length (mm) Length

16.52 18.75

Length (mm) Length Maximum Maximum

18.23 Portion Present Portion tip body whole

body and

plete

- Com Percent

50 75 100

Fragment (F) Fragment

Whole (W) or or (W) Whole F F W Color red brown opaque

- Material ny chert chal cedo - jasper Form point point point and In - Recorded Recorded digenous projectile projectile projectile Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Hohokam rocks rocks (Oval (Oval fill NE fill NE pot just south of circle of circle of is NE of is NE of sherds to atripping of pile of pile rocks that rocks that fill around Feature 57 Feature 66 Feature 66 House 27), House 27), Feature 55, Provenience

Catalog Catalog Number A-46494-X-1 A-46504-X-2 A-46501 337 Remarks serrated edges, one basal tang missing serrated edges, one basal tang missing serrated edges continued on next page Process thinned thinned thinned

bifacially bifacially bifacially

Manufacture Manufacture Weight (g) Weight

0.1 0.4 0.5

Position (mm) Position Maximum Width Width Maximum

0.5

tion (mm) tion

- Indenta Basal

3.4

3.19 3.75

(mm) Basal Width Width Basal

11.45 (mm) Axial Length Length Axial

15.11 12.42 17.15

ness (mm) ness

- Thick Maximum

2.48 4.27 3.84 Width (mm) Width

9.6

7.96

(mm) Maximum Width Width Maximum

11.45 Length (mm) Length

15.12 16.48

Length (mm) Length Maximum Maximum

20.42 Portion Present Portion whole

of base of base

and most and most tip, body, tip, body, tip, body, tip, body,

plete

- Com Percent

85 80 100

Fragment (F) Fragment

Whole (W) or or (W) Whole F F W Color purple opaque opaque

- - Material ny ny chal chal chert cedo - cedo - Form point point point and In - Recorded Recorded digenous projectile projectile projectile Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Hohokam rocks rocks rocks (Oval (Oval (Oval pile of pile of fill NE fill near fill near north of north of circle of circle of circle of is NE of of pile rocks just rocks just rocks that Feature 66 Feature 66 Feature 66 House 27), House 27), House 27), Provenience

Catalog Catalog Number A-46500-X-2 A-46498-X-2 A-46500-X-1 338 Remarks no basal notch, straight edges no basal notch, straight edges serrated edges serrated edges, one basal tang missing continued on next page edge edge edge Process thinned trimmed trimmed trimmed

bifacially

Manufacture Manufacture Weight (g) Weight

0.7 0.2 0.1 0.3

Position (mm) Position Maximum Width Width Maximum 0 o

0.95

tion (mm) tion

- Indenta Basal

4.92 1.79 5.24

(mm) Basal Width Width Basal

8.11

11.44 10.03 (mm) Axial Length Length Axial

8.72 20.63 13.82 15.86

ness (mm) ness

- Thick Maximum

3.47 1.78 1.16 2.33 Width (mm) Width

10.82 (mm) Maximum Width Width Maximum

8.24 11.36 10.22 Length (mm) Length

20.9

Length (mm) Length Maximum Maximum

20.77 10.45 13.95 Portion Present Portion whole whole whole

of base

and most tip, body, tip, body,

plete

- Com Percent

85 100 100 100

Fragment (F) Fragment

Whole (W) or or (W) Whole F W W W Color white brown opaque opaque reddish

- - Material ny ny chal chal chert cedo - cedo - jasper Form point point point point and In - Recorded Recorded digenous projectile projectile projectile projectile Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Hohokam rocks rocks rocks rocks (Oval (Oval (Oval (Oval pile of pile of fill near fill near north of north of circle of circle of circle of south end rocks just rocks just fill within Feature 66 Feature 66 Feature 66 Feature 66 fill outside of circle House 27), House 27), House 27), House 27), Provenience

Catalog Catalog Number A-46497-X-2 A-46499-X-1 A-46499-X-2 A-46497-X-1 339 Remarks serrated edges, one basal tang missing serrated edges, tip and one tang missing serrated edges, both basal tangs broken serrated edges serrated edges, tip missing continued on next page edge Process thinned thinned thinned thinned trimmed

bifacially bifacially bifacially bifacially

Manufacture Manufacture Weight (g) Weight

0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2

Position (mm) Position Maximum Width Width Maximum

1.22 1.14

tion (mm) tion

- Indenta Basal

3.54 3.55 3.09 3.83

(mm) Basal Width Width Basal

9.3

9.32

(mm) Axial Length Length Axial

10.78 16.36

ness (mm) ness

- Thick Maximum

2.5 1.65 3.93 3.08 2.73 Width (mm) Width

8.19 7.82

11.19 (mm) Maximum Width Width Maximum

9.3 9.32 Length (mm) Length

13.7 13.68 13.62 10.61

Length (mm) Length Maximum Maximum

19.65 Portion Present Portion tip base base whole

half of of base

and most body and body and body and tip, body, tip, body,

plete

- Com Percent

80 85 60 90 100

Fragment (F) Fragment

Whole (W) or or (W) Whole F F F F W Color red white white opaque opaque

- - Material ny ny chert chal chert chal cedo - cedo - jasper Form none point point point point and In - Recorded Recorded digenous projectile projectile projectile projectile Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Hohokam rocks rocks rocks (Oval (Oval NE of within general surface, 3rd area of rocks circle of circle of circle of most ex - area), fill northern - unknown (Pithouse 24?-work site in the fill in pile fill within tension of Feature 66 Feature 66 Feature 66 House 27), House 27), Provenience

Catalog Catalog Number A-46505 A-46496-X-2 A-46498-X-1 A-46481-X-1 None 340 Remarks described as type v described as lightly type v, constricted on body after tip described as tip bro - type v, ken described as serrated type v, edges described as serrated type v, edges continued on next page edge edge edge Process thinned trimmed trimmed trimmed

bifacially

Manufacture Manufacture Weight (g) Weight

0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2

Position (mm) Position Maximum Width Width Maximum

1.77 1.56 1.29 1.73

tion (mm) tion

- Indenta Basal

6.88 4.18 4.03 4.39 3.26

(mm) Basal Width Width Basal

9.96 9.03

11.36 10.52 (mm) Axial Length Length Axial

12.94 13.84 17.69

ness (mm) ness

- Thick Maximum

4.21 2.61 2.64 2.36 2.19 Width (mm) Width

9.6

(mm) Maximum Width Width Maximum

9.95 9.06 11.36 10.74 Length (mm) Length

11.6 17.79 15.26

Length (mm) Length

AZ BB:11:20 (ASM) AZ BB:11:20 Maximum Maximum

15.44 20.98 Portion Present Portion base base whole whole

of base

and most body and body and tip, body, tip, body,

plete

- Com Percent

85 90 80 100 100

Fragment (F) Fragment

Whole (W) or or (W) Whole F F F W W Color red

gray white

brown brown reddish Material chert chert chert chert jasper Form point point point point point Recorded Recorded projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Hohokam Hohokam - - face Room of site second 1 (Fea - in Grid surface ture 1), general north of Room 1 low sur area just fill from west end Square 2 stripping stripping stripping lower fill and lower 10 cm be surface on Feature 29 (Feature 1) Feature 12, Feature #0, Provenience area east of

Catalog Catalog Number A-40393 A-40361 A-40365 A-40416-X-1 A-40360 341 Remarks described as type v described as one bas - type v, al tang missing, serrated edges described as one bas - type v, al tang missing, serrated edges described as one bas - type v, al tang missing, serrated edges base missing continued on next page edge Process thinned thinned thinned thinned trimmed

bifacially bifacially bifacially bifacially

Manufacture Manufacture Weight (g) Weight

0.2 0.3 0.6 0.2

Position (mm) Position Maximum Width Width Maximum

1.31 3.14

tion (mm) tion

- Indenta Basal

5.11 2.75 3.96 3.92

(mm) Basal Width Width Basal

10.16 (mm) Axial Length Length Axial

18.11 10.86 15.05 13.44

ness (mm) ness

- Maximum Thick Maximum 2

3.31 4.15 2.55 5.62 Width (mm) Width

8.21 10.1 8.65

14.32 (mm) Maximum Width Width Maximum

10.2 Length (mm) Length

17.21 20.01 16.91 22.97

Length (mm) Length AZ DD:1:21 (ASM) Maximum Maximum

12.87 Portion Present Portion body whole

tip and of base of base of base

and most and most and most tip, body, tip, body, tip, body, tip, body, tip, body, tip, body,

plete

- Com Percent

90 90 90 80 100

Fragment (F) Fragment

Whole (W) or or (W) Whole F F F F W Color red yel - clear black lowish opaque opaque

- - Material ny ny chal chal chert cedo - cedo - basalt jasper Form point point point point point Recorded Recorded projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile Hohokam Hohokam Hohokam Hohokam - - try (Fea - (Fea - (Fea - of Fea - ture 3), surface outside surface Fill just Room 7 14 (Fea - ture 16), ture 31), ture 66), Pithouse stripping lower fill “A” floor to Floor 1 Lower fill north wall Pithouse 1 Feature 20 ture 16 en za south of area in pla Provenience

Catalog Catalog Number A-40371 A-40387 A-40392 A-40411 None 342 - - Remarks one basal tang missing, serrat ed edges probably ar chaic, stemmed point, convex base, edges lightly serrated deeply concave base deeply concave base deeply concave base deeply concave base deeply concave base continued on next page edge Process thinned trimmed

bifacially

Manufacture Manufacture Weight (g) Weight

0.9 4.6 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 1.4

Position (mm) Position Maximum Width Width Maximum

1.34 1.33 2.06 2.12 1.59

10.76

tion (mm) tion

- Indenta Basal

4.16 4.54 4.44 6.09 6.08 6.31

(mm) Basal Width Width Basal

9.83

17.11 11.78 13.12 12.29 13.04 (mm) Axial Length Length Axial

21.55

ness (mm) ness

- Thick Maximum

3.13 7.33 1.79 2.49 3.31 3.34 4.86 Width (mm) Width

10.34 (mm) Maximum Width Width Maximum

9.83 11.78 20.84 13.12 12.29 13.04 Length (mm) Length

7.01 11.15 11.79 25.43 27.53 16.25 27.39 Length (mm) Length

AZ DD:8:129 (ASM)

Maximum Maximum Portion Present Portion base base base body body body body some some some some

most of

base and base and base and base and body and body and tip, body, tip, body,

plete

- Com Percent

80 60 50 60 60 90 99

Fragment (F) Fragment

Whole (W) or or (W) Whole F F F F F F F Color red red

light

white brown brown brown brown Material lite chert chert chert chert chert rhyo - jasper Form ment ment ment point point point point Recorded Recorded projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri point Frag - point Frag - point Frag - - face surface TT1(B) cm, near L4¹, sur L 7¹ 0-20 L Provenience

Catalog Catalog Number Bag 272 Bag 227 2 4 7 1 3 343 Remarks deeply concave base deeply concave base deeply concave base deeply concave base deeply concave base deeply concave base deeply concave base deeply concave base continued on next page Process

Manufacture Manufacture Weight (g) Weight

0.3 1.4 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.6

Position (mm) Position Maximum Width Width Maximum

2.02 0.97 2.33 1.37 2.15 0.68 1.09 0.74

tion (mm) tion

- Indenta Basal

3.62 6.64 4.03 3.28 3.71 3.35 6.26 3.82

(mm) Basal Width Width Basal

8.37 8.02 6.93 8.34

11.06 15.73 10.47 10.98 (mm) Axial Length Length Axial

9.88 16.82

ness (mm) ness

- Maximum Thick Maximum 3

2.5 2.74 5.66 3.14 1.97 2.01 2.87

Width (mm) Width

(mm) Maximum Width Width Maximum

8.37 8.02 6.93 8.34 11.06 15.73 10.47 10.98 Length (mm) Length

7.99 10.92 15.18 12.71 12.06

Length (mm) Length Maximum Maximum

11.32 19.91 Portion Present Portion base base base base base base whole whole

body and body and body and body and body and body and

plete

- Com Percent

99 50 90 80 70 90 100 100

Fragment (F) Fragment

Whole (W) or or (W) Whole F F F F F F W W Color gray gray gray black black black peach brown

- Material ny ian ian ian chal chert chert chert chert cedo - obsid - obsid - obsid - Form ment ment ment ment ment point point point Recorded Recorded projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri point Frag - point Frag - point Frag - point Frag - point Frag - Provenience

Catalog Catalog Number 8 31 36 37 41 45 10 14 344 Remarks deeply concave base deeply concave base deeply concave base deeply concave base deeply concave base deeply concave base deeply concave base deeply concave base deeply concave base continued on next page Process

Manufacture Manufacture Weight (g) Weight

0.1 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.3

Position (mm) Position Maximum Width Width Maximum

0.92 1.85 1.93 3.48 1.59 1.99 2.84 3.06 0.63

tion (mm) tion

- Indenta Basal

2.11 4.91 4.76 5.25 3.61 2.74 4.06 4.96 4.94

(mm) Basal Width Width Basal

8.14 9.25

11.89 11.29 11.47 11.62 12.32 10.17 (mm) Axial Length Length Axial

19.11 11.71 14.66 14.18 15.81 14.17 14.71 14.89

ness (mm) ness

- Thick Maximum

3.4 2.05 2.99 2.15 3.32 2.68 3.73 3.37 2.32 Width (mm) Width

6.61

(mm) Maximum Width Width Maximum

8.14 9.25 11.62 11.89 11.29 11.47 12.32 10.17 Length (mm) Length

9.74

Length (mm) Length Maximum Maximum 16

17.1 17.4 11.92 22.26 15.48 15.92 16.09 Portion Present Portion body

whole whole whole whole whole whole whole whole

most of

base and

plete

- Com Percent

90 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Fragment (F) Fragment

Whole (W) or or (W) Whole F W W W W W W W W Color gray pink light light black black brown brown brown brown opaque

- - Material ny ny ian ian chert chal chal chert chert chert chert cedo - cedo - obsid - obsid - Form point point point point point point point point point Recorded Recorded projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Provenience

Catalog Catalog Number 40 35 17 13 43 47 42 39 20 345 deeply concave base deeply concave base deeply concave base Remarks deeply concave base deeply concave base deeply concave base deeply concave base deeply concave base continued on next page Process

Manufacture Manufacture Weight (g) Weight

0.8 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3

Position (mm) Position Maximum Width Width Maximum

2.17 0.93

tion (mm) tion

- Indenta Basal

4.72 4.27 3.67 2.87 3.64 5.51

(mm)

Basal Width Width Basal

(mm) Axial Length Length Axial

16.64

ness (mm) ness

- Thick Maximum

5.23 4.09 3.45 3.26 2.58 3.07 1.82 2.67 Width (mm) Width

11.4 9.14 10.3 9.31 8.59

11.18 10.47 10.33 (mm)

Maximum Width Width Maximum Length (mm) Length

9.31 26.28 15.58 13.55 12.43 12.43 18.56 14.98

Length (mm) Length

Maximum Maximum Portion Present Portion base body body body body body body, body,

of base of base most of most of most of most of most of most of

some of

base and base and base and base and base and and most and most tip, body, tip, body, tip, body, tip, body,

plete

- Com Percent

95 99 90 80 80 80 80 80

Fragment (F) Fragment

Whole (W) or or (W) Whole F F F F F F F F Color gray gray gray pink light black brown brown opaque

- - Material ny ny ian chert chal chert chert chal chert chert cedo - cedo - obsid - Form ment ment ment ment ment ment point point Recorded Recorded projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri point Frag - point Frag - point Frag - point Frag - point Frag - point Frag - Provenience

5 15 Catalog Catalog Number 28 30 34 38 22 16 346 concave base Remarks concave base, biface? biface? biface? biface? biface? biface? continued on next page Process thinned thinned thinned thinned thinned thinned

bifacially bifacially bifacially bifacially bifacially bifacially

Manufacture Manufacture Weight (g) Weight

0.7 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.3

Position (mm) Position

Maximum Width Width Maximum

tion (mm) tion

- Indenta Basal

2.26

(mm)

Basal Width Width Basal

(mm) Axial Length Length Axial

16.03

ness (mm) ness

- Thick Maximum

3.3 3.87 3.88 3.44 3.28 3.05 3.64 Width (mm) Width

8.33

11.37 11.65 13.42 13.93 12.42 13.45 (mm)

