Time and Place of the Early Agricultural Period in the Tucson Basin of Southern

Item Type text; Electronic Dissertation

Authors Vint, James Michael

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 23/09/2021 12:14:33

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/626169

TIME AND PLACE OF THE EARLY AGRICULTURAL PERIOD IN THE TUCSON BASIN OF SOUTHERN ARIZONA

by

James M. Vint

______Copyright © James M. Vint 2017

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

2017

2

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE

As members of the Dissertation Committee, we certify that we have read the dissertation prepared by James M. Vint, titled Time and Place of the Early Agricultural Period in the Tucson Basin of Southern Arizona and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

______Date: (06/30/2017) Barbara J. Mills

______Date: (06/30/2017) James T. Watson

______Date: (06/30/2017) Vance T. Holliday

______Date: (06/30/2017) William H. Doelle

Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate’s submission 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: (06/30/2017) Dissertation Director: Barbara J. Mills

3

STATEMENT BY AUTHOR

This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of the 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 an accurate acknowledgement of the source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.

SIGNED: James M. Vint

4

Acknowledgements

There are many people to whom I extend my thanks and gratitude, each of whom played an important role one way or another in this project, and without whose help and involvement I would not have finished this endeavor. Committee members Barbara Mills, Bill Doelle, Jim

Watson, and Vance Holliday provided constructive and unflagging positive support throughout the final stages of writing; they also made the comprehensive exam I had to take on readmission to the program an enjoyable experience, as they did, too, with the final dissertation defense.

Barbara in particular has been a mentor since 1989, when I first subjected myself to graduate school at Northern Arizona University; her continued guidance and confidence in my work is appreciated beyond words. Bill has been a major source of inspiration and support since I began working at Desert Archaeology in 1993, and I greatly appreciate his willingness to be on this committee (I also apologize here, Bill, for those many times I’ve driven you to exasperation and beyond). Jim’s experience with the EAP in the greater Southwest helped mitigate the Tucson

Basin-centric myopia I often suffer. Vance provided much-needed outside geoarcaheological perspective on the local archaeology.

Illustrations in documents such as this are usually more informative than the writing itself.

Catherine Gilman created the beautiful maps that are presented as Appendix A Figures 5.1, 5.2,

5.6, 5.9; Appendix B Figures 1 and 2; and Appendix C Figures 1, 5, 6 (with Fred Nials), and 7

(with Tyler Theriot). Jane Sliva created Appendix A Figures 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5. Henry Wallace took the aerial photograph that appears as Apenndix A Figure 5.7 and Appendix B figure 5. Rob

Ciaccio created Appendix A Figures 5.8 and 5.10, and Appendix B Figure 3 (with Alan 5

Denoyer). Chad Yost took the photomicrographs in Appendix B Figure 4. Greg Whitney took the photographs in Appendix B Figure 6. Each is worth more than the proverbial thousand words.

I have had the privilege to work for and with several people who have been formative in my archaeological career. Paul and Suzy Fish hired me to work on the Northern Tucson Basin

Survey in 1985 as an undergraduate, and set my course for these past several decades. Barb Roth and Bruce Huckell introduced me to the intrigues of the Early Agricultural Period in 1986, and I had the pleasure to work for Barb on her dissertation research and with Bruce out at Milagro.

Fred Nials has been a mentor, colleague, and friend over the past 10 years; I have learned much from you Fred, and with hope have not put any of your time to waste. I wish to acknowledge two people in particular who died too soon and are sorely missed by me and many others: Dave

Gregory and Bob Powers.

Desert Archaeology and Archaeology Southwest supported much of this work, in particular the

Las Capas project which forms the basis for much of this dissertation, and it would take many pages to adequately thank these institutions. Key individuals (in the post-field phase) are Bill

Doelle, Sarah Herr, Mark Elson, Mike Diehl, Jim Heidke, Jenny Waters, Jane Sliva, Stacy Ryan,

Jenny Adams, Homer Thiel, Mike Brack, Tyler Theriot, Lisa Eppley, Greg Whitney, George

Tinseth, Alan Denoyer, Reuven Sinensky, Ted Oliver, and I’ve probably forgotten more. I thank

Mike Lindeman for being a sounding board on several ideas, and for the provocative debates and encouragement (Jonathan Mabry and Jesse Ballenger also played this role).

6

Pima County sponsored the Las Capas project, which was conducted from August 2008 to

November 2014 by Desert Archaeology. The work was funded by bonds issued as part of the

Tres Rios Water Reclamation Facility expansion. The late Loy Neff of the Pima County Cultural

Resources and Historic Preservation Division oversaw the project; he was a consummate professional and is missed.

Tineke Van Zandt has patiently endured my circuitous journey this past decade, and has had the good humor to put up with my nonsense for nearly 30 years. For that, Tineke, I am eternally grateful, and for what we move on to doing next in the great wide open.

7

Table of Contents

DISSERTATION ABSTRACT ...... 10 Introduction ...... 12 Composition of the Dissertation ...... 16 Appendix A: The Southwest Archaic in the Tucson Basin ...... 18 Appendix B: Niches, Networks, and the Pathways to the Forager-to-Farmer Transition in the U.S. Southwest/Northwest ...... 19 Appendix C: Tempo and Mode of Early Agricultural Period Settlements on the Santa Cruz River Floodplain, Southern Arizona ...... 20 References ...... 23 APPENDIX A ...... 33 A VERDANT DESERT ...... 35 TIME AND PLACE ...... 39 EARLY ARCHAIC ...... 40 MIDDLE ARCHAIC ...... 42 THE LATE ARCHAIC/EARLY AGRICULTURAL PERIOD...... 47 Early Agricultural Period ...... 50 The Silverbell Interval ...... 52 San Pedro- and Ciénega-Phase Settlement and Agriculture ...... 53 The Las Capas Canal and Field System ...... 55 Architecture and Other Infrastructure ...... 62 Health and Demography...... 64 Ritual and Agriculture ...... 69 Migrations During the San Pedro and Ciénega Phases ...... 72 Mobility and Regional Connections ...... 75 AN OPEN NICHE NO LONGER ...... 76 The Status of Tucson Basin Archaic Research in 2015 ...... 77 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 83 FIGURES ...... 84 TABLES ...... 95 8

REFERENCES ...... 101 APPENDIX B ...... 121 Niche Construction and Network Models: Complementary Approaches to the Forager to Farmer Transition ...... 125 Niche Construction Theory (NCT) ...... 126 Network Theory and Diffusion ...... 129 Combining NCT and Network Models of Diffusion ...... 132 The Mosaic of the SW/NW...... 132 Middle to Late Environmental and Archaeological Change ...... 133 The Early Agricultural Period: Overview ...... 136 The Early Agricultural Period in the Santa Cruz Corridor of the Sonoran Desert ...... 138 Canals, and Labour Investment ...... 140 Architecture, Storage and Ownership ...... 142 Subsistence, Health and Demography ...... 143 Community Organization and Ceremonialism ...... 144 The Transmission Process in the SW/NW ...... 149 Figures...... 158 Table ...... 166 Bibliography ...... 168 APPENDIX C ...... 181 The Tucson Basin and Santa Cruz River ...... 185 Alluvial Cycles and the Floodplain ...... 186 Stream Reaches ...... 188 Cultural Niche Construction and the Built Landscape ...... 192 Temporal Patterns of Site Use ...... 195 Analytical Approach ...... 197 Temporal Variation among Sites...... 199 Persistence of Settlement at Las Capas ...... 201 Discussion ...... 205 Conclusion ...... 207 Tables ...... 210 9

Figures...... 214 References Cited ...... 222 Supplemental Data ...... 241

10

DISSERTATION ABSTRACT

The Early Agricultural period (EAP) has been a central focus of study in the American

Southwest and northwestern Mexico for the past 30 years. This long interval, also considered as part of the Late Archaic in the greater region, comprises the introduction of maize agriculture and the development of sedentary agricultural communities over the course of more than 2000 years. Radiocarbon ages on maize indicate that maize was regularly cultivated by 2100 cal BC in the Tucson Basin; several recently dated specimens from the site of Las Capas suggest maize may have been grown here even earlier, between 2500 to 3700 cal BC. The shift from a mobile hunter-forager economy to a subsistence economy built around maize agriculture was long, and did not follow the trajectory of other agricultural societies world-wide; the

Demographic Transition in the Southwest was a slow process, prefaced by some 2500 years of agriculture, and did not occur simultaneously across the region.

This dissertation comprises three articles that address the EAP in in southern Arizona. The first presents a review of the current status of research on the Archaic in the Tucson Basin, with a focus on the EAP and the past 30 years of work by both academic and Cultural Resource

Management institutions. The second article places the EAP and development of agricultural communities in the context of Network Theory and Cultural Niche Construction theory; although regional populations were small, communities throughout northwestern Mexico and the

Southwest US were connected by social and economic ties that facilitated the transmission of goods, information, and people, all of which were fundamental to the spread of agriculture and its associated societal consequences. The third article presents a chronological analysis of EAP sites in the Tucson Basin. OxCal is used to model the ages of 12 sites that date to the Silverbell interval and San Pedro phase; 160 radiocarbon ages, most obtained from carbonized maize, are 11 used in the analysis. Temporal variation among sites and their locations along the Santa Cruz

River floodplain are evaluated in light of changes in river geomorphology and the cumulative effects of community investment in agricultural infrastructure. Key words: Early agriculture; cultural niche construction; maize; chronology; Southwest Archaic. 12

Introduction

The Early Agricultural period (EAP) of the American Southwest and Northwestern Mexico has been the subject of extensive research since the mid-1980s when Bruce Huckell (1995, 1996) re- introduced it as part of the Late Archaic period, distinguishing it as a pre- hunting and foraging subsistence economy that incorporated low-level maize agriculture. This dissertation presents a series of three essays (two chapters in edited books and one article submitted to a peer-reviewed journal) that address the current nature of research on the EAP. The history of research on the Archaic and EAP in the Tucson Basin is reviewed in detail, and two theoretical approaches – Niche Construction Theory and Network Theory – that have not been commonly used to address the EAP are introduced with applied examples.

The EAP as currently defined comprises three temporal phases, which span over two millennia from about 2100 cal BC to cal AD 50: the San Pedro phase, Early Cienega, and Late Cienega phases (Appendix A). Initial research conducted in the late 1980s by Paul and Suzanne Fish

(Fish et al. 1986) and Barbara Roth (Roth 1989, 1992) in the Tucson Basin, and Bruce Huckell in the Cienega Valley and the eastern Tucson Basin (Huckell 1995, 1996; Huckell et al. 1995), emphasized the adoption of maize and framed the EAP within a lens of optimal foraging theory and behavioral ecology. On the heels of this work—most of it conducted by the Arizona

State Museum as part of the Northern Tucson Basin Survey—the venue of projects shifted from the museum and academic realms to that of cultural resource management.

In the mid-1990s, numerous archaeological projects were conducted in the Tucson Basin in advance of highway and other infrastructure construction along the Interstate-10 corridor. As 13 part of the anticipated long-term sequence of projects, a comprehensive research design was developed to guide new projects and ensure that multiple projects could complement each other and build on the accumulating bodies of data and analyses (Gregory and Mabry 1998). The floodplain of the Santa Cruz River has since been subjected to intensive and extensive archaeological excavations as a result of this work for more than two decades, with considerable emphasis on the EAP (Chenault 2009; Ezzo and Deaver 1998; Gregory 1999, 2001; Gregory and

Diehl 2002; Gregory et al. 2007; Hesse and 2005; Mabry 1998a, b, 2005, 2008b; Mabry et al. 1997; Roth and Wellman 2001; Whittlesey et al. 2010). Significantly, this work has been undertaken due to Federal, State, County, and City legislation as directed by Section 106 and the

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA; the document as amended through 2016 is found via this link: http://www.achp.gov/nhpa.pdf).

Somewhat ironically, given that the Arizona State Museum is located at the University of

Arizona, the Tucson Basin was not subject to much in the way of archaeological study until the

Northern Tucson Basin Survey was initiated in the early 1980s (Madsen et al. 1993). The large

Hohokam sites located in the Salt-Gila Basin such as Snaketown drew researchers’ attention away from the less impressive (and often unrecognized) cultural sites in the smaller Santa Cruz

River valley (Haury 1976, 1992). Research on pre-pottery Archaic and early Holocene peoples was conducted in the “hinterlands” of southeastern Arizona (Sayles 1983). In essence, the urban context of Tucson and the Tucson Basin seems to have imposed an a priori assumption that any significant archaeological remains were compromised by development and lost to research

(Huckell 1984, 1988). Similarly, the floodplain of the Santa Cruz was hypothesized to be essentially an empty niche, not extensively inhabited or farmed by people until the A.D. 900s by the local manifestation of the , and Archaic occupation of the 14 area either non-existent or so ephemeral that meaningful studies could not be conducted, though some optimism of unanticipated discovery was held forth (Doyel 1984).

The “unanticipated discovery” of San Pedro phase sites with evidence of maize agriculture on the Santa Cruz River floodplain was realized when maize cob fragments were recovered during excavations on in 1982, found in hillside terraces initially thought to be related to later Hohokam use at this extensive site complex (Fish et al. 1986). The cob fragments (cupules) were submitted to the then-new NSF tandem mass accelerator facility at the University of

Arizona, and yielded a measured age of 2470 ±270 radiocarbon years before present (RCYBP).

Temporally diagnostic dart points (i.e., San Pedro points) were also collected from the site in both surface and excavated contexts, further indication of use of the area during the EAP. These cupules yielded the earliest measured ages for this domesticate found in the Tucson basin at that time, and confirmed that maize was cultivated along the Santa Cruz River during the San Pedro phase. Work by Barbara Roth at the Cortaro Fan site in the northern Tucson Basin and Bruce

Huckell at Milagro in the eastern Tucson Basin firmly established that maize agriculture was commonplace in the Tucson Basin by at least 1200 cal BC (Huckell 1995; Huckell et al. 1995;

Roth 1989, 1992). A decade later, deeply buried deposits were identified and subsequently dated to the Cienega phase at the site now known as Santa Cruz Bend (AZ AA:12:746[ASM]; Mabry

1998a, b). Since then more than two dozen sites that date to the EAP have been identified along the Santa Cruz River floodplain, in addition to those documented by the Northern Tucson Basin

Survey and the Arizona State Museum.

Several EAP sites have been subject to extensive excavation, both in terms of spatial area and the number of projects conducted at each: Las Capas (AZ AA:12:111[ASM]), Santa Cruz Bend (AZ

AA:12:746[ASM]), and Los Pozos (AZ AA:12:91[ASM]). Las Capas dates primarily to the 15

Silverbell interval and San Pedro phase, and the latter two sites to the Early and Late Cienega phases (Gregory 2001; Mabry 2008a; Mabry et al. 1997; Whittlesey et al. 2010). canals that date to the San Pedro phase were first identified at Las Capas. The development of canal irrigation by as early as 1500 cal BC (Mabry 2006), in contrast to presumably simpler of floodplain and watertable farming, suggests that maize agriculture was an integral element of EAP lifeways, and significant enough to merit investment in building fields and canals. Nonetheless, maize was not the mainstay of EAP people’s diet; foraged wild plant foods comprised an equal if not somewhat greater proportion of the annual diet (Diehl 2005a, b,

2015).

Increasingly labor-intensive agriculture as practiced during the San Pedro phase signaled the transition from broad spectrum mobile hunting-foraging strategies to increasingly tethered, or even “sedentary,” settlements as communities further committed themselves to place by investing labor in village and agricultural infrastructure (Mabry 2008b; Roth 1992, 2015).

Ownership and management of resources such as stored food and domestic infrastructure during the San Pedro phase was more open and publicly visible, which has been hypothesized to reflect a “horizontal” or heterarchical organization to social power (Mabry 2005, 2008a). Residential structures were small, storage and domestic activity areas were publicly visible, and significant ritual programs such as funerary practices were oriented toward perpetuating identity and cohesiveness of the corporate household group (Watson and Byrd 2015).

In contrast, settlement structure during the Early and Late Cienega phases became more formalized and restricted (Gregory and Diehl 2002; Mabry 2005). Bell-shaped pits used to store food or items such as ground and flaked stone were constructed inside of houses, rather than in open, nearly common areas as during earlier the San Pedro phase. Large circular 16 structures, several times the size of domestic houses-in-pits, have been found at several Early and

Late Cienega phase sites. These are inferred to have served as specialized communal structures in which groups of people who held certain decision-making or ritual roles would convene in private (Fish et al. 2011; Mabry 1998c); village and community organization was becoming more compartmentalized and rigidly defined than seen in the earlier San Pedro phase.

The EAP witnessed little in the way of significant population growth in spite of the increased practice of and reliance on maize agriculture in the subsistence diet, but considerable change in settlement and social organization did occur. This prelude to the Neolithic Demographic

Transition in the American Southwest and Northwest Mexico remains a relevant period of study

(Bocquet-Appel 2009; Kohler and Reese 2014). Many opportunities for new avenues of research on the EAP lie in the tremendous quantity of existing collections; analysis of this material has only been scratched by the limited nature of most projects.

Composition of the Dissertation

This dissertation comprises three essays on the EAP in southern Arizona, two of which are intended as chapters in edited volumes, and the third submitted for publication in a peer- reviewed journal. Much of it is a synthesis of extant work that has largely been disseminated through the “grey literature” of compliance-related reports written as part of cultural resource management projects. These reports typically have a limited distribution both in numbers and in the audience they reach; they remain regionally parochial and are not circulated much outside of the sponsoring agency and archaeologists who work in the CRM in southern Arizona. 17

Other content is derived from work conducted by the author as part of a multi-year excavation project related to the expansion of Pima County’s Tres Rios Water Reclamation Facility, which happens to be the location of Las Capas (AZ AA:12:111[ASM]), perhaps the most intensively and extensively excavated EAP village in the region. One goal of this dissertation is to present at least some of this legacy of publicly funded but under-recognized archaeology in books that will be available to audiences who have no access to reports or are unaware of them; this is an ethical obligation of the CRM industry.

Two theoretical approaches that have not been extensively applied to interpretations of the EAP are introduced as complements to the use of Human Behavioral Ecology: Cultural Niche

Construction Theory (CNCT) and Network Theory (NT). CNCT recognizes that the human built environment and associated technologies and practices is culturally transformative (or inertial), is heritable, and is transmitted both linearly from generation to generation and laterally among members in a shared society (Odling-Smee and Laland 2011; Odling-Smee et al. 2003; Smith

2011; Zeder 2012). In this instance, the social impact of constructing, managing and maintaining canal irrigation systems is considered as a central force behind negotiations within and among farming communities along the Santa Cruz River. NT explores the potential of the

“connectedness” of EAP communities in the region, and the importance of such relationships in spreading social and technological information (e.g., Bork et al. 2015).

The first piece, “The Southwest Archaic in the Tucson Basin,” provides an in-depth review of the past 30 years of research on the Archaic in the Tucson Basin, and sets the background for the following two essays. “Niches, Networks, and the Pathways to the Forager-to-Farmer Transition in the U.S. Southwest/Northwest Mexico” discusses the spread of agriculture across the region through the lens of Network theory, and the development of the built agricultural environment as 18 framed by Cultural Niche Construction Theory. “Tempo and Mode of Early Agricultural Period

Settlements on the Santa Cruz River Floodplain, Southern Arizona” explores changes in settlement locations along the Santa Cruz River floodplain over the course from about 2100 to

800 cal BC, and how farmers negotiated the dialectics of their relationships with the built and natural environments. Abstracts for the three pieces are presented below.

Appendix A: The Southwest Archaic in the Tucson Basin

This is a sole-authored chapter that will appear in a volume edited by Bradley J. Vierra, titled

The Southwest Archaic: Foragers in an Arid Land, and to be published by the University of Utah

Press. In this chapter, I review and synthesize the past 30 years of research on the Archaic period in the Tucson Basin, with particular emphasis on the Early Agricultural period (EAP). The nature and scope of research on the Archaic in the American Southwest has changed significantly in the past 35 years, resulting in fundamental changes to our understanding of the “Neolithic transition” from hunting and foraging to agriculture. In spite of the tremendous urban growth that Tucson has experienced since the 1980s, intact archaeological deposits are found throughout the greater

Tucson Basin, along the floodplain of the Santa Cruz River in particular. Several direct AMS dates on maize suggest this cultigen was grown in the Tucson Basin before 2100 cal BC, the

Middle Archaic, which suggests that the definition of the EAP needs further consideration.

Canals were first identified at EAP sites in the late 1990s, and more recent work has exposed extensive irrigated gridded field systems that covered up to 15 ha in size; canal irrigation here dates to at least 1500 cal BC, and field systems to at least 1250 cal BC. Interaction among 19 communities throughout southern Arizona and northern was well-established by 1200 cal

BC, as indicated by shell from the Sea of Cortez and California coast found at sites in the Tucson

Basin, and obsidian from sources as far north as the Flagstaff volcanic fields. Although agriculture was an integral element of the EAP subsistence and social economy for over 2000 years, population remained relatively low and increased slowly over time – the Neolithic agricultural revolution in North America did not result in tremendously rapid population growth and cultural change as it did in west Asia (Bocquet-Appel 2009; Kohler et al. 2008; Kohler and

Reese 2014).

On a more pragmatic level, it is important to note that the majority of work over the past 30 years has been conducted via publicly funded research mandated by the National Historic Preservation

Act of 1966, conducted in advance of infrastructure construction projects both large and small.

Archaeological investigations related to the expansion of the Interstate 10 corridor and other infrastructure projects on the Santa Cruz River floodplain have been instrumental in advancing our understanding of the Southwest Archaic and the transition from foraging to farming. Indeed, much of this mandated work has contributed significant new information to the discipline of

Southwestern archaeology. The very growth that poses a threat to preservation-in-place of archaeological sites has been the driving force in advancing contemporary research, which illustrates the wisdom behind the NHPA.

Appendix B: Niches, Networks, and the Pathways to the Forager-to-Farmer Transition in

the U.S. Southwest/Northwest Mexico

20

This is a chapter co-authored by James M. Vint and Barbara J. Mills. that will appear in a

UNESCO volume that presents the origins of agriculture in a global perspective; ours is one of two chapters that address the topic in North America. In this chapter, we frame early agriculture within Niche Construction Theory (NCT) and Network Theory. We discuss the usefulness of

NCT in explaining the dynamic nature of the built agricultural environment in the arid U.S.

Southwest and Northwest Mexico, and the importance of riparian environments in the development of agriculture. Rivers and their floodplains were linear oases that provided food, water, and other resources, and had been used extensively by people for several thousand years before the appearance of domesticated cultigens (Huckell 1996; Roth and Freeman 2008). Not only were these lush corridors vital for subsistence, they also were corridors for travel and communication that linked communities throughout the region. The social mechanisms that spread agricultural knowledge—and the farmers and their traditions themselves—among communities and river valleys are considered from the perspective of Network theory; agriculture is more than food production alone.

Appendix C: Tempo and Mode of Early Agricultural Period Settlements on the Santa Cruz

River Floodplain, Southern Arizona

This article is co-authored with Fred Nials, geomorphologist and geoarchaeologist, and is to be submitted to American Antiquity. Among the expanding corpus of data from Early Agricultural period EAP) sites are literally hundreds of AMS radiocarbon dates on maize and other annuals.

This has allowed the chronology of the EAP to be refined, including dates associated with 21 temporally sensitive types of material culture and ever earlier direct dates on maize. Over 25

EAP sites have been identified along the Santa Cruz River, most have at least one radiocarbon- dated specimen of maize, and many have multiple dated samples. Although comparison of calibrated radiocarbon ages gives some impression of temporal process in settlement patterns in the Tucson Basin, discrimination among contemporaneous and discrete communities is blurred due to typically broad resolution of ages. Estimating a single span of time is quite subjective, and most sites are assigned to a phase with a span of 400 years or more, thusly obscuring any temporal trends within those phases.

This article presents chronological analysis of 12 EAP sites on the Santa Cruz River floodplain, and places these occupations in temporal context with changes in river conditions. The program

OxCal is used to model radiocarbon ages from these sites, which date to the Silverbell interval and San Pedro phase of the EAP. This interval falls between two major arroyo-cutting events of the Santa Cruz River, and was a long period of floodplain aggradation and modification (Haynes and Huckell 1986; Waters and Haynes 2001). Temporal variation in site ages is apparent at resolutions much finer than the phase-level, which allows questions to be asked about the processes behind their founding and cessation, and how people responded to changes in agricultural conditions on the floodplain.

In this case, a combination of effects from floodplain dynamics (stream entrenchment and watertable levels) and community organization (land ownership and community territories) are proposed to drive when sites were established and where they could be relocated. It is suggested that social constraints became as significant as environmental factors in affecting how and where communities could settle on the floodplain. River channel conditions largely determined where people could construct irrigation canals and farm the floodplain, while at the same time 22 agricultural communities established long term, multigenerational ties to specific places favorable to irrigation.

Irrigated field systems were built environments that required close management and cooperation to operate. Changes to the river channel such as lowered watertable, damaging floods, or discontinuous entrenchment of the stream can render an irrigation system nonfunctional. Optimal locations for irrigation were settled early and for long periods of time. Adverse river conditions and failed agricultural production may result in people having to relocate elsewhere, or negotiate accommodations with neighboring communities to mitigate the loss of productive fields. There was only so much available irrigable land on the floodplain, and the established ownership of farmland by communities was a valuable asset. It is proposed here that the establishment of landesque capital in the form of irrigated field systems—which are products of cultural niche construction—functioned to create and maintain community identity (Doolittle 2014; Odling-

Smee and Laland 2011; Widgren and Håkansson 2014a, b).

23

References

Bocquet-Appel, Jean-Pierre

2009 The Demographic Impact of the Agricultural System in Human History. Current

Anthropology 50(5):657-660.

Bork, Lewis, Barbara J. Mills, Matthew A. Pepples, and Jeffery J. Clark

2015 Are Social Networks Survival Networks? An Example from the Late Pre-

Hispanic US Southwest. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 22:33-57.

Chenault, Mark (editor)

2009 The San Pedro Phase Component of the Dairy Site: Data Recovery at Site AZ

AA:12:285 (ASM) in Marana, Pima County, Arizona: The Cortaro Farms Road

Improvement Project. Cultural Resources Report 2009-4. WestLand Resources, Inc.,

Tucson.

Diehl, Michael W.

2005a Epilogue: "Farmaging" During the Early Agricultural Period. In Subsistence and

Resource Use Strategies of Early Agricultural Communities in Southern Arizona, edited

by M. W. Diehl, pp. 181-184. Anthropological Papers No 34. Center for Desert

Arcaheology, Tucson.

24

2005b When Corn was not yet King. In Subsistence and Resource Use Strategies of

Early Agricultural Communities in Southern Arizona, edited by M. W. Diehl, pp. 1-18.

Anthtopological Papers No. 34. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

2015 Foraging off the Gardens: Diet Breadth and Anthropogenic Landscape Change

During the Early Agricultural Period in the Tucson Basin. In Implements of Change:

Tools, Subsistence, and the Built Environment of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural

Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona, edited by J. M. Vint, pp. 345-375.

Anthropological Papers No. 51. Arcaheology Southwest, Tucson.

Doolittle, William E.

2014 Economics and the Process of Making Farmland. In Landesque Capital: The

Historical Ecology of Enduring Landscape Modifications, edited by N. T. Håkansson and

M. Widgren, pp. 31-48. Left Coast Press, Inc., Walnut Creek.

Doyel, David E.

1984 From Foraging to Farming: An Overview of the Preclassic in the Tucson Basin.

The 49(3):147-165.

Ezzo, Joseph A. and William L. Deaver

1998 Watering the Desert: Late Archaic Farming at the Costello-King Site. Technical

Series 68. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson.

25

Fish, Paul R., Suzanne K. Fish, Austin Long, and Charles Miksicek

1986 Early Corn Remains from Tumamoc Hill, Southern Arizona. American Antiquity

51(3):563-572.

Fish, Suzanne K., Paul R. Fish, Gary Christopherson, Todd A. Pitezel, and James T. Watson

2011 Two Villages on Tumamoc Hill. Journal of Arizona Archaeology 1(2):185-196.

Gregory, David A. (editor)

1999 Excavations in the Santa Cruz River Floodplain: The Middle Archaic Component

at Los Pozos. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

2001 Excavations in the Santa Cruz River Flood Plain: The Early Agricultural Period

Component at Los Pozos. Anthropological Papers No. 21. Center for Desert

Archaeology, Tucson.

Gregory, David A. and Michael W. Diehl

2002 Duration, Continuity, and Intensity of Occupation at a Late Cienega Phase

Settlement in the Santa Cruz River Floodplain. In Traditions, Transitions, and

Technologies: Themes in , edited by S. H. Schlanger, pp. 200-

223. University of Colorado Press, Boulder.

Gregory, David A. and Jonathan B. Mabry 26

1998 Revised Research Design for the Archaeological Treatment Plan, Interstate 10

Corridor Improvement Project, Tangerine Road to the Interstate 19 Interchange.

Technical Report No. 97-19. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

Gregory, David A., Michelle N. Stevens, Fred L. Nials, Mark R. Schurr, and Michael W. Diehl

2007 Excavations in the Santa Cruz Floodplain: Further Investigations at Los Pozos.

Anthropological Papers No. 27. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

Haury, Emil W.

1976 The Hohokam: Desert Farmers and Craftsmen. University of Arizona Press,

Tucson.

1992 The Greater American Southwest. In Emil W. Haury's of the American

Southwest, edited by J. J. Reid and D. E. Doyel, pp. 18-48. University of Arizona Press,

Tucson.

Hesse, S Jerome and Annick Lascaux (editors)

2005 The Cortaro Road Site: 2800 Years of Prehistory in the Northern Tucson Basin.

Cultural Resources Report No. 03-172. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Tucson.

Huckell, Bruce B.

1984 The Paleo-Indian and Archaic Occupation of the Tucson Basin: An Overview.

The Kiva 49(3-4):133-145. 27

1988 Late Archaic Archeology of the Tucson Basin: A Status Report. In Recent

Research on Tucson Basin Prehistory: Proceedings of the Second Tucson Basin

Conference, edited by W. H. Doelle and P. R. Fish, pp. 57-80. Anthropological Papers

10. Institute for American Research, Tucson.

1995 Of Marshes and Maize: Preceramic Agricultural Settlements in the Cienega

Valley, Southeastern Arizona. Anthropological Papers No. 59. University of Arizona

Press, Tucson.

1996 The Archaic Prehistory of the North American Southwest. Journal of World

Prehistory 10(3):305-373.

Huckell, Bruce B., Lisa W. Huckell and Suzanne K. Fish

1995 Investigations at Milagro, a Late Preceramic Site in the Eastern Tucson Basin.

Technical Report 94-5. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

Kohler, Timothy A., Matt Pier Glaude, Jean-Pierre Bocquet-Appel and Brian M. Kemp

2008 The Neolithic Demographic Transition in the U.S. Southwest. American Antiquity

73(4):645-669.

Kohler, Timothy A. and Kelsey M. Reese 28

2014 Long and Spatially Variable Neolithic Demographic Transition in the North

American Southwest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(28):10101-

10106.

Mabry, Jonathan B. (editor)

1998a Archaeological Investigations of Early Village Sites in the Middle Santa Cruz

Valley: Analyses and Synthesis, Part I. 19. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

1998b Archaeological Investigations of Early Village Sites in the Middle Santa Cruz

Valley: Analyses and Synthesis, Part II. 19. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

2008b Las Capas: Early Irrigation and Sedentism in a Southwestern Floodplain.

Anthropological Papers No. 28, Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

Mabry, Jonathan B.

1998c Architectural Variability and Site Structures. In Archaeological Investigations of

Early Village Sigets in the Middle Santa Cruz Valley: Analyses and Syntheses, Part I,

edited by J. B. Mabry, pp. 209-244. Anthropological Papers No. 19. Center for Desert

Archaeology, Tucson.

2005 Changing Knowledge and Ideas about the First Farmers in Southeastern Arizona.

In The Late Archaic Across the Borderlands: From Foraging to Farming, edited by B. J.

Vierra, pp. 41-83. University of Texas Press, Austin. 29

2006 Radiocarbon Dating of the Early Occupations. In Rio Nuevo Archaeology, 2000-

2003: Investigations at the San Augustín Mission and Mission Gardens, Tucson Presido,

Tucson Pressed Brickyard, and Clearwater Site, edited by J. H. Thiel and J. B. Mabry.

Technical Report No. 2004-11

http://www.archaeologysouthwest.org/pdf/rn/rio_nuevo_ch19.pdf. Desert Archaeology,

Inc, Tucson.

2008a Irrigation, Short-term Sedentism, and Corporate Organization During the San

Pedro Phase. In Las Capas: Early Irrigation and Sedentism in a Southwestern

Floodplain, edited by J. B. Mabry, pp. 279-293. Anthropological Papers No. 28. Center

for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

Mabry, Jonathan B., Deborah L. Swartz, Helga Wöcherl, Jeffery J. Clark, Gavin H. Archer, and

Michael W. Lindeman

1997 Archaeological Investigations of Early Village Sites in the Middle Santa Cruz

Valley: Descriptions of the Santa Cruz Bend, Square , Stone Pipe, and Canal

Sites. Anthropological Papers No. 18. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

Madsen, John H., Paul R. Fish and Suzanne K. Fish (editors)

1993 The Northern Tucson Basin Survey: Research Directions and Background

Studies. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 182. Arizona State Museum,

University of Arizona, Tucson. 30

Odling-Smee, F. John and Kevin N. Laland

2011 Ecological Inheritance and Cultural Inheritance: What are they and How do they

Differ? Biological Theory 6(3):220-230.

Odling-Smee, F John, Kevin N Laland and Marcus W. Feldman

2003 Niche Construction: The Neglected Procss in Evolution. Princeton University

Press, Princeton.

Roth, Barbara J.

1989 Late Archaic Settlement and Subsistence in the Tucson Basin. Ph. D. dissertation,

University of Arizona.

1992 Sedentary Agriculturalists or Mobile Hunter-Gatherers? Recent Evidence on the

Late Archaic Occupation of the Northern Tucson Basin. Kiva 57(4):291-314.

2015 Were They Sedentary and Does it Matter? Early Farmers in the Tucson Basin. In

Late Holocene Research on Foragers and Farmers in the Desert West, edited by B. J.

Roth and M. E. McBrinn, pp. 108-135. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Roth, Barbara J. and Andrea Freeman

2008 The Middle Archaic Period and the Transition to Agroculture in the Sonoran

Desert of Arizona. Kiva 73(3):321-353. 31

Roth, Barbara and Kevin Wellman

2001 New Insights into the Early Agricultural Period in the Tucson Basin: Excavations

at the Valley Farms Site (AZ AA:12:736). Kiva 67(1):59-79.

Sayles, E. B.

1983 The Cochise Cultural Sequence in Southeastern Arizona. Anthropological Papers

of the University of Arizona Number 42. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Smith, Bruce D.

2011 A Cultural Niche Construction Theory of Initial . Biological Theory

6(3):260-271.

Waters, Michael R. and C. Vance Jr. Haynes

2001 Late Quaternary Arroyo Formatoin and Climate Change in the American

Southwest. Geology 29(5):399-402.

Watson, James T. and Rachael M. Byrd

2015 A Bioarchaeological Perspective on Change and Continuity in an Early

Agricultural Community. In Implements of Change: Tools, Subsistence, and the Built

Environment of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern

Arizona, edited by J. M. Vint, pp. 377-388. Anthropological Papers No. 51. Archaeology

Southwest, Tucson. 32

Whittlesey, Stephanie M, S Jerome Hesse and Michael S Foster (editors)

2010 Recurrent Sedentism and the Making of Place: Archaeological Investigations at

Las Capas, a Preceramic Period Farming Community in the Tucson Basin, Southern

Arizona. Cultural Resources Report No. 07-556. SWCA Environmental Consultants,

Tucson.

Widgren, Mats and N. Thomas Håkansson (editors)

2014a Landesque Capital: The Historical Ecology of Enduring Landscape

Modifications. Left Coast Press, Inc., Walnut Creek.

2014b Landesque Capital: What is the Concept Good For? In Landesque Capital: The

Historical Ecology of Enduring Landscape Modifications, edited by N. T. Håkansson and

M. Widgren, pp. 9-30. Left Coast Press, Inc., Walnut Creek.

Zeder, Melinda A.

2012 The Broad Spectrum Revolution at 40: Resource Diversity, Intensification, and an

Alternative to Optimal Foraging Explanations. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

31:241-264.

33

APPENDIX A

The Southwest Archaic in the Tucson Basin

James M. Vint

Submitted to the University of Utah Press for publication as Chapter 5 in the forthcoming volume The Archaic Southwest: Foragers in an Arid Land, edited by Bradley J. Vierra. 34

For over thirty years, the Tucson Basin of southern Arizona has been a focal point of Southwest

Archaic research. In 1984, Bruce Huckell reported on the status of Paleoindian and Archaic occupation in the basin, and noted that 44 sites (one with two temporal components) had been assigned to the Archaic. Of those, six were identified as Middle Archaic, 10 as Late Archaic, and

29 as undifferentiated Archaic or otherwise not attributable to a given period (B. Huckell 1984b:

Table 1). As of 2015, the Arizona State Museum site files contain 348 sites identified as Archaic or having an Archaic component in the greater Tucson area (Table 5.1, Figures 5.1, 5.2). This nearly eight-fold increase in documented sites is attributable primarily to work conducted under the aegis of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as well as legislation by Arizona, Pima County, and the City of Tucson. In particular, projects sponsored by the

Arizona Department of Transportation as part of improvements to the Interstate 10 corridor through Tucson have allowed areas of the Santa Cruz River flood plain to be investigated that otherwise would be unavailable to archaeological exploration (Gregory and Mabry 1998). The long-term, large-scale Northern Tucson Basin Survey conducted by the Arizona State Museum in the mid-1980s also greatly increased archaeological coverage of the region, documenting hundreds of sites of all ages (Madsen et al. 1993). Our understanding of the Archaic in southern

Arizona has grown tremendously as a result of this work, not just in terms of new data and interpretations but also in developing new questions and methodologies to guide research. This chapter reviews the current status of the Archaic in the Tucson Basin and highlights several recent advances in our knowledge of this long temporal interval.

Despite the tremendous increase in site documentation over the past 30 years, new information is not evenly distributed over the course of the Archaic period. As Huckell’s 1984 review reported, the Early Archaic is very poorly represented in the Tucson Basin, and the Middle Archaic not 35 much better. The most change has occurred in our understanding of the Late Archaic, now usually called the Late Archaic/Early Agricultural period (EAP). Significant changes here include redefining the 2,000 years comprising the phases of the EAP (Huckell 1996); definition of the Early and Late Ciénega phases (Gregory 2001a); further refinement in chronometric dating of phases and sites (Mabry 2005a, 2008a; Vint 2015c; Whittlesey 2015); broadening our understanding of EAP maize agriculture and subsistence economy; and social implications of variation in technology and associated material culture.

This chapter begins with a brief review of the local environment, followed by a review of the

Archaic in the Tucson Basin as currently known. General settlement and subsistence patterns are discussed, with an emphasis on the EAP and the significance (or lack thereof) of the introduction of maize agriculture and concomitant changes in economic and social organization. Social dimensions of several categories of material culture—projectile points, shell jewelry, and fired clay figurines—are considered in relation to ritual and to the regional “connectedness” of people living in the basin with communities in the greater borderlands region. In these topics, local environment and landscape are pervasive, and their qualities and nature are highlighted in the sections that follow. Unless otherwise noted, radiocarbon ages have been calibrated using OxCal

4.2 and the IntCal13 calibration curve and are reported at the 95.4 percent probability level

(Bronk Ramsey 2009; Reimer et al. 2013).

A VERDANT DESERT

The Sonoran Desert is a subtropical desert that spans a wide geographic area from the Pacific coast of eastward into northwestern Sonora, Mexico, and southern Arizona 36

(Brown 1994; Turner and Brown 1994). This region varies from parched sand dunes to lush valleys around at 700 m (2,300 ft) elevation, punctuated by “sky island” mountain ranges with altitudes over 2,750 m (9,000 ft). Rainfall is typically biseasonal, with winter and summer rainy seasons and fall and spring droughts. Perennial rivers are few but significant, and many intermittent streams flow through valley basins, sustaining rich riparian zones.

Southern Arizona, including the Tucson Basin, falls within the Arizona upland subdivision of the

Sonoran Desert (Figure 5.1). The Tucson Basin’s average elevation is 700 m (2,900 ft). Annual rainfall here averages 300 mm (12 in), with about 60 percent of that falling in the summer months during convective monsoon thunderstorms. Four distinct mountain ranges surround the basin and form a major part of the water catchment area that feeds the Santa Cruz River, which flows from south to north through the western margin of the basin. The Santa Cruz River was once perennial, with stretches of surface flow separated by stretches of subflow (Betancourt

1990; Webb et al. 2014). Groundwater pumping that began at the turn of the twentieth century to meet the demands of Tucson and surrounding agricultural fields has significantly lowered water tables, and the river no longer flows except after storms and downstream from water treatment plants that discharge treated effluent into the stream channel.

Desert scrub vegetation, which dominates the basin, includes woody shrubs and trees, grasses, and cacti, many of which provided key food and fuel resources in the past (Turner and Brown

1994). Mesquite (Prosopis velutina), palo verde (Circidium sp.), creosotebush (Larrea tridentate), and Desert Hackberry (Celtis pallida) are common trees and shrubs. Mesquite bean pods were (and remain) an important part of the human diet. Fruit from the saguaro (Carnegiea gigantia), prickly pear (Opuntia sp.), and cholla (Opuntia sp.) cacti were also regularly eaten. 37

Common mammals include Cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and white tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus).

These were a principal source of protein for prehistoric farmers, rabbits in particular. Weedy annual plants that thrive on the floodplain and disturbed soils include amaranth (Amaranthus sp.), goosefoot (Chenopodium sp.), tansy mustard (Descurania sp.), purslane (Portulaca sp.), and Sacaton grass (Sporobolus sp.), all of which provided food with their seeds and greens.

Riparian habitat is scarce in the desert southwest, today comprising a mere 0.4 percent of area in

Arizona and less than 2 percent in the southwestern (Zaimes 2007). The Santa

Cruz River supported a lush riparian habitat along its floodplain, composed of willow (Salix gooddingii), cottonwood (Populus fremontii), mesquite and other phreatophytic trees and shrubs, and common reed (Phragmites australis), as well as diverse mammal, avian, reptile, and aquatic populations. In addition to being a source of water, the river’s course provided food, fuel, and other resources (Minckley and Brown 1994a, b, c). The importance of these linear desert river oases to human subsistence and economy cannot be understated.

One significant physical characteristic of rivers is “stream reaches.” The starting points of stream reaches on rivers are locations where physical features such as volcanic dikes force water to the surface or gravel fans form as a tributary stream joins the main channel (Nials et al. 2011). These locations are favorable for agriculture because of high water tables that create perennial or near- perennial surface flow. Ciénegas (marshes) and small wetlands may also be present. Along the

Santa Cruz River, two stream reaches were particularly hospitable for early farmers—the A-

Mountain and Cañada del Oro reaches. The A-Mountain reach runs from just south of Tumamoc

Hill to the confluence of the Rillito River with the Santa Cruz (Figure 5.2). The Cañada del Oro reach runs from the confluences of the Rillito River and Cañada del Oro with the Santa Cruz to 38 the north end of the . At the start of each of these reaches, there is archaeological evidence for over 4,000 years of settlement up to the present day (Nials et al.

2011; Thiel and Mabry 2006). Notable Archaic sites are Clearwater (AZ BB:13:6 [ASM]), at the base of A-Mountain, and Las Capas (AZ AA:12:111 [ASM]), just downstream from the Cañada del Oro confluence (Figure 5.2). Such conditions at stream reach boundaries, in fact, are the reason for continual habitation in the vicinity of present-day Tucson city over the past several millennia and why the Spanish chose to locate a presidio near Tumamoc Hill in 1776 (Logan

2002).

Proxy environmental data from packrat , , and geomorphic reconstructions reflect the regional patterns discussed by S. Hall in chapter 2 of this volume (see also Betancourt et al.

1990; Mabry 1998b; Martin 1963; Van Devender 1990; Waters 1989). These data are primarily from outside of the Tucson Basin and thus are a “triangulation” of more general regional conditions. In southern Arizona, the early Holocene (ca. 12300–8600 cal B.P.) was a relatively wet period that saw expansion of lakes and increases in spring and stream discharges. Cool, wet conditions encouraged the growth and geographical spread of seed-bearing grasses, particularly in the higher elevations of southeastern Arizona. Large and small game animals were widespread.

Increased aridity during the middle Holocene (ca. 8600–5600 cal B.P.) reduced the distribution of reliable water sources, with many of the large pluvial lakes and springs becoming dry. Periods of erosion, dune formation, and stream incision further affected plant and animal distributions.

Biotic diversity in general decreased, with the distribution of seed-bearing grasses and seed- and nut-bearing trees becoming restricted to higher elevations of mountain foothills and high desert 39 grasslands of southeastern Arizona. Large game—and people—retreated to cooler, better vegetated and watered regions.

Favorable conditions returned at the start of the late Holocene, around 5600 cal B.P.

Temperatures cooled, and relatively wet conditions resulted in increased water sources. The range of grasslands, leguminous trees, and cacti expanded once again to lower elevations and valley bottoms. Floodplain and alluvial fan aggradation helped to raise water table levels, resulting in streams with perennial surface flow and marshes—the riparian communities so important during the Early Agricultural period (Huckell 1995, 1996).

TIME AND PLACE

The chronology currently used in the Tu(Irwin-Williams 1967, 1973, 1979)cson Basin is presented in Table 5.2, and is essentially a modification of the original Cochise Cultural

Sequence defined by Sayles (1983). As observed by Bruce Huckell (1984a:214; 1996), although the Southwestern Archaic is recognizable at the regional level in broad schema such as those devised by Irwin-Williams (1967, 1973, 1979) and others, there is considerable subregional variation in the dating of cultural sequences, the number of subdivisions within periods, and how the subphases are defined. This is quite evident in the chapters of this volume. Major changes resulted from the identification of early maize in Late Archaic deposits, which led Huckell

(1995, 1996) to redefine the San Pedro phase as the Late Archaic/Early Agricultural period and to include the Ciénega Phase as part of the sequence.

Additional refinement to the chronology has been made possible by the abundance of radiocarbon dates analyzed over the course of the last two decades, most obtained from CRM 40 work. Gregory (2001a: Figure 11.1), for example, noted that between 1980 and 2001 some 184 radiocarbon dates were obtained from late Holocene archaeological contexts in the Tucson

Basin, with most acquired between 1995 and 2001. Now in the 2010s, more than several hundred radiocarbon dates have been recovered from a robust sample of investigated sites from this time period. Many are Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) dates on maize or other annuals and seeds (Blake et al. 2012; Mabry 2008a: Table 3.5). The vast majority of these dates are from Late

Archaic/Early Agricultural period contexts.