Maximum Width Width Maximum Length (mm) Length

17.9 8.35 13.5 17.01 16.29 19.82 13.93

Length (mm) Length

Maximum Maximum Portion Present Portion tip tip tip base body body body body, body,

most of

some of

body and body and body and

plete

- Com Percent

70 80 60 30 50 60 50

Fragment (F) Fragment

Whole (W) or or (W) Whole F F F F F F F Color gray light brown brown brown brown brown opaque opaque

- Material ny chert chert chal chert chert chert chert cedo - Form ment ment ment ment ment ment ment Recorded Recorded projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri point Frag - point Frag - point Frag - point Frag - point Frag - point Frag - point Frag - Provenience

32 Catalog Catalog Number 54 18 55 56 21 44 347 Remarks biface? flat base biface? flat base slightly concave base flat base flat base continued on next page Process thinned thinned

bifacially bifacially

Manufacture Manufacture Weight (g) Weight

0.2 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.2 1.6 1.3

Position (mm) Position Maximum Width Width Maximum 0

2.92 1.23 4.07 3.16

tion (mm) tion

- Basal Indenta Basal 0 0

4.28

(mm) Basal Width Width Basal

8.99

11.17 14.53 16.19 12.92 (mm)

Axial Length Length Axial

ness (mm) ness

- Maximum Thick Maximum 5

2.99 6.27 2.34 1.83 5.07 4.95 Width (mm) Width

8.37

14.14 (mm) Maximum Width Width Maximum

8.99 11.17 14.53 16.19 12.92 Length (mm) Length

9.97 12.7 13.9 11.04 14.76 19.53 17.92

Length (mm) Length

Maximum Maximum Portion Present Portion tip tip base base base base base

body and body and body and body and body and body and

plete

- Com Percent

50 50 90 30 50 80 80

Fragment (F) Fragment

Whole (W) or or (W) Whole F F F F F F F Color red red gray brown brown opaque opaque

- - - Material ny ny ny chert chert chert chal chal chal cedo - cedo - cedo - jasper Form ment ment ment ment ment ment ment Recorded Recorded projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri point Frag - point Frag - point Frag - point Frag - point Frag - point Frag - point Frag - Provenience

Catalog Catalog Number 46 51 6 52 26 29 50 348 - Remarks flat base flat base biface? short body, short body, deeply concave base blank or biface leaf shaped, bi face? biface? reconstructed san pedro pro - jectile point continued on next page Process thinned thinned thinned

bifacially bifacially bifacially

Manufacture Manufacture Weight (g) Weight

1.5 0.2 1.9 1.3 0.5 1.9 1.2 11.4

Position (mm) Position Maximum Width Width Maximum 0

2.5 1.7

11.57

tion (mm) tion

- Indenta Basal

4.68 7.05

10.33 (mm) Basal Width Width Basal

14.93 16.78 13.77 19.05 14.44 (mm) Axial Length Length Axial

10.54

ness (mm) ness

- Thick Maximum

2.46 5.64 4.96 3.75 2.97 3.15 3.64 5.58 Width (mm) Width

9.01

17.07 15.96 (mm) Maximum Width Width Maximum

14.93 16.78 13.77 19.05 25.57 Length (mm) Length

11.22 22.58 20.81 26.52

Length (mm) Length Maximum Maximum

21.17 14.05 31.73 72.36 Portion Present Portion tip base base body body, body, whole whole whole whole

most of most of

some of

base and body and body and

plete

- Com Percent

99 90 50 75 100 100 100 100

Fragment (F) Fragment

Whole (W) or or (W) Whole F F F F W W W W Color

light light black white

brown brown brown brown brown opaque Material chert chert chert chert chert chert chert basalt Form ment point point point point point point point San Pe - dro (Co - Recorded Recorded ri Blank- ri Blank- ri Blank- Sobaipu - Sobaipu - Sobaipu - projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri point Frag - chise style) Provenience

Catalog Catalog Number 9 33 53 19 123 124 125 12 349 - - stemmed base, serrated edges Remarks missing possible stemmed base, biface? exhibits a shoul der (or waist) before flang ing out into the base, deeply concave base, serrated edges san pedro pro - jectile point lanceolate shaped possible stemmed base, biface? continued on next page Process

Manufacture Manufacture Weight (g) Weight

1.2 0.4 0.5 3.9 1.9 1.1

Position (mm) Position Maximum Width Width Maximum

4.94

11.27

tion (mm) tion

- Basal Indenta Basal 0

2.67 6.36 8.29

(mm) Basal Width Width Basal

7.02

15.08 (mm)

Axial Length Length Axial

ness (mm) ness

- Thick Maximum

6.4 4.75 2.75 2.97 5.27 4.92 Width (mm) Width

11.75 15.36 10.06 13.43 (mm) Maximum Width Width Maximum

22.6 14.26 Length (mm) Length

17.3 20.93 19.18 28.24 23.85

Length (mm) Length Maximum Maximum

27.21 Portion Present Portion tip base base body body body, body, body, whole whole

most of most of most of

some of some of

base and body and

plete

- Com Percent

90 60 90 90 95 100 100

Fragment (F) Fragment

Whole (W) or or (W) Whole F F F F F W W Color white white white brown brown brown opaque

- Material ny chal chert chert chert chert chert chert cedo - Form ment ment point point point point point jectile Upper San Pe - dro (Co - Recorded Recorded projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Sobaipuri Pima pro - point Frag - point Frag - chise style) Provenience

27 Catalog Catalog Number 24 126 25 11 23 150 350 - Remarks not identified in a protohistoric context no serration slight basal side notches, no ser ration serrated edges serrated edges, rather large continued on next page edge edge edge Process thinned thinned thinned thinned trimmed trimmed trimmed

bifacially bifacially bifacially bifacially

Manufacture Manufacture Weight (g) Weight

1.3 0.7 2.9 3.8 1.3 1.3 0.8

Position (mm) Position Maximum Width Width Maximum 0

0.9 9.18 2.78 1.86 1.03 0.94

tion (mm) tion

- Indenta Basal

8.1 5.3

6.03 3.46 7.61 6.52 6.97

(mm) Basal Width Width Basal

4.73 15.8

11.45 17.31 13.84 16.65 14.43 (mm) Axial Length Length Axial

17.88 33.23 37.78 24.41 28.13 18.07

ness (mm) ness

- Thick Maximum

5.6 4.98 3.87 5.62 4.36 4.66 3.67

Width (mm) Width

(mm) Maximum Width Width Maximum

11.49 18.38 15.83 17.31 13.84 14.69 14.43 Length (mm) Length

16.72

Length (mm) Length AZ Z:5:18 (ASM) AZ Z:12:5 (ASM)

AZ EE:4:11 (ASM) AZ EE:4:11 AZ EE:2:95 (ASM) AZ EE:2:80 (ASM) Maximum Maximum

20.23 34.24 38.68 27.63 32.27 23.33 Portion Present Portion base whole whole whole whole whole whole

body and

plete

- Com Percent

85 100 100 100 100 100 100

Fragment (F) Fragment

Whole (W) or or (W) Whole F W W W W W W Color red gray black black black brown opaque reddish

- Material ny ian chert chal chert cedo - basalt basalt jasper obsid - Form point point point point point point Papago Preform Recorded Recorded ri or Up - Sobaipu - projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile Projectile Sobaipuri Hohokam per Piman Fea - FT-1 fill of upper church surface outside floor of 05/51-1 presidio subfloor ture 7-4, Test Pit 2 Test House 30 Provenience

143 55 Catalog Catalog Number Q-65 Q-24 Q-295 2304 351 Remarks bifacially flaked, serrated edges bifacially flaked bifacially flaked bifacially flaked heavy patina continued on next page edge edge Process thinned thinned thinned thinned thinned thinned thinned trimmed trimmed

bifacially bifacially bifacially bifacially bifacially bifacially bifacially

Manufacture Manufacture Weight (g) Weight

1 1

0.7 2.1 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.8

Position (mm) Position Maximum Width Width Maximum

2.3 0.81 2.42 1.47 1.05 1.12 1.03 1.92 2.26

tion (mm) tion

- Indenta Basal

6.76 6.29 7.56 7.15 6.37 5.57 2.61 4.36

(mm) Basal Width Width Basal

9.72

11.48 15.37 13.75 14.34 12.63 14.56 12.33 13.63 (mm) Axial Length Length Axial

21.1 27.35 22.97 23.25 19.33 22.18 24.99 19.22 17.44

ness (mm) ness

- Thick Maximum

6.05 2.54 3.88 4.73 4.66 4.22 3.91 4.24 2.53

Width (mm) Width

(mm) Maximum Width Width Maximum

14.2 9.96 11.87 15.64 14.46 12.28 14.56 12.56 13.84 Length (mm) Length

AZ Z:16:6 (ASM) Length (mm) Length Maximum Maximum

20.9 31.41 25.77 20.31 23.07 23.94 26.84 18.48 22.59 Portion Present Portion

whole whole whole whole whole whole whole whole whole

plete

- Com Percent

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Fragment (F) Fragment

Whole (W) or or (W) Whole

W W W W W W W W W Color red red black black black black white green brown

- Material ny ian ian lite chal glass rhyo - cedo - basalt basalt jasper jasper obsid - obsid - Form point point point point point point point point point Papago Papago Papago Papago Papago Papago Papago Papago Papago Recorded Recorded projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile upper upper upper upper L2/0-5 surface surface surface surface surface 05/0-0.3 F2/0-0.5 P4/0-0.5 Provenience

31000-X-14 31000-X-18 31000-X-19 31000-X-20 2299 Catalog Catalog Number 2300 2298 2301 A-31000-X-5 A- A- A- A- 352 - Remarks bifacially flaked bifacially flaked bifacially flaked bifacially flaked unifacially flaked bifacially flaked bifacially flaked, tip miss ing side-notched, bifacially flaked side-notched, bifacially flaked stemmed base, side-notched, bifacially flaked continued on next page edge edge edge edge Process thinned thinned thinned thinned thinned thinned trimmed trimmed trimmed trimmed

bifacially bifacially bifacially bifacially bifacially bifacially

Manufacture Manufacture Weight (g) Weight

1.5 0.8 0.5 1.3 0.5 0.5 0.8 1.9 1.7 0.9

Position (mm) Position Maximum Width Width Maximum

1.11 2.92 1.22 1.26 0.78 0.51 1.17 3.74 0.33 5.97

tion (mm) tion

- Indenta Basal

5.1 4.1 5.4

6.61 6.19 3.73 6.95 4.03 4.61

(mm) Basal Width Width Basal

13.9

11.58 13.81 10.07 12.16 10.08 13.44 15.75 15.57 13.02 (mm) Axial Length Length Axial

29.01 21.09 20.75 23.44 17.05 20.24 29.01 21.79 19.83

ness (mm) ness

- Thick Maximum

2.7 5.1 4.16 3.58 5.29 2.93 2.39 3.71 5.55 3.14

Width (mm) Width

(mm) Maximum Width Width Maximum

13.81 13.95 10.22 12.16 12.29 10.29 13.55 16.21 18.58 13.63 Length (mm) Length

18.72

Length (mm) Length Maximum Maximum

22.3 32.32 23.28 21.78 24.86 18.56 20.59 28.95 22.16 Portion Present Portion base whole whole whole whole whole whole whole whole whole

body and

plete

- Com Percent

90 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Fragment (F) Fragment

Whole (W) or or (W) Whole F W W W W W W W W W Color

black black black black black green white cream brown brown Material ian lite chert chert chert rhyo - basalt basalt basalt basalt basalt obsid - Form point point point point point point point point point point Papago Papago Papago Papago Papago Papago Papago Papago Papago Papago Recorded Recorded projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface Provenience

31008-X-10 31000-X-17 Catalog Catalog Number A-31008-X-2 A-31008-X-3 A-31008-X-4 A-31008-X-5 A-31008-X-9 A-31008-X-8 A- A-31008-X-6 A-31008-X-7 A- 353 ------Remarks bifacially flaked side-notched, bifacially flaked one tang miss ing, edges slightly serrated flat base slightly indent ed base flat base slightly indent ed base slightly indent ed base slightly indent ed base slightly indent ed base continued on next page edge edge edge Process thinned thinned thinned thinned thinned thinned thinned trimmed trimmed trimmed

bifacially bifacially bifacially bifacially bifacially bifacially bifacially

Manufacture Manufacture Weight (g) Weight

1 1 1 1

0.7 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.4 1.6

Position (mm) Position Maximum Width Width Maximum 0

1.51 3.48 0.63 1.49 1.34 2.92 1.78

tion (mm) tion

- Basal Indenta Basal 4

4.4

4.57 5.21 5.46 4.22 6.25 5.34

(mm) Basal Width Width Basal

9.94 13.9 8.82

13.98 14.65 10.49 12.27 12.17 (mm) Axial Length Length Axial

9.05 16.8 15.4 18.54 20.87 14.96 20.41 18.21 23.92

ness (mm) ness

- Thick Maximum

3.63 4.28 4.47 5.07 2.87 4.48 3.29 4.37 5.34 3.19 Width (mm) Width

12.87 14.23 (mm) Maximum Width Width Maximum 9.97 13.9 9.01

15.45 14.93 10.49 12.41 12.17

HPS-3 HPS-4 Length (mm) Length

BMGR-03-D-50 24.91 16.06 25.43

Length (mm) Length Maximum Maximum

21.55 23.03 17.67 15.12 21.75 18.45 15.83 Portion Present Portion base whole whole whole whole whole whole whole

of base of base

and most and most body and tip, body, tip, body, tip, body, tip, body,

plete

- Com Percent

80 85 90 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Fragment (F) Fragment

Whole (W) or or (W) Whole F F F W W W W W W W Color red gray black black black black black black black black

- Material ny ian ian ian ian ian ian ian ian chal cedo - jasper obsid - obsid - obsid - obsid - obsid - obsid - obsid - obsid - Form point point point point point point point point point point Papago Papago Recorded Recorded projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile Sobaipuri AS-1 surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface FT-2 in FT-2 Provenience

31000-X-16 31000-X-15 Catalog Catalog Number A- A- None 3-12 3-11 4-12 4-174 4.92 4-176 4-175 354 - - - - Remarks lightly serrated edges flat base slightly indent ed base flat base slightly indent ed base slightly indent ed base slightly indent ed base serrated edges deeply concave base mostly flat base continued on next page Process thinned thinned thinned thinned thinned thinned thinned thinned thinned thinned

bifacially bifacially bifacially bifacially bifacially bifacially bifacially bifacially bifacially bifacially

Manufacture Manufacture Weight (g) Weight

0.5 0.6 1.1 1.2 0.7 0.9 0.3 0.9 0.6

Position (mm) Position Maximum Width Width Maximum 0 0 2 0

2.43 1.57 2.01 2.07 1.28 0.81

tion (mm) tion

- Indenta Basal

4.12 5.66 4.96 4.44 6.07 4.24 5.03 2.77

(mm) Basal Width Width Basal

11.69 11.86 11.15 10.65 13.83 13.38 13.16 12.33 10.93 10.57 (mm) Axial Length Length Axial

13.5 17.3 25.12 23.74 16.19 16.13 22.47 22.22 18.75

ness (mm) ness

- Thick Maximum

4.1 4.11 3.52 3.78 4.15 4.26 3.51 3.58 2.96 5.68

Width (mm) Width

(mm) Maximum Width Width Maximum 11.97 11.69 11.15 10.69 13.86 13.38 13.31 12.39 10.93 10.57

HPS-13 HPS-17 HPS-20 Length (mm) Length

11.83

Length (mm) Length Maximum Maximum

17.7 21.7 16.23 24.86 23.74 17.18 23.17 16.19 22.35 Portion Present Portion base whole whole whole whole whole whole whole whole whole

body and

plete

- Com Percent

85 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Fragment (F) Fragment

Whole (W) or or (W) Whole F W W W W W W W W W Color black black black black black black white green green green

- Material ny ian ian ian ian ian ian chal glass glass glass cedo - obsid - obsid - obsid - obsid - obsid - obsid - - Form point point point point point point point point point Tanque Tanque Verde or Verde Recorded Recorded tile point projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile go projec Sand Papa - surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface Provenience