Dates assigned to the Early, Middle and Late divisions of the Archaic correspond generally to the

Middle and Late Holocene, and are further subdivided into phases based on material culture and subsistence adaptations to prevailing environmental conditions (Huckell 1996:322–323; Mabry

1998b:7–17). Projectile points, of course, serve as a principal temporal marker. Common diagnostic types found in the Tucson Basin and their associated temporal categories are presented in Table 5.3. The progression through time of styles and technology the pattern seen throughout the greater southwest: the Early Archaic is typified by lanceolate, stemmed projectile points; the Middle Archaic by lanceolate, stemmed, and/or shouldered forms; and Late Archaic/Early Agricultural periods by smaller, notched varieties.

EARLY ARCHAIC

The Early Archaic is poorly represented in the Tucson Basin. No in situ deposits or features of this age have been excavated or identified. Early Archaic projectile points recovered from younger surface and excavated contexts most likely were found and curated items. Indeed, ASM site file cards that identify a site as having an Early Archaic component almost invariably note 41 that the diagnostic item is a projectile point associated with younger assemblages that are often ceramic period in age. Ventana in the Baboquivari Mountains some 110 kilometers west of

Tucson in the Castle Mountains (Fiure 1.1; Haury 1975), and Double some 200 kilometers southeast of Tucson in Whitewater Draw (Sayles 1983; Waters 1986), provide the best examples of Early Archaic sites in the area (Figure 5.1). Closer to Tucson, Bruce Huckell

(1984a) identified a number of tapering-stemmed projectile points in assemblages from several

Archaic sites in the northern foothills of the in the southeastern Tucson

Basin.

Tool assemblages consist of simple milling implements, typically slab metates and cobble handstones that have little modification other than use-alteration; unifacial flaked stone cutting and scraping implements; leaf-shaped bifacial ; and tapering-stemmed projectile points.

Typologically, projectile point styles fall within the range of Western stemmed and Lake Mojave types common to the Great Basin and low deserts of western Arizona and eastern California

(Figure 5.3; Chapter 3). In general, the Early Archaic in the Tucson region conforms to that of the greater Southwest and southern Great Basin traditions in terms of technological organization, with perhaps some subregional variation in typological composition of assemblages. This remains unchanged from Huckell’s (1984a:205) observation that “southeastern Arizona conforms more or less to the artifactual patterns present elsewhere in the area encompassed by the Western tradition” defined by Irwin-Williams (1979).

42

MIDDLE ARCHAIC

The Middle Archaic is represented by 23 components, few of which have been extensively excavated (Gregory 1999; Huckell 1984a; Roth and DeMaio 2014; Roth and Freeman 2008). As with the Early Archaic, most assignments to this temporal interval are based on projectile points found in surface contexts at multicomponent sites, and thus the possibility of them being a curated item cannot be ruled out. Diagnostic points fall within the morphological range of

Chiricahua and Cortaro, but occasional Gypsum Cave and San Jose points are found (Figure

5.4). Cortaro points are perhaps the most common diagnostic type for this time period, and are the only concave-based projectile point variety found in the borderlands region during the Early

Agricultural period (Sliva 2015:15). Their range spans northwestern (Hard and Roney

1998b), northern Sonora, and southern Arizona south of the Gila River (Carpenter et al. 2003,

Carpenter et al. Chapter 6; Roth and Huckell 1992).

Sites located in the valley floodplain and foothills were seasonally occupied camps related to hunting and gathering plant foods. More specialized sites such as quarries are found in areas of rock outcrops with suitable toolstone (Roth and Freeman 2008). Most have no identified features, which is attributable to their being recorded during surveys and not subjected to excavation. However, limited excavations at several sites in the Tucson area provide some detailed information on site use and occupation.

Twenty-six Archaic sites in the foothills on the northeast flank of the Santa Rita Mountains were identified by the Arizona State Museum in the early 1980s as part of the ANAMAX/Rosemont land exchange, of which four had Middle Archaic components (B. Huckell 1984a). Of the 12 sites investigated as part of the data recovery/excavation phase of the project, features identified 43 on Archaic sites of all ages were overwhelmingly rock concentrations of various dimensions

(less than 1 m to over 2 m), some more concentrated or dispersed than others. Although certainly of cultural origin, function could not be easily inferred. Some contained rocks that were burned or thermally fractured but could not be definitively identified as or roasting features.

Other rock concentrations may have simply been the result of clearing the surface for activity areas. Artifacts such as handstones and flaked stone and tools were sometimes found within the features, but functional association was unclear. Sites were interpreted as winter hunting camps and longer-term residential bases (B. Huckell 1984a). The few identifiable plant remains from these sites indicate use of local upland resources, with walnut shells and carbonized chenopodium seeds the only identified edible species (L. Huckell 1984).

Two sites had essentially “pure” Middle Archaic components, the McCleary Canyon Site (AZ

EE:2:102 [ASM]) and AZ EE:2:87 (ASM). The McCleary Canyon site had one , a shallow, circular pit filled with what appeared to be ash-stained soil, and the base was possibly oxidized; it might have been a hearth. A possible structure was identified at the Wasp Canyon site (AZ EE:2:62[ASM]). This feature was an oval ring of rocks that may have served as a foundation for a light brush superstructure and was tentatively dated as Middle Archaic, based on a badly damaged Pinto projectile point found near or on the floor level (B. Huckell 1984a:54).

La Paloma, located in the foothills of the (Figure 5.2), was interpreted as a Middle Archaic residential base camp (Dart 1986). However, the lithic assemblage contained a low proportion of bifaces compared to other Middle Archaic sites in southern

Arizona, suggesting that preparation for hunting was not a significant task at the site (Sliva

1999). Its location in the bajada zone may reflect a seasonally oriented use of the foothills rather than a base camp. 44

The best documented excavated Middle Archaic component in the Tucson Basin is at the site of

Los Pozos (AZ AA:12:91[ASM]). It is located in the northwest Tucson Basin on the east side of the Santa Cruz River floodplain (Figure 5.2; Gregory 1999). Excavation of the site was conducted in advance of construction related to the Interstate 10 corridor that runs through

Tucson. Los Pozos dates primarily to the Late Archaic/Early Agricultural period, and the discovery of a Middle Archaic component was unexpected. As with most prehistoric sites along the Santa Cruz River, neither temporal component was visible on the modern ground surface.

The site area was first recorded in 1973 based on artifacts exposed in areas disturbed by freeway and canal construction, none of them Archaic in age (Arizona State Museum Site Files; Gregory

1999).

The Middle Archaic deposits were buried by 2 m of over-bank flood sediments and identified when several pieces of flaked stone debitage were found at the base of a backhoe trench while facing the trench walls. An area of over 200 m2 was exposed and excavated by hand. Cultural deposits were about 40 cm thick and extended an unknown distance beyond the excavated area.

Stratigraphy indicated that the occupation was on a slightly raised area, possibly an inset on the floodplain, which would have minimized impacts from gentle overbank floods. Two and possibly three principal occupations were suggested, based on relative depths of point- provenienced artifacts, modes in the vertical distributions of densities, and observed stratigraphy within the cultural horizon. Radiocarbon assays on mesquite charcoal yielded an age range of 4970–3850 cal B.P. (3020–1900 cal B.C.; Gregory 1999).

Six features were identified: an oxidized pit and five circular to irregularly oval shallow pits.

Fire-cracked and burned rocks were found throughout the deposit, though definitive evidence of roasting pits was not identified. Dispersed charcoal and ash-stained soil was also observed 45 throughout the excavation area, as were several oxidized patches of indeterminate origin. Flaked stone debitage and tools, groundstone implements including a whole metate, burned animal bone, and several bone tools (awls) comprised the artifact assemblage. A range of domestic activities from manufacture and maintenance, making or stitching, and food processing are thus indicated.

This is one of the few Middle Archaic sites in the greater Tucson region to have an excavated assemblage that includes plant and faunal remains related to subsistence. Carbonized plant remains reflect the floodplain environment and include woody plants used for fuel—primarily mesquite—and edible starchy seeds from grasses, sedges, and leguminous trees (Diehl 1999).

Artiodactyl and lagomorph bones dominated the faunal assemblage, and nearly all were charred or calcined to some degree (esepcially lagomorphs; Wöcherl 1999). Artiodactyl and large mammal skeletal elements were represented primarily by limbs, which indicate that high-ranked edible portions were brought back to the encampment from hunting expeditions in the surrounding foothills. Seed taxa were plants that grow in the floodplain environment, some in great abundance, such as amaranth. Based on the plant species represented, and assuming they reflect plant use strategies, the site was occupied at least from late summer (possibly even early summer) through late fall (Diehl 1999:57); species harvested in September through November were strongly represented. The leafy greens of many of these same seed-bearing plants, obviously difficult if not impossible to document archaeologically, were also certainly eaten.

The interesting aspect of Los Pozos is its location on the floodplain and the added dimensions it provides to our understanding of Middle Archaic subsistence and settlement. The floodplain environment was an important element of Middle Archaic resource use but is poorly documented archaeologically, due to sampling bias caused by the fact that most sites are buried and an 46 unknown number have been destroyed by river floods and erosion (Roth and Freeman 2008).

Intensive and extensive use of amaranth and other productive seed-bearing grasses, the understanding of those plants’ ecology and growth patterns, and the grinding and technology developed to process these plant foods likely served as a “preadaptation” of sorts for maize cultivation (Gregory et al. 2007: Chapter 2; Roth and Freeman 2008). This concept was a cornerstone of models proposed Willey and Phillips (1958) and (Haury 1992) as a significant precursor for hunting and gathering groups who adopted maize cultivation. Indeed, Haury

(1992:30) proposed the hypothesis that Archaic populations in the Southwest may have “engaged in deliberate plant cultivation of native species, as, for example, chenopods and amaranths” as early as 4000 B.C. It is thus significant to note that possibly domesticated amaranth has been identified at Cerro Juanaqueña in Chihuahua (Hard and Roney 2005; also see Hanselka, Chapter

15).

A date of 4930 ±30 B.P. (5720–5600 cal B.P., 3780–3650 cal B.C.) was obtained on maize cupules from Las Capas in the northwestern Tucson Basin (Table 5.4; Diehl 2015; Vint 2015c), which suggests that maize was cultivated in the region earlier than previously has been inferred.

An early date on maize of 4050 ±50 B.P. (4810–4410 cal B.P./2860–2460 cal B.C.) was obtained from Los Pozos, although this specimen was from a nonfeature context and is several hundred years older than the dates obtained from other contexts in the Middle Archaic component at the site (Gregory and Baar 1999). These early dates on maize raise questions about when maize was introduced to the region and, furthermore, the issue of when and what marks the transition from the Middle Archaic to the Early Agricultural period. David Gregory and colleagues (2007) present an eloquent discussion of the history behind the concept of the Archaic and Early 47

Agricultural period continuum in Southwestern archaeology. The interested reader is directed to that essay.

THE LATE ARCHAIC/EARLY AGRICULTURAL PERIOD

The Late Archaic/Early Agricultural period spans the two millennia from ca. 4000 cal B.P., when maize was first introduced to the region, to around 1900 cal B.P. (ca. 2100 cal B.C. to cal A.D.

50), when fired clay ceramic technology was fully developed. As of this writing, 112 components in the greater Tucson Basin have been identified in the Arizona State Museum site files as Late Archaic/Early Agricultural in age.

Regular identification of maize at Late Archaic sites led Huckell (1995, 1996) to reintroduce the concept of the Early Agricultural period to Southwestern archaeological systematics—an interval that was proposed in the 1950s by Haury (1992) as the preceramic agricultural stage prior to the

Formative ceramic era but was superseded by other regional classificatory systems (Gregory et al. 2007:6–22). In the 1980s, maize was identified in San Pedro phase contexts at Tumamoc Hill in the southwestern basin (Fish et al. 1986), Milagro in the eastern basin (B. Huckell et al. 2002;

B. Huckell et al. 1995), and several sites in the northern basin (Roth 1989, 1992). Maize had also been identified at Late Archaic sites in the Ciénega Creek Valley southeast of Tucson (Huckell

1995). Over the past 20 years, extensive work at sites on the Santa Cruz River floodplain has demonstrated that maize is ubiquitous at sites in the Tucson Basin that date to this interval. It is now apparent that this cultigen was likely introduced 1,500 years earlier than the current chronology indicates (Table 5.4). Domesticated beans and pepo squash have not been positively identified in San Pedro phase contexts in the Tucson Basin but do appear by the Early Ciénega 48 phase (Diehl 2005a); the fabled Mesoamerican Three Sisters crop complex did not arrive together during the EAP.

The term “Late Archaic/Early Agricultural period” has been recognized as both awkward and lending confusion to the cultural adaptations it indicates by conflating temporal references (i.e., phase names) with behavioral adaptations (i.e., subsistence strategies and resource use; Gregory et al. 2007:Chapter 2; Whittlesey 2015). To minimize this confusion, Whittlesey (2015) has proposed renaming the entirety of the Archaic to “Preceramic” in order to distinguish it from the

Formative period, essentially making the distinction one between preceramic and ceramic eras.

The Early, Middle, and Late divisions and their named phases would be kept, but the term Early

Agricultural would be dropped.

This argument is based on several criteria. Early farmers were not entirely dependent on maize, which comprised only a portion of their diet; hunting and foraging provided the bulk of their food resources; and maize was not necessarily essential to survival. Groups also remained fairly mobile, using a logistically based settlement strategy to exploit different resource zones, and moving between base camps in the riparian corridor and resource-specific camps in the bajada and upland zones. People had not committed to a fully sedentary, agriculturally focused lifeway and retained essentially an Archaic settlement pattern (Roth 1992, 2015). Tool- and food- processing technologies remained oriented toward harvesting and preparing wild foods. In general, then, the adoption of low-level maize agriculture apparently had minimal effects on settlement, subsistence, population size, health, and social organization over the 2,000-plus years prior to the development of pottery: people still lived as mobile hunter-foragers but also grew maize and were becoming increasingly tethered to place (Whittlesey 2015; Whittlesey et al.

2010b). 49

This argument is appealing in that it does help resolve the conflation of temporal classification and behavioral adaptations and eliminates the awkward compound name; its adoption certainly merits further debate. However, I believe it underplays the practice of maize agriculture and the effects—as slowly as they may have developed—of its inexorable integration as a fundamental piece of regional identity and existence in southwestern cultures. In the remainder of this chapter,

I refer to the period as the Early Agricultural period (EAP) in keeping with current usage.

Several examples of agricultural technology and other specific topics are discussed below that are drawn from recent excavations at sites along the Santa Cruz River and may help to illustrate the importance of even low-level maize agriculture in EAP society.

The Silverbell Interval, the San Pedro phase, and the Ciénega phase comprise the EAP (Table

5.1). Projectile points increase in stylistic diversity and reflect both technological and cultural variation (Figure 5.5; Sliva 2015). Cortaro points are associated with the Silverbell Interval, which adds to the ambiguity of what distinguishes the Middle Archaic from the Early

Agricultural period, as noted above. Empire and San Pedro points are the primary temporal diagnostic projectile points during the San Pedro phase, though Cortaro points continue to be used through the early portion of the phase (Sliva 2015). Empire points appear to have been a technology and style introduced to the Tucson Basin from the south, in the area of La Playa (see below; Sliva 2015), and are most prevalent from about 1200 to 1000 cal B.C. in the basin.

Stylistic variation in San Pedro points is seen mostly in the elements of the points. This may reflect variation in how flintknapping was taught and learned among different groups of people who made the projectiles, perhaps along village or local community lines (Sliva

2015:124–135). Projectile technology changed during the Ciénega phase, with a shift to smaller, lighter projectile points and a correspondingly heavier dart shaft that maintained the lethal 50 potential of the projectiles (Sliva 2015). There are four varieties of Ciénega points (Figure 5.5;

Sliva 1999b; 2015:65–78). Ciénega Short occurs primarily during the Early Ciénega phase;

Ciénega Flared and Ciénega Stemmed are associated with the Late Ciénega phase; and Ciénega

Long occur through the entire Ciénega phase. Serrated margins are strongly associated with the Late Ciénega phase.

Early Agricultural Period Maize

There are no good modern analogs to maize grown during the EAP (Huckell 2009). We know it was a small cob, flinty popcorn variety. It is most often compared to modern Chapalote, a land race considered to be of some antiquity (Nabhan 2008). In order to explore the attributes of EAP maize, three charred maize cobs recovered from San Pedro phase features at Las Capas were submitted for phytolith analysis (Cummings et al. 2013; Diehl 2015). These were compared with modern varieties of Chapalote, Reventador, Tohono O’odham 60-Day flour corn, Hopi Blue flour corn, and teosinte. The archaeological samples differed from both flour corns. One cob’s phytoliths were similar to the popcorns, closest to Reventador; one cob yielded phytoliths most similar to teosinte; and one cob differed from the modern reference samples and the other two archaeological samples altogether. This latter specimen’s glume epidermis exhibited “primitive traits” unlike modern varieties and was suggested to represent a “transitional” type such as a teosinte-maize hybrid (Cummings et al. 2013b:13). Interestingly, this specimen was similar to maize glume epidermis of about the same age, around 850 cal B.C., that was recovered from a groundstone tool at a site near Deming, New Mexico (Cummings and Yost 2011). Thus, multiple land races of maize may have been grown at Las Capas, or the variety grown had considerable 51 genetic and phenotypic variability. This is certainly an avenue of research that should be pursued in future studies of EAP maize.

Domesticated maize may not have been grown solely as a grain crop. Smalley and Blake (2003) propose that early maize may have been grown primarily for the sugar content of its stalk sap for use as a sweetener and in fermented beverages (also see Blake 2015). As noted, EAP maize land races were flinty popcorns, which when mature could be popped or parched and ground into meal, but could also be eaten green. As part of an experiment in reconstructing EAP groundstone technology, Chapalote from Native Seed/SEARCH stock was grown under ideal conditions in the northern Tucson Basin (Adams et al. 2014). In addition to processing dried and parched kernels, green cobs of Chapalote were also processed after the ears had filled and were near peak growth. The green maize was ground into a fine masa simply by rubbing the cob against a slab metate. This masa was flavorful eaten as a raw mush and easily formed into cakes that could be cooked or dried. Sugar content of the green kernels and stalk sap was measured using a

Milwaukee Instruments refractometer, which measures the sugar content in degrees Brix (1°Bx equals 1 gram of sucrose in 100 grams of solution). Kernels averaged 16°Bx, and stalk sap 5°Bx.

In comparison, modern varieties of sweet corn can range from about 10° to 26°Bx and cucumbers from 2° to 5°Bx (Kleinhenz and Bumgarner 2012). Sugar content of produce varies widely due to irrigation, water availability, temperature, and age of the produce, among other factors. Nonetheless, it is clear that even green popcorn-type maize yields a very sweet product, and consumption of green corn in various preparations may have been a common EAP practice.

52

The Silverbell Interval

The Silverbell Interval was initially proposed as an “unnamed phase” to recognize contexts that contained maize but that predated the San Pedro phase (Whittlesey 2015; Whittlesey et al.

2010a). The name was given primarily to replace the ungainly use of “unnamed phase” (and permutations thereof). At this time, few excavated contexts have been identified. The most extensive deposits have been investigated at Las Capas (Vint 2015b; Whittlesey et al. 2010a).

Los Pozos, Clearwater, Valley Farms, and El Taller also have yielded dates that fall in this temporal window. Limited artifact collections preclude comparative studies that could indicate if this interval differs from, or is similar to, the preceding Chiricahua and subsequent San Pedro phases. In fact, the ambiguity of this interval highlights the call by Whittlesey (2015) to eliminate the term “Early Agricultural” because many of the recent early dates on maize fall within the Chiricahua phase of the Middle Archaic.

As discussed by Hanselka (Chapter 15), new dates on maize continue to push back its arrival in the greater Southwest and northern Mexico. There are now at least 22 AMS radiocarbon assays on maize that have conventional 14C ages older than 3,000 rcybp from sites in the Tucson Basin

(Table 5.4) and which thus conceivably push the age of the Silverbell interval back by 1,200 or more years. A maize cupule from Los Pozos yielded a conventional age of 4050 ±50 rcybp

(Gregory and Baar 1999), and three samples from Las Capas yielded conventional ages of 3990

±30 RCYBP, 4640 ±30 RCYBP and 4930 ±30 RCYBP (Vint 2015c), clearly ages that fall into what is considered the date range for the Middle Archaic. The date from Los Pozos was considered suspect by (Gregory 2001a) and (Mabry 2005b) because it was an extreme outlier relative to other dates on maize at the time, and its 13C/12C ratio had been estimated by the laboratory. The dates from Las Capas presented in Table 5.4 come from definite Late 53

Archaic/Early Agricultural contexts, including pre-San Pedro deposits excavated at the site (Vint

2015a), although one (Beta-333931) was recovered from a much younger San Pedro phase context. The long-term occupation at the site and the history of an active floodplain may account for redeposited materials. Nonetheless, there are now sufficient early dates on maize to indicate that these are not outliers or aberrant dates and that maize cultivation was practiced in the Tucson

Basin by at least 4100 cal B.P. and perhaps earlier than 5000 cal B.P.

San Pedro- and Ciénega-Phase Settlement and Agriculture

Maize cultivation was a common part of life by the San Pedro phase, but diet breadth remained high and incorporated diverse foraged and cultivated plant foods through the EAP (Table 5.5).

Settlement patterns remained fairly mobile, logistically organized around seasonal resource procurement and farming but became increasingly tethered to place where agriculture was practiced (Roth 1992; Whittlesey 2015). Principal residential settlements were on the river floodplain where agricultural fields were located and most likely occupied through much of the year from winter through the end of the growing season and harvest. Small, seasonally used resource- and task-specific sites were located in the bajada zone, where cacti and other wild foods were harvested and large game was hunted.

The degree of residential mobility versus sedentism practiced by early farmers remains a point of debate, though it is clear that at least a few people lived year-round at the residential settlements on the floodplain (Mabry 2008b; Roth 2015). One proposed approach to address this issue is to consider the duration, intensity, and continuity of site occupations (Gregory and Diehl 2002).

Duration reflects the total length of time people used a site, whether seasonal or year-round for x 54 number of years; intensity reflects the diversity and frequency of residence activities; and continuity reflects the proportion of time people were physically present at the site. Duration and intensity can be measured empirically by chronometric dates, technological attributes of artifact assemblages, site struture, and stratigraphy. Continuity of site occupation is more difficult to measure, and sometimes requires equivocal data that can inform on seasonal activities (e.g., pollen, macrobotanical, and faunal data), practices (farming, storage, physically substantial housing), and life events (burials, community growth) that took place over the course of a given year.

As Roth (2015) asks in a recent review of the concept and study of sedentism in the EAP

Southwest, “Were they sedentary, and does it matter?” It is clear that communities made different commitments to place, and the degree to which they were anchored by territory, infrastructure, and landscape spanned a continuum of “sedentism.” This flexibility allowed communities to respond to both social and physical changes in the Santa Cruz River floodplain.

Asking how early farmers responded to such changes is perhaps the more interesting avenue of study than trying to define what is or isn’t sedentism in early farming communities (Roth 2015).

Various farming methods were employed, some more labor and infrastructure intensive than others. The most efficient would have been establishing fields directly on the floodplain to take advantage of the high water table and over-bank floods (Doolittle and Mabry 2009; Mabry

2005b). Canal irrigation was in use as early as 3500 cal B.P. at the Clearwater site (Mabry 2006).

By 3200 cal B.P., canal systems were in use at Las Capas and a number of other sites along the

Santa Cruz River, including Costello-King and the Stewart Brickyard site (Brack 2013; Ezzo and

Deaver 1998; Nials 2015a). The site of La Playa in northern Sonora also has a large irrigated field system (Carpenter et al., Chapter 6; Copeland et al. 2012), and doubtless other sites with 55 such systems occur in river valleys of the region. While no Ciénega phase canal systems have been positively identified, it would be surprising if they were not used.

Canal systems are investments that require close social cooperation to construct, maintain, and operate (Hunt 1988; Mabry 1996). Cross-cultural studies show that irrigation-based agriculture is strongly associated with residential stability and property rights (Netting 1982). Small systems such as those developed during the San Pedro phase would have operated under consensus-based control, with the canals and water managed as community property and fields themselves owned by households (Hunt 1988). Mabry (2008b) proposes that the need for households to negotiate the tensions between communally owned and managed resources (water and canals) and households and their property (fields and crops) resulted in the importance of lineage to establish household identity and maintain continuity of property rights within the greater community. At sites such as La Playa and Las Capas, irrigated fields were a prominent capital investment and reflect increased commitment to place, community identity, and territoriality.

The Las Capas Canal and Field System

Attributes of the Las Capas field system are discussed here in some detail to illustrate the nature of San Pedro phase agricultural technology at this particular site. Las Capas has been the focus of three large projects and is the most extensively and intensively excavated San Pedro Phase site in the Tucson Basin (Mabry 2008c; Vint 2015b; Vint and Nials 2015; Whittlesey et al. 2010b). The most recent excavations took place in 2008 and 2009 over the course of 13 months. Over five acres were exposed using backhoes equipped with 7-feet-wide blades to strip the floodplain sediments and reveal features in plan-view. More than 5,530 cultural features were identified, 56 including 55 pithouses, 22 human burials, 656 bell-shaped pits, 527 roasting pits, and over 3,500 small pits (Whitney et al. 2015). The site is deeply buried, with well-preserved deposits that reveal a remarkable stratigraphic history of the floodplain and the site’s occupation. The stratigraphy is continuous across the site area, thus allowing deposits to be correlated among spatially separated excavation areas. Canals and fields were exposed in considerable detail.

The site is located on the east side of the Santa Cruz River, just downstream from the confluence of the Cañada del Oro and Rillito River with the Santa Cruz (Figure 5.2). This is the start of the

Cañada del Oro reach of the river and an ideal location for irrigation. During the EAP, the Santa

Cruz River flowed perennially or nearly perennially at this location, as indicated by ostracodes in canal sediments, and freshwater sponge spicules and gemoscleres recovered from agricultural soils (Palacios-Fest et al. 2015; Yost 2015). These conditions explain the more than 400-year- long use of the immediate site area. Four depositional units span the Silverbell Interval and San

Pedro phase, and all but the oldest contain canal and associated field features (Nials 2015a, b).

Habitation areas with clusters of several houses and associated extramural activity areas were located adjacent to the fields and may represent the household groups that owned or were responsible for the nearby fields.

The uppermost field system was in use from about 2750 to 2680 cal B.P. (800–730 cal B.C.) and is the one described here (Figure 5.6). Although this age range falls within the first portion of the

Early Ciénega phase according to the current chronology, the flaked stone technology and other material culture are strictly diagnostic of the San Pedro phase (Sliva 2015; Sliva and Ryan 2015;

Vint 2015c). This reflects the fuzzy nature of boundaries in chronologies, due both to chronometric resolution and patterns of culture change that may have varied geographically in 57 tempo and mode. Based on the excavated portions of the field system, the maximum area that could have been irrigated is estimated to be approximately 15 hectares (Nials 2015a).

Field System Structure. The irrigated fields and canals are strikingly visible when exposed in plan-view due to enrichment of sediments with clay and organic matter (Figure 5.7). Four general sizes of canals were documented (Nials 2015a): (1) the primary “mother” canal that delivered water from the river onto the floodplain, and averaged about 1.75 m in depth and 0.8 m in depth; (2) secondary canals that branched off the mother canal toward field areas and averaged about 1.4 m in width and 0.6 m in depth; (3) distribution canals that carried water to the general field areas and averaged about 1.3 m in width and 0.4 m in depth; and (4) field lateral canals that distributed water to individual field cells and which averaged about 0.8 m to 1.0 m in width and

0.3 m in depth.

Canal profiles reveal construction and maintenance events. Sediment was dug and scraped on either side of the canal channel to build a low berm to contain and direct water flow. These berms are visible as mounded, disarticulated sediments overlying undisturbed sediment. Within canal channels are water-laid fine sandy silts and clay lenses. Freshwater mollusks are commonly visible, and ostracods are identified in soil samples (Palacios-Fest et al. 2015). Main canals carried water at depths up to 50 to 75 cm, distribution canals at depths of about 20 to 25 cm, and field laterals at depths of 10 to 15 cm. Sediment size becomes increasingly fine as canal size diminished and water velocity slowed, with fine clayey-silts and clays being carried and distributed into fields at the end of the water’s path. Sediments underneath larger canals exhibit oxidation and concentrations of manganese oxide from long-term water saturation. 58

Field berms or bunds were constructed in a similar manner to canals. Sediment was excavated from about 30 to 40 cm on either side of the bund to a depth of several cm and the loose fill piled up in a ridge to enclose the field cell. Although not easily visible in profile, fields are strikingly apparent in horizontal exposure. Bunds are visible as light-colored linear features and field cell interiors as dark rectangular or irregular areas as seen in Figure 5.7. The color difference is due to field cell sediments being enriched by clays, silts, and organic matter from irrigation water and decomposed field detritus. Field sizes varied across the system, becoming smaller with increased distance from the main canal. The system-wide average field size was about 6 m x 4 m, or 24 m2; the largest fields were ca. 7 m by 10 m, and the smallest, most distant from the main canal, about

2 m x 3 m.

Field distribution canals were constructed as part of the field system, simply bordered on either side by fields, and no deeper than the fields themselves. This is evident in the layout of larger field areas, where there is a pattern of one field lateral canal, two rows of cells, another field canal, and so forth. Depending on the immediate geometry of lateral canal patterns, such as in locations where canals diverge from the mother canal, fields may be more irregular in shape to fit irrigable space. This pattern of canal and field layout is used in modern basin irrigation systems (Michael 2008:564).

The system was well engineered to operate on the floodplain and its porous silty-sands. The shallow field distribution canals were at the same elevation as the field surfaces. Irrigation water would back up behind tapónes and actually be above ground level, confined by the canal bunds.

This was an elegant and efficient system to accommodate shallow, low water flow in small canals and allow the bounded field cells to be watered evenly and quickly with minimal water loss (Nials 2015a). 59

Labor Requirements. Three fields that averaged about 30 m2 each were reconstructed by crewmembers on the excavation project, using wooden digging sticks to dig and build bunds as described above (Nials 2015a). The average time, with two people per field, was about 30 minutes. This was an informal experiment, but it does provide an estimate of time and effort required to build representative field cells. If 30 minutes per field were a reasonable estimate, 15 ha of fields would require about 2,430 person hours to construct, or 304 person days assuming an

8-hour workday (Vint 2015a). It is difficult to estimate labor needed to build the main and distribution canals because their actual extent is unknown. Mabry et al. (2008:236–239) estimated that 1,296 person hours, or 162 person days, were required to build the main canal, which is projected to have been no more than 1.5 km in length. An additional 266 person hours, or about 33 person days were estimated for building a distribution canal. If these are reasonable estimates, a minimum of 500 8-hour person days was required to construct the canals and 15 ha of fields. A community with an available labor force of 10 to 20 people could have built the system in less than 30 days with ease.

Additional labor was required during irrigation cycles and fallow periods. The headgate would need to be built or repaired. Canals would need accumulated sediments cleaned out and gradients optimized to prevent erosion or other damage. Fields would need to be prepared, planted, and weeded, at least until the maize was established and growing well, keeping in mind that many field “weeds” were used as food or medicine. Irrigation needed to be monitored to ensure canals were not breached and that water was equitably distributed among fields. Ethnographic studies of traditional farmers in Mexico suggest an average of 52 additional days a year are spent by field workers in tasks related to overall canal system maintenance and roughly 560 to 940 hours per 60 hectare in field-related tasks over a season, adding roughly 8,400 to 14,200 person hours, or

1,050 to 1,770 additional person days of agricultural labor per year (Logan and Sanders 1976;

Wilken 1987). This does not include casual yet necessary activities such as scaring off predating birds or other animals and associated garden hunting.

Implications for Local Population. The amount of labor, planning, and scheduling required to keep an irrigated field system such as that at Las Capas functional is not insignificant.

Consequences of agriculture include increased territoriality, land and water rights, intra- and intercommunity cooperation in labor and resource allocation, and the potential for increased vulnerability to local environmental conditions (Bowles and Choi 2013; Mabry 2002; Strang

2008). Negotiating and scheduling water use along the stream would have been crucial to the success of irrigated farming, and use by upstream communities would have affected when each could tap the river without reducing downstream quantities.

If Las Capas represents a typical San Pedro phase field system, no more than five or six contemporary farming communities with field systems of comparable size could have been supported along the 25-kilometer stretch of river flowing through the Tucson Basin, assuming optimal river flow conditions that would allow the canals to irrigate an entire system (Nials

2015a). Based on modeled maize yield from fields grown under ideal conditions, the maximum population of Las Capas may have ranged between 75 and 120 people at around 800 cal B.C.

(Vint 2015a). If the estimate of five or six contemporary irrigation communities being able to operate on the Santa Cruz River is accurate, then the population along the river may have ranged from 375 to 720 people. The lower end of the range is most likely. 61

Even though maize contributed no more than perhaps 30 percent of the total annual diet (e.g.,

Diehl 2005a), the commitment to maintaining irrigated field systems is indicative of the importance of maize to early farmers. Diehl (2005b, c) has described the EAP subsistence strategy as “farmaging” to acknowledge the combined practice of farming and foraging. This strategy provided a risk-balancing means of food production that optimized yields of both cultivated and foraged foods and that could make up for deficiency in production should one or the other food source be compromised.

An added dimension of the field system is that amaranth and other crop weeds could be as productive as maize, if not more so, when encouraged to grow along canal banks, field perimeters, and perhaps even within the fields themselves as an alternative crop of greens and seeds. The complementary nutritional values of maize, beans, and squash are well known. In particular, beans contribute lysine and tryptophan, which are deficient in maize. As noted, beans and squash do not enter the repertoire of early farmers in the Tucson Basin until after around

2900 cal B.P. Amaranth is thus of additional consequence because it is rich in lysine and tryptophan and provides more of these amino acids than do beans (US Department of Agriculture

2015). Maize may not have been used in the diet in significant enough quantity to cause nutritional imbalances, but the incorporation of maize with the wild grains would help provide a nutritionally complete combination of plant foods. Nutritional studies have shown that mixtures of amaranth and maize flours provide a nearly perfect balance of essential amino acids and excellent values of protein and fats (Morales et al. 1988; National Research Council 1984).

Charred plant remains, identified as “things that look like beans” and “things that look like squash,” have been recovered in very small numbers from San Pedro phase contexts at Las

Capas (Diehl 2015:351–352). They lack diagnostic attributes to identify them as domesticated 62 varieties of beans or squash and most probably were wild varieties of these plants. However, bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria) phytoliths were recovered from field sediments at Las Capas, indicating cultivation of this plant (Yost 2015). The sprawling growth pattern of bottle gourd would serve as “living mulch,” once maize plants were established, and its eponymous fruits provide containers for storage, canteens, and other utilitarian purposes when dried.

Maize is nearly as ubiquitous in San Pedro and Ciénega phase contexts as in later Hohokam sites

(post-1200 cal B.P.–A.D. 750) and clearly was a common part of the EAP commensal package.

Other than the EAP small-cob popcorn, the significant difference in subsistence between these eras is that the overall diet breadth and use of crop weeds is higher during the EAP than during the later ceramic period, by which time there was a greater reliance on large-cob, high-yield flour maize varieties and ceramic cooking technology (Diehl 2005c). In sum, the nature of EAP agriculture was not so much intensification of production as it was a concentration of production and concomitant increased control over food sources.

Architecture and Other Infrastructure

Village structure and architectural styles changed through the EAP and reflect how and where certain events and activities took place between the San Pedro and Ciénega phases. San Pedro phase settlements in the floodplain are comprised of loosely clustered brush houses. No

“specialized” forms of architecture were built, and public space apparently was shared by all residents. Extramural storage pits are located in proximity to houses, with roasting pits at some distance, presumably to reduce risk of fire. Discrete activity areas that centered on houses or other suites of features have been identified at Las Capas and other San Pedro phase sites that are 63 associated with food processing and tool manufacture (Brack and Wöcherl 2015; Roth 2006;

Sliva and Ryan 2015; Vierra 2004, 2005) . Roth (2006) observes that women in ethnographically documented societies were responsible for the harvest, collecting, and processing of cultivated and wild plants and suggests that activity areas with task-specific features and artifact assemblages are indicative of gendered space. At Cerro Juanaqueña in northern Chihuahua, spatial differences in loci of tool manufacture and core reduction have also been suggested as indicating gender-specific activity areas (Vierra 2004, 2005b).

House form changes through time, shifting from roughly oval floor plans during the San Pedro phase to circular forms in the Ciénega phase; entries are usually not apparent. Houses were constructed in shallow pits typically 2–3 m in maximum dimension. The dome-like superstructure was made of willow, cottonwood, or mesquite branches and covered with brush or reed thatch. Most houses have hearths or heavily oxidized patches on the floor indicative of repeated burning, presumably from coals, which suggests cool-season residence. Houses were used for shelter as well as storage.

During the Ciénega phase, settlement structure becomes more formal, with houses arranged around open space (a “plaza” of sorts) that typically included a large circular structure several times the size of typical habitation. These “big houses” have been interpreted as communal structures used for ceremonial and political gatherings, indicating the practice of more secretive and controlled decision-making or ritual practice by members of household corporate groups of the village (Mabry 1998a). Storage pits tend to be located within houses, which has been posited as reflecting greater proprietary control of stored food and implements (Gregory 2001b; Mabry

1998a; Wills 1992); some small “houses” may have been built specifically as superstructures to provide additional protection and weatherproofing of pits. 64

Large, bell-shaped pits have been argued to indicate production and storage of surplus maize and thus an indicator of year-round settlement (Huckell et al. 2002). However, pit storage of maize and other foods is a questionable means of banking food surplus. The viability of grain rapidly deteriorates in the anoxic conditions, mold and fungus cause spoilage, and nutritional qualities rapidly diminish over time (Ahmed and Alama 2010; Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United Nations 1983). In floodplain settings especially, high water tables and generally damp conditions create adverse conditions for storage and would not have been a viable long-term strategy. Successful long-term storage, longer than 30 days, depends on grain being properly dried, undamaged, and kept in cool and dry conditions to maintain nutritive content and seed viability (Proctor 1994). Seed corn would have had to be stored above ground in basket, gourd, or hide bag containers.

Health and Demography

Studies of skeletal human remains from EAP sites indicate people had generally healthy lives, with most adults living beyond their 30s and a fair number past their mid-40s (Watson 2011).

Most observed pathologies are dental infections; enamel defects due to developmental stress; lesions; and bone modification from arthritic degeneration due to age, injury, and strenuous activity such as long-distance walking (Watson 2008, 2011). A diet that included cactus fruit and maize likely contributed to high incidences of caries and dental infections (Carpenter et al.

2015). Healed long-bone and cranial fractures suggest at least some incidence of violence. Other trauma was due to accidental injury. 65

As noted, maize probably comprised no more than about 30 percent of the total annual diet.

During certain periods of the year, such as harvest and shortly after, it may have been the principal source of carbohydrates though at other times virtually absent from the diet depending on the abundance of foraged food and available maize. Analysis of carbon and nitrogen stable isotopes in bone collagen, hair, and other tissue can indicate the prevalence of certain foods in paleodiets (Schwarcz 2009; Tykot 2004, 2009). Individuals who eat a diet that includes a large

13 proportion of C4 plants, such as maize, have high values of δ C. Cactus, which has CAM photosynthesis, also has high δ13C values; saguaro fruit is particularly well represented in EAP macrobotanical assemblages (Diehl 2005a). A diet composed entirely of C4 plants yields an

13 13 average δ C value of about -7.5‰ (per mil), and a diet solely of C3 plants about -21.5‰ δ C, each adjusted for additional fractionation of about 5‰ in (Tykot 2009; van der Merwe and Vogel 1978). Mixed diets will fall along the continuum of this range, and the relative

13 proportion of C4 plants in the diet can be estimated by the δ C values in bone collagen or hair against this base number. Thus, an individual with a δ13C bone collagen value of -15‰ theoretically ate a diet consisting of 50 percent mixed C4 plants.

13 Plant species cannot be determined from the δ C value because different C4 species exhibit a range of δ13C concentrations. Maize for example, averages about -10‰ δ13C, and so a 100- percent maize diet would thus theoretically measure about -5‰ δ13C in bone collagen (Blake

2015; Matson 2015). Isotopes in bone reflect diet over a period of around the last three to 10 years of an individual (Tykot 2009), whereas hair can reveal changes in diet over the course of months, depending on the length available for analysis (Cooper et al. 2016). Isotope analysis of human bone is generally not an option, but other animal bone, such as domesticated dogs, may 66 serve as a proxy for human diet. Dogs are accomplished scavengers, and their diet may closely reflect that of the human residents at EAP villages.

Based on δ13C values in individuals, Matson (2015) suggests people living in the Mesa Verde region during the 11th century A.D. ate a diet that contained as much as 80 percent maize, assuming that a 100-percent maize diet yields an average δ13C value of about -5‰. Isotope analyses in the Four Corners region are probably strongly indicative of maize consumption due to the paucity of other C4 plants in that geographic region. Analysis of human hair from

Pen Ruins, a Basketmaker II site in southeast Utah that dates from ca. 100 cal B.C. to cal A.D.

200, shows that people ate a diet that varied in composition over a period of several months, likely due to seasonal availability of plant foods (Cooper et al. 2016); δ13C values in bulk hair analysis ranged from -8.6‰ to -14.3‰, which suggests that maize ranged from 50 to 90 percent of the diet depending on its availability.

Closer to the Tucson Basin, radiocarbon dates were obtained on bone collagen from 44 human burials and three canines at the site of La Playa, and δ13C values were calculated for each

(Chapter 6; Carpenter et al. 2015: Table 1). The dates span the San Pedro and Ciénega phases.

Canid δ13C ranged from -14.7‰ to -10.6‰ with an average of -13.3‰, and in humans from -

15.5‰ to a surprising -6.2‰, with an average of -9.9‰. Thus, C4 plants comprised around 56 percent of canid diet, and around 75 percent of the human diet. Bone collagen from a canine burial at the Costello-King site in the northern Tucson Basin yielded a conventional AMS radiocarbon age of 2600±50 B.P. (900–770 cal B.C; 2850–2710 cal B.P.), and a δ13C value of -

10‰ (Ezzo and Stiner 2000), which suggests that C4 plants comprised perhaps 75% of its diet. 67

As noted, the isotopic contribution of maize cannot be distinguished from that of other C4 plants such as amaranth and saltbush. Amaranth, or pigweed, is very common in EAP macrobotanical assemblages and contributed a large proportion to the diet as both seed and greens (Diehl 2005c,

2015). In addition, rabbits, which browse heavily on amaranth and saltbush (and maize), were a significant EAP food source and thus contribute to the δ13C values in omnivores and carnivores.

It is thus important to also consider the protein element of paleodiets as indicated by δ15N values to evaluate effects of trophic levels and protein sources on bone collagen isotope values (Blake

2015:141–143; Schwarcz 2009). Additional isotopic studies of canine, rabbit, and other faunal bone are certainly needed to evaluate variation in diet composition. For now, we can tentatively assume that the La Playa data are representative of the EAP in the Sonoran Desert. If maize and foraged C4 plants each comprised half of the plants eaten annually, then maize made up around

38 percent of the annual diet, with seasonal variation in the amount consumed.

Mortuary patterns are similar throughout the region. Individuals were generally buried in pits on their side in a flexed or semiflexed position. The pits were often existing storage pits, though some seem to have been dug specifically for the purpose of burial. Burials tend to cluster near houses, probably indicating lineage- or household-based association of the individual with the residential locus. Orientation of the head varied, with no preferred cardinal direction. Most bodies had been covered with red ochre prior to burial. Mortuary offerings are generally infrequent in EAP burials. Watson (2011) notes that in the region around 12 percent of inhumations are accompanied by offerings, with around 14 percent in the Tucson Basin. When present, offerings appear gender-specific, with pipes associated with males and groundstone implements with females. There is no apparent patterning of shell jewelry based on sex. Several atypical inhumations at Las Capas included individuals with projectile points within the body 68 cavity. These were buried in manners deviating from normative practice (Watson and Byrd

2015).

A regional analysis of cranial attributes of individuals from multiple communities in the greater region found traits suggestive of male exogamy among communities as far apart as La Playa and settlements in the Tucson Basin (Byrd 2014). Male cranial attributes were much more variable within site populations compared to females, who exhibited more similarity among individuals.

Males in particular show evidence of bone modification caused by long-distance travel compared to females, likely associated with hunting excursions and other logistical forays (McClelland

2005; Watson and Stoll 2013). In contrast, cross-sectional attributes of female long bones more closely resemble those of fully sedentary agriculturalists (Ogilvie 2005). Together, these skeletal attributes suggest that males were involved with more long-distance travel and relocation than women, who more likely remained with kin groups and tied to local resources and agricultural land. Population movement (and thus gene flow) among communities thus appears to have occurred at the level of individuals in many cases and is illustrative of social ties among near and distant communities.

Hunting pressure seems to have been low on both large and small game animals during the EAP, suggesting the local human population remained fairly constant over this period (Waters 2005;

Waters et al. 2015). In general, age and species profiles of hunted game changed minimally through time. However, at Las Capas a change in large game species frequencies between the early and later occupations may suggest some hunting pressure on local deer populations (Waters et al. 2015). Mule and white-tailed deer, common to the Tucson Basin foothills and valley uplands, comprise the majority of large game animals during the early occupation, from about

1220 to 1000 cal B.C. In the later occupation, from about 900 cal B.C. to 730 cal B.C., deer 69 decline, and mountain sheep and antelope increase in frequency in the faunal assemblage, suggesting that hunters may have had to travel farther from home to find large game. Resource breadth also remains fairly constant through time for plants used for food, fuel, and construction

(Diehl 2005a, 2015). This long period of stasis in population, and late start to the Neolithic

Demographic Transition in the greater Southwest (Kohler et al. 2008; Kohler and Reese 2014), brings to mind Paul Minnis’s comment that the introduction of maize agriculture to the region was a “monumental non-event” (Minnis 1985:310).

Ritual and Agriculture

The role of maize in EAP culture transcended its basic food aspect, for agriculture was part of the greater social and ceremonial fabric of community identity. Ritual performances that appear to be strongly related to agriculture are reflected in fired-clay figurines and pipes. Earlier studies of figurines from the San Pedro and Ciénega phases proposed they were related to ancestor veneration, the ritual practice of which served to legitimize household lineage and identity within the community (Mabry 2008b; Stinson 2005). Burial of deceased household members in or near habitation space further tied them to place and group (Watson and Byrd 2015). This demonstration of continuity of the household within the greater community served to negotiate and establish property rights, as well as community membership. The model of ancestor veneration is based on studies of later Hohokam figurines and ritual practice (Stinson 2005), which may have differed considerably if not entirely from beliefs and practices during the EAP.

Alternatively, Chenault (2016) hypothesizes that figurines may have been used in rituals related to puberty or fertility. 70

In a reanalysis of earlier material and new data from Las Capas, Heidke (2015:209–216) argues that the treatment of San Pedro and Ciénega phase figurines and the contexts in which they are found do not conform to those expected for items used in ancestor veneration, contrary to the interpretation offered by Stinson (2005). In particular, EAP figurines exhibited infrequent intentional burning and were found primarily in extramural features and refuse deposits, as opposed to domestic contexts.