Catalog Catalog Number 13-36 17-87 17-145 17-107 17-146 17-133 17-147 20-30 20-44 20-45 355 ------Remarks slightly indent ed base slightly indent ed base slightly indent ed base slightly indent ed base slightly indent ed base slightly indent ed base concave base flat base serrated edges continued on next page edge edge edge Process thinned thinned thinned thinned thinned thinned trimmed trimmed trimmed

bifacially bifacially bifacially bifacially bifacially bifacially

Manufacture Manufacture Weight (g) Weight

0.7 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.8 1.4 0.7 0.8 0.3

Position (mm) Position Maximum Width Width Maximum 0 0

2.99 1.03 2.43 1.47 1.79

tion (mm) tion

- Indenta Basal

5.84 5.63 5.91 6.07 4.21 7.35 5.06 2.45

(mm) Basal Width Width Basal

11.94 10.91 10.71 10.98 12.98 12.86 14.85 (mm) Axial Length Length Axial

12.9 18.6 17.23 17.72 16.35 21.43 15.43

ness (mm) ness

- Thick Maximum

3.11 4.29 3.22 4.35 5.45 3.41 4.75 6.16 4.51 Width (mm) Width

8.01

10.67 (mm) Maximum Width Width Maximum 14.9 11.35 11.16 10.98 13.08 12.86 12.24

HPS-22 HPS-31 HPS-23 HPS-49 HPS-56 Length (mm) Length Don Pedro

13.32 19.26 17.05 15.25

Length (mm) Length Maximum Maximum

18.47 17.07 18.08 22.97 18.78 Portion Present Portion base base whole whole whole whole whole

of base of base

and most and most body and body and tip, body, tip, body, tip, body, tip, body,

plete

- Com Percent

85 85 85 70 100 100 100 100 100

Fragment (F) Fragment

Whole (W) or or (W) Whole F F F F W W W W W Color

black black black black black black black black green Material ian ian ian ian ian ian ian ian glass obsid - obsid - obsid - obsid - obsid - obsid - obsid - obsid - Form point point point point point point point point point Papago Recorded Recorded projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface Provenience

Catalog Catalog Number 23-54 22-4 20-200 31-29 23-43 49-24 56-4 WPC-11 WPC-12 356 - - - Remarks slightly indent ed base slightly indent ed base slightly indent ed base edge edge Process thinned trimmed trimmed

bifacially

Manufacture Manufacture Weight (g) Weight

0.5 0.4 0.4

Position (mm) Position Maximum Width Width Maximum

1.6 3.25

tion (mm) tion

- Indenta Basal

4.74 4.57

(mm) Basal Width Width Basal

9.26

11.28 (mm) Axial Length Length Axial

11.65 13.35 18.33

ness (mm) ness

- Thick Maximum

3.96 3.02 2.51 Width (mm) Width

9.17

(mm) Maximum Width Width Maximum 10.4 11.72

Chivos Length (mm) Length

19.34

Length (mm) Length Maximum Maximum

12.94 13.18 Portion Present Portion whole whole

of base

and most tip, body, tip, body,

plete

- Com Percent

70 100 100

Fragment (F) Fragment

Whole (W) or or (W) Whole F W W Color

black black black Material ian ian ian obsid - obsid - obsid - Form point point point Recorded Recorded projectile projectile projectile surface surface surface Provenience

Catalog Catalog Number WPC-44 WPC-42 WPC-17 357

APPENDIX C: FLAKED STONE TOOLS, BY SITE 358 continued on next page Comments bifacially retouched flake tool bifacially retouched flake possible unifacial scraper possible unifacial scraper bifacially retouched flake Type Type (Me) biface biface biface biface biface biface biface biface biface biface large biface large utilized flake unifacial scraper unifacial scraper tool biface biface biface biface biface biface biface biface biface biface scraper scraper bifacially bifacially bifacially unifacially unifacially unifacially bifacial knife Recorded Type Recorded retouched flake retouched flake retouched flake retouched flake retouched flake retouched flake 1 2 (g) 2.1 1.5 2.3 1.1 1.1 1.9 4.4 5.2 1.6 1.6 3.5 1.9 1.5 2.1 1.7 1.4 12.1 Weight Weight AZ AA:12:98 (ASM) 3.9 4.29 3.33 4.56 3.84 4.58 4.45 4.47 4.37 8.61 5.17 5.75 4.39 4.56 4.86 4.34 3.72 4.74 5.09 (mm) Thickness 14.3 (mm) 16.24 13.27 15.48 13.94 12.28 12.68 14.35 16.23 32.53 25.04 21.47 15.77 15.29 25.27 17.31 Width 20.63 14.95 13.85 24.7 (mm) 31.57 35.11 29.91 28.67 19.28 21.07 20.81 29.05 25.69 52.29 35.62 41.32 22.09 23.43 27.62 23.85 23.92 22.99 Length Length chert chert chert chert chert chert chert chert chert chert chert chert chert chert chert jasper Material porphyry chalcedony chalcedony Burial 1 Burial 1 Burial 1 Burial 1 Burial 1 Burial 1 Burial 1 Burial 1 Burial 1 Burial 1 Burial 1 Burial 1 Burial 1 Burial 1 Burial 1 Burial 1 Burial 1 Burial 1 Burial 1 Provenience Catalog Number Catalog 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 21 22 26 27 28 30 33 34 359 continued on next page Comments bifacially retouched flake one side broken off roughly triangular roughly triangular roughly triangular roughly triangular unifacially flaked, but 2 notches on retouched edge suggest special use retouched 3 edges retouched 2 edges retouched 3 edges retouched 2 edges retouched 3 edges retuched all edges Type Type (Me) biface biface biface biface biface biface biface biface notched tool unifacial scraper unifacial scraper unifacial scraper unifacial scraper unifacial scraper unifacial scraper none none none none none none none none none none none none biface biface biface bifacially Recorded Type Recorded retouched flake 1 2 (g) 10 1.5 1.3 6.1 8.4 1.7 8.9 8.4 8.1 13.5 17.5 13.8 10.3 10.2 Weight Weight AZ AA:7:430 (ASM) 9.6 8.6 5.4 4.67 4.84 4.47 4.48 5.76 8.27 6.44 4.52 8.17 8.18 8.27 6.84 (mm) 11.44 Thickness 21.2 (mm) 14.11 13.12 12.15 18.66 25.43 31.24 38.95 29.62 15.92 24.61 28.96 28.53 Width 27.74 23.71 25.68 23 55 47.6 (mm) 23.42 20.64 25.84 32.05 51.02 61.02 42.92 25.26 45.19 48.15 57.76 41.47 50.82 Length Length chert chert chert chert chert chert chert chert chert chert chert chert chert chert jasper jasper Material cache cache cache cache cache cache cache cache cache cache cache cache Burial 1 Burial 1 Burial 1 Burial 1 Provenience partial collection of partial collection of partial collection of partial collection of partial collection of partial collection of partial collection of partial collection of partial collection of partial collection of partial collection of partial collection of Catalog Number Catalog 35 36 37 39 None None None None None None None None None None None None 360 continued on next page Comments retouched 2 edges broken on 1 edge, retouched 3 edges retouched 2 edges retouched 1 edge retouched 1 edge broken on 2 edges, retouched 1 edge retouched 1 edge retouched 1 edge broken 1 edge, slightly retouched 1 edge use wear use wear use wear use wear use wear use wear use wear Type Type (Me) scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper unifacial scraper unifacial scraper unifacial scraper unifacial scraper unifacial scraper unifacial scraper unifacial scraper unifacial scraper unifacial scraper none none none none none none none none none none none none none none none none Recorded Type Recorded (g) 12 14 4.9 4.5 8.6 3.9 4.9 2.6 1.3 9.1 7.1 2.3 2.5 2.8 12.9 15.9 Weight Weight 7.4 3.9 6.77 4.81 7.69 9.54 9.23 5.71 5.28 5.06 3.48 9.64 7.07 4.79 3.01 (mm) 11.09 Thickness 22 (mm) 18.18 28.61 31.97 32.08 26.21 26.02 17.79 17.06 36.12 Width 37.59 36.84 28.29 19.65 23.01 28.31 44.8 48.3 41.5 (mm) 33.75 49.96 43.14 43.66 24.41 27.87 27.63 22.67 43.83 44.88 25.45 25.41 28.36 Length Length chert chert chert chert chert chert chert chert chert chert chert chert chert chert chert chert Material cache cache cache cache cache cache cache cache cache cache cache cache cache cache cache cache Provenience partial collection of partial collection of partial collection of partial collection of partial collection of partial collection of partial collection of partial collection of partial collection of partial collection of partial collection of partial collection of partial collection of partial collection of partial collection of partial collection of Catalog Number Catalog None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None 361 continued on next page Comments use wear use wear use wear very large and broken, not a very large projectile point bifacially flaked tool exhibits retouch along scraping edge exhibits retouch along scraping edge exhibits retouch along scraping edge exhibits retouch along scraping edge Type Type (Me) biface scraper scraper scraper biface fragment biface fragment biface fragment unifacial scraper unifacial scraper unifacial scraper unifacial scraper none none none scraper scraper scraper scraper Recorded Type Recorded projectile point biface fragment biface fragment biface fragment biface fragment (g) 4.8 1.8 2.9 6.5 8.5 7.1 2.4 2.4 3.7 5.2 6.5 23.1 Weight Weight AZ BB:6:9 (ASM) 5.1 6.37 3.72 6.49 6.52 6.26 4.84 16.2 6.31 7.29 (mm) 15.89 10.82 Thickness 22.4 17.1 (mm) 20.46 21.07 27.37 31.46 26.93 22.29 21.16 30.84 32.58 22.62 Width 46.1 (mm) 34.07 23.12 28.93 29.17 18.14 33.14 17.86 22.37 29.37 44.97 34.93 Length Length chert chert chert chert chert chert chert jasper jasper Material chalcedony chalcedony chalcedony rocks cache cache cache Provenience circle of rocks circle of rocks House 18), floor Feature 66 (Oval Feature 37 (Oval Feature 66 (Oval Feature 66 (Oval Feature 66 (Oval Feature 37 (Oval Feature 66 (Oval Feature 66 (Oval Feature 66 (Oval partial collection of partial collection of partial collection of House 18), floor fill of rocks just north of rocks just north House 27), fill outside House 27), general fill House 27), general fill House 27), general fill House 27), general fill (south end) of circle House 27), fill near pile House 27), fill near pile Catalog Number Catalog None None None A-46514-x-2 A-46524-x-1 A-46525-x-1 A-46525-x-2 A-46525-x-3 A-46530-x-1 A-46532-x-1 A-46532-x-2 A-46532-x-3 362 continued on next page Comments exhibits retouch along scraping edge exhibits retouch along scraping edge exhibits retouch along scraping edge exhibits retouch along scraping edge exhibits retouch along scraping edge exhibits retouch along scraping edge bifacially flaked tool bifacially flaked tool rather large, probably not rather large, protohistoric large biface tip fragment large probably the body of a large probably the body of a large projectile point biface tip fragment retouch on one face circular, along scraping edge retouch on one face along two scraping edges retouch on one face along scraping edge retouch on one face along two scraping edges Type Type (Me) biface biface biface biface unifacial scraper unifacial scraper unifacial scraper unifacial scraper unifacial scraper unifacial scraper unifacial scraper unifacial scraper unifacial scraper unifacial scraper Biface Fragment base knife lithic Biface Biface scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper point middle Recorded Type Recorded biface fragment biface fragment unfinished knife biface (preform?) 2 (g) 1.5 1.5 5.8 5.3 2.7 1.1 2.3 8.2 9.3 4.2 1.9 3.3 5.6 1.5 4.7 14.1 Weight Weight AZ DD:1:21 (ASM) 3.94 6.36 9.49 8.01 4.14 3.96 4.43 8.78 10.5 9.09 7.17 5.36 7.46 8.61 3.63 6.26 (mm) 10.69 Thickness 27.9 (mm) 16.11 18.34 14.24 25.35 20.46 19.68 21.06 15.29 21.96 26.48 17.02 26.52 26.51 12.56 21.68 36.79 Width 20.7 14.7 (mm) 18.64 20.38 35.51 37.41 33.84 21.92 28.87 39.17 23.41 19.45 18.09 24.99 26.94 26.49 33.45 Length Length chert chert chert chert chert jasper jasper quartz rhyolite rhyolite Material chalcedony chalcedony chalcedony chalcedony chalcedony chalcedony chalcedony surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface Provenience Feature 66-46 Feature 66-35 Feature 66-60 Feature 66-49 Feature 66-47 Feature 66-38 Feature 66-61 Feature 66-57 Feature 66-45 Catalog Number Catalog A-50626 A-50627 A-50631 A-50632 A-50633 A-50635 A-50652 A-50658 A-50669 None A4/S N7¹/S E2¹ A5/S E2/S M7¹/S N7¹/S 363 continued on next page Comments use wear on 3 sides use wear and retouch on one side, use wear on 2 sides use wear on 3 sides use wear on 2 sides use wear on 2 sides probably 10% complete retouch and use wear on 2 long sides, retouch on top short side projectile point blank probably 60% complete, but 1 side and tang broken off. no notch, tip gone, probably 50% complete use wear and retouch on 1 short and 1 long side use wear and retouch on 1 short and 1 long side use wear and retouch on 1 short and 1 long side possible scraper use wear and retouch on 2 long sides, use wear on 1 short side no retouch use wear on 3 sides I9-5 Type Type (Me) base point scraper utilized flake projectile point unifacial scraper unifacial scraper unifacial scraper unifacial scraper unifacial scraper unifacial scraper unifacial scraper unifacial scraper unifacial scraper unifacial scraper unifacial scraper projectile point tip fractured projectile tool tool tool tool tool tool tool tool tool tool tool tool tool flake scraper scraper scraper Recorded Type Recorded (g) 15.4 24.1 Weight Weight AZ EE:2:80 (ASM) AZ DD:8:129 (ASM) 8.7 5.67 6.46 3.39 5.86 3.63 1.99 7.05 7.47 (mm) 11.25 11.97 11.78 12.39 10.76 10.02 17.63 14.03 Thickness 9.4 9.21 26.3 (mm) 41.57 20.97 33.32 23.02 19.43 16.98 10.69 25.18 31.09 29.41 36.72 34.89 43.64 22.23 Width 12 35.7 (mm) 74.15 28.75 47.41 30.02 10.45 66.93 26.05 16.33 39.29 38.28 41.99 40.68 55.26 48.12 23.94 Length Length chert chert chert chert chert chert chert chert jasper rhyolite rhyolite rhyolite rhyolite rhyolite rhyolite Material quartzite chalcedony Grid I9 Grid I9 Grid I9 Grid I-8 Grid I-12 Feature 4 Feature 4 Provenience Feature 7, house Grid P-6, surface Grid R7, 0–10cm Grid H-5, surface Grid N-6, surface Grid O-9, surface Grid L11, surface Grid L11, Feature 12, house Grid K13, 0-10cm Grid P10, 0–10 cms Catalog Number Catalog 12-1 7-13 H5-3 I12-3 I8-3 I9-11 I9-15 I9-5 K13-5 L11-1 N6-1 O-9 P10-2 R7-4 F4-2 P6-3 F4-2-7 364 Comments bifacially retouched flake Type Type (Me) biface scraper unifacial scraper unifacial scraper biface scraper scraper bifacially Recorded Type Recorded retouched flake retouched flake (g) 4.5 3.7 3.8 41.6 20.5 Weight Weight AZ EE:2:83 (ASM) 12 6.53 5.25 8.06 (mm) 14.52 Thickness (mm) 20.78 43.73 37.15 20.89 24.56 Width 46.5 (mm) 32.78 62.98 41.09 26.62 Length Length chert chert chert Material metasediment metasediment structure Provenience Feature 2-2, 0-5 cm F1-1, NW corner of F1-1, NW Feature 1, upper fill Feature 0-3, surface Feature 0-7, surface Catalog Number Catalog F0-3 F0-7 F1-1 F1-2 F2-2 365

REFERENCES

Ackerly, Neal W. 1982 Irrigation, Water Allocation Strategies, and the Hohokam Collapse. Kiva 47(3):91–106.