Rather than ancestor veneration, Heidke (2015) proposes that the figurines represent animistic representations of maize and that they were used in ritual related to successful harvest. He reviews a number of Uto-Aztecan practices and beliefs that demonstrate the “personhood” of plants and crops and the metaphysical and physical relationships between crops and farmers.

These perpetuated the tie between farmers and their crops and linked human and nonhuman beings—maize in particular—in a reciprocal path of existence. In Uto-Aztecan and Southwest

Pueblo narratives, maize is typically described as female and associated with female deities

(Anschuetz 2010; Black 1984; Ford 1994). Although not distinctly anthropomorphic, the figurines do show bilateral symmetry of features, and, when sex is indicated, appear as female

(Figure 5.8). They were often coated with red ochre, a treatment also accorded to deceased humans at the time of burial. Such treatment may reflect the recognition of human and nonhuman agency among beings in the Early Agricultural metaphysical world. The treatment of figurines as individuals is very apparent.

Stone and clay pipes found at San Pedro and Ciénega phase sites may also have been used in ritual practices tied to agriculture (Figure 5.8). Pipes and smoking have been documented ethnographically as important in healing and cleansing ritual and in ceremony to bring rain

(Fewkes 1894; Parsons 1939). They are typically associated with males in both social and ritual 71 contexts. It is interesting to note that pipes are found in archaeological contexts only during the

Early Agricultural period in northern Sonora and southern Arizona. After about 2000 cal B.P. they are spatially restricted to the Colorado Plateau region of northern Arizona and the region of northern New Mexico (Adams 2015).

Finally, the canal and field systems were an important, highly visible public space. One could even argue that they served as a form of integrative or communal “architecture” and locus of ritual practice. Sylvia Rodríguez describes irrigation as something that is “bodily skill learned through observation in the context of practice. . . . Irrigation is kinesthetic, visual, spatial, technical, and interactive, but not especially verbal” (Rodríguez 2006:6).

In Mayordomo, Stanley Crawford describes annual ditch cleanings of contemporary New

Mexico acequías as being “all very much the same, and in this they often feel more like ritual than work” (Crawford 1988:224). The expanse of canals and irrigated fields were built, maintained, and perpetuated by the community, and the practice of planting, tending, and harvesting crops was a display of community life and identity. The canals and fields of modern acequía communities in northern New Mexico are also the destination of processions from the village church as part of services dedicated to a successful farming season. They are the place where communities come together seasonally to repair canals, share news, resolve conflicts, celebrate life events, and look to their future (Eastman et al. 1997; Rodríguez 2006). It would be surprising to find this to be any different 3,000 years in the past.

72

Migrations During the San Pedro and Ciénega Phases

Long-distance travel was not limited to trade and hunting expeditions or regular interaction among EAP communities involving economic and social affiliations. Analysis of the distribution of projectile point styles through time and over space indicates likely routes of migrations that brought people from northern Sonora into the Tucson Basin. Based on stylistic and technological attributes of Empire points and the several varieties of Ciénega points, Sliva (2015) hypothesizes that at least two episodes of migration occurred.

The first episode is proposed to have happened during the early portion of the San Pedro phase.

Empire points are commonly found in northern Sonora and the Ciénega Creek valley southeast of the Tucson Basin (Carpenter et al. 2005; Sliva 2015; Stevens and Sliva 2002) , but in the

Tucson Basin they are restricted in distribution almost exclusively to Las Capas and the nearby

Roland Site, with only several specimens found on other sites in the Basin. At Las Capas, they occur predominantly in the oldest San Pedro phase occupation, which dates to around 3170 to

2950 cal B.P. (1220–1000 cal B.C.; Vint 2015a: Table 1.16). The Roland Site is unexcavated, and the collection of projectile points comes from its surface. This site is near Las Capas, and the projectile point assemblage closely resembles that of the early San Pedro phase material from

Las Capas. Projectile points at other San Pedro phase sites in the Tucson Basin are overwhelmingly the San Pedro Norte variant of the San Pedro template (Figure 5.5), which Sliva

(2015) considers a technology endemic to the Tucson Basin and neighboring areas to the north.

The manufacturing template of Empire points differs significantly from that behind San Pedro points, which Sliva (2015) attributes to the two contemporary styles being products of different learning and technological structures. She hypothesizes that an enclave of migrants from northern Sonora, perhaps even La Playa, settled at Las Capas during this interval. Likely routes 73 of travel northward from the La Playa region followed the Rio Magdalena and then the Santa

Cruz into the Tucson Basin, and similarly from the southeast following the Ciénega Creek valley into the Tucson Basin. Once settled at Las Capas, knappers within this group continued to practice their traditional projectile technology within the greater Tucson Basin social milieu.

Also found almost exclusively at Las Capas during this interval are the teardrop-shaped figurines illustrated in Figure 5.8. Three fragments of this style were recovered from a single feature at the

Home Depot site, located 1.5 km southeast of Las Capas (Ferg and Doak 1999). One possible fragment of this style was recovered from the Dairy Site, but its identification as such remains equivocal (Chenault 2009; Heidke 2015). Thus, at this time, it appears that this figurine style may also be restricted to Las Capas. Based on the strong temporal and site-specific association of

Empire points and the teardrop figurine at Las Capas, Sliva (2015:137) concludes that “the earlier occupants [at Las Capas] were socially distinct from the neighboring

[contemporaraneous] settlements” in the Tucson Basin.

The second episode of population influx, which may have been driven to a large extent by male exogamy, occurred with the start of the Early Ciénega phase, ca. 2750 cal B.P. (800 cal B.C.).

Ciénega point technology appears to have been developed in northern Sonora, based on technological and stylistic continuity observed in projectile point design at La Playa (Sliva

2015). It appears suddenly in the Tucson Basin with no technological antecedent. The smaller size of Ciénega points relative to the earlier San Pedro points indicates a major change in the overall design of the projectile technology itself. In order to attain sufficient kinetic energy, the dart shaft had to be significantly heavier for Ciénega points to be lethal. It is not simply a change in projectile point design but in overall propulsion and weapon delivery (Sliva 2015). The sudden appearance of Ciénega points in the Tucson Basin suggests the introduction of a fully 74 developed technological package. The ballistic efficiency and lethality appear to have been superior to San Pedro projectile point efficiency and rapidly replaced the earlier, local technology. The San Pedro design was retained but revamped into a larger, heavier form (Figure

5.5 l, m) that could have served as a hafted cutting tool or thrusting rather than dart.

Combined, the inferences of long-distance mobility among males (McClelland 2005; Watson

2011); apparent residential stability among females (Ogilvie 2005; Watson and Stoll 2013); and linguistic, osteological, and molecular evidence of northward migration of populations (Kemp et al. 2010; Malhi et al. 2003; Merrill et al. 2009, 2010) strongly suggest migration as the primary mechanism for introducing Ciénega projectile technology to the Tucson Basin.

Diversity in projectile design increased during the Late Ciénega phase, with new varieties of blade shapes and the addition of serrations to blade margins. Projectile points diagnostic of the central Arizona transition zone and Colorado Plateau also appear in Late Ciénega phase assemblages in the Tucson Basin, most made of nonlocal materials of likely northern origin, including cherts from the transition zone near Payson. Western Basketmaker points have been recovered from the Julian Wash site, Clearwater, and Los Pozos. It is possible that small numbers of immigrants from central Arizona and the Colorado Plateau had established residence at these sites. Whether or not this represents a few individuals or households, perhaps traders, or simply projectiles acquired through exchange remains unresolved. This increased diversity in design style and appearance of northern types during the Late Ciénega is proposed to reflect “an increasingly open society in which different groups achieved equitable levels of social capital. . . ,” which in turn suggests “relatively small differences in social power among the groups, and, thus, perhaps more freedom to experiment with design variations” (Sliva 2015:163). 75

The argument for migration is, of course, more nuanced and detailed than as summarized above.

What is of note here is that the accumulation of new data from excavated sites—chronometric dates in particular—and increased survey coverage allow a synthesis of regional data in manners not possible a decade ago. Studies of projectile points and flaked stone technology can now be applied to questions other than chronology.

Mobility and Regional Connections

Mobility was more than a subsistence strategy during the EAP. Travel involved trade, marriage, and other connections among communities within and outside of the Tucson Basin. Although infrequent, obsidian from sources up to 200 km distant and farther has been recovered from excavated sites in the Tucson Basin. Known sources are primarily to the east, north, and west of

Tucson and include specimens as far away as the San Francisco volcanic field west of Flagstaff

(Figure 5.9; Sliva and Ryan 2015). There are more sources represented during the Ciénega phase than the San Pedro phase, which may be indicative of the increased social diversity hypothesized by Sliva (2015).

Shell jewelry made from marine species native to the southern California coast and Gulf of

California is found in low but regular numbers at Tucson Basin EAP sites (Figure 5.10; Virden-

Lange 2015; Vokes 2005). Most ornaments appear to have been imported as finished items.

Ornaments made of freshwater Anodonta californiensis, a Pelecypod with nacreous shell that is native to streams in the Southwest, represent the best evidence of local manufacture. Bead forms are more common than pendants, and no zoomorphic or anthropomorphic forms are present. 76

Trade routes likely ran through the Papagueria to the west, and through northern Sonora to the southwest (Figures 1.1, 5.9). These routes were used extensively in the salt and shell trade by the

Hohokam during the ceramic era and appear to have been well established by the EAP (Tagg et al. 2007). Obsidian from sources in these areas may have been procured by people on trade journeys to obtain shell jewelry or included with shell items brought directly to the Tucson

Basin. Extensive shell ornament manufacture has been documented at La Playa, whose residents may have exported shell along with marriage partners (Carpenter et al., Chapter 6; Carpenter et al. 2005; Vargas 2004).

AN OPEN NICHE NO LONGER

The Santa Cruz River floodplain was once described as an essentially open niche during the Late

Archaic, based on the then limited evidence for Late Archaic settlement within the Tucson Basin

(Doyel 1977, 1984). During the 1970s, archaeological research in the basin was still surprisingly limited. This is quite an irony, considering that Tucson is home to the Arizona State Museum and

School of Anthropology at the University of Arizona. As Bruce Huckell noted, it was a result of archaeologists “ignoring their own back yard” (B. Huckell 1984b:143). Cultural resource management projects had just begun to be commonplace, in particular those related to interstate highway construction and federal land exchanges. Doyel (1984) and Huckell (1984b) both recognized that cultural resource management projects would be the driving force in documenting the Tucson Basin’s history and prehistory.

77

The Status of Tucson Basin Archaic Research in 2015

The Early Archaic remains poorly documented in the Tucson Basin, and this will likely remain the case. Few sites of this age are known in the region. As much as modern urban sprawl, environmental change since the early Holocene makes preservation of such sites unlikely, due to formation of bajada fans and several cycles of erosion and aggradation of the Santa Cruz River

(Haynes and Huckell 1986; McKittrick 1988; Waters and Haynes 2001). However, the Middle

Archaic and Early Agricultural periods will continue to provide data for new directions of research. Intact Middle Archaic deposits identified at Los Pozos indicate the high probability that additional buried deposits of this age remain on the Santa Cruz River floodplain (Roth and

Freeman 2008). Similarly, material from Las Capas and Clearwater suggest deposits remain that may bridge the transition from the Middle Archaic to the Silverbell Interval of the EAP.

Middle Archaic occupation of the floodplain documented at Los Pozos suggests that people had already incorporated the Santa Cruz River’s riparian ecosystem into their seasonal subsistence system and that it was no longer an “open niche” perhaps as early as ca. 4900 cal B.P. Hunter- foragers who exploited the food-rich mosaics of riparian zones likely “preadapted” to agriculture by regularly harvesting, if not encouraging or tending, stands of plants such as amaranth on the river floodplain (Doolittle and Mabry 2006). We now know that maize was introduced prior to the currently defined “start” of the Early Agricultural period, essentially during the latter portion of the Middle Archaic as currently defined for the Tucson Basin. Moreover, it is likely that early maize cultivation was in floodplain contexts favorable to amaranth and other weedy seed bearing plants. Although the introduction of maize did not cause immediate significant changes in hunter-forager lifeways, its arrival did change things in two important ways: 78

First, it altered the ecology by adding a new plant species and by creating a new

kind of place—a field or plot however small, where maize was planted, tended

and harvested. Second, it fostered new concepts and behaviors in that it involved

the whole complex of ideas that define the notion of cultivation, including

recognition that some of each years’ harvest had to be retained, not simply for

future consumption in the direct sense but for planting in the following year.

(Gregory et al. 2007:27)

As noted by Whittlesey (2015), it is a behavioral, chronological, and typological problem to resolve what constitutes the Middle Archaic versus the Early Agricultural period. This is a task that requires substantial new information from secure excavated contexts that currently is sorely deficient.

The burning questions raised during the 1980s about the Early Agricultural period have more or less been answered: was maize ubiquitous during the EAP? (Yes, but gathered plants were just as if not more important in the diet for the 2,000 years of the EAP.) Did people change their subsistence and settlement strategies around maize cultivation? (Yes, mobility was reduced, but seasonal rounds remained important and “sedentism” was relative to prevailing conditions on the floodplain.) By what route was maize brought into southern Arizona? (Northward, though the river valleys.) Research now has begun to turn to questions of finer resolution at the intrasite level and broader patterns at the regional level. 79

At the same time, the study of the EAP in the Tucson Basin is fraught with the conundrum of a

“single site focus,” reminiscent of that of Snaketown and the Hohokam in the Salt-Gila Basin.

Here it is the case of the overemphasis of Las Capas as an example of an EAP agricultural community. Although irrigation agriculture was practiced and developed to an elegant degree at this site, we still do not know if Las Capas is “typical” of a San Pedro phase farming settlement.

The time depth represented at this site is remarkable, but that, along with the preservation of the agricultural systems, is a historical accident of the geomorphological setting.

It is easy to succumb to glib generalizations based on one tremendous example. A case in point is that agriculture was practiced successfully in nonriverine settings in the Tucson Basin, such as

Milagro, located along Tanque Verde Creek in the eastern basin. Tanque Verde Creek flows seasonally but is in an area that historically had high water tables due to the watershed from the flanks of the Rincon and Tanque Verde Mountains (Figure 5.2). Such locations may have been successfully farmed during intervals when the Santa Cruz River lacked sufficient water for irrigation. As noted in Chapter 1, during dry periods, people may have relocated to other areas within the basin and returned to an emphasis on foraged plant foods when irrigated agriculture was not a viable or reliable option. But then again, this is the cornerstone of the model for

“farmaging” in which one food production strategy can make up for deficiencies in the other

(Diehl 2005b).

Social connections between northern Sonora, the Ciénega Creek valley, the Tucson Basin, and points in between during the EAP are becoming increasingly well understood. Bioarchaeological analyses, historical linguistics, and the development and spread of projectile weapon technology show that the Tucson Basin was essentially at the northern extent of the EAP cultural sphere, which extended from at least the Rio Boquillas and Magdalena River valleys in Sonora into 80 south-central Arizona. Marriage patterns that involved male exogamy and female residential stability had developed by at least 3150 cal B.P. during the San Pedro phase, likely as a result of changes in settlement patterns and gendered labor roles centered on agriculture. Social links between the site of La Playa and the Tucson Basin appear to be particularly important and may have involved migration of an enclave of people from La Playa to the site of Las Capas. The development of irrigation technology led to changes in village social structure, such as household ownership of fields and the need for village-level cooperation to manage water for irrigation and canal infrastructure and delivery to individual fields. And, the Ciénega phase was a period of increased social diversity, possibly an expansion of interaction spheres that included groups who lived in the mountain transition zone of central Arizona and the Colorado Plateau.

It is interesting to note that the EAP is virtually absent in the Phoenix Basin (J. Hall, Chapter 4).

The hydrology of the Salt and Gila Rivers is quite different from the Santa Cruz, but even so, these much larger streams were significant sources of water and riparian resources in an area more arid than the Tucson Basin. Impacts on archaeological sites by the urban development of the greater Phoenix area have obviously been extensive, and erosion and scouring of the Salt and

Gila floodplains by the rivers have also removed an unknown number of sites (Waters 2008;

Waters and Ravesloot 2001). Recent research on the Gila River Indian Community has identified that date to the Late Archaic period (Wright et al. 2013), but it is unclear if they are associated with agriculture. They more likely were related to accessing water during a period of aridity and high ENSO activity. In general, groups in the Phoenix Basin appear to have emphasized residential mobility, primarily in the bajadas of the surrounding mountain ranges, in contrast to logistically based systems like those in the Tucson Basin (Roth 1996, 2015; Wright et al. 2013). Such a pattern would not easily accommodate agriculture as part of the subsistence 81 system, at least at the level seen in the Tucson Basin. Multiple, rich resource zones are within an easy one- or two-day trip from residential farming settlements on the Santa Cruz floodplain, in contrast to the much longer distances required to reach bajada zones in the Phoenix area

(Gregory et al. 2007:57–63).

It is equally intriguing that, starting in the Ciénega phase, there appear to be closer social ties between the Tucson Basin and groups in the Mogollon Highlands and southern Colorado Plateau than with the Phoenix Basin (see Figure 1.1). Connections via trade are indicated based on the presence of obsidian from the Mule Creek and Cow Canyon source areas (Figure 5.9) and

Western Basketmaker and projectile points typical of the Arizona Transition Zone of the central

Mogollon Rim (Sliva 2015). As noted in Chapter 14, research in the Mogollon Highlands has not been as intensive or extensive as elsewhere in the Southwest, in spite of the focus on the search for early maize in west-central New Mexico during the last half of the twentieth century. The movement of people as well as maize northward through the Mogollon Highlands and transition zone of central Arizona remains a promising research domain.

Bruce Huckell ended his 1984 summary of the status of Paleoindian and Archaic archaeology in the Tucson Basin with some trepidation, commenting,

[I]t is possible that we may never know much more about the Paleoindian and

Archaic occupations than we do now. The rapid rate at which the city of Tucson

has grown has resulted in the wholesale destruction of hundreds of sites in the last

20 to 30 years, and among these have certainly been a number of preceramic sites.

If a systematic effort is not made in the near future to document and investigate 82

these sites the opportunity to learn about these early cultures will be lost, as will a

major chapter in the story of man in the Tucson Basin. (B. Huckell 1984b:143)

The Tucson metropolitan area continues to grow, yet that growth has been the reason the

Archaic—and archaeology in general—in the Tucson Basin has been studied at such intensive levels for the last three decades. Much of this work has been conducted in already developed areas, demonstrating that significant, intact cultural resources remain buried beneath the streets, highways, and public works (e.g., Thiel and Mabry 2006). Without development along the Santa

Cruz River, there would never have been an opportunity to identify and excavate deeply buried sites such as Los Pozos and Las Capas. As noted by Gregory and colleagues, “[I]t seems that virtually every trench excavated in the Santa Cruz floodplain has revealed evidence of Early

Agricultural period (and earlier) occupation and/or use” (Gregory et al. 2007:35). Other work has followed on the heels of academic research, such as the excavation of sites originally identified by the Arizona State Museum’s Northern Tucson Basin Survey in the bajada of the Tortolita

Mountains (Roth 1992; Swartz 2008)—a fulfilment of Huckell’s observation, “Cultural resource management archaeologists naturally have the most opportunities to deal with these sites, but academic archaeologists must also participate by finding and working on those sites not presently threatened by development” (B. Huckell 1984b:143).

More than 25 EAP sites have been excavated in the Tucson Basin. Most of the collections have been only partially analyzed. In fact, many would benefit from being reexamined, given the new insights that have been made on technology, typology, and chronology. Museum-based studies are as important to pursue as new fieldwork. In contrast to the state of Archaic research in the 83

1980s, the challenge now is not so much the loss of sites to development as it is the need to synthesize and make sense of the vast corpus of data that has been amassed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I extend my thanks to Brad Vierra for the opportunity to participate in this volume. Catherine

Gilman composed the maps, Jane Sliva created the projectile point images, and Rob Ciaccio drew the pipes and figurines and photographed the shell—they are artists all—and thanks to Bill

Doelle for allowing use of these figures. Mike Diehl, Jesse Ballenger, Jonathan Mabry, and Mike

Lindeman provided useful discussions and comments on various aspects of the chapter. As the author of a summary chapter, I have benefitted from the work of others and cannot thank them enough. In particular, I thank Bruce Huckell, Barb Roth, and the late Dave Gregory, whose collective work has been the foundation of Tucson Basin Archaic research. I have learned much from working with each of them, starting in the mid-1980s as a young punk archaeologist. I hope

I have not twisted or misrepresented anyone’s earlier works. Any errors in presentation are solely mine.

84

FIGURES

85

Figure 5.1 Excavated Archaic and Early Agricultural period sites, southern Arizona. 86

Figure 5.2 Excavated Archaic and Early Agricultural period sites, Tucson Basin. 87

Figure 5.3 Early Archaic projectile point styles, southern Arizona (a, b, Lake Mohave; c, d,

Tapering stemmed). 88

Figure 5.4 Middle Archaic projectile point styles, southern Arizona(a-e, Chiricahua; f, g, San

Jose; h-j, Gypsum; k-o, Cortaro). 89

Figure 5.5 Late Archaic/Early Agricultural period projectile point styles, southern Arizona.(a, b,

Cienega Short; c, d, Cienega Long; e, f, Cienega Flared; g, cienega Stemmed; h, i, San Pedro

Norte; j, San Pedro Centro; k, San Pedro uncategorized; l, m, San Pedro-style Cienega phase“knives”; n-p, Empire; q-s El Taller ). 90

Figure 5.6 Uppermost irrigated field system at Las Capas, Arizona.

91

Figure 5.7 Aerial photograph of the Las Capas field system.

92

Figure 5.8 San Pedro phase figurine styles and pipes. 93

Figure 5.9 Obsidian sources in the Southwest connected to Tucson Basin specimens (after Sliva and Ryan 2015: Figure 2.9).

94

Figure 5.10 Marine shell, freshwater shell, and turquoise ornaments, Las Capas (a-b, marine nacreous cut-shell beads; c, marine gastropod rectangular pendant; d-e, g-h, n-p, u, marine nacreous cut-shell pendants; f, Laevicardium cut-shell pendant; i, marine nacreous cruciform bead; j, marine bivalve square bead; k-l, marine cut-shell triangular pendants; m, Anodonta cut- shell pendant; q, Laevicardium rectangular pendant; r-s, Vermetus tube bead; t, Laevicardium worked shell; v, Spondylus ground bead; w-z, cc-ee, Spondylus calcifer bead pendants; aa-bb, turquoise beads).

95

TABLES

96

Table 5.1 Sites in the greater Tucson Basin area with Archaic components.

Arizona State Museum Early quadrangle Early Archaic Middle Archaic Late Archaic Agricultural Undifferentiated Total AA:7 1 11 12 AA:12 2 3 17 23 34 79 AA:16 1 2 1 25 29 BB:9 2 3 16 21 BB:10 2 2 4 BB:13 2 6 4 21 33 BB:14 2 5 34 2 42 85 DD:4 1 4 5 1 12 23 EE:1 2 1 16 19 EE:2 1 6 5 3 28 43 Total 6 23 77 35 207 348

97

Table 5.2 Tucson Basin Archaic chronology, applicable to southern Arizona and northern Sonora.