Adams, William Yewdale and Ernest W. Adams 1991 Archaeological Typology and Practical Reality: A Dialectical Approach to Arti- fact Classification and Sorting. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Adorno, Rolena and Patrick Charles Pautz 1999 Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca: His Account, His Life, and the Expedition of Pán- filo de Narváez 1. 3 vols. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Ahlstrom, Richard V.N. and Jerry D. Lyon (editors) 2000 Desert Foragers and Farmers in the Growler Valley: An Archaeological Survey of 8,065 Acres on the South Tactical Range on the Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range in Southwestern Arizona. Cultural Resources Report No. 98-140. SWCA, Inc., Tucson.

Aitken, M. J. 1985 Thermoluminescence Dating. Academic Press, London.

1989 Luminescence Dating: A Guide for Non-Specialists. Archaeometry 31(2):147– 159.

Alonso, Ana Maria 1994 The Politics of Space, Time, and Substance: State Formation, Nationalism, and Ethnicity. Annual Review of Anthropology 23:379–405.

Altschul, Jefferey H. and Adrianne G. Rankin (editors) 2008 Fragile Patterns: The Archaeology of the Western Papaguería. SRI Press, Tucson. 366

Anderson, Gary Clayton 1999 The Indian Southwest, 1580–1830: Ethnogenesis and Reinvention. Civilization of the American Indian Series Vol. 232. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Arnold, Phillip J. III 1999 On Typologies, Selection, and Ethnoarchaeology in Ceramic Production Stud- ies. In Material Meanings: Critical Approaches to the Interpretations of Material Culture, edited by Elizabeth S. Chilton, pp. 103–117. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Ayres, James E. 1970 An Early Historic Burial from the Village of Bac. Kiva 36(2):44–48.

1979 Archaeological Excavations in the Art Center Block: A Brief Summary. In Master Plan for the Tucson Museum of Art, Appendix 2. James Gresham and Associates, Tucson.

Babson, David 1990 The Archaeology of Racism and Ethnicity on Southern Plantation. Historical Archaeology 24(4):20–28.

Bahr, Donald M. 1970 Who Were the Hohokam? Evidence from Pima-Papago Myths. Ethnohistory 18(3):245-266.

1971 Who Were the Hohokam? Evidence from Pima-Papago Myths. Ethnohistory 18(3):245–266.

2001 O’odham Creation and Related Myths. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Bahr, Donald M., Juan Smith, William Smith Allison and Julian Hayden 1994 The Short, Swift Time of Gods on Earth: The Hohokam Chronicles. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 367

Bandelier, A. F. 1890 Final Report of Investigations among the Indians of the Southwestern United States, Carried on Mainly in the Years from 1880 to 1885. Papers of the Archae- ological Institute of America. American Series III. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bandelier, A. F., Frank Hamilton Cushing, Mary E Dewey, Jesse Walter Fewkes, Robert Gorham Fuller, Charles Garlick, Augustus Hemenway, Mary Hemenway, Frederick Webb Hodge, Herman F C ten Kate, Thomas V Keam, Margaret Magill, Alexander MacGregor Stephen, Jacob Lawson Wortman and Charles Clark Willoughby n.d. Hemenway Expedition Records, 1886–1914. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington D.C.

Bannon, John Francis 1955 The Mission Frontier in Sonora, 1620–1687. United States Catholic Historical Society, New York.

Barnes, Mark R. 1971 Majolica from Excavations at San Xavier del Bac, 1968–1969. Kiva 37(1):61– 64.

1983 Tucson: Development of a Community., Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, School of Arts and Sciences, Catholic University of America, Washington D.C.

Barrett, Elinore M. 2002 Conquest and Catastrophe: Changing Rio Grande Pueblo Patterns in the Six- teenth and Seventeenth Centuries. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquer- que, New Mexico.

Barth, Fredrik 1969 Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Little, Brown, and Company, Boston.

Barton, C. Michael, Kay Simposon and Lee Fratt 1981 Tumacacori Excavations, 1979/1980: Historical Archaeology at Tumacacori National Monument, Arizona. Publications in Anthropology No. 17. Western Archaeological and Conservation Center, National Park Service, Tucson. 368

Basso, Keith H. 1983 Western Apache. In Southwest, edited by Alfonso Ortiz, pp. 462–488. Hand- book of North American Indians, Vol. 10, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Beaubien, Paul 1937 Excavations at Tumacacori, 1934. Southwestern Monuments Special Report 15. National Park Service, Washington D.C.

Beaudry, Mary C. 2009 Ethical Issues in Historical Archaeology. In International Handbook of Histori- cal Archaeology, edited by Teresita Majewski and David Gaimster, pp. 17–29. Springer, New York.

Bell, Fillman, Keith M. Anderson and Yvonne G. Stewart 1980 The Quitobaquito Cemetery and Its History. Western Archaeological Center. National Park Service, Tucson.

Bidney, David 1965 The Contribution of A.L. Kroeber to Contemporary Anthropology. Interna- tional Journal of Contemporary Anthropology 6:266–277.

Binford, Lewis R. 1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28(2):217–225.

Bolton, Herbert Eugene 1908 Spanish Exploration in the Southwest, 1542–1706. Barnes and Noble, New York.

1919 Kino’s Historical Memoir of Pimeria Alta: A Contemporary Account of the Begin- nings of California, Sonora, and Arizona, By Father Eusebio Francisco Kino, S.J., Pioneer, Missionary, Explorer, Cartographer, and Ranchman, 1683–1711. 1. Arthur H. Clark Company, Cleveland.

1921 The Spanish Borderlands: A Chronicle of Old Florida and the Southwest. Yale University Press, New Haven. 369

1930 Anza’s California Expeditions. University of California Press, Berkeley, Califor- nia.

1960 Rim of Christendom: A Biography of Eusebio Francisco Kino, Pacific Coast Pio- neer. Russell and Russell, New York.

1990 Coronado: Knight of Pueblos and Plains. 4th ed. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Bourdieu, Pierre 1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge.

1990 The Logic of Practice. Translated by Richard Nice. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

Bowen, Thomas 1976 Esquema de la Historia de la Cultura Trincheras. In Sonora: Antropología del Desierto, edited by Beatrice Braniff and Richard S. Felger. Coleccíon Cientifica 27. INAH, SEP, Mexico City.

Brasher, Nugent 2009 The Red House Camp and the Captain General: The 2009 Report on the Coronado Expedition Campsite of Chichilticale. New Mexico Historical Review 84(1):1–64.

Brew, J. O. 1937 The First Two Seasons at Awatovi. American Antiquity 3(2):122–137.

Brew, Susan A. and Bruce B. Huckell 1987 A Protohistoric Piman Burial and a Consideration of Piman Burial Practices. Kiva 52(3):163–191.

Brooks, James F. 2002 Captives and Cousins: Slavery, Kinship, and Community in the Southwest Bor- derlands. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 370

Brugge, David M. 1999 Captives and Slaves on the Camino Real. In El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro: Volume Two, edited by Gabrielle G. Palmer, June-el Piper and LouAnn Ja- cobsen, pp. 103–110. Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico State Office, Santa Fe.

Burrus, S.J., Ernest J. 1955 An Introduction to Bibliographic Tools in Spanish Archives and Manuscript Collections Relating to Hispanic America. The Hispanic American Historical Review 35(444–483).

1959 Research Opportunities in Italian Archives and Manuscript Collections for Students of Hispanic American History. Hispanic American Historical Review 39(3):428–463.

1971 Kino and Manje, Explorers of Sonora and Arizona: Their Vision of the Future. Jesuit Historical Institute, Rome.

Burton, Jeffery F. 1992 Remnants of Adobe and Stone: The Surface Archaeology of the Guevavi and Calabazas Units, Tumacacori National Historic Park, Arizona. Publications in Anthropology No. 59. Western Archaeological Conservation Center, National Park Service, Tucson, Arizona.

Bush, David R. and Charles Callender 1984 Anybody But the Erie. Ohio Archaeologist 34(1):31–35.

Cabeza de Vaca, Álvar Núñez 1986 La Relación o Naufragios. Scripta Humanistica 21. Scripta Humanistica, Poto- moc, Maryland.

Cable, John S. 1990 Who Were the Protohistoric Occupants of Ak-Chin?: A Study Concerning the Relationship Between Ethnicity and Ceramic Style. In Archaeology of the Ak-Chin Indian Community West Side Farms Project: Subsistence Studies and Synthesis Interrelations, edited by Robert E. Gasser, Christine K. Robinson and Cory Dale Breternitz, pp. 23.21–23.65. Soil Systems Publications in Archaeol- ogy No. 9, Vol. 5. Soil Systems, Phoenix. 371

Campbell, Lyle 1997 American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native America. Ox- ford University Press, New York.

Carrico, Richard L. 1983 A Preliminary Report on the Petroglyphs of Cerro Calera, Sonora. San Diego Museum Papers 16:81–92.

Castetter, Edward F. and Willis H. Bell 1942 Pima and Papago Indian Agriculture. Inter-Americana Studies 1. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Chambers, George W. 1955 The Old Presidio of Tucson. Kiva 20(2–3):15–16.

Chavarria, Sara P. 1996 Archaeological Investigations at the Summit at Alvernon Site, AZ BB:9:280(ASM): Archaic, Hohokam, Protohistoric, and Historical Use of an Up- per Bajada Environment. Archaeology Report No. 4. Old Pueblo Archaeology Center, Tucson.

Cheek, Annetta L. 1974 Evidence for Acculturation in Artifacts: Indians and Non-Indians at San Xavier del Bac, Arizona, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropol- ogy, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Chenault, Mark L. 1996 The Polvorón Phase and the Hohokam Collapse, Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder.

2000 In Defense of the Polvorón Phase. In The Hohokam Village Revisited, edited by David E. Doyel, Suzanne K. Fish and Paul R. Fish, pp. 277–286. Southwestern and Rock Mountain Division of the American Association for the Advance- ment of Science, Fort Collins, Colorado. 372

Churchill, Ward 2000 Charades, Anyone?: The Indian Claims Commission in Context. American Indian Culture and Research Journal 24(1):43–68.

Ciolek-Torrello, Richard and Susan A. Brew 1976 Archaeological Test Excavations at the San Xavier Bicentennial Plaza Site. Ar- chaeological Series No. 102. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

Ciolek-Torrello, Richard and Mark T. Swanson 1997 Pithouse, Presidio, and Privy: 1,400 years of Archaeology and History on Block 180, Tucson, AZ. Technical Series No. 63. Statistical Research, Inc, Tucson.

Clark, Jeffery J. 2001 Tracking Prehistoric Migration: Pueblo Settlers Among the Tonto Basin Ho- hokam. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No. 65. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Coe, Carol A. 1979 Archaeological Assessment of the Sells Vicinity, Papago Indian Reservation, Ari- zona. Archaeological Series No. 131. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

Congress, 100st 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. In 25 U.S.C. 3001, pp. 166-168. 101st Congress.

Cook, David Noble 1998 Born To Die: Disease and New World Conquest, 1492–1650. Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge.

Cormack, R. M. 1971 A Review of Classification. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 134(3):321– 367.

Crown, Patricia L. 1994 Ceramics and Ideology: Salado Polychrome Pottery. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 373

Curtain, Lenora S. M. 1949 By the Prophet of the Earth. San Vicente Foundation, Santa Fe.

Cushing, Frank Hamilton and Jesse Green 1979 Zuni: Selected Writings of Frank Hamilton Cushing. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Cusick, James G. 1998 Historiography of Acculturation: An Evaluation of Concepts and their Ap- plication in Archaeology. In Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology, edited by James G. Cusick, pp. 126–145. Occasional Paper No. 25. Center for Archaeological Investigations. Southern Illinois Uni- versity, Carbondale.

2000 Creolization and the Borderlands. Historical Archaeology 34(3):46–55.

Daniels, John 1992 The Indian Population of North America in 1492. William and Mary Quarterly 49(2):298–320.

Dart, Allen (editor) 1994 Archaeological Studies of the Avra Valley, Arizona: Excavations in the Schuk Toak District. Anthropological Papers No. 16. Center for Desert Archeology, Tucson.

Day, A. Grove 1940 Coronado’s Quest: The Discovery of the Southwestern States. University of Cali- fornia Press, Berkeley.

De Certeau, Michel 1984 The Practice of Everyday Life. Translated by Steven Rendall. University of Cali- fornia Press, Berkeley, California.

Deagan, Kathleen A. 1973 Mestizaje in Colonial St. Augustine. Ethnohistory 20(1):55–65. 374

1988 Neither History Nor Prehistory: The Questions that Count in Historical Ar- chaeology. Historical Archaeology 22(1):7–12.

1998 Transculturation and Spanish American Ethnogenesis: The Archaeological Legacy of the Quincentenary. In Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Cul- ture Change, and Archaeology, edited by James G. Cusick, pp. 23–43. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 25. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Dean, Jeffrey S. 1978 Independent Dating in Archaeological Analysis. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 1, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 223–255. Aca- demic Press, New York.

1991 Thoughts on Hohokam Chronology. In Exploring the Hohokam: Prehistoric Desert Peoples of the American Southwest, edited by George J. Gumerman, pp. 61–149. Amerind Foundation, Dragoon, Arizona.

2000 Introduction. In Salado, edited by Jeffrey S. Dean, pp. 3–16. Amerind Founda- tion, Dragoon, Arizona.

Deaver, William 1990 Native American Ceramics. In Archaeology of the Ak-Chin Indian Commu- nity West Side Farms Project: Material Culture and Human Remains, edited by Robert E. Gasser, Christine K. Robinson and Cory Dale Breternitz, pp. 15.11– 15.35. Soil Systems Publications in Archaeology No. 9, Vol. 4. Soil Systems, Phoenix.

Deeds, Susan M. 1998a First-Generation Rebellions in Seventeenth-Century Nueva Vizcaya. In Na- tive Resistance and the Pax Colonial in New Spain, edited by Susan Schroeder, pp. 1–29. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

1998b Indigenous Rebellions on the Northern Mexican Frontier on the Northern Mexican Mission Frontier: From First-Generation to Later Colonial Respons- es. In Contested Ground: Comparative Frontiers on the Northern and Southern Edges of the Spanish Empire, edited by Donna J. Guy and Thomas E. Sheridan, pp. 32–51. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 375

DeLong, Scofield and Leffler B Miller 1936 Architecture of the Sonoran Missions: Sonora Expedition, Oct. 12–29. National Park Service, Washington D.C.

DeMallie, Raymond J. 1993 “These Have No Ears”: Narrative and the Ethnohistorical Method. Ethnohistory 40(4):515–538.

Derrick, Sharon McCormick and Diane Wilson 1997 Cranial Modeling as an Ethnic Marker Among the Prehistoric Caddo. Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological Society 68:139–146.

Di Peso, Charles C. 1953 The Sobaipuri Indians of the Upper San Pedro River Valley, Southeastern Ari- zona. Amerind Foundation Series, No. 6. Amerind Foundation, Dragoon, Arizona.

1956 The Upper Pima of San Cayetano del Tumacacori: An Archaeohistorical Re- construction of the Ootam of Pimeria Alta. Amerind Foundation Series, No. 7. Amerind Foundation Series, No. 7. Amerind Foundation, Dragoon, Arizona.

1958 The Reeve Ruin of Southeastern Arizona: A Study of Prehistoric Western Pueblo Migration into the Middle San Pedro Valley. Amerind Foundation Publications 8. The Amerind Foundation, Dragoon, Arizona.

1974 Casas Grandes: A Fallen Trading Center of the Gran Chichimeca Vol. 2: Medio Period. Amerind Foundation Series No. 9. Northland Press, Flagstaff.

1976 Gila Polychrome in the Casas Grandes Region. Kiva 42(1):57–63.

1981 The Amerind Foundation. American Indian Art 6(46–51).

Dimmitt, Mark A. 2000 Biomes and Communities of the Sonoran Desert Region. In A Natural His- tory of the Sonoran Desert, edited by Steven J. Phillips and Patricia Wentworth Comus, pp. 3–18. University of California Press, Berkeley. 376

Dobyns, Henry F. 1959 Tubac Through Four Centuries: A Historical Resume and Analysis. Ms. on file, Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

1966 Estimating Aboriginal American Population: An Appraisal of Techniques with a New Hemispheric Estimate. Current Anthropology 7(4):395–416.