Date Range Environmental Archaeological Uncalibrated Date Range cal Date Range cal Period Period Phase RCYBP B.P. B.C./A.D. Late Archaic / Late Holocene Late Cienega 2400 - 1950 rcybp 2400 - 1900 400 B.C. - A.D. 50 Early Agricultural Early Cienega 2600 - 2400 rcybp 2700 - 2400 800 - 400 San Pedro 3000 - 2600 rcybp 3200 - 2700 1200 - 800 Silverbell Interval 3700 - 3000 rcybp 4000 - 3200 2100 - 1200 Middle Archaic Chiricahua 4900 - 3700 rcybp 5600 - 4000 3700 - 2100 Middle Holocene Early Archaic Sulphur Springs 7600 - 4900 rcybp 8500 - 5600 6500 - 3700

98

Table 5.3 Temporal periods, archaeological complexes, and common associated projectile points, southern Arizona.

Environmental Archaeological Archaeological Associated Point Types Relevant References Period Period Complex Late Holocene Late Archaic / Ciénega San Pedro (late type), Cienega (varieties), Gregory 2001a; Gregory and Diehl Early Agricultural Western Basketmaker 2002; Huckell 1996; Sliva 2015 San Pedro Cortaro (limited), Empire, San Pedro Huckell 1984a, 1996; Roth 1992, (varieties), Western Basketmaker 2015; Sliva 2015 Silverbell Interval Cortaro Roth and Huckell 1992; Whittlesey 2015 Middle Archaic Chiricahua Chiricahua, Gypsum, Pinto, Late San Jose, Sayles 1983; Windmiller 1973 Cortaro Ventana Western Stemmed Haury 1975 San Dieguito San Dieguito, Lake Mojave, Silver Lake Haury 1975; Rogers 1939, 1958 Middle Holocene Early Archaic Sulphur Springs Tapering stemmed Sayles 1983; M. Waters 1986

99

Table 5.4 Maize with conventional radiocarbon ages older than 3000 RCYBP from Tucson Basin sites. ASM Site δ13C Lab Sample Conventional Age Years cal Age cal Site name Number Sample type o/oo Number Age and Error B.P. BC/AD Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 maize -10.5 Beta-344171 4930 ±30 5720 - 5600 3780 - 3650 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 cob frag -10.3 Beta-333931 4640 ±30 5470 - 5300 3520 - 3350 Los Pozos AZ AA:12:91 maize cupule -10 CAMS-34923 4050 ±50 4810 - 4410 2860 - 2460 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 maize -10.6 Beta-344170 3990 ±30 4530 - 4410 2580 - 2460 Clearwater AZ BB:13:6 maize -10.9 Beta-175842 3690 ±40 4150 - 3900 2200 - 1950 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 maize -10.6 Beta-148409 3670 ±40 4150 - 3880 2200 - 1930 Clearwater AZ BB:13:6 maize -10.4 Beta-160381 3650 ±40 4090 - 3860 2140 - 1910 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 maize -8.7 Beta-292154 3440 ±40 3830 - 3600 1890 - 1650 Los Pozos AZ AA:12:91 kernel -10.7 Beta-124111 3340 ±60 3810 - 3400 1860 - 1460 Los Pozos AZ AA:12:91 kernel -10.4 Beta-124114 3300 ±80 3720 - 3360 1780 - 1410 Los Pozos AZ AA:12:91 kernel -10.3 Beta-124113 3230 ±50 3570 - 3360 1620 - 1410 Valley Farms AZ AA:12:736 maize – AA-28496 3145 ±50 3470 - 3220 1520 - 1270 Los Pozos AZ AA:12:91 kernel -10.7 Beta-124112 3140 ±50 3460 - 3220 1510 - 1270 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 maize -15.5 Beta-292150 3130 ±40 3450 - 3240 1500 - 1290 El Taller AZ AA:12:92 cupule -10.3 Beta-161854 3080 ±50 3400 - 3150 1450 - 1210 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 maize -10.3 Beta-145108 3060 ±40 3370 - 3160 1420 - 1210 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 maize -9.8 Beta-148408 3060 ±40 3370 - 3160 1420 - 1210 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 maize n/a Beta-292149 3050 ±40 3370 - 3150 1420 - 1200 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 maize -10.8 Beta-140055 3020 ±30 3340 - 3080 1400 - 1130 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 maize -10.5 Beta-325662 3010 ±30 3340 - 3070 1390 - 1120 El Taller AZ AA:12:92 cupule -10 Beta-161855 3010 ±40 3350 - 3070 1400 - 1120 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 maize -11.2 Beta-140054 3000 ±30 3330 - 3070 1380 - 1120

100

Table 5.5. Cultivated and foraged plant resources commonly recovered from San Pedro and Ciénega phase sites (from Diehl 2015).

Common Name Taxon Identified Tissue Ethnographically Known Uses Crops or Possible Crops Maize Zea mays kernels and cupules food, cobs as fuel Beans1 Phaseolus sp. cotyledon fragment food Squash1 Cucurbita sp. seed fragment food Crop Weeds Cheno-ams Chenopodium/Amaranthus sp. seeds seeds as food, leaves as quelite Dock Rumex sp. seeds seeds as food, leaves as quelite False purslane Trianthema sp. seeds leaves as quelite Goosefoot Chenopodium sp. seeds seeds as food, leaves as quelite Pigweed Amaranthus sp. seeds seeds as food, leaves as quelite Seepweed Suaeda sp. seeds seeds as food Sunflower Helianthus sp. seeds seeds as food Tansy mustard Descurainia sp. seeds seeds as food, leaves as quelite Cacti and Agave Agave family tissue Agavaceae wood or caudex tissue caudex as food Barrel Ferocactus sp. seeds fruit as food Cactus family Cactaceae seeds fruit as food Cereus type Cereus sp. seeds fruit and seeds as food Cholla Cylindropuntia sp. seeds fruit and young buds as food Hedgehog Echinocereus sp. seeds fruit and seeds as food Prickly pear Platyopuntia sp. seeds fruit and young pads as food Saguaro Carnegiea gigantea seeds fruit and seeds as food Local Arboreal Mesquite Prosopis juliflora seeds and pod fragments mesocarp as food Saltbush Atriplex sp. seeds seeds as food Sumac Rhus sp. seeds fruit as food Nonlocal Juniper Juniperus sp. seeds fruit as food Walnut Juglans sp. shell fragments nuts as food Low Food-Value Weeds Clammyweed Polanisia sp. seeds seeds as food, leaves as quelite Globemallow Sphaeralcea sp. seeds leaves as medicine Groundcherry/Nightshade Physalis/Solanum sp. seeds fruit as food (groundcherry) Loco Astragalus sp. seeds roots as famine food Mint/Chia family Labiatae seeds seeds as food Purslane Portulaca sp. seeds seeds as food, leaves as quelite Sedge family Cyperaceae seeds roots as food Sunflower family Compositae seeds various seeds as food Wood sorrel Oxalis sp. seeds leaves as quelite Wild Grasses Bentgrass/Muhley Agrostis/Muhlenbergia sp. seeds seeds as food Grass family Gramineae seeds seeds as food Little barley Hordeum pusillum seeds seeds as food Panic grass Panicum sp. seeds seeds as food Ricegrass Oryzopsis sp. seeds seeds as food Sacaton grass Sporobolus sp. seeds seeds as food Stinkgrass Eragrostis sp. seeds seeds as food No Food Value Arizona poppy Eschscholtzia sp. seeds no documented use Caltrop Kallstroemia sp. seeds roots as medicine Mormon Tea Ephedra sp. seeds bark or leaves as medicine Ragweed Ambrosia sp. seeds roots as medicine Spiderling Boerhaavia sp. seeds no documented use Spurge Euphorbia sp. seeds leaves as medicine

1: Ciénega phase only 101

REFERENCES

Adams, Jenny L. 2015 San Pedro Phase Grinding Technology at Las Capas, AZ AA:12:111 (ASM). In Implements of Change: Tools, Subsistence, and the Built Environment of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona, edited by J. M. Vint, pp. 95-160. Anthropological Papers No. 51. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson.

Adams, Jenny L., Joyce Skeldon Reichner and Allen J. Denoyer 2014 Las Capas Archaeological Project: and Maize Processing Experiments. Technical Report No. 2014-02. Desert Archeaology, Inc., Tucson.

Ahmed, Etayeb Elhag Ali and Sana Hassan Ahmed Alama Alama 2010 Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench.) Seed Quality as Affected by Type and Duration of Storage. Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America 1(1):1-8.

Anschuetz, Kurt F. 2010 Women Are Corn, Men Are Rain: Agriculture and Movement Among the Tewa in North Central New Mexico between A.D. 1250 and 1598. In Threads, Time, and Edification: Papers in Honor of Glenna Dean, edited by E. J. Brown, K. Armstrong, D. M. Brugge and C. J. Condie, pp. 7-20. Papers of the Archaeological Society of New Mexico No. 36. Archaeological Society of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Betancourt, Julio L., Thomas R. Van Devender and Paul S. Martin (editors) 1990 Packrat Middens: The Last 40,000 Years of Biotic Change. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Betancourt, Julio Louis 1990 Tucson's Santa Cruz River and the Arroyo Legacy, Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona.

Black, Mary E. 1984 Maidens and Mothers: An Analysis of Hopi Corn Metaphors. Ethnology 23(279- 288). 102

Blake, Michael 2015 Maize for the Gods: Unearthing the 9,000-Year History of Corn. University of California Press, Oakland.

Blake, Michael, Bruce F. Benz, N. Jakobsen, R. Wallace, S. Formosa, K. Supermant, D. Moreriras and A. Wong 2012 Ancient Maize Map, Version 1.1: An Online Database and Mapping Program for Studying the Archaeology of Maize in the Americas. http://en.ancientmaize.com/. Accessed December 2015. Laboratory of Archaeology, University of B.C., Vancouver.

Bowles, Samuel and Jung-Kyoo Choi 2013 Coevolution of Farming and Private Property During the Early Holocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(22):8830-8835.

Brack, M. L. (editor) 2013 A San Pedro Phase Agricultural Field and Early Ceramic Period Occupations in the Middle Santa Cruz Valley, Southern Arizona: Investigations at the Stewart Brickyard and Rillito Loop Sites. Technical Report No. 2005-15. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

Brack, M. L. and Helga Wöcherl 2015 An Analysis of Site Use and Spatial Organization During the San Pedro Phase. In Implements of Change: Tools, Subsistence, and the Built Environment of Las Capas, an Early Agricaultural Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona, edited by J. M. Vint, pp. 389-418. Anthropological Papers No. 51. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson.

Bronk Ramsey, Christopher 2009 Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates. Radiocarbon 51(1):1023-1045.

Brown, David E. (editor) 1994 Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Byrd, Rachael M. 2014 Phenotypic Variation of Transitional Forager-Farmers in the Sonoran Desert. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 155:579-580. 103

Carpenter, John P., Guadalupe Sanchez and María Elisa Viallpando C. 2003 Sonora Precerámica: del Arcaico y del Surgimiento de Aldeas Agrícolas. Arqueología 29:5-23.

Carpenter, John P., Guadalupe Sánchez and María Elisa Viallpando C. 2005 The Late Archaic/Early Agricultural Period in Sonora, Mexico. In The Late Archaic Across the Borderlands, edited by B. J. Vierra, pp. 13-40. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Carpenter, John P., Guadalupe Sánchez, James T. Watson and Elisa Viallpando 2015 The La Playa Archaeological Project: Binational Interdisciplinary Research on Long-Term Human Adaptation in the Sonoran Desert. Journal of the Southwest 57(2 and 3):213- 264.

Chenault, Mark L. 2016 Ritual and Duality: Early Agricuktural Period Figurines from the Tucson Basin. Kiva 82(4):387-402.

Cooper, C., K. Lupo, R. G. Matson, William D. Lipe, C. I. Smith and M. P. Richards 2016 Short-term Variability of Human Diet at Basketmaker II Turkey Pen Ruins, Utah: Insights from Bulk and Single Amino Acid Isotope Analysis of Hair. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 5:10-18.

Copeland, Audrey, Jay Quade, James T. Watson, Brett T. McLaurin and María Elisa Viallpando C. 2012 Stratigraphy and Geochronology of La Playa Archaeological Site, Sonora,Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Science 39:2934-2944.

Crawford, Stanley 1988 Mayordomo: Chronicle of an Acequia in Northern New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Cummings, Linda Scott, Jammi L. Ladwig and Chad L. Yost 2013 Phytolith Analysis of Maize Cob Fragments from Las Capas (AZ AA:12:111), Tucson, Arizona. PaleoResearch Institute Technical Report 13-027. Ms. on file, PaleoResearch Institute, Golden, CO, and Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson. 104

Cummings, Linda Scott and Chad L. Yost 2011 Pollen, Phytolith, and Starch Grain Analysis of Feature Fill and Ground Stone Tools from Site LA 159879, Luna County, New Mexico. PaleoResearch Institute Technical Report 11-149. Ms. on file, Museum of New Mexico, Office of Archaeological Studies, Santa Fe, NM.

Dart, Allen 1986 Archaeological Investigations at La Paloma: Archaic and Hohokam Occupations at Three Sites in the Northeastern Tucson Basin, Arizona. Anthropological Papers No. 4. Institute for American Research, Tucson.

Diehl, Michael W. 1999 Paleobotanical Remains. In Excavations in the Santa Cruz River Floodplain: The Middle Archaic Component at Los Pozos, edited by D. A. Gregory, pp. 49-60. Anthropological Papers No. 20. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

2005a Early Agricultural Period Foraging and Horticulture in Southern Arizona: Implications from Plant Remains. In Subsistence and Resource Use Strategies of Early Agricultural Communities in Southern Arizona, edited by M. W. Diehl, pp. 73-90, Anthropological Papers No. 34. Center for Desert Archaeology.

2005b Epilogue: "Farmaging" During the Early Agricultural Period. In Subsistence and Resource Use Strategies of Early Agricultural Communities in Southern Arizona, edited by M. W. Diehl, pp. 181-184. Anthropological Papers No 34. Center for Desert Arcaheology, Tucson.

2005c When Corn was not yet King. In Subsistence and Resource Use Strategies of Early Agricultural Communities in Southern Arizona, edited by M. W. Diehl, pp. 1-18. Anthtopological Papers No. 34. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

2015 Foraging off the Gardens: Diet Breadth and Anthropogenic Landscape Change During the Early Agricultural Period in the Tucson Basin. In Implements of Change: Tools, Subsistence, and the Built Environment of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona, edited by J. M. Vint, pp. 345-375. Anthropological Papers No. 51. Arcaheology Southwest, Tucson.

Doolittle, William E. and Jonathan B. Mabry 105

2009 Environmental Mosaics, Agricultural Diversity, and the Evolutionary Adoption of Maize in the American Southwest. In Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Prehistory, Linguistics, Biogeography, Domestication, and Evolution of Maize, edited by J. E. Staller, R. H. Tykot and B. F. Benz, pp. 109-121. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek.

Doyel, David E. 1977 Rillito and Rincon Period Settlement Systems in the Middle Santa Cruz River Valley: Alternative Models. The Kiva 49(93-110).

1984 From Foraging to Farming: An Overview of the Preclassic in the Tucson Basin. The Kiva 49(3):147-165.

Eastman, Clyde, J. Phillip King and Nicholas A. Meadows 1997 Acequias, Small Farms, and the Good Life. Culture and Agriculture 19(1/2):14- 23.

Ezzo, Joseph A. and William L. Deaver 1998 Watering the Desert: Late Archaic Farming at the Costello-King Site. Technical Series 68. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson.

Fewkes, Jesse Walter 1894 The Snake Ceremonies at Walpi. Journal of American Ethnology and Archaeology 4.

Fish, Paul R., Suzanne K. Fish, Austin Long and Charles Miksicek 1986 Early Corn Remains from Tumamoc Hill, Southern Arizona. American Antiquity 51(3):563-572.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 1983 Post-Harvest Losses in Quality of Food Grains. FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 29. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Ford, Richard I. 1994 Corn is Our Mother. In Corn and Culture in the Prehistoric New World, edited by S. Johannessen and C. A. Hastorf, pp. 513-525. Westview Press, Boulder. 106

Gregory, David A. (editor) 1999 Excavations in the Santa Cruz River Floodplain: The Middle Archaic Component at Los Pozos. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

2001a An Evaluation of Early Agricultural Period Chronology in the Tucson Basin. In Excavations in the Santa Cruz River Floodplain: The Early Agricultural Period Component at Los Pozos, edited by D. A. Gregory, pp. 237-254. Anthropological Papers No. 21. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

2001b Variation and Trend During the Early Agricultural Period. In Excavations in the Santa Cruz River Floodplain: The Early Agricultural Comoponent at Los Pozos, edited by D. A. Gregory, pp. 255-279. Anthropological Papers No. 21. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

Gregory, David A. and Sam W. Baar, IV 1999 Stratigraphy, Chronology, and Characteristics of the Natural and Cultural Deposits. In Excavations in the Santa Cruz River Floodplain: The Middle Archaic Component at Los Pozos, edited by D. A. Gregory, pp. 13-31. Anthropological Papers No. 20. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

Gregory, David A. and Michael W. Diehl 2002 Duration, Continuity, and Intensity of Occupation at a Late Cienega Phase Settlement in the Santa Cruz River Floodplain. In Traditions, Transitions, and Technologies: Themes in Southwestern Archaeology, edited by S. H. Schlanger, pp. 200-223. University of Colorado Press, Boulder.

Gregory, David A. and Jonathan B. Mabry 1998 Revised Research Design for the Archaeological Treatment Plan, Interstate 10 Corridor Improvement Project, Tangerine Road to the Interstate 19 Interchange. Technical Report No. 97-19. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

Gregory, David A., Michelle N. Stevens, Fred L. Nials, Mark R. Schurr and Michael W. Diehl 2007 Excavations in the Santa Cruz Floodplain: Further Investigations at Los Pozos. Anthropological Papers No. 27. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

Hard, Robert J. and John R. Roney 107

2005 The Transition to Farming on the Rio and in the Southern Jornada Mogollon Region. In The Late Archaic Across the Borderlands: From Foraging to Farming, edited by B. J. Vierra, pp. 141-186. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Haury, Emil W. 1975 The Stratigraphy and Archaeology of Ventana Cave. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

1992 The Greater American Southwest. In Emil W. Haury's Prehistory of the American Southwest, edited by J. J. Reid and D. E. Doyel, pp. 18-48. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Haynes, C. Vance and Bruce B. Huckell 1986 Sedimentary Successions of the Prehistoric Santa Cruz River, Tucson, Arizona. Open-File Report 86-15. Arizona Geological Survey, Tucson.

Heidke, James M. 2015 San Pedro and Early Cienega Phase Clay Objects and Hohokam Pottery from Las Capas: Dating, Technology, Use, and Discard. In Implements of Change: Tools, Subsistence, and the Built Environment of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural Community in Southern Arizona edited by J. M. Vint, pp. 161-226. Anthropological Ppaers No. 51. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson.

Huckell, Bruce B. 1984a The Archaic Occupation of the Rosemont Area, Northern Santa Rita Mountains, Southeastern Arizona. Archaeological Series No 147, Vol. 1. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson.

1984b The Paleo-Indian and Archaic Occupation of the Tucson Basin: An Overview. The Kiva 49(3-4):133-145.

1995 Of Marshes and Maize: Preceramic Agricultural Settlements in the Cienega Valley, Southeastern Arizona. Anthropological Papers No. 59. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

1996 The Archaic Prehistory of the North American Southwest. Journal of World Prehistory 10(3):305-373.

108

Huckell, Bruce B., Lisa W. Huckell and Karl K. Benedict 2002 Maize Agriculture and the Rise of Mixed Foraging-Farming Economies. In Traditions, Transitions, and Technologies: Themes in Southwestern Archaeology, edited by S. H. Schlanger, pp. 137-159. University of Colorado Press, Boulder.

Huckell, Lisa W. 2009 Ancient Maize in the American Southwest: What Does it Look Like and What Can It Tell Us? In Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Prehistory, Linguistics, Biogeography, Domestication, and Evolution of Maize, edited by J. E. Staller, R. H. Tykot and B. F. Benz, pp. 97-107. Left Coast Press, Inc., Walnut Creek, California.

Hunt, Robert C. 1988 Size and Structure of Authority in Canal Irrigation Systems. Journal of Anthropological Research 44(4):335-355.

Irwin-Williams, Cynthia 1967 Picosa: The Elementary Southwestern Culture. American Antiquity 32(4):441- 457.

1973 The : Origins of Anasazi Culture. Eastern New Mexico University Contibutions in Anthropology 5(1):1--28.

1979 Post- Archaeology, 7000-2000 B.C. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 9, edited by A. A. Ortiz, pp. 31-42. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Kleinhenz, Matthew D. and Natalie R. Bumgarner 2012 Using °Brix as an Indicator of Vegetable Quality. The Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet: Agriculture and Natural Resources HYG-165-12. http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/1000/pdf/1651.pdf Accessed December 2015.

Kohler, Timothy A., Matt Pier Glaude, Jean-Pierre Bocquet-Appel and Brian M. Kemp 2008 The Neolithic Demographic Transition in the U.S. Southwest. American Antiquity 73(4):645-669.

Kohler, Timothy A. and Kelsey M. Reese 109

2014 Long and Spatially Variable Neolithic Demographic Transition in the North American Southwest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(28):10101-10106.

Logan, Michael F 2002 The Lessening Stream. University of Arizona Press.

Logan, Michael F. and William T. Sanders 1976 The Model. In The Valley of Mexico: Studies in Prehispanic Ecology and Society, edited by E. R. Wolf, pp. 31-58. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Mabry, Jonathan B. (editor) 1996 Canals and Communities: Small Scale Irrigation Systems. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

1998a Architectural Variability and Site Structures. In Archaeological Investigations of Early Village Sigets in the Middle Santa Cruz Valley: Analyses and Syntheses, Part I, edited by J. B. Mabry, pp. 209-244. Anthropological Papers No. 19. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

1998b Paleoindian and Archaic Sites in Arizona. Technical Report No. 97-7. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

2002 The Role of Irrigation in the Transition to Agriculture and Sedentism: A Risk Management Model. In Traditions, Transitions, and Technologies: Themes in Southwestern Archaeology, edited by S. H. Schlanger, pp. 178-199. University of Colorado Press, Boulder.

2005a Changing Knowledge and Ideas about the First Farmers in Southeastern Arizona. In The Late Archaic Across the Borderlands: From Foraging to Farming, edited by B. J. Vierra, pp. 41- 83. University of Texas Press, Austin.

2005b Diversity in Early Southwestern Farming and Optimization Models of Transitions to Agriculture. In Subsistence and Resource Use Strategies of Early Agricultural Communities in Southern Arizona, edited by M. W. Diehl, pp. 113-152. Anthropological Papers No. 34. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

2006 Radiocarbon Dating of the Early Occupations. In Rio Nuevo Archaeology, 2000-2003: Investigations at the San Augustín Mission and Mission Gardens, Tucson Presido, Tucson Pressed Brickyard, and Clearwater Site, edited by J. H. Thiel and J. B. Mabry. Technical Report 110

No. 2004-11 http://www.archaeologysouthwest.org/pdf/rn/rio_nuevo_ch19.pdf. Desert Archaeology, Inc, Tucson.

2008a Chronology. In Las Capas: Early Irrigaiton and Sedentism in a Southwestern Floodplain, edited by J. B. Mabry, pp. 55-76. Anthropological Papers No. 28, Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

2008b Irrigation, Short-term Sedentism, and Corporate Organization During the San Pedro Phase. In Las Capas: Early Irrigation and Sedentism in a Southwestern Floodplain, edited by J. B. Mabry, pp. 279-293. Anthropological Papers No. 28. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

2008c Las Capas: Early Irrigation and Sedentism in a Southwestern Floodplain. Anthropological Papers No. 28, Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

Mabry, Jonathan B., James P. Holmlund, Fred L. Nials and Manuel R. Palacios-Fest 2008 Modeling Canal Characteristics and Trends. In Las Capas: Early Irrigation and Sedentism in a Southwestern Floodplain, edited by J. B. Mabry, pp. 235-248. Anthropological Papers No. 28. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

Madsen, John H., Paul R. Fish and Suzanne K. Fish (editors) 1993 The Northern Tucson Basin Survey: Research Directions and Background Studies. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 182. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Martin, Paul S. 1963 The Last 10,000 Years: A Fossil Pollen Record of the American Southwest. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Matson, R. G. 2015 The Nutritional Context of the Pueblo III Population of the Northern San Juan: Too Much Maize? Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports http:/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.08.032.

McClelland, John C. 2005 Bioarchaeological Analysis of Early Agricultural Period Skeletal Remains from Arizona. In Subsistence and Resource Use Strategies of Early Agricultural Communities in 111

Southern Arizona, edited by M. W. Diehl, pp. 53-68. Anthropological Papers No. 34. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

McKittrick, Mary Anne 1988 Surface Geologic Maps of the Tucson Metropolitan Area. Arizona Geological Survey Open File Report 88-18. Arizona Geological Survey, Tucson.

Michael, A. M. 2008 Irrigation Theory and Practice. Second ed. Vikas Publishing House PVT LTD, New Delhi.

Minckley, W. L. and David E. Brown 1994a Sonoran Riparian Deciduous Forest and Woodlands. In Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico, edited by D. E. Brown, pp. 269-273. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

1994b Sonoran Riparian Scrubland. In Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico, edited by D. E. Brown, pp. 278-279. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

1994c Wetlands. In Biotic Communities: Southwestern Unitred States and Northwestern Mexico, edited by D. E. Brown, pp. 222-236. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Minnis, Paul E. 1985 Doemsticating People and Plants in the Greater Southwest. In Prehistoric Food Production in North America, edited by R. I. Ford, pp. 309-340. Anthropological Papers No. 75. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Morales, Enrique, Jorge Lembcke and George Graham 1988 Nutritional Value for Young Children of Grain Amaranth and Maize-Amaranth Mixtures: Effects of Processing. Journal of Nutrition 118:78-85.

Nabhan, Gary P. 2008 Renewing America's Food Traditions: Saving and Savoring the Contient's Most Endangered Foods. Chelsea Greem Publishing Company, White River Junction, VT.

112

National Research Council 1984 Amaranth: Modern Prospects for an Ancient Grain. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Nials, Fred L. 2015a Life on the Floodplain: The Promise and Perils of Prehistoric Irrigaiton Agriculture at Las Capas. In Implements of Change: Tools, Subsistence, and the Built Environment of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona, edited by J. M. Vint, pp. 419-468. Anthropological Papers No. 51. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson.

2015b The Stratigraphy and Agricultural Setting of Las Capas. In The Anthropogenic Landscape of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona, edited by J. M. Vint and F. L. Nials, pp. 43-70. Anthropological Papers No. 50. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson.

Nials, Fred L., David A. Gregory and J. Brett Hill 2011 The Stream Reach Concept and the Macro-Scale Study of Riverine Agriculture in Arid and Semiarid Environments. Geoarchaeology 26(5):724-761.

Ogilvie, Marsha D. 2005 A Biological Reconstruction of Mobility Patterns in Late Archaic Populations. In The Late Archaic Across the Borderlands, edited by B. J. Vierra, pp. 84-112. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Palacios-Fest, Manuel, David L. Dettman, Christopher Eastoe and Dirk Baron 2015 The Early Agricultural and Historic Periods Paleoecological Record at Las Capas. In The Anthropogenic Landscape of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona, edited by J. M. Vint and F. L. Nials, pp. 71-138. Anthropological Papers No. 50. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson.

Parsons, Elsie Clews 1939 Pueblo Indian Religion. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Proctor, D.L. 113

1994 Grain Storage Techniques: Evolution and Trends in Developing Countries. Food and Agricultural Services Bulletin 109. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Reimer, Paula J., Edouard Bard, Alex Bayliss, J. Warren Beck, Paul G. Blackwell, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Caitlin E. Buck, Hai Cheng, R. Lawrence Edwards, Michael Friedrich, Pieter M. Grootes, Thomas P. Guilderson, Haflidi Haflidason, Irka Hajdas, Christine Hatté, Timothy J. Heaton, Dirk L. Hoffmann, Alan G. Hogg, Konrad A. Hughen, K. Felix Kaiser, Bernd Kromer, Sturt W. Manning, Mu Niu, Ron W. Reimer, David A. Richards, E. Marian Scott, John R. Southon, Richard A. Staff, Christian S. M. Turney and Johannes van der Plicht 2013 IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves 0–50,000 Years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4):1869–1887.

Rodríguez, Sylvia 2006 Acequia: Water Sharing, Sanctity, and Place. School for Advanced Research, Santa Fe.

Roth, Barbara J. 1989 Late Archaic Settlement and Subsistence in the Tucson Basin. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Arizona.

1992 Sedentary Agriculturalists or Mobile Hunter-Gatherers? Recent Evidence on the Late Archaic Occupation of the Northern Tucson Basin. Kiva 57(4):291-314.

2006 The Role of Gender in the Adoption of Agriculture in the Southern Southwest. Journal of Anthropological Research 62(513-538).

2015 Were They Sedentary and Does it Matter? Early Farmers in the Tucson Basin. In Late Holocene Research on Foragers and Farmers in the Desert West, edited by B. J. Roth and M. E. McBrinn, pp. 108-135. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Roth, Barbara J. and Justin DeMaio 2014 Early and Middle Archaic Foragers in the Sonoran Desert: Investigations at the Ruelas Ridge Site. Kiva 80(2):115-136.

Roth, Barbara J. and Andrea Freeman 114

2008 The Middle Archaic Period and the Transition to Agriculture in the Sonoran Desert of Arizona. Kiva 73(3):321-353.

Roth, Barbara J. and Bruce B. Huckell 1992 Cortaro Points and the Archaic of Southern Arizona. Kiva 57(4):353-370.

Sayles, E. B. 1983 The Cochise Cultural Sequence in Southeastern Arizona. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona Number 42. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Schwarcz, Henry P. 2009 Stable Carbon Isotope Analysis and Human Diet: A Synthesis. In Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Prehistory, Linguistics, Biogeography, Domestication, and Evolution of Maize, edited by J. E. Staller, R. H. Tykot and B. F. Benz. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek.

Sliva, R. Jane 1999 Flaked Stone Artifacts. In Excavations in the Santa Cruz Floodplain: The Middle Archaic Component at Los Pozos, edited by D. A. Gregory, pp. 33-46. Anthropological Papers No. 20. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

2015 Early Agricultural Period Projectile Points: Typology, Migration, and Social Dynamics from the Sonoran Desert to the Colorado Plateau. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson.

Sliva, R. Jane and Stacy L. Ryan 2015 San Pedro Phase Flaked Stone at Las Capas: Technology and Social Dynamics. In Implements of Change: Tools, Subsistence, and the Built Environment of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural Community in Southern Arizona, edited by J. M. Vint, pp. 33-94. Anthropological Papers No. 51. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson.

Smalley, John and Michael Blake 2003 Sweet Beginnings: Stalk Sugar and the Domesticaiton of Maize. Current Anthropology 44(5):675-703.

Stevens, Michelle N. and R. Jane Sliva 115

2002 Empire Points: An Addition to the San Pedro Phase Lithic Assemblage. Kiva 67:297-326.

Stinson, Susan L. 2005 Remembering the Ancestors: Ceramic Figurines from Las Capas and Los Pozos. In Material Cultures and Lifeways of Early Agricultural Communities in Southern Arizona, edited by R. J. Sliva, pp. 207-216. Anthropological Papers No. 35. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

Strang, Veronica 2008 The Social Construction of Water. In Handbook of Landscape Archaeology, edited by B. David and J. Thomas, pp. 123-130. Left Coast Press, Inc., Walnut Creek, CA.

Tagg, Martyn D., Michael P. Heilen and Kerry L. Sagebiel 2007 ETAC 2002. Intensive Archaeological Survey of 2,296 Acres on the East Tactical Range, Barry M. Goldwater Range East, Arizona. Cultural Resource Studies in the Western Papagueria No. 14. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson.

Thiel, J. Homer and Jonathan B. Mabry (editors) 2006 Rio Nuevo Archaeology Program, 2000-2003: Investigations at the San Augustine Mission and Mission Gardens, Tucson Presidio, Tucson Pressed Brick Company, and Clearwater Site. Available at http://www.archaeologysouthwest.org/what-we- do/investigations/to/final-report-rio-nuevo-archaeology-20002003, accessed June, 2017. Technical Report No. 2004-11. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

Turner, Raymond M. and David E. Brown 1994 Sonoran Desertscrub. In Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico, edited by D. E. Brown, pp. 180-221. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Tykot, Robert H. 2004 Stable Isotopes and Diet: You Are What You Eat. In Proceedings of the International School of Physics "Enrico Fermi" Course CLIV, edited by M. Martini, M. Milazzo and M. Piacentini, pp. 433-444. IOS Press, Amsterdam.

2009 Stable Isotope Analyses and the Histories of Maize. In Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Prehistory, Linguistics, Biogeography, Domestication, and 116

Evolution of Maize, edited by J. E. Staller, R. H. Tykot and B. F. Benz, pp. 131-142. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek.

US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Nutrient Data Laboratory 2015 USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 28, http://www.ars.usda.gov/ba/bhnrc/ndl. van der Merwe, Nikolaas J. and J. C. Vogel 1978 13C Content of Human Collagen as a Measure of Prehistoric Diet in Woodland North America. Nature 276(21):815-816.

Van Devender, Thomas R. 1990 Late Quaternary Vegetation and Climate of the Sonoran Desert. In Packrat Middens: The Last 40,000 Years of Biotic Change, edited by J. L. Betancourt, T. R. Van Devender and P. S. Martin, pp. 134-165. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Vargas, Victoria D. 2004 Shell Ornaments, Power, and the Rise of the Cerros de Trincheras: Patterns through Time at Trincheras Sites in the Magdalena River Valley, Sonora. In Surveying the Archaeology of Northwest Mexico, edited by G. Newell and E. Gallaga M., pp. 65-76. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Vierra, Bradley J. 2004 Chipped Stone Analysis from Cerro Juanaqueña and Other Late Archaic Cerros de Trincheras Sites in the Rio Casas Grandes Valley, Chihuahua. In Early Agriculture and Warfare in Northwest Mexico, edited by R. J. Hard and J. R. Roney. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

2005 Late Archaic Technology Across the Borderlands. In The Late Archaic Across the Borderlands: From Foraging to Farming, edited by B. J. Vierra, pp. 187-218. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Vint, James M. 2015a Anthropogenic Landscapes and the Built Environment of Las Capas, AZ AA:12:111 (ASM). In Implements of Change: Tools, Subsistence, and the Built Environment of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona, edited by J. M. Vint, pp. 469-499. Anthropological Papers No. 51. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson. 117

2015b Implements of Change: Tools, Subsistence, and the Built Environment of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona. Anthropological Papers No. 51. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson.

2015c Las Capas, AZ AA:12:111 (ASM), Introduced: Background, Chronology, and Research Orientation. In Implements of Change: Tools, Subsistence, and the Built Environment of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural Community in Southern Arizona, edited by J. M. Vint, pp. 1-31. Anthropological Papers No. 51. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson.

Vint, James M. and Fred L. Nials (editors) 2015 The Anthropogenic Landscape of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona. Anthropological Papers No. 50. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson.

Virden-Lange, Christine H. 2015 Shell Material from Las Capas, AZ AA:12:111 (ASM). In Implements of Change: Tools, Subsistence, and the Built Environment of Las Capas, and Early Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona, edited by J. M. Vint, pp. 227-260. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson.

Vokes, Arthur W. 2005 Early Agricultural Period Shell Use. In Material Cultures and Lifeways of Early Agricultural Communities in Southern Arizona, edited by R. J. Sliva, pp. 153-170. Anthropological Papers No. 35. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

Waters, Jennifer A. 2005 Vertebrate Faunal Remains and Hunting Patterns During the Early Agricultural Period in Southern Arizona. In Subsistence and Resource Use Strategies of Early Agricultural Communities in Southern Arizona, edited by M. W. Diehl, pp. 91-112. Anthropoligcal Papers No. 34. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

Waters, Jennifer A., Stephanie M. Reyes and Sarah E. Wolff 2015 Vertebrate Faunal Remains Recovered from Las Capas, AZ AA:12:111 (ASM). In Implements of Change: Tools, Subsistence, and the Built Environment of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona, edited by J. M. Vint, pp. 261-303. Anthropological Papers No. 51. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson.

118

Waters, Michael R. 1986 The Geoarchaeology of Whitewater Draw, Arizona. Anthropological Papers No. 45. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

1989 Late Quaternary Lacustrine History and Paleoclimatic Significance of Pluvial Lake Cochise, Southeastern Arizona. Quaternary Research 32:1-11.

2008 Alluvial Chronologies and Archaeology of the Gila Rivre Drainage Basin, Arizona. Geomorphology 101(332-341).

Waters, Michael R. and C. 2001 Late Quaternary Arroyo Formatoin and Climate Change in the American Southwest. Geology 29(5):399-402.

Waters, Michael R. and John C. Ravesloot 2001 Landscape Change and the Cultural Evolution of the Hohokam along the Middle Gila River and other River Valleys in South-Central Arizona. American Antiquity 66(2):285-300.

Watson, James T. 2008 Prehistoric Dental Disease and the Dietary Shift from Cactus to Cultigens in Northwest Mexico. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 18:202-212.

2011 Bioarchaeology of the First Farmers in the Sonoran Desert. , accessed November, 2015. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson.

Watson, James T. and Rachael M. Byrd 2015 A Bioarchaeological Perspective on Change and Continuity in an Early Agricultural Community. In Implements of Change: Tools, Subsistence, and the Built Environment of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona, edited by J. M. Vint, pp. 377-388. Anthropological Papers No. 51. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson.

Watson, James T. and Marijke Stoll 2013 Gendered Logistic Mobility Among the Earliest Farmers in the Sonoran Desert. Latin American Antiquity 24(4):433-450. 119

Webb, Robert H., Julio L. Betancourt, R. Roy Johnson and Raymond M. Turner 2014 Requiem for the Santa Cruz: An Environmental History of an Arizona River. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Whitney, Gregory J., Robert J. Sinensky, George L. Tinseth, Barry Price Steinbrecher, Jessica M. South and Michael L. Brack 2015 Field Methods and Feature Descriptions: Excavations at Las Capas, an Early Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona. Technical Report 2014-01. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

Whittlesey, Stephanie M. 2015 Deconstructing the Early Agricultural Period in Southern Arizona. In Late Holocene Research on Foragers and Farmers in the Desert West, edited by B. J. Roth and M. E. McBrinn, pp. 78-107. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Whittlesey, Stephanie M., Michael S. Foster and Douglass R. Mitchell 2010a Chronology and Cultural Systematics. In Recurrent Sedentism and the Making of Place: Archaeological Investigations at Las Capas, a Preceramic Period Farming Community in the Tucson Basin, Southern Arizona, edited by S. M. Whittlesey, S. J. Hesse and M. S. Foster, pp. 79-91. Cultural Resources Report No. 07-556. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Tucson.

Whittlesey, Stephanie M., S. Jerome Hesse and Michael S. Foster (editors) 2010b Recurrent Sedentism and the Making of Place: Archaeological Investigations at Las Capas, a Preceramic Period Farming Community in the Tucson Basin, Southern Arizona. Cultural Resources Report No. 07-556. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Tucson.

Wilken, Gene C. 1987 Good Farmers: Traditional Agricultural Resource Management in Mexico and Central America. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Willey, Gordon R. and Philip Phillips 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Wills, W. H. 120

1992 Plant Cultivation and the Evolution of Risk-Prone Economies in the Prehistoric American Southwest. In Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory, edited by A. B. Gebauer and T. D. Price, pp. 153-176. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 4. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

Wöcherl, Helga 1999 Faunal Remains. In Excavations on the Santa Cruz River Floodplain: The Middle Archaic Component at Los Pozos, edited by D. A. Gregory, pp. 61-74. Anthropological Papers No. 20. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

Wright, David K., Michael R. Waters, Chris Loendorf, M. Kyle Woodson, Wesley D. Miles and J. Andrew Darling 2013 Late Archaic Wells on the Gila River Indian Community, Arizona. Journal of Archaeological Science 40:45-57.

Yost, Chad L. 2015 Phytolith Analysis of Early Agricultural Period Field Sediments at Las Capas, AZ AA:12:111 (ASM). In The Anthropogenic Landscape of Las Capas, and Early Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona, edited by J. M. Vint and F. L. Nials, pp. 169-192. Anthropological Papers No. 50. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson.

Zaimes, George 2007 Defining Arizona's Riparian Areas and Their Importance to Landscape. In Understanding Arizona's Riparian Areas, pp. 1-13. Arizona Cooperative Extension, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson.

121

APPENDIX B

Niches, Networks and the Pathways to the Forager-to-Farmer Transition in the US Southwest/North-West Mexico

James M. Vint Barbara J. Mills

In Settlement Dynamics, the Forager to Farmer Transition, Origins of Food Production and the World Heritage Convention. UNESCO, in press. 122

The region of North America that lies in the US Southwest and north-west Mexico (SW/NW) is well known for its highly visible archaeological sites such as Chaco Canyon, Mesa Verde and

Casas Grandes. These are settlements of fully committed farmers during the last millennium.

What are not as well known are the many sites in the region—many of which have only been discovered and/or excavated in the last twenty-five years—that have revolutionized archaeological knowledge of the forager-farmer transition in the SW/NW. Data from these sites have accumulated at a rapid rate and provide details about the pace and pathways of the transition to farming.

Our chapter focuses largely on the Late Archaic or what has become known as the Early

Agricultural period in the SW/NW (Huckell, 1995). Not all archaeologists agree that the use of

Early Agricultural period is appropriate because the transition was neither contemporaneous nor its effects immediate. Here, we treat it primarily as a temporal unit (c. 2000 bc to ad 150–200) and consider the variation within it to comprise aspects of the transition to farming still in need of modelling and explanation. The early end is roughly defined by dates for the adoption of

Mesoamerican cultigens (but see exceptions below) and its culmination in the shift to farmers committed to substantial dependence on maize. As this long time span indicates, the period of early cultigen adoption and experimentation was long. The extended nature of its impact has been tied to slow population growth, which did not reach what has been called the Neolithic

Demographic Transition (NDT) until well over 2,000 years after initial maize adoption (Kohler and Reese, 2014).

123

What this long period suggests to us is the need to consider the Early Agricultural period within an historical framework that begins with the Middle Archaic and ends with the fully committed farmers of the ‘Formative’ period. At the same time, we highlight that there were places within the region where farming was intensively practiced before others, especially in southern Arizona and New Mexico and northern Sonora and Chihuahua. In addition, there were several areas that never fully adopted maize until later in the sequence. We emphasize that there were likely multiple reasons for the lag between early adoption and demography. It is this diversity— environmental and social—that makes the SW/NW a particularly interesting case study for understanding the forager to farmer transition.

In this chapter we outline current knowledge of the transition from foraging to farming in the

SW/NW, highlighting the differential introduction of cultigens and associated technological changes. As with other areas of the world, processes associated with this transition included a number of different technological innovations that were not contemporaneous. The development of ceramic technology for storage, cooking and serving food is one of the more significant outcomes of agricultural practice. In fact, even within the SW/NW region, there were differential rates of adoption and intensification of farming owing to environmental, social and demographic diversity during the Middle and Late Holocene. We discuss the backdrop for this variation within the region and then discuss how the process unfolded with particular attention to recent archaeological work in the Santa Cruz Valley of southern Arizona in the US (for example,

Mabry, 1998, 2005, 2008b; Roth 1992; Vint, 2015b; Vint and Nials, 2015; Whittlesey et al., 2010).

124

The case study of the SW/NW forager to farmer transition is one of cultivation of many weedy annual plants, followed by limited, but spatially widespread adoption of maize from

Mesoamerica. We outline current knowledge about the rate, causes, contexts and consequences of its adoption along with a suite of other plants that also were adopted from .

Contrary to previous interpretations, we argue that these crops were not adopted as a ‘complex,’ suggesting that there were different motivations, social networks and geographic pathways involved with each. Maize was not a major part of Southwest diet and economies until well after initial adoption, suggesting that economic models (especially optimal foraging theory) do not provide a good analogue. Not all processes are adequately modelled by energetic returns of foods, including a wide range of social uses for plants and animals. Moreover, the technological accoutrements normally associated with the ‘Neolithic package’ such as ceramics, intensified storage, population growth and village scale settlements do not appear contemporaneously in the SW/NW. One of our major goals in this brief overview, then, is to provide an overview of the timing of these different additions that ultimately resulted in the agricultural economies of the NW/SW.

A second goal is to evaluate how well models for the process of adoption and later intensification fit with the data from the SW/NW. One model that has recently been suggested to be of great value for understanding the transformation of foragers to farmers (and herders) is niche construction theory (NCT) (for example, Odling-Smee et al., 2003), which we see as a particularly useful way of thinking about how people and plants co-evolved before and during the domestication and/or adoption process. Another set of models that has not been as widely applied to archaeological case studies of the transition is network theory and especially the 125 transmission and diffusion of innovations (for example, Centola, 2015; Rogers, 2003[1962];

Valente, 1998, 2005; Watts, 2002; Watts and Dodds, 2007). Network approaches provide ways of thinking about how plant species—and knowledge associated with their growth and use—are transmitted into new areas and what network structures promote or impede that transmission.

Rather than seeing these as antithetical, in the way that niche construction theory has been compared to optimal foraging theory models (for example, Smith, 2015), we see network approaches to diffusion and adoption as complementary to and implicit in niche construction theory. We outline a possible scenario for further modelling and testing that combines the two approaches.

Niche Construction and Network Models: Complementary Approaches to the Forager to

Farmer Transition

In a recent overview, Smith (2015) has argued that niche construction theory (NCT) provides a more robust approach to understanding the forager to farmer transition than does optimal foraging theory (OFT) (see also Smith, 2007, 2011). We agree with his assessment but we think that a complementary approach from network science bolsters the use of NCT by pointing out how network structure helps to understand how crops and traditional knowledge about those crops were transmitted. In the case of the SW/NW we argue that the diffusion of maize that defines the beginning of the Early Agricultural period was conditioned by the specific structure and distribution of niches created in the mid-Holocene Archaic, which set into motion a trajectory toward intensification in the Late Holocene.

126

Niche Construction Theory (NCT)

NCT serves as a unifying theoretical approach that accommodates the many ways evolutionary theory is applied in different sciences, reconciling their different emphases on scales of time and physical resolution (Jablonka, 2011; Odling-Smee et al., 2003). NCT recognizes the agency of organisms in their environment and that behaviour is a causal, endogenous process in evolutionary change (Kendal et al., 2011). Organisms actively modify their environment to ameliorate adverse or to enhance positive conditions and in turn can affect the evolutionary trajectories of other organisms. In contrast to traditional Darwinian natural selection, which operates through external selective pressures on the phenotype, niche construction is deliberate, directed and can be goal oriented. Classic examples include the built environment of a beaver pond and its effects on the immediate riparian setting, or the effects of animal burrows in creating a living environment that buffers the animal from extremes in temperatures and weather

(Odling-Smee et al., 2003). Humans are the epitome of niche constructing animals and are indeed the consummate domesticated animal.