1974 Prehistoric Indian Occupation within the Eastern Area of the Yuman Complex: A Study in Applied Archaeology, Hualapai in Arizona from 1583. Hualapai Indians 1. Garland, New York.

1983 Their Number Become Thinned: Native American Population Dynamics in East- ern North America. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

1991 New Native World: Links Between Demographic and Cultural Changes. In Columbian Consequences Vol. 3: The Spanish Borderlands in Pan-American Per- spective, edited by David Hurst Thomas, pp. 541–559. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Dobyns, Henry F., Paul H. Ezell and Greta S. Ezell 1963 Death of a Society. Ethnohistory 10(2):105–161.

Doelle, William H. 1981 The Gila Pima in the Late Seventeenth Century. In The Protohistoric Period in the North American Southwest, AD 1450–1700, edited by David R. Wilcox and W. Bruce Masse, pp. 57–70. Anthropological Research Papers No. 24. Arizona State University, Tempe.

1983 Archaeological and Historical Investigations at Nolic, Papago Indian Reservation, Arizona. Anthropological Papers 2. Institute for American Research, Tucson.

1984 The Tucson Basin During the Protohistoric Period. Kiva 49(3-4):195–211. 377

Doelle, William H. and Henry D. Wallace 1991 The Transition to History in Pimería Alta. In Perspectives on Southwestern Pre- history, edited by Paul E. Minnis and Charles E. Redman, pp. 239–257. West- view Press, Boulder.

Dominguez, Virginia R. 1986 White by Definition: Social Classification in Creole Louisiana. Rutgers Univer- sity Press, New Brunswick.

Doolittle, Christopher J. 2004 Damage Assessment at Four Rockshelter Sites on the Barry M. Goldwater Range, East, Arizona. Technical Report No. 04-18. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson.

Doolittle, Christopher J., Gabrielle Duff, Stephanie M. Whittlesey and Vincent M. LaMot- ta (editors) 2005 ETAC 2000: Intensive Archaeological Survey of 5,502 Acres on the East Tactical Range, Barry M. Goldwater Range East, Arizona. Cultural Resources Studies in the Western Papaguería No. 7. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson.

Downum, Christian E. (editor) 1993 Between Desert and River: Hohokam Settlement and Land Use in the Los Robles Community. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No. 57. Uni- versity of Arizona, Tucson.

2007 Cerros de Trincheras in Southern Arizona: Review and Current Status of the Debate. In Trincheras Sites in Time, Space, and Society, edited by Suzanne K. Fish, Paul R. Fish and María Elisa Villalpando, pp. 101–136. Amerind Studies in Archaeology Vol. 1. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Downum, Christian E., John E. Douglas and Douglas B. Craig 1993 The Cerro Prieto Site. In Between Desert and River: Hohokam Settlement and Land Use in the Los Robles Community, edited by Christian E. Downum, pp. 53–95. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No. 57. Uni- versity of Arizona Press, Tucson. 378

Doyel, David E. 1977 Excavations in the Middle Santa Cruz Valley, Southeastern Arizona. Contribu- tions to Highway Salvage Archaeology No. 44. Arizona State Museum. Univer- sity of Arizona, Tucson.

1987 The Hohokam Village. In The Hohokam Village: Site Structure and Organiza- tion, edited by David E. Doyel, pp. 1–20. Southwestern and Rocky Mountain Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Glen- wood Springs, Colorado.

1989 The Transition to History in the Northern Pimería Alta. In Columbian Con- sequences Volume 1: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands West, edited by David Hurst Thomas, pp. 139-158. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Doyel, David E. and Fred Plog (editors) 1980 Current Issues in Hohokam Prehistory: Proceedings of a Symposium. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers No. 23. Arizona State Uni- versity, Tempe.

DuBois, Robert L. 1975 Secular Variation in Southwestern United States as Suggested by Archeomag- netic Studies. In Proceedings of the Takesi Nagata Conference, edited by R. M. Fischer, M. Fuller, V. A. Schmidt and P. J. Wasilewski, pp. 133–144. Goodard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland.

Dudley, Shelly C. 2001 Water, the Gila River Pimas, and the Arrival of the Spanish. In Fluid Argu- ments: Five Centuries of Western Water Conflicts, edited by Char Miller, pp. 27– 39. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Duff, Andrew I. 2002 Western Pueblo Identities: Regional Interaction, Migration, and Transformation. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 379

Duffen, William A. and William K. Hartmann 1997 The 76 Ranch Ruin and the Location of Chichilticale. In The Coronado Ex- pedition to Tierra Nueva: The 1540–1542 Route Across the Southwest, edited by Richard Flint and Shirley Cushing Flint, pp. 190–211. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Dunnell, Robert C. 1986 Methodological Issues in Americanist Artifact Classification. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory Vol. 9, edited by Michael Brian Schiffer, pp. 149–207. Academic Press, New York.

1991 Methodological Impacts of Catastrophic Depopulation on American Archae- ology and Ethnology. In Columbian Consequences, Vol. 3: The Spanish Border- lands in Pan-American Perspective, edited by David Hurst Thomas, pp. 561– 580. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Dykeman, Douglas D., Ronald H. Towner and James K. Feathers 2002 Correspondence in Tree-Ring and Thermoluminescence Dating: A Protohis- toric Navajo Pilot Study. American Antiquity 67(1):145–164.

Ebright, Malcom 2008 [1994] Land Grants and Lawsuits in Northern New Mexico. Center for Land Grant Studies, Guadalupita, New Mexico.

Elson, Mark D. and William H. Doelle 1987 Archaeological Assessment of the Mission Road Extension: Testing at AZ BB:13:6(ASM). Technical Report No. 87-6. Institute for American Research, Tucson.

Emberling, Geoff 1997 Ethnicity in Complex Societies: Archaeological Perspectives. Journal of Archae- ological Research 5(4):295–344.

Escobar, Francisco de 1605 Escobar Diary. Unpublished manuscript on file, Office of Ethnohistorical Re- search, Arizona State Museum, Tucson. 380

Ethridge, Robbie and Charles Hudson 1996 The Early Historic Transformation of Southeastern Indians. In Cultural Diver- sity in the U.S. South: Anthropological Contributions to a Region in Transition, edited by Carole Hill and Patricia D. Beaver, pp. 34–50. Southern Anthropo- logical Society Proceedings, No. 31. University of Georgia Press, Athens.

Evans-Pritchard, Edward E. 1940 The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People. Oxford University Press, New York.

Ezell, Paul H. 1954 An Archaeological Survey of Northwestern Papguería. Kiva 19(2–4):1–26.

1955 The Archaeological Delineation of a Cultural Boundary in Papaguería. Ameri- can Antiquity 20(4):367–374.

1961 The Hispanic Acculturation of the Gila River Pimas. American Anthropological Association Memoir 90. George Banta Co., Menasha, Wisconsin.

1963a Is there a Hohokam-Pima Continuum? American Antiquity 29(1):61–66.

1963b The Maricopas: An Identification from Documentary Sources. Anthropological Papers No. 6. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Ezzo, Joeseph A. and Jefferey H. Altschul (editors) 1993 Glyphs and Quarries of the Lower Colorado River Valley. Technical Series No. 44. Statistical Research, Tucson.

Feathers, James K. 1997 The Application of Luminescence Dating in American Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 4(1):1–66.

2000 Why Luminescence Dating Deserves Wider Application in American Arche- ology. In It’s About Time, edited by S. Nash, pp. 168–185. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 381

2003 Use of Luminescence Dating in Archaeology. Measurement Science and Tech- nology 14:1493–1509.

Feathers, James K. and David Rhode 1989 Luminescence Dating of Protohistoric Pottery from the Great Basin. Geoar- chaeology 13(3):287–308.

Feder, Kenneth L. 2007 The Past in Perspective: An Introduction to Human Prehistory. th4 ed. McGraw Hill, Boston.

Ferg, Alan 1992 Western Apache and Yavapai Pottery Features from the Rye Creek Projects. In The Rye Creek Project: Archaeology in the Upper Tonto Basin. Volume 3: Synthe- sis and Conclusions, edited by Mark D. Elson and Douglas B. Craig, pp. 3–27. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

2004 Horses in Chiricahua and Western Apache. Archaeology Southwest 18(3):7.

Ferguson, T. J. 2004 Academic, Legal, and Political Contexts of Social Identity and Cultural Affili- ation Research in the Southwest. In Identity, Feasting, and the Archaeology of the Greater Southwest, edited by Barbara J. Mills, pp. 27–41. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Fewkes, Jesse Walter 1908 Excavations at Casa Grande, Arizona, in 1906–07. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

1911 Antiquities of the Mesa Verde National Park: Cliff Palace. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.

1919 Prehistoric Villages, Castles, and Towers of Southwestern Colorado. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. 382

Fink, T. Michael 1991 Prehistoric Irrigation Canals and Their Possible Impact on Hohokam Health. In Prehistoric Irrigation in Arizona: Symposium 1988, edited by Cory Dale Bre- ternitz, pp. 61–87. Publications in Archaeology No. 17. Soil Systems, Phoenix.

Fish, Paul R. and Suzanne K. Fish 2002 Looking South from Arizona: Changing Views of Interaction. In Boundaries and Territories: Prehistory of the U.S. Southwest and Northern Mexico, edited by María Elisa Villalpando, pp. 155–163. Arizona State University Anthropologi- cal Research Papers No. 54. Arizona State University, Tempe.

Fish, Suzanne K. and Paul R. Fish 1993 An Assessment of Abandonment Processes in the Hohokam Classic Period of the Tucson Basin. In Abandonment of Settlements and Regions: Ethnoarchaeo- logical and Archaeological Approaches, edited by Catherine M. Cameron and Steve A. Tomka, pp. 99–109. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

2004 In the Trincheras Heartland. In Surveying the Archaeology of Northwest Mexico, edited by Gillian E. Newell and Emiliano Gallaga, pp. 47–63. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Fish, Suzanne K., Paul R. Fish and Christian E. Downum 1984 Hohokam Terraces and Agricultural Production in the Tucson Basin. In Pre- historic Agricultural Strategies in the Tucson Basin, edited by Suzanne K. Fish and Paul R. Fish. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers No. 33. Arizona State University, Tempe.

Fish, Suzanne K., Paul R. Fish and John H. Madsen (editors) 1992 The Marana Community in the Hohokam World. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona, No. 56. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Fish, Suzanne K., Paul R. Fish and María Elisa Villalpando (editors) 2007 Trincheras Sites in Time, Space, and Society. Amerind Studies in Archaeology Vol. 1. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Flint, Richard 2008 No Settlement, No Conquest: A History of the Coronado Entrada. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 383

Flint, Richard and Shirley Cushing Flint (editors) 1997 The Coronado Expedition to Tierra Nueva: The 1540–1542 Route Across the Southwest. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, Colorado.

2005 Documents of the Coronado Expedition, 1539–1542: “They Were Not Familiar with His Majesty, nor Did They Wish to Be His Subjects”. Southern Methodist University, Dallas.

Fontana, Bernard L. 1965 An Archaeological Site Survey of the Cabeza Prieta Game Range, Arizona, Unpublished manuscript on file, Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

1974 The Papago Tribe of Arizona. In Papgo Indians III, edited by David Agee Horr, pp. 151–226. American Indian Ethnohistory: Indians of the Southwest. Gar- land Publishing, New York.

1989 Of Earth and Little Rain. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

Fontana, Bernard L. and William J. Robinson 1970 Techniques of Pottery Manufacture of the Papago Indians. In Culture Shock: A Reader in Modern Cultural Anthropology, edited by Philip K. Bock, pp. 179– 193. Knopf, New York.

Fontana, Bernard L., William J. Robinson, Charles W. Comack and Earnest E. Leavitt 1962 Papago Indian Pottery. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.

Forbes, Jack D. 1959 Unknown Athapaskans: The Identification of the Jano, Jocome, Jumano, Man- so, Suma, and Other Indian Tribes of the Southwest. Ethnohistory 6(2):97–159.

Forde, C. Daryll 1931 Ethnography of the Yuma Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol 28, No. 4, University of California, Berkeley. 384

Foster, George M. 1960 Culture and Conquest: America’s Spanish Heritage. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology. Wenner-Gren Foundation, New York.

Franklin, Hayward Hoskins 1980 Excavations at Second Canyon Ruin, San Pedro Valley, Arizona. Contribution to Highway Salvage Archaeology in Arizona No. 60. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

Fratt, Lee 1981 Tumacacori Plaza Excavation, 1979: Historical Archaeology at Tumacacori National Monument, Arizona. Publications in Anthropology No. 16. Western Archeological and Conservation Center, National Park Service, Tucson.

1986 Tumacacori National Monument: Archaeological Assessment and Manage- ment Recommendations. In Miscellaneous Historic Period Archaeological Proj- ects in the Western Region, edited by Martyn D. Tagg, pp. 43–74. Publications in Anthropology No. 37. Western Archeological and Conservation Center, National Park Service, Tucson.

Fritz, Gordon L. 1977 The Ecological Significance of Early Piman Immigration to Southern Arizona. Unpublished manuscript on file, Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

1989 The Ecological Significance of Early Piman Immigration to Southern Arizona. The Artifact 27(1):51–109.

Gallaga, Emiliano and Gillian E. Newell 2004 Introduction. In Surveying the Archaeology of Northwest Mexico, edited by Gil- lian E. Newell and Emiliano Gallaga, pp. 1–23. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Galloway, Patricia 2006 Practicing Ethnohistory: Mining Archives, Hearing Testimony, Constructing Nar- rative. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 385

Gasser, Robert E., Christine K. Robinson and Cory Dale Breternitz (editors) 1990 Archaeology of the Ak-Chin Indian Community West Side Farms Project. 5 vols. Soil Systems Publications in Archaeology No. 9, Phoenix.

Gerald, Rex E. 1968 Spanish Presidios of the Late Eighteenth Century in Northern New Spain. Re- search Records No. 7. Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe.

Gilpin, Dennis 1998 The Prehistoric to Historic Transition Period in Arizona, Circa A.D. 1519 to 1692. SWCA, Inc., Flagstaff, Arizona.

Gladwin, Harold S., Emil W. Haury, E. B. Sayles and Nora Gladwin 1937 Excavations at Snaketown:Material Culture. Medallion Papers No. 25. Gila Pueblo, Globe, Arizona.

Gladwin, Winifred and Harold S. Gladwin 1929 The Red-on-Buff Culture of the Papagueria. Medallion Papers 4. Gila Pueblo Archaeological Foundation, Globe, Arizona

1930 Some Southwestern Potter Types: Series I. Medallion Papers No. 25. Gila Pueblo, Globe, Arizona.

Gray, Marlesa A. and Michael P. Heilen (editors) 2010 Deathways and Lifeways in the American Southwest: Tucson’s Historic Alameda- Stone Cemetery and the Transformation of a Remote Outpost into an Urban City. 4 vols. Technical Report 10-95. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson.

Grebinger, Paul and David Peter Adam 1974 Hard Times: Classic Period Hohokam Cultural Development in the Tucson Basin, Arizona. World Archaeology 6(2):226–241.

Greenwood, Roberta S. 1980 The Chinese on Main Street. In Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity in America: Afro-American and Asian American Culture History, edited by Robert L. Schuyler, pp. 113–123. Baywood, Farmingdale. 386

Hackenburg, Robert A. 1974a Aboriginal Land Use and Occupancy of the Papago Indians. Papago Indians 1. Garland, New York.

1974b Pima-Maricopa Indians. American Indian Ethnohistory. Garland, New York.

Hall, John D., Richard Ciolek-Torrello, Stacey N. Lengyel and Amanda Cannon 2010 Prehistoric and Protohistoric Archaeology in the Joint Courts Complex Ar- chaeological Project Area. In Deathways and Lifeways in the American South- west: Tucson’s Historic Alameda-Stone Cemetery and the Transformation of a Remote Outpost into an Urban City, edited by Michael Heilen and Marlesa A. Gray, pp. 51–86. vol. 1. 4 vols. Technical Report 10-95. Statistical Research Tucson.

Hallenbeck, Cleve 1949 The Journey of Fray Marcos de Niza. Southern Methodist University, Dallas.

Hammond, Geroge P. and Agapito Rey 1953 Don Juan de Oñate: Colonizer of New Mexico, 1595–1628 Vol. 2. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Harry, Karen 2003 Economic Organization and Settlement Hierarchies: Ceramic Production and Exchange Among the Hohokam. Praeger, Westport.

Hartmann, William 1997 Pathfinder for Coronado: Reevaluating the Mysterious Journey of Marcos de Niza. In The Coronado Expedition to Tierra Nueva: The 1540–1542 Route Across the Southwest, edited by Richard Flint and Shirley Cushing Flint, pp. 73–101. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Haury, Emil W. 1936 The Mogollon Culture of Southwestern New Mexico. Medallion Papers No. 11. Gila Pueblo Archeological Foundation, Globe, Arizona. 387

1945 The Excavation of Los Muertos and Neighboring Ruins in the Salt River Valley, Southern Arizona. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology. Vol 24, No. 1. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

1950 The Stratigraphy and Archaeology of Ventana Cave. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

1976a The Hohokam: Desert Farmers and Craftsman: Excavations at Snaketown, 1964–1965. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

1976b Salado: A View from Point of Pines. Kiva 42(1):81–84.

Haury, Emil W. and Isabel Fathauer 1974 Tucson from Pithouse to Skyscraper. Tucson Historical Committee, Tucson.

Haury, Emil W. and Norman E. Gabel 1941 Excavations in the Forestdale Valley, East-central Arizona. University of Arizona Bulletin Vol. 11, No. 4. University of Arizona, Tucson.

Hayden, Julian D. 1957 Excavations, 1940, at University Indian Ruin, Tucson, Arizona. Southwestern Monuments Association Technical Series Vol. 5, Globe, Arizona.

1967 A Summary Prehistory and History of the Sierra Pinacate, Sonora. American Antiquity 32(3):335–344.

1970 Of Hohokam Origins and Other Matters. American Antiquity 35(1):87–93.

Hayden, Julian D., Bill Broyles and Diane E. Boyer 2011 Field Man: Life as a Desert Archaeologist. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 388

Heidke, James M., Elizabeth J. Miksa and Henry D. Wallace 2001 A Petrographic Approach to Sand-tempered Pottery Provenance Studies: Ex- amples from Two Hohokam Local Systems. In Ceramic Production and Circu- lation in the Great Southwest: Source Determination by INAA and Complemen- tary Mineralogical Investigations, edited by D. M. Glowacki and Hector Neff, pp. 152–178. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Henderson, T. Kathleen 1987 Structure and Organization at La Ciudad. Office of Cultural Resource Manage- ment Vol. 3. Arizona State University, Tempe.

1993 Site Chronology. In Classic Period Occupation on the Santa Cruz Flats: The Santa Cruz Flats Archaeological Project, edited by T. Kathleen Henderson and Richard J. Martynec, pp. 80–92. Northland Research, Phoenix.

Henderson, T. Kathleen and Mark R. Hackbarth 2000 What is Going on at the Hohokam Village? A Fourteenth and Fifteenth Cen- tury Perspective. In The Hohokam Village Revisited, edited by David E. Doyel, Suzanne K. Fish and Paul R. Fish, pp. 287–316. Southwestern and Rocky Mountain Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Sci- ence, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Hendricks, David M. 1985 Arizona Soils. University of Arizona, Tucson.

Henige, David 1986 Primary Source by Primary Source? On the Role of Epidemics in New World Depopulation. Ethnohistory 33(3):293–312.

1989 On the Current Devaluation of the Notion of Evidence: A Rejoinder to Dobyns. Ethnohistory 36(3):304–307.

1998 Numbers from Nowhere: The American Indian Contact Population Debate. Uni- versity of Oklahoma Press, Norman. 389

Herskovits, Melville J. 1958 Acculturation: The Study of Culture Contact. 2nd ed. Peter Smith, Gloucester, Massachusetts.

Heuett, Mary Lou, Keith Skip Miller, Julio L. Betancourt, Thomas W. Stafford, Jr., David C. Hanna, Douglas E. Kupel, Peter L. Steere, Laurie V. Slawson, Henry D. Wallace, Alfred Edward Dittert, Boyd. Johns, Aphrodite. Ploumis, Richard J. Martynec, Linda. Roth, Scott T. Clay-Poole, Jeffrey H. Altschul and Martin R. Rose (editors) 1987 San Xavier Archaeological Project. 6 vols. Cultural Series No. 1. Cultural and Environmental Systems, Inc., Tucson.

Hill, J. Brett, Jeffery J. Clark, William H. Doelle and Patrick D. Lyons 2004 Prehistoric Demography in the Southwest: Migration, Coalescence, and Ho- hokam Population Decline. American Antiquity 69(4):689–716.

Hill, Jane H. 2004 Two Styles for Language and Social Identity among the Tohono O’odham. In Identity, Feasting, and the Archaeology of the Greater Southwest, edited by Bar- bara J. Mills, pp. 125–138. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Hill, Jonathan D. 1996 History, Power, and Identity: Ethnogenesis in the Americas, 1492–1992. Univer- sity of Iowa Press, Iowa City.

Hinton, Thomas B. 1955 A Survey of Archaeological Sites in the Altar Valley, Sonora. Kiva 21(1–2):1– 12.

Hodder, Ian 1978 The Spatial Organisation of Culture. Duckworth, London.

Hoffman, Michael P. 1993 Depopulation and Abandonment of Northeastern Arkansas in the Protohistor- ic Period. In Archaeology of Eastern North America: Papers in Honor of Stephen Williams, edited by James B. Stoltman, pp. 261–275. Archaeological Report 25. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson. 390

Horton, Tonia W. 1998 Tumacacori National Historical Park Cultural Landscape Documentation Study. Unpublished manuscript on file, Tumacacori National Historical Park, Tumacacori, Arizona.

Huckell, Bruce B. 1980 The ANAMAX-Rosemont Testing Project. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

1984 Sobaipuri Sites in the Rosemont Area, Northern Santa Rita Mountains, South- eastern Arizona. In Miscellaneous Archaeological Studies in the ANAMAX- Rosemont Land Exchange Area, edited by Martyn D. Tagg, Richard G. Ervin and Bruce B. Huckell, pp. 107–130. Archaeological Series No. 147, Vol. 4. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

Huckell, Bruce B. and Lisa W. Huckell 1982 Archaeological Test Excavations at Tubac State Park. In Archaeological Test Ex- cavations in Southern Arizona, edited by Susan A. Brew. Archaeological Series No. 174. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

Hull, Kathleen L. 2009 Pestilence and Persistence: Yosemite Indian Demography and Culture in Colonial California. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Ingram, Mrill 2000 Desert Storms. In A Natural History of the Sonoran Desert, edited by Steven J. Phillips and Patricia Wentworth Comus, pp. 41–50. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Ives, Ronald L. 1959 The Grave of Melchior Diaz: A Problem in Historical Sleuthing. Kiva 25(2):31– 40.

Jackson, Robert H. 1994 Indian Population Decline: The Missions of Northwestern New Spain, 1687– 1840. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 391

Jenkins, Richard 2004 Social Identity. 2nd ed. Routledge, London.

Jenks, Kelly L. 2011 Vecinos en la Frontera: Interaction, Adaptation, and Identity at San Miguel del Vado, New Mexico, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, School of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Jones, Peter N. 2005 Respect for the Ancestors: American Indian Cultural Affiliation in the American West. Bauu Institute, Boulder.

Jones, Sian 1997 The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present. Routledge, London.

Jorgensen, Joseph G. 2005 Archaeological Sociology in America’s Southwest: A Review Essay. Journal of the Southwest 47(4):637–664.

Justice, Noel D. 2002 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Southwestern United States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Katzew, Ilona 2004 Casta Painting: Images of Race in Eighteenth-Century Mexico. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Kealhofer, Lisa 1996 The Evidence for Demographic Collapse in California. In Bioarchaeology of Native American Adaptation in the Spanish Borderlands, edited by Brenda J. Baker and Lisa Kealhofer, pp. 56–92. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Kelly, William H. 1952 Bureau of Ethnic Research. Kiva 18(9–12). 392

1974 The Papago Indians of Arizona. In Papago Indians III, edited by David Agee Horr, pp. 1–149. American Indian Ethnohistory: Indians of the Southwest. Garland Publishing, New York.

1977 Cocopa Ethnography. Anthropological Papers No. 29. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Kelton, Paul 2007 Epidemics and Enslavement: Biological Catastrophe in the Native Southeast, 1492–1715. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Kessell, John L. 1970 Mission of Sorrows: Jesuit Guevavi and the Pimas, 1691–1767. University of Ari- zona Press, Tucson.

1974 Friars versus Bureaucrats: The Mission as a Threatened Institution on the Ari- zona-Sonora Frontier, 1767–1842. Western Historical Quarterly 5(2):151–162.

1976 Friars, Soldiers, and Reformers: Hispanic Arizona and the Sonora Mission Fron- tier, 1767–1856. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

2002 Spain in the Southwest: A Narrative History of Colonial New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and California. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Kidder, Alfred Vincent 1915 Pottery of the Pajarito Plateau and Some Adjacent Regions in New Mexico. Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association 2. New Era Printing Co., Lancaster.

1924 An Introduction to the Study of Southwestern Archaeology with a Preliminary Account of the Excavations at Pecos. Papers of the Southwestern Expedition 1. Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology. Yale University Press, Ando- ver, Massachusetts.

1927 Peabody Museum Expedition to the Mimbres Valley, New Mexico: Season of 1927. Laboratory of Anthropology, Santa Fe. 393

1958 Pecos, New Mexico: Archaeological Notes. Papers of the Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology 5. Yale University Press, Andover, Massachusetts.

Kino, Eusebio Francisco 1985 Crónica de la Pimería Alta: Favores Celestiales. Gobierno del Estado de Sonora, Hermosillo.

Kiple, Kenneth F. and Stephen V. Beck 1997 Biological Consequences of the European Expansion, 1450–1800. Expanding World 26. Aldershot, Hampshire, Great Britain.

Kisselburg, JoAnn E. (editor) 1989 Investigations at a Pima Household Complex, AZ U:14:79(ASM). Northland Research, Inc., Tempe.

Knight, Vernon James, Jr. 1994 The Formation of the Creeks. In The Forgotten Centuries: Indians and Europe- ans in the American South, 1521–1704, edited by Charles Hudson and Carmen Chaves, pp. 373–392. University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia.

Kroeber, Alfred L. 1902 Sketch of the Mohave Indians. American Anthropologist 4(2):276–285.

1916 Zuñi Potsherds. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History Vol. 18, part 1. The Trustees, New York.

1917 Zuñi Kin and Clan. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natu- ral History Vol. 18, Part 2. The Trustees, New York.

1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

1935 Walapai Ethnography. Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association No. 42, Menasha, Wisconsin. 394

1939 Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 38. University of Cali- fornia, Berkeley.

1944 Peruvian Archaeology in 1942. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 4. Viking Fund, New York.

1948 Seven Mohave Myths. Anthropological Records Vol. 11, No. 1. University of California Press, Berkeley.

1955 Mohave Pottery. Anthropological Records Vol. 16, No. 1. University Press of California, Berkeley.

Kroeber, Clifton B. and Bernard L. Fontana 1986 Massacre on the Gila. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

LaBelle, J. M. and Jeffrey L. Eighmy 1997 Additional Archaeomagnetic Data on the South-West USA Master Geomag- netic Pole Curve. Archaeometry 39(2):431–439.

Layhe, Robert W. (editor) 1986 Archaeological Investigations at AZ U:14:75(ASM): A Turn-of-the-Century Pima Homestead. Archaeological Series No. 172. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

LeBlanc, Steven 1999 Prehistoric Warfare in the American Southwest. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Lehmer, Donald J. and Warren W. Caldwell 1966 Horizon and Tradition in the Northern Plains. American Antiquity 31(4):511– 516.

Lengyel, Stacey N. and Jeffrey L. Eighmy 2002 A Revision to the U.S. Southwest Archaeomagnetic Master Curve. Journal of Archaeological Science 29(12):1423–1433. 395

Liebmann, Matthew 2008 Postcolonial Cultural Affiliation: Essentialism, Hybridity, and NAGPRA. In Archaeology and the Postcolonial Critique, edited by Matthew Liebmann and Uzma Z. Rizivi, pp. 73–90. AltaMira Press, Lanham.

Liebmann, Matthew and Robert W. Preucel 2007 The Archaeology of the Pueblo Revolt and the Formation of the Modern Pueblo World. Kiva 73(2):195–217.

Lightfoot, Kent G. 1995 Culture Contact Studies: Reading the Relationship Between Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology. American Antiquity 60(2):199–217.

2005 Indians, Missionaries, and Merchants: The Legacy of Colonial Encounters on the California Frontiers. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Lightfoot, Kent G., Antoinette Martinez and Ann M. Schiff 1998 Daily Practice and Material Culture in Pluralistic Social Settings: An Archaeo- logical Study of Culture Change and Persistence from Fort Ross, California. American Antiquity 63(2):199–222.

Livesay, Thomas 1992 A Museum Perspective on Repatriation: Issues and Opportunities. Arizona State Law Journal 24(1):283–292.

Loendorf, Chris 2001 Salado Burial Practices. In Ancient Burial Practices in the American Southwest: Archaeology, Physical Anthropology, and Native American Perspectives, edited by Douglas R. Mitchell and Judy L. Brunson-Hadley, pp. 123–148. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

2004 Projectile Point Typology: Gila River Indian Community, Arizona. Gila River Indian Community Anthropological Research Papers No. 2. Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona. 396

Loren, Diana DiPaolo 2000 The Intersections of Colonial Policy and Colonial Practice: Creolization on the Eighteenth Century Louisiana/Texas Frontier. Historical Archaeology 34(3):85– 98.

Lumholtz, Carl 1912 New Trails in Mexico: An Account of One Year’s Exploration in North-Western Sonora, Mexico, and South-Western Arizona, 1909–1910. Scribner, New York.

Lyman, R. Lee and Michael J. O’Brien 2001 The Direct Historical Approach, Analog Reasoning, and Theory in American- ist Archeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 8(4):303–342.

2006 Measuring Time with Artifacts: A History of Methods in American Archaeology. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Lyons, Patrick D. 2004 José Solas Ruin. Kiva 70(2):143–181.

Lyons, Patrick D., Jeffery J. Clark and J. Brett Hill 2011 Ancient Social Boundaries Inscribed on the Landscape of the Lower San Pedro Valley. In Contemporary Archaeologies of the Southwest, edited by William H. Walker and Kathryn Venzor, pp. 175–196. University Press of Colorado, Boul- der.

Madsen, John H. 1993 Rock Cairn and Talus Pit Features in the Los Robles Community. In Between Desert and River: Hohokam Settlement and Land Use in the Los Robles Commu- nity, edited by Christian E. Downum, pp. 96–106. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No. 57. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Manje, Juan Mateo 1954 Luz de Tierra Incognita. Translated by Harry J. Karns. Arizona Silhouettes, Tucson. 397

Martin, Debra L. 1994 Patterns of Health and Disease: Stress Profiles for the Prehistoric Southwest. In Themes in Southwest Prehistory, edited by George Gumerman, pp. 87–108. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Mason, Ronald J. 2000 Archaeology and Native American Oral Traditions. American Antiquity 65(2):239–267.

Masse, W. Bruce 1980 The Peppersauce Wash Project: Excavations at Three Multicomponent Sites in the Lower San Pedro Valley, Arizona. Contributions to Highway Salvage Archaeology in Arizona No. 53. Draft on file, Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

1981 A Reappraisal of the Protohistoric Sobaipuri Indians of Southeastern Arizona. In The Protohistoric Period in the North American Southwest, AD 1450–1700, edited by David R. Wilcox and W. Bruce Masse, pp. 28–56. Anthropological Research Papers No. 24. Arizona State University, Tempe.

McAuliffe, Joseph R. 2000 Desert Soils. In A Natural History of the Sonoran Desert, edited by Steven J. Phillips and Patricia Wentworth Comus, pp. 87–104. University of California Press, Berkeley.

McCarty, O.F.M., Kieran R. 1976 Desert Documentary: The Spanish Years, 1767–1821. Arizona Historical Soci- ety, Tucson.