Human niche construction operates in the physical and social worlds (Laland and O’Brien, 2011;

Odling-Smee et al., 2003; Shennan, 2011). We modify the environment for purposes of shelter, food, defence and extraction and control of other resources. Perhaps uniquely in the animal kingdom, human niche construction drives cultural evolution through manipulation of material culture and the structuring of social interaction among community members. Culture itself is central to the ‘ecological inheritance’ of niche construction (Kendal et al., 2011:790), for it encodes the behaviours and knowledge necessary to propagate itself. Change effected by cultural 127 evolution is transmitted via heritable environmental traits—built or engineered environments— and associated technological knowledge and material culture, and the social practices that reinforce, perpetuate and modify the sociocultural environment. Through deep time, human niche construction can result in genetic change, but cultural evolution typically operates on a temporal scale that occurs more quickly than that of the genome.

Niche construction affects not just the organisms that engineer their environments, but also other organisms living within that modified environment (which also may be modifying their own niches within the greater physical sphere). ‘Niche-constructed species’ arise from the actions of other organisms through unintended and deliberate manipulation. In the case of agriculture, domesticated plant and animal species are one result of human niche construction. Within agricultural landscapes—nonindustrialized ones in particular—the ripple effect of niche construction is seen in the coevolution of ‘weedy’ plants that thrive in disturbed soils and which may be tolerated, encouraged or eliminated by farmers (Snir et al., 2015). Animals also take advantage of human-modified landscapes and may similarly be tolerated and taken advantage of through ‘garden hunting,’ or considered and treated as pests. Irrigated fields and their canal systems are miniature riparian ecosystems themselves, with water and dense plant growth concentrated into a densely focused area.

Niche construction can occur in all economies, albeit at different intensities and scales. Foragers are well known to clear, burn, prune, transplant and divert water, among other activities that modify landscapes (Smith, 2011; Terrell et al., 2003). These activities, especially when spatially 128 concentrated, can result in dramatic changes including those that set plants and animals on pathways toward domestication. Smith (2015) has argued that cultural niche construction (CNC) is a more robust theory than diet breadth models (DBM) for archaeological cases because these models are built around assumptions of resource depression. Instead, there is more evidence that both initial domestication and adoption of cultigens occur in resource rich habitats and/or where there is evidence for beneficial human manipulation of their local environments. Recent work in the Amazon (for example, Clement et al., 2015), one of the most diverse areas on the planet, exemplifies how human management of landscapes resulted in domestication and its social consequences.

Modification (or ‘improvement’) of land for plant or animal production is just one aspect of human niche construction. As noted by Widgren and Håkansson (2014), society itself is constructed and reconstructed by the cohesive group practices, cooperation and social structures needed to maintain our built environments. The process of cultural evolution works both lineally—from one generation to the next—and laterally, among members of a given group. It is significant to note that the transmission of heritable change can and does occur among non- biologically related individuals. Among the powerful engines of cultural evolution are social networks, which connect individuals, families, corporate groups and communities at different spatial and social scales. The importance of social networks is that they are the medium that transfers heritable cultural knowledge through time and over space. Network theory—which nests well within NCT—explicitly recognizes this and is discussed further below.

129

Network Theory and Diffusion

Network theory specifically addresses how the structure of networks promotes or impedes the flow of information and things. Diffusion models, once thrown out with migration, are now recognized as important for understanding social processes such as the spread of social movements, technologies and ideas (for example, Rogers, 2003;

Valente, 1998, 2005; Watts, 2002; Watts and Dodds, 2007). Renewed archaeological interest in transmission processes open up many possibilities for learning from models based in network approaches to diffusion (Mills and Peeples, 2017).

Diffusion generally adheres to a logistic curve (Rogers, 2003; Ryan and Gross, 1943) but the rate of adoption can vary, producing different slopes in the curve. Some things may be resisted and not adopted at all—knowledge alone does not mean that an idea or practice will spread

(something called the ‘knowledge-attitude-practice gap’ [Valente and Myers, 2010]). Diffusion processes are different from other kinds of transmission such as those involving contagious diseases, where it only takes a single one-on-one connection to cause a transfer. Several different social factors promote whether diffusion will take place and how extensive it might be

(see especially Rogers [2003] and Centola [2015]):

1. The nature of the idea or thing being diffused, ranging from simple to more complex.

Complex practices include skilled or special knowledge, which may slow or impede widespread diffusion.

130

2. The frequency of contact between people. This may be conditioned by spatial distance but it is dependent on how often people aggregate—high frequencies or periodic aggregations promote diffusion.

3. The nature of the activities, including their performativity. High performativity may act as mnemonics for repetition, such as those associated with religious practices.

4. The status or position of those who have and/or are conveying information, which can be dependent on the heterogeneity in the number of different status positions within the group

(Centola, 2015). High status nodes promote acceptance of new innovations.

5. The number of different social groups, each with their own network.

6. How closed the groups are, that is, their degree of homophily or tendency to create linkages with people more similar to themselves (McPherson et al., 1987) and how disembedded from each other they are (Borck et al., 2015). This is strongly correlated with how frequently people interact with others outside their social groups and may be referred to as social cohesion

(Centola, 2015), which limits transmission across groups.

7. The degree to which social positions are correlated with each other. For example, how much memberships in different social groups overlap (for example, work settings, kinship and voluntary organizations). Centola (2015) calls this the ‘level of consolidation,’ and argues that 131 moderate consolidation produces ‘wide bridges’ that are more effective than long, narrow ties in diffusion (for example, a single, ‘weak’ tie).

8. The density of social ties between people within each social network. Extremely sparse networks, in which there are many isolated or relatively unconnected nodes or agents, do not promote diffusion.

9. Population size, in that increasing population size results in a greater likelihood of multiple social groups within the population and higher probabilities for consolidation, both of which promote diffusion.

Centola’s (2015) simulation models have shown that rather than a monotonic effect of social cohesion and likelihood of diffusion, there is an inverse U-shaped distribution. High and low degrees of social cohesion put a damper on diffusion, whereas moderately cohesive groups have the highest probabilities. As he put it, ‘mesolevel patterns of overlapping groups, connected through wide bridges, establish the necessary social fabric to support the spread of shared norms and practices throughout a population’ (Centola, 2015:1297). This is because of the interaction of social cohesion with another social factor: the degree to which social groups are consolidated.

Thus, ‘potentially minor changes to social institutions that reduce or increase the level of social consolidation within a society can be unintentionally amplified through the vehicle of social networks into significant consequences for a population’s collective capacity for social diffusion’

(Centola,2015:1302).

132

Combining NCT and Network Models of Diffusion

Our basic premise is that human niche construction creates social conditions for diffusion in multiple, beneficial ways. Although it can be argued that humans have always engaged in niche construction activities, activities that form the basis for cultivation, incipient domestication and the adoption and intensification of agriculture (and in other cases herding) include changes in size and structure of social groups that may be especially conducive to diffusion. These conditions include spatial aggregation, the development of specialized traditional knowledge surrounding environmental management, periodicity of social group interaction and the formation of different kinds of social groups between and within niches—for example, for water management, construction of upland terraces and rock piles—each with their own positions of status. There is no need for a strictly cause and effect model. Instead we suggest that diffusion through social networks and niche construction intersected in several interesting ways that created opportunities for the transformation of foragers into farmers. We explore how these models provide a better understanding of the Early Agricultural period in the SW/NW.

The Mosaic of the SW/NW

The process of adoption and later intensification of agriculture in the Southwest is constrained by the region’s environmental and social diversity. We think that part of the reason for differing pathways to farming in the SW/NW lies in the contrasting environmental settings of the region (Figure 1). There are three broad physiographic regions: (1) the Colorado Plateau, which is an upland area in the northern Southwest; (2) the Basin and Range, which encompasses the 133 southern Southwest including the Sonoran and Chihuahuan deserts of southern Arizona and New

Mexico and significant portions of northern Mexico; and (3) mountainous zones that include the southern portion of the Rocky Mountains and the northern Sierra

Madres of Mexico. In addition to these is a broad ‘Transition Zone,’ which lies at the southern edge of the Colorado Plateau and includes mountains of largely volcanic origin. The Sonoran

Desert is the most biologically diverse area within the region, and strong east-west contrasts are present within both the southern and northern Southwest.

Regional differences are strongly correlated with elevational contrasts as one moves through the region because elevation correlates with two other environmental variables: precipitation and the number of frost-free days per year. These place constraints on seasonality, plant and animal productivity, and even the number of crops that may be grown per year. Moving from west to east in the southern Southwest takes one from true deserts (less than 250 mm of rain) at the coast, where foraging and fishing predominated, to the semi-arid Sonoran and then

Chihuahuan deserts further east. Within these zones are major and minor river systems that create rich zones of riparian vegetation and diverse animal species. These river systems provided natural pathways for the movement of people (and plants), as well as tethering past communities to critical water resources. Dramatic elevational differences of the ‘sky island’ mountain ranges present environmental zones ranging from desert scrub at their base to alpine forests at their summit.

Middle to Late Holocene Environmental and Archaeological Change

134

It is clear that understanding the transition from foragers to farmers requires a long-term historical and environmental perspective. Palaeoenvironmental reconstructions for the region point to a general warming trend during the Middle Holocene (or Middle Archaic). This pattern was originally identified by Ernst Antevs (1948) based on correlations with varve dating and which he termed the Altithermal. Specific manifestations of the Altithermal in subareas of the

Southwest have been debated but multiple climate proxies have verified that the period from

5000-2500 bc was hot and dry, and correlated with lower frequencies of El Niño-

Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events (for example, Anderson et al., 2008; Conroy et al., 2009;

Menking and Anderson, 2003). Many water sources disappeared, including lakes and springs.

Throughout the period, an expansion of pinyon pine (Pinus edulis) forests occurred in the northern and upland Southwest at the expense of ponderosa pine (Drake et al., 2012; Hall, 1988), while mesquite (Prosopis spp.) trees became one of dominant trees in the desert scrub environments that developed in the southern Southwest (Van Devender, 1987). By about 2500 bc, there was a shift to a cooler and wetter climate, corresponding with the end of the Middle

Holocene, although the timing varied across the Southwest. Some of the climatic shift is related to a higher frequency of ENSO events, especially by about 2200 bc.

Both pinyon and mesquite were important to Middle and Late Archaic period foragers, but in different parts of the Southwest. They provided reliable, nutritional and storable resources, and likely initiated more tethered settlement patterns for at least part of the year and even new systems of territoriality (see Drake et al., 2012 for a discussion of the northern Southwest).

Across the greater SW/NW, however, each resource would have encouraged different mobility patterns and adaptations, with pinyon growing at higher elevations, and mesquite growing in 135 lower elevations and highly correlated with washes and riparian environments, especially during the Late Archaic (Van Devender, 1987:63). Thus, lower elevation foragers in the southern Southwest exploiting mesquite would have been increasingly concentrated along river valleys while northern and upland foragers would have been more likely to spend time further from river valley settings for at least part of the year (and where game would have been more abundant).

North-south generalizations must be tempered by west to east differences. In contrast to southern

Arizona, for example, Middle to Late Holocene climate brought about changes from a desert scrub to grassland settings in southern New Mexico (for example, Monger, 2003). These differences persist today in the contrast between the Sonoran and Chihuahuan deserts. It should be noted, however, that these are broad characterizations and there are patches within each area, such as the mountainous ‘sky islands,’ coppice dune fields and riparian settings that contribute to complex environmental mosaics within each area.

Archaeological documentation of Middle Holocene Archaic foragers is hampered by large gaps.

The lack of evidence may be because of the high residential mobility practiced by some groups, including movement spurred by high degrees of aridity that affected water resources, as well as primary and secondary plant and animal productivity. Other factors may be taphonomic in that high aridity set the stage for later erosion once mesic conditions resumed. With more recent and areally extensive cultural resource management (CRM) projects, larger numbers of sites have been identified and excavated. These projects have documented Middle Archaic architecture in a diversity of areas of the Southwest (for example, O’Laughlin, 1980; Schmader, 2001), often 136 accompanied by intensive use of mesquite and succulents such as agave. This processing has been especially present in the southern Southwest (for example, Gregory, 1999; Mabry, 2005;

Miller et al., 2012; Phillips et al., 2001). Many of these sites have extensive middens, storage pits and evidence for processing with ground stone and pit ovens. The overall picture is still emerging but there were some areas where more intensive (albeit still seasonal) exploitation was practiced, particularly in the southern Southwest. Also important is the fact that within subareas of the Southwest there was social diversity, based on technological indicators such as projectile points (for example, Bayham and Morris, 1986). Thus, the social landscape should be considered to have been heterogeneous at the time that initial adoption of cultigens occurred.

The Early Agricultural Period: Overview

In comparison to archaeological work on the Middle Archaic, extensive recent excavations have been conducted at Late Archaic/Early Agricultural period sites in the SW/NW region. A majority of these are the result of CRM projects that have exposed deeply buried sites that were otherwise not visible on the landscape. Several general observations come out of recent work in the area.

First, of the several plants that were domesticated in Mesoamerica and adopted in the SW/NW, maize remains the earliest (Table 1). Maize dates have been pushed earlier and earlier in the

SW/NW and as we discuss in more detail below, currently the earliest dates are from the Santa

Cruz River corridor of the Sonoran Desert, at almost 5000 bc (Vint, 2015b; cf. Merrill et al.,

2009:Table S2). Other Mesoamerican cultigens, including pepo squash (Cucurbita sp.), beans

(Phaseolus sp.) and (Capsicum annuum L.), have thus far been dated later in the SW/NW. 137

In New Mexico, pepo squash dates as early as about 500 bc and common bean 2500 bc. In southern Arizona, both have been dated to about 650 bc. In general, then, maize arrives in the

SW/NW region at an early date, well before the two other significant domesticated

Mesoamerican plant foods—beans and squash.

Second, sites with relatively early maize dates are widespread in the SW/NW (Figure 1). Until the most recent early dates from the Santa Cruz corridor (including the site of Las Capas), the occurrences of maize in such diverse settings as south-eastern Arizona, Jornada area of south- west New Mexico (for example, Tornillo Shelter), the Transition Zone (such as, McEuen Cave), the southern Colorado Plateau (for example, Old Corn Site) and northeastern Arizona (such as,

Three Fir Shelter) were considered to be unusual because of their relative synchrony. Now, the earlier dates in the river valleys of the southern US fit the more expected south to north pattern through time, although there is still an unusual and more widespread distribution after 4000 bc.

The earlier dates for the southern valleys of the Sonoran desert fit well with the expectation that the first appearance of corn should be in lower elevation and more well watered settings (for example, Matson, 1991; Mabry and Doolittle, 2008). The new dates from the Santa Cruz corridor on maize from the sites of Las Capas and Los Pozos now point to an even longer period of low- level use in the south before its adoption in other areas. It is likely that earlier dated maize will be found at other sites throughout the region, but for now we take the evidence to indicate that foragers in southern Arizona were among the first in the region to adopt maize and integrate it into their use of riverine resources for what may have been several hundred yearsbefore other areas of the Southwest.

138

Third, even within areas where there are relatively early maize dates (for example, around or before 3000 bc), there were contemporaneous or even later sites without any evidence of maize use. Although some of this diversity could be because of functional differences in sites, someof them are not just short-term camps. Thus, maize did not spread like ‘wildfire’ as one might expect if it provided a key subsistence item, higher ranked than other competing resources, as optimal foraging models predict. The early maize, which arrived in the Southwest and continued to be used for the next 1000 years or more, had relatively small kernels and ears (Huckell, 2009).

Like its progenitors in Mesoamerica, it was relatively unproductive in comparison to later varieties—unless one considers its sugar content and potential for consumption in feasting contexts (see below).

The Early Agricultural Period in the Santa Cruz Corridor of the Sonoran Desert

The Santa Cruz Corridor in the Tucson Basin provides one of the best-documented examples of the Early Agricultural period in the SW/NW and shows how different parts of the ‘Neolithic package’ were sequential rather than simultaneous. Early maize was first documented in the

Tucson Basin in the mid 1980s, with direct radiocarbon dates on carbonized maize remains from the archaeological sites of Tumamoc Hill and Milagro (Figure 2; Fish et al., 1986; Huckell,

1995, 1996). Over the past two decades, the number of known sites in the Tucson Basin with documented early maize has increased to more than 25, in large part due to research projects conducted in advance of highway and other infrastructure development. Most of these sites are located on the floodplain of the Santa Cruz River, which in ancient times had perennial surface flow. Elsewhere in the valley, Early Agricultural sites are located along streams that watered 139 fields with runoff from seasonal storms (‘ak chin’ farming, as is described by Nabhan, 1983,

1986). The site of Las Capas is the most extensively excavated site of this age and provides many of the examples discussed below.

Early maize land races grown in the SW/NW region were flinty popcorn-like varieties. Cobs were small and had anywhere from 8 to 14 rows of cupules (Figure 3). Phytolith analysis of carbonized maize cobs and field sediments recovered from the site of Las Capas sheds some light on the nature of early maize in the region (Figure 4). Morphological attributes of rondel phytoliths extracted from these cobs indicate that they were most similar to flinty popcorn types such as Reventador and Chapalote and some exhibited morphological traits similar to teosinte, the wild progenitor of maize (Scott Cummings et al., 2013); they are completely unlike modern

Zuni and Tohono O’odham flour corn.

The earliest maize in the Santa Cruz Valley from an undisturbed archaeological context dates to

3690 ±40 bp (2200 – 1950 bc) and is from the Clearwater Site (Figure 2, Table 1). Several maize specimens from either disturbed or uncertain contexts date much earlier than this. Direct dates on maize from the site of Las Capas of 4930 ±30 bp, 4640 ±30 bp and 3990 ±30 bp, and a maize specimen from Los Pozos dated to 4050 ±50 bp, suggest that maize was probably grown and used some 1,500 years earlier than what is currently well-established in the Tucson Basin. These ages are intriguing when compared to the early dates on maize from Guilá Naquitz in Mexico of

5420±60 and 5420 ± bp , and recent research in the Rio Balsas Basin of Mexico that has identified phytoliths and starch grains from domesticated maize and squash in contexts as early as 7920 ±40 bp (Piperno et al., 2009; Ranere et al., 2009). Early dates for maize elsewhere in the 140

SW/NW are essentially coeval with those documented in the Tucson Basin, though the dates from Los Pozos and Las Capas certainly suggest potentially earlier arrival here than elsewhere.

Domesticated beans and pepo squash have not been identified in contexts older than about 650 bc in the Tucson Basin; in other words, the ‘Mesoamerican Crop Complex’ of maize, beans and squash apparently did not arrive in the region at the same time. Bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria) and maize phytoliths, however, have been identified in archaeological field sediments that date to around 800 bc (Yost, 2015).

Canals, Technology and Labour Investment

Technological changes that occurred in the Early Agricultural period include investment in canals and agricultural fields—some of which show continued use over centuries (if not millennia). It is most likely that maize was first grown in floodplain environments and other settings with reliable high-water tables and persistent moist soil conditions (Doolittle and Mabry,

2006), which required little labour beyond planting, tending and harvesting crops. As the reliance on (or desire to continue growing) maize became entrenched in the subsistence economy, more elaborate and labour-intensive agricultural technologies were developed. Built agricultural environments include simple dams and weirs that capture water from flowing streams or storm run-off, directing it onto fields. Canal irrigation is the quintessential example of engineered environments and such systems are an investment that requires close social cooperation to maintain and operate (Doolittle, 2014; Mabry, 1996; Widgren and Håkansson, 141

2014). Labour and organizationally intensive agricultural practices, such as canal irrigation, generally develop after agriculture has been integrated fully into an economy.

The earliest known canal in the Tucson Basin is found at the Clearwater Site and dates to about

1500 bc (Mabry, 2006). By 1200 bc, irrigation was practiced at a number of other sites including

Las Capas, Costello-King, the Dairy Site and Stewart Brickyard (Brack, 2013; Ezzo and Deaver,

1998; Mabry, 2008b; Whittlesey et al., 2010). This technology appears some one thousand years after maize was adopted in the region. It is interesting to note that the earliest known canals and water diversion systems in Mesoamerica date to around 1200 bc (Doolittle, 1995), around the same time as in the SW/NW region. Irrigation technology was most likely developed independently in these two areas rather than it being introduced to the SW/NW from the south, based on its relatively sudden appearance (Doolittle, 1995; Doolittle and Mabry, 2006; Mabry,

2008a).

The site of Las Capas revealed an extensive system of canalirrigated fields, which at its apogee

(900 – 800 bc) probably encompassed 15 hectares (Figure 5; Nials, 2015a). Main canals in this system averaged 1.5 m in width and .75 m in depth. Smaller canals branched from these and fed a network of field cells averaging 4 m by 6 m in dimension. The site of La Playa, Sonora, has a similar system of fields (Carpenter et al., 2005; Copeland et al., 2012). It is currently unknown if this field arrangement is typical of Early Agricultural irrigation technology, but it persisted in use for some 400 years at Las Capas, indicative of its efficiency and functionality.

142

Architecture, Storage and Ownership

Irrigated fields were the most prominent capital investment during the Early Agricultural period, and reflect increasing commitment to place, community identity and territoriality. The degree of residential mobility versus sedentism practiced by early farmers remains unresolved, though it is clear that at least a few people lived year-round at these small settlements (Mabry, 2008a;

Whittlesey, 2010). Houses were constructed in shallow pits oval to circular in floor plan, typically two to three metres in maximum dimension. The dome-like superstructure was made of willow, cottonwood or mesquite branches covered with brush thatch. Large bell-shaped pits were constructed adjacent to houses (Figure 6) and features such as roasting pits located a bit further away. Starting around 800 bc, storage pits were constructed within houses, rather than in open public space. The large pits have been argued to indicate production and storage of surplus maize and thus an indicator of year-round settlement (Huckell et al., 2002). Inhumation burials are typically located near houses as well (Watson and Byrd, 2015) and although no true

‘cemeteries’ have been identified, their presence is another indicator of people’s anchoring to place.

Long-term storage of maize and other seed in subterranean pits may well have been practiced, but is a questionable means of banking food surplus. Viability of grain rapidly deteriorates in the anoxic conditions, mould and fungus contamination makes it inedible, and nutritional qualities diminish over time (Ahmed and Alama, 2010; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations, 1983). In floodplain settings, such as at Las Capas and Costello-King, high water tables and generally damp conditions present additional adverse conditions for storage over any length 143 of time. Alternative means of storage such as in or wicker may have been used, but are not visible archaeologically at open-air sites. Pit storage may have been a means of hiding food stores or serve to lessen predation by pests like rodents, but probably would not have been a viable long-term strategy. Successful longterm storage, longer than 30 days, depends on the grain being properly dried, undamaged, and kept in cool and dry conditions (Proctor, 1994).

Seed corn would have had to be stored above ground in basket or hide bag containers.

Subsistence, Health and Demography

Seasonal foraging and hunting contributed the majority of the diet, with maize comprising perhaps 30% of the plant-based diet from about 1250 to 800 bc, after which time it increased in importance. Wild plants and those that thrive in the disturbed soils in and around agricultural fields remained important to the diet, combined with animal protein primarily from rabbits and deer (Diehl, 2005b). Much is made about the complementary nutritional values of maize, beans and squash, in particular the contribution of lysine and tryptophan from beans, which are deficient in maize. As noted above, beans and squash do not enter the repertoire of early farmers until after around 2900 bp. Palaeobotanical analyses have demonstrated the importance of chenopod and amaranth seeds in the diet, both species that grow vigorously in agricultural fields.

Amaranth is of consequence because it is rich in lysine and tryptophan and thus provides those amino acids just as do beans. Maize may not have been used in the diet in significant enough quantity to cause nutritional imbalances, but the incorporation of maize with the wild grains would help provide a nutritionally complete combination of plant foods.

144

Studies of skeletal human remains from Las Capas show little sign of nutritional stress. Most pathologies are lesions from arthritic degeneration, injury and strenuous activity (Watson and

Byrd, 2015). Males in particular show evidence of bone modification caused by long-distance travel, likely