1997 A Frontier Documentary: Sonora and Tucson, 1821–1848. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

McFadden, Douglas A. 2011 The Basketmaker II Horizon: A View from the Grand Staircase. Southwestern Lore 77(2/3):119–128. 398

McGee, W.J. and J.N.B. Hewitt 1898 The Seri Indians. Annual Report to the Bureau of American Ethnology 17. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

McGuire, Randall H. 1982a Environmental Background. In Hohokam and Patayan: Prehistory of South- western Arizona, edited by Randall H. McGuire and Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 13–36. Academic Press, New York.

1982b The Study of Ethnicity in Historical Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:159–178.

McGuire, Randall H. and Michael B. Schiffer (editors) 1982 Hohokam and Patayan: Prehistory of Southwestern Arizona. Academic Press, New York.

McGuire, Randall H. and María Elisa Villalpando (editors) 1993 An Archaeological Survey of the Altar Valley, Sonora, Mexico. Archeological Series No. 184. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

Meskell, Lynn 2001 Archaeologies of Identity. In Archaeological Theory Today, edited by Ian Hod- der, pp. 187–213. Polity Press, Cambridge.

2002a The Intersections of Identity and Politics in Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 31:279–301.

2002b Negative Heritage and Past Mastering in Archaeology. Anthropological Quar- terly 75(3):557–576.

Mitchell, Mark D. and Laura L. Scheiber 2010 Crossing Divides: Archaeology as Long-Term History. In Across a Great Di- vide: Continuity and Change in Native North American Societies, 1400–1900, edited by Laura L. Scheiber and Mark D. Mitchell, pp. 1–22. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 399

Moore, Helen Lenore 1925 The Papago Indians of Arizona and Sonora, Unpublished Masters Thesis, De- partment of History, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Moore, John H. 1994 Putting Anthropology Back Together Again: The Ethnogenetic Critique of Cladistic Theory. American Anthropologist 96(4):925–948.

2001 Ethnogenetic Patterns in Native North America. In Archaeology, Language, and History: Essays on Culture and Ethnicity edited by John Edward Terrell, pp. 31– 56. Bergin and Garvey, Westport, Connecticut.

Morgan, Martha E. 2000 Analysis of Metal Artifacts from Presidio Santa Cruz de Terrenate, Arizona. Unpublished Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Ari- zona, Tucson.

Murphee, Daniel S. 2006 Constructing Floridians: Natives and Europeans in the Colonial Floridas, 1513– 1783. Grant Studies Press, Santa Fe.

Murray, A.S. and A. G. Wintle 2000 Luminescence Dating of Quartz Using an Improved Single-Aliquot Regenera- tive Dose Protocol. Radiation Measurements 32(1):57–73.

Nash, Roy 2003 Social Explanation and Socialization: On Bourdieu and the Structure, Disposi- tion, Practice Scheme. The Sociological Review 51(1):43–62.

Nelson, Ben A. and Steven A. LeBlanc 1986 Short-Term Sedentism in the American Southwest: The Mimbres Valley Salado. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Nentvig, Juan 1951 Rudo Ensayo. Arizona Silhouettes, Tucson. 400

Neuzil, Anna A., Jill Heilman, Chris V. Lange and Stephen Reichardt 2010 Preliminary Report on Feature 971, a Probable Protohistoric Burial from Site AZ AA:12:85(ASM): I-10 Ruthraff to Prince Data Recovery Project. EcoPlan Associ- ates, Tucson.

Neuzil, Anna Astrid 2005 In the Aftermath of Migration: Assessing the Social Consequences of Late 13th and 14th Century Population Movements into Southeastern Arizona. Unpub- lished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.

2011 Protohistoric Burial from Site AZ AA:12:85(ASM). Unpublished notes on file, EcoPlan Associates, Tucson.

Newell, Gillian E. and Emiliano Gallaga (editors) 2004 Surveying the Archaeology of Northwest Mexico. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Nials, Fred L., David A. Gregory and Donald A. Graybill 1989 Salt River Streamflow and Hohokam Irrigation Systems. In The 1982–1984 Excavations at Las Colinas: Environment and Subsistence, edited by Donald A. Graybill, David A. Gregory, Fred L. Nials, Suzanne K. Fish, Charles H. Mik- sicek, Robert E. Gasser and Christine R. Szuter, pp. 59–76. Archaeological Series 162, Vol. 5. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

Norton, Robert 1984 Ethnicity and Class: A Conceptual Note with Reference to the Politics of Post- colonial Societies. Ethnic Racial Studies 7(3):426–434.

O’Brien, Michael J. and R. Lee Lyman 1999 Seriation, Stratigraphy, and Index Fossils: The Backbone of Archaeological Dat- ing. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York.

O’Sullivan, Catherine 2007 Register to the Records of the Bureau of American Ethnology. National Anthro- pological Archives. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 401

Olsen, Stanley 1974 The Domestic Animals of San Xavier del Bac. Kiva 39(253–257).

Olson, Alan P. 1985 Archaeology at the Presidio of Tucson. Kiva 50(251–270).

Orser, Jr., Charles E. 2004 Historical Archaeology. 2nd ed. Pearson/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

Pavao-Zuckerman, Barnet 2007 Deerskins and Domesticates: Creek Subsistence and Economic Strategies in the Historic Period. American Antiquity 72(1):5–34.

2008 Introduction and Practice of Animal Husbandry at Pimeria Alta Missions. Journal of the West 47(3):32–39.

2011 Rendering Economies: Native American Labor and Secondary Animal Prod- ucts in the Eighteenth-Century Pimeria Alta. American Antiquity 76(1):3–23.

Pavao-Zuckerman, Barnet and Vincent M. LaMotta 2007 Missionization and Economic Change in the Pimería Alta: The Zooarchae- ology of Mission San Agustín de Tucson. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 11(3):241–268.

Pavao-Zuckerman, Barnet and Elizabeth J. Reitz 2006 Introduction and Adoption of Eurasian Livestock in North America. In Hand- book of North American Indians, Volume 3: Environment, Origins, and Popula- tion, edited by Douglas Ubelaker, pp. 485–491. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Pfefferkorn, Ignaz 1949 Sonora, A Description of the Province. Translated by Theodore E. Treutlein. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 402

Picha, Paul R. 2009 Wholes, Halves, and Vacant Quarters: Ethnohistory and the Historical Meth- od. In The International Handbook of Historical Archaeology, edited by Teresita Majewski and David Gaimster, pp. 269–283. Springer, New York.

Pinkley, Frank 1936 Repair and Restoration of Tumacacori, 1921. 10:261–284.

Polzer, Charles W. 1971 Kino’s Biography of Francisco Javier Saeta, S. J. Sources and Studies for the His- tory of the Americas, Vol. 9. Jesuit Historical Institute, St. Louis.

1976 Rules and Precepts of the Missions of Northwestern New Spain. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Ramenofsky, Ann F. 1987 Vectors of Death: The Archaeology of European Contact. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Ramenofsky, Ann F. and James K. Feathers 2002 Documents, Ceramics, Tree Rings, and Luminescence: Estimating Final Native Abandonment of the Lower Rio Chama. Journal of Anthropological Research 58(1):121–159.

Ramenofsky, Ann F., Alicia Wilbur and Anne C. Stone 2003 Native American Disease History: Past, Present, and Future Directions. World Archaeology 35(2):241–257.

Ravesloot, John C. (editor) 1987 The Archaeology of the San Xavier Bridge Site (AZ BB:13:14) Tucson Basin, Southern Arizona. Archaeological Series 171. Arizona State Museum, Tucson. 403

Ravesloot, John C. and Stephanie M. Whittlesey 1987 Inferring the Protohisoric Period in Southern Arizona. In The Archaeology of the San Xavier Bridge Site (AZ BB:13:14) Tucson Basin, Southern Arizona, edited by John C. Ravesloot, pp. 81–98. Archaeological Series 171. Cultural Re- source Management Division, Arizona State Museum. University of Arizona, Tucson.

Read, Dwight W. Artifact Classifcation: A Conceptual and Methodological Approach. Left Coast 2007 Press, Walnut Creek, California.

Redfield, Robert, Ralph Linton and Melville J. Herskovits 1936 Memorandum for the Study of Acculturation. American Anthropologist 38(1):149–152.

Reff, Daniel T. 1990 Contact Shock and the Protohistoric Period in the Greater Southwest. In Per- spectives on Southwestern Prehistory, edited by Paul E. Minnis and Charles E. Redman, pp. 276–288. Westview Press, Boulder.

1991a Anthropological Analysis of Exploration Texts: Cultural Discourse and the Ethnological Import of Fray Marcos de Niza’s Journey to Cibola. American Anthropologist 93(3):636–655.

1991b Disease, Depopulation, and Culture Change in Northwestern New Spain, 1518– 1764. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

1997 The Relevance of Ethnology to the Routing of the Coronado Expedition in So- nora. In The Coronado Expedition to Tierra Nueva: The 1540–1542 Route Across the Southwest, edited by Richard Flint and Shirley Cushing Flint, pp. 165–176. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Reid, J. Jefferson 1998 Return to Migration, Population Movement, and Ethnic Identity in the Ameri- can Southwest: A Peer Reviewer’s Thoughts on Archaeological Inference. In Vanishing River: Landscapes and Lives of the Lower Verde Valley, edited by Stephanie Whittlesey, Richard Ciolek-Torrello and Jefferey Altschul, pp. 629– 638. Statistical Research Press, Tucson. 404

Reid, J. Jefferson, Barbara K. Montgomery, Maria Nieves Zedeño and Mark A. Neupert 1992 The Origin of Roosevelt Red Ware. In Proceedings of the Second Salado Confer- ence, Globe, AZ, edited by Richard C. Lange and Stephen Germick. Arizona Archaeological Society Occasional Paper, Phoenix.

Reid, J. Jefferson and Stephanie Whittlesey 1997 The Archaeology of Ancient Arizona. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Reimer, Paula J., Mike G. L. Baillie, Edouard Bard, Alex Bayliss, J. Warren Beck, Chanda J. H. Bertrand, Paul G. Blackwell, Caitlin E. Buck, George S. Burr, Kirsten B. Cutler, Paul E. Damon, R. Lawrence Edwards, Richard G. Fairbanks, Michael Friedrich, Thomas P. Guilderson, Alan G. Hogg, Konrad A. Hughen, Ron W. Kromer, Gerry McCormac, Stuart Manning, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Ron W. Reimer, Sabine Remmele, John R. Southon, Minze Stuiver, Sahra Talamo, F. W. Taylor, Johannes van der Plicht and Constanze E. Wey- henmeyer 2004 INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0–26CAL KYR BP. Ra- diocarbon 46(3):1029–1058.

Reséndez, Andrés 2007 A Land So Strange: The Epic Journey of Cabeza de Vaca. Basic Books, New York.

Rice, Prudence M. 1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

1998 Contexts of Contact and Change: Peripheries, Frontiers, and Boundaries. In Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology, edited by James G. Cusick, pp. 44–66. Occasional Paper No. 25. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Riggs, Charles R. 2007 Architecture and Identity at Grasshopper Pueblo, Arizona. Journal of Anthro- pological Research 63:489–513.

Roberts, Benjamin W. and Marc Vander Linden 2011 Investigating Archaeological Cultures: Material Culture, Variability, and Trans- mission. Springer, New York. 405

Roberts, Heidi and Richard V.N. Ahlstrom 1995 Old World Disease and Demographic Collapse During the Sixteenth Century in Southern Arizona. Unpblished manuscript on file, SWCA Inc., Tucson.

Robinson, William J. 1963 Excavations at San Xavier del Bac, 1958. Kiva 29:35–57.

1976 Mission Guevavi: Excavations in the Convento. Kiva 42(135–175).

Rogers, Malcom J. 1928 Remarks on the Archaeology of the Gila River Drainage. Arizona Museum Journal 1(1):21–24.

1936 Yuman Pottery Making. San Diego Museum Papers No. 2, San Diego.

1945 An Outline of Yuman Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 1:167– 198.

Rosenthal, E. Jane, Douglas R. Brown, Marc Severson and John B. Clonts (editors) 1978 The Quijotoa Valley Project. Western Archaeological Center. National Park Service, Tucson.

Rubertone, Patricia E. 2000 The Historical Archaeology of Native Americans. Annual Review of Anthropol- ogy 29:425–446.

Russell, Frank 1908 The Pima Indians. Annual Report to the Bureau of Ethnology No. 26, Washing- ton D.C.

1975 The Pima Indians. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Sagebiel, Kerry L., Michael P. Heilen and Martyn D. Tagg (editors) 2008 ETAC 2003: Intensive Archaeological Survey of 2,372 Acres on the East Tactical Range, Barry M. Goldwater Range East, Arizona. Cultural Resource Studies in the Western Papaguería No. 17. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson. 406

Salvatierra, Juan María de 1971 Juan María de Salvatierra S.J.: Selected Letters about Lower California. Trans- lated by Ernest J. Burrus. Dawson’s Book Shop, Los Angeles.

2011 Salvatierra’s Journal 1701. Unpublished manuscript on file, Office of Ethnohis- torical Research, Arizona State Museun.

Sánchez, Joseph 2008 Between Two Rivers: The Atrisco Land Grant in Albuquerque History, 1692– 1968. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Sauer, Carl 1937 The Discovery of New Mexico Reconsidered. New Mexico Historical Review 12(3):270–287.

Sauer, Carl and Donald Brand 1931 Prehistoric Settlements of Sonora: With Special Reference to Cerros de Trinch- eras. University of California Publications in Geography 5(3):67–148.

Saxton, Dean and Lucille Saxton 1973 O’otham Hoho’ok A’agitha: Legends and Lore of the Papago and Pima Indians. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Saxton, Dean, Lucille Saxton, Susie Enos and R. L. Cherry (editors) 1998 Dictionary: Tohono O’odham-Pima to English, English to Tohono O’odham- Pima. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Scantling, Frederick H. 1939 Jackrabbit Ruin. Kiva 5(3):9–12.

1940 Excavations at Jackrabbit Ruin, Papago Indian Reservation, Arizona, Unpub- lished Masters Thesis. Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. 407

Scarborough, Robert 2000 The Geologic Origins of the Sonoran Desert. In A Natural History of the Sonoran Desert, edited by Steven J. Phillips and Patricia Wentworth Comus, pp. 71–85. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Scheiber, Laura L. and Douglas R. Mitchell (editors) 2010 Across a Great Divide: Continuity and Change in Native North American Societ- ies, 1400–1900. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Schiffer, Michael B. 1986 Radiocarbon Dating and the ‘Old Wood’ Problem: The Case of the Hohokam Chronology. Journal of Archaeological Science 13(13–30).

Schroeder, Albert H. 1952 A Brief Survey of the Lower Colorado River from Davis Dam to the International Border. The Bureau of Reclamation Region Three, Boulder City, Nevada.

1957 The Hakataya Cultural Tradition. American Antiquity 23(2):176–178.

1958 Lower Colorado Buffware. In Pottery Types of the Southwest, edited by Harold S. Colton. Ceramic Series No. 3D. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

1961 An Archaeological Survey of the Painted Rocks Reservoir, Western Arizona. Kiva 27:1–28.

1974 Yavapai Indians: A Study of Yavapai History. American Indian Ethnohistory. Garland, New York.

Scotten, Ali G. 2007 Incantation Bowls and Ritual Community in Sasanian Iraq, Unpublished Mas- ters thesis. Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago, Chicago.

Senate, United States 1990 101st Congress Senate Report 2d Session 101-473: Providing for the Protection of Native American Graves and the Repatriation of Native American Remains and Cultural Patrimony. United States Congress, Washington D.C. 408

Seymour, Deni J. 1989 The Dynamics of Sobaipuri Settlement in the Eastern Pimería Alta. Journal of the Southwest 31(2):205–222.

1997 Finding History in the Archaeological Record: The Upper Piman Settlement of Guevavi. Kiva 62(3):245–260.

2003 Sobaipuri-Pima Occupation of the Upper San Pedro River Valley: San Pablo de Quiburi. New Mexico Historical Review 78(2):147–166.

2007 A Syndetic Approach to Identification of the Historic Mission Site of San Cayetano del Tumacácori. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 11(3):269–296.

2008 “Despoblado” or Athapaskan Heartland: A Methodological Perspective on Ancestral Apache Landscape Use in the Safford Area. In Crossroads of the Southwest: Culture, Ethnicity, and Migration in Arizona’s Safford Basin, edited by David E. Purcell, pp. 121–162. Cambridge Scholars Press, Newcastle.

2009a The Canutillo Complex: Evidence of Protohistoric Mobile Occupants in the Southern Southwest. Kiva 74(4):421–446.

2009b Father Kino’s ‘Neat Little House and Church’ at Guevavi. Journal of the South- west 51(2):285–316.

2011 Where the Earth and Sky are Sewn Together: Sobaipuri-O’odham Contexts of Contact and Colonialism. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Seymour, Gregory and David P. Doak 1993 An Archaeological Sample Survey of 17,600 Acres in the Sauceda and Crater Mountain Ranges on the Eastern Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range, Mari- copa County, Arizona. Archaeological Report No. 93-1. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Tucson. 409

Shaul, David Leedom and John M. Andresen 1989 A Case for Yuman Participation in the Hohokam Regional System. Kiva 54(2):105–126.

Shaul, David Leedom and Jane H. Hill 1998 Tepimans, Yumans, and Other Hohokam. American Antiquity 63(3):375–396.

Shaw, Anna Moore 1968 Pima Indian Legends. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Shenk, Lynette O., George A. Teague and James M. Hewitt 1975 Excavations at the Tubac Presidio. Archaeological Series 85. Arizona State Mu- seum, Tucson.

Shepard, Anna O. 1956 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washing- ton D.C.

Sheridan, Thomas E. 1988a How to Tell the Story of a “People Without History”: Narrative Versus Ethno- historical Approaches to the Study of the Yaqui Indians Through Time. Journal of the Southwest 30(2):168–189.

1988b Kino’s Unforeseen Legacy: The Material Consequences of Missionization Among the Northern Piman Indians of Arizona and Sonora. The Smoke Signal 49-50:151–167.

1999 Empire of Sand: The Seri Indians and the Struggle for Spanish Sonora, 1645– 1803. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

2006a Juan de Oñate’s Expedition to the Hopi Mesas and the Colorado River: The Di- ary of Padre Fray Francisco de Escobar, 1605. Unpublished manuscript on file, Office of Ethnohistorical Research, Arizona Sate Museum.

2006b Landscapes of Fraud: Mission Tumacácori, the Baca Float, and the Betrayal of the O’odham. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. 410

n.d. Colliding Worlds: Southeastern Arizona at Contact. Unpublished manuscript on file, Thomas Sheridan, University of Arizona, Tucson

Sheridan, Thomas E. and Thomas H. Naylor 1971 Rarámuri. Northland Press, Flagstaff.

Silliman, Stephen 2001 Agency, Practical Politics and the Archaeology of Culture Contact. Journal of Social Archaeology 1(2):190–209.

2010 Crossing, Bridging, and Transgressing Divides in the Study of Native North America. In Across a Great Divide: Continuity and Change in Native North American Societies, 1400–1900, edited by Laura L. Scheiber and Douglas R. Mitchell. Amerind Studies in Archaeology No. 4. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Singleton, Theresa A. 1998 Cultural Interaction and African American Identity in Plantation Archaeology. In Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology, edited by James G. Cusick, pp. 172–188. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.

Slaughter, Mark C., David B. Tucker and Annick Lascaux (editors) 2000 Trade Corridors and Ethnic Boundaries: An Archaeological Survey of 12,089 Acres along the Growler and San Cristobal Washes on the Barry M. Goldwater Range in Southwestern Arizona. Cultural Resources Report No. 98-181. SWCA, Inc., Tucson.

Smith, Fay Jackson, John L. Kessell and S.J. Fox, Francis J. 1966 Father Kino in Arizona. Arizona Historical Foundation, Phoenix, Arizona.

Smith, G. Hubert 1972 Like-a-Fishhook Village and Fort Berthold, Garrison Reservoir, North Dakota. Anthropological Papers 2. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Inte- rior, Washington D.C. 411

Smith, Marvin T. 2000 Coosa: The Rise and Fall of a Southeastern Mississippian Chiefdom. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Spicer, Edward H. 1961 Types of Contact and Processes of Change. In Perspectives in American Indian Culture Change, edited by Edward H. Spicer, pp. 517–544. University of Chi- cago Press, Chicago.

1962 Cycles of Conquest: The Impact of Spain, Mexico, and the United States on the Indians of the Southwest, 1533–1960. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Spielmann, Katherine A. 1989 Colonists, Hunters, and Farmers: Plains-Pueblo Interaction in the Seventeenth Century. In Columbian Consequences. Volume 1: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands West, edited by David Hurst Thomas, pp. 101–113. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

1991 Farmers, Hunters, and Colonists: Interaction between the Southwest and the Southern Plains. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Spielmann, Katherine A., Jeannette L. Mobley-Tanaka and James A. POtter 2006 Style and Resistance in the Seventeenth Century Salinas Province. American Antiquity 71(4):621–647.

Spier, Leslie 1933 Yuman Tribes of the Gila River. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Stein, Gil J. -The Political Economy of Mesopotamian Colonial Encounters. In The Archae 2005 ology of Colonial Encounters: Comparative Perspective, edited by Gil J. Stein, pp. 143–171. School of American Research, Santa Fe.

Steward, Julian H. 1942 The Direct Historical Approach to Archaeology. American Antiquity 7(4):337– 343. 412

Stone, Lyle M. 1979 Archaeological Research, Site Stabilization and Interpretive Development Planning at Calabazas, An Historic Spanish Visita in Santa Cruz County, Ari- zona. Archaeological Research Services, Tempe.

Stone, Tammy 2003 Social Identity and Ethnic Interaction in the Western Pueblos of the American Southwest. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 10(1):31–67.

Sugnet, Christopher L. and J. Jefferson Reid (editors) 1994 The Surface of Presidio Santa Cruz de Terrenate. Partnership Education Coop- erative Agreement, Grant A040-A30005. Ms. submitted to the Bureau of Land Management., Tucson.

Tagg, Martyn D., Christopher J. Doolittle, Jefferey H. Altschul and Kurt Heidelberg 2008 ETAC 1999: Intensive Archaeological Survey of 2,900 Acres on the East Tactical Range, Barry M. Goldwater Range East, Arizona. Cultural Resource Studies in the Western Papaguería 2. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson.

Tagg, Martyn D. and Michael P. Heilen (editors) 2009 NTAC 2004: Intensive Archaeological Survey of 58.8 Miles of Roads and Assess- ment of 35 Sites on the North Tactical Range, Barry M. Goldwater Range East, Arizona. Cultural Resources Studies in the Western Papaguería No. 19. Statisti- cal Research, Inc., Tucson.

Tanner, Clara Lee 1936 Blackstone Ruin. Kiva 2:1–12.

Teague, George A. 1980 Appendix B: Stone Artifacts from Alder Wash Ruin. In The Peppersauce Wash Project: Excavations at Three Multicomponent Sites in the Lower San Pedro Val- ley, Arizona, edited by W. Bruce Masse, pp. 1–13. Contributions to Highway Salvage Archaeology in Arizona No. 53. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

Teague, Lynn S. 1993 Prehistory and the Traditions of the O’odham and the Hopi. Kiva 58(4):435– 454. 413

Terrell, John Edward 2001 Introduction. In Archaeology, Language, and History: Essays on Culture and Ethnicity, edited by John Edward Terrell, pp. 1–10. Bergin and Garvey, West- port, Connecticut.

Thiel, J. Homer and Michael W. Diehl 2006 Cultural History of the Tucson Basin and the Project Area. In Rio Nuevo Archaeology, 2000–2003: Investigations at the San Agustín Mission and Mission Gardens, Tucson Presidio, Tucson Pressed Brick Company, and Clearwater Site, edited by J. Homer Thiel and Jonathan B. Mabry, pp. 3.1–3.8. Technical Report No. 2004–11. Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

Thiel, J. Homer and Jonathan B. Mabry (editors) 2006 Rio Nuevo Archaeology, 2000–2003: Investigations at the San Agustín Mission and Mission Gardens, Tucson Presidio, Tucson Pressed Brick Company, and Clearwater Site. Technical Report No. 2004-11. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tuc- son.

Thomas, David Hurst 1989 Columbian Consequences: The Spanish Borderlands in Cubist Perspective. In Columbian Consequences: Volume 1 Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands West, edited by David Hurst Thomas, pp. 1–14. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

2000 Skull Wars: Kennewick Man, Archaeology, and the Battle for Native American Identity. Basic Books, New York.

Thurtle, March Charlotte (editor) 2001 The Cultural Landscapes of Okie Hill: An Archaeological Survey of 5,355 Acres in the North Tactical Range of the Barry M. Goldwater Range in Southwestern Arizona. Cultural Resources Report No. 99-205. SWCA, Inc., Tucson.

Trigger, Bruce G. 1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Trouillot, Michel Rolph 1995 Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History. Beacon Press, Boston. 414

Underhill, Ruth Murray 1936 The Autobiography of a Papago Woman. Memoirs of the American Anthropo- logical Association No. 46., Menasha, Wisconsin.

1939 Social Organization of the Papago Indians. Columbia University Press, New York.

1946 Papago Indian Religion. Columbia University Press, New York.

1974 Acculturation at the Papago Village of Santa Rosa. Papago Indians 1. Garland, New York.

Upton, Dell 1996 Ethnicity, Authenticity, and Invented Traditions. Historical Archaeology 30(2):1–7. van Dommelen, Peter 2005 Colonial Interactions and Hybrid Practices: Phoenician and Carthaginian Settlement in the Ancient Mediterranean. In The Archaeology of Colonial En- counters: Comparative Perspectives, edited by Gil J. Stein, pp. 109–141. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Vansina, Jan 1985 Oral Tradition As History. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

Villalpando, María Elisa and Randall H. McGuire (editors) 2009 Entre Muros de Piedra: La Arqueología del Cerro de Trincheras. Proyecto INAH Trincheras, Hermosillo.

Vint, James M. 2005 In Instance of Violence along Cienega Creek: The Cienega Creek Burials (AZ EE:2:80[ASM]) and a Study of Protohistoric Projectile Technology in Southeast- ern Arizona. Technical Report No. 2005-101. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. 415

2007 Report on Mapping and Data Collection of Six Sites along the San Pedro River in the Vicinity of Fairbank, San Pedro National Riparian Conservation Area, Cochise County, Southeastern Arizona. Technical Report 20070104. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

Vivian, R. Gwinn 1965 An Archaeological Survey of the Lower Gila River, Arizona. Kiva 30(4):95– 146.

Voss, Barbara L. 2008 The Archaeology of Ethnogenesis: Race and Sexuality in Colonial San Francisco. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Wagner, Henry R. 1934 Fray Marcos de Niza. New Mexico Historical Review 9(2):184–227.

Wallace, Henry D. and William H. Doelle 1998 Classic Period Warfare in Southeastern Arizona. Paper presented at the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Seattle.

2001 Classic Period Warfare in Southern Arizona. In Deadly Landscapes: Case Stud- ies in Prehistoric Southwestern Warfare, edited by Glen E. Rice and Steven A. LeBlanc, pp. 239–288. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Wasley, William W. 1968 Archaeological Survey in Sonora, Mexico. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Santa Fe.

Waters, Michael R. 1982 The Lowland Patayan Ceramic Tradition. In Hohokam and Patayan: Prehistory of Southwestern Arizona, edited by Randall H. McGuire and Michael Brian Schiffer, pp. 275–297. Academic Press, New York.

Waugh, Rebecca Jo 2005 Presidio and Pueblo: Material Evidence of Women in the Pimería Alta, 1750– 1800. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Univer- sity of Arizona, Tucson. 416

Weaver, Donald E., Jr. 1972 A Cultural-Ecological Model for the Classic Hohokam Period in the Lower Salt River Valley, Arizona. Kiva 38(1):43–52.

Weber, David J. 1992 The Spanish Frontier in North America. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

2005 Bárbaros: Spaniards and their Savages in the Age of Enlightenment. Yale Univer- sity Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Wells, E. Christian 2002 Protohistoric Settlement in the Gila River Indian Community. Technical Report No. 2002-14. Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona.

White, Carolyn L. and Mary C. Beaudry 2009 Artifacts and Personal Identity. In International Handbook of Historical Ar- chaeology, edited by Teresita Majewski and David Gaimster, pp. 209–225. Springer, New York.

White, Devin Alan 2007 Transportation, Integration, Facilitation: Prehistoric Trail Networks of the Western Papagueria, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthro- pology, University of Colorado, Boulder.

White, Richard 1998 Using the Past: History and Native American Studies. In Studying Native America: Problems and Prospects, edited by Russell Thornton, pp. 217–243. Madison, University of Wisconsin Press.

Whittlesey, Stephanie M. 1993 Temporal Variability in Hohokam Plain Ware: A Pilot Study In The Northern Tucson Basin Survey: Research Direction and Background Studies, edited by John H. Madsen, Paul R. Fish and Suzanne K. Fish. Arizona State Museum Ar- chaeological Series 182. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. 417

1994 Three Centuries of Pottery Across the Pimería Alta, Paper Presented at the Ari- zona Archaeological Council Conference, Tucson.

1995 Mogollon, Hohokam, and O’otam: Rethinking the Early Formative Period in Southern Arizona. Kiva 60(4):465–480.

Whittlesey, Stephanie M., Richard Ciolek-Torrello and Matthew A. Sterner 1994 Southern Arizona The Last 12,000 Years: A Cultural-Historic Overview for the Western Army National Guard Aviation Training Site. Technical Series No. 48. Statistical Research, Tucson.

Wiessner, Polly 1983 Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points. American An- tiquity 48(2):253–276.

Wilcox, David R. 1981 The Entry of Athapaskans into the American Southwest: The Problem Today. In The Protohistoric Period in the North American Southwest, A.D. 1450–1700, edited by David R. Wilcox and W. Bruce Masse, pp. 213–256. Anthropological Research Papers No. 24. Arizona State University, Tempe.

1987 New Models of Social Structure at the Paloparado Site. In The Hohokam Vil- lage: Site Structure and Organization, edited by David E. Doyel, pp. 223–248. Southwestern and Rocky Mountain Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Glenwood Springs, Colorado.

Wilcox, David R. and W. Bruce Masse (editors) 1981 The Protohistoric Period in the North American Southwest, AD 1450–1700. An- thropological Research Papers No. 25. Arizona State University, Tempe.

Wilcox, David R. and Charles Sternberg 1983 Hohokam Ballcourts and Their Interpretation. Archaeology Series No. 160. Ari- zona State Museum, Tucson.

Willey, Gordon R. 1945 Horizon Styles and Pottery Traditions in Peruvian Archaeology. American Antiquity 11(1):49–56. 418

Willey, Gordon R. and Philip Phillips 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. Thames and Hudson, London.

Winship, George Parker 1896 The Coronado Expedition, 1540–1542. 14th Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology. Bureau of Ethnology, Washington D.C.

Wintle, A. G. 2008 Fifty Years of Luminescence Dating. Archaeometry 50(2):276–312.

Wintle, A. G. and A.S. Murray 2006 A Review of Quartz Optically Stimulated Luminescence Characteristics and their Relevance in Single -Aliquot Regeneration Dating Protocols. Radiation Measurements 41(4):369–391.

Withers, Arnold 1941 Excavations at Valshni Village, Arizona, Masters thesis. Department of An- thropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.

1944 Excavations at Valshni Village: A Site on the Papago Indian Reservation. American Antiquity 10(33–47).

Wolf, Eric R. 1982 Europe and the People without History. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Wood, J. Scott 2000 Vale of Tiers Palimpsest: Salado Settlement and Internal Relationships in the Tonto Basin Area. In Salado, edited by Jeffrey S. Dean, pp. 107–141. Amerind Foundation, Dragoon, Arizona.

Wood, W. Raymond 1990 Ethnohistory and Historical Method. In Archaeological Method and Theory, edited by Michael Brian Schiffer, pp. 81–110. vol. 2. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 419

Wylie, Alison 2000 Questions of Evidence, Legitimacy, and the (Dis)unity of Science. American Antiquity 65(2):227–237.

Zedeno, M. Nieves and Richard W. Stoffle 1995 Casa Grande Ruins National Monument: Foundations for Cultural Affiliation. Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, Tucson. Submitted to Western Archaeological and Conservation Center, NPS, Tucson. Agreement No. 8100- 0-0001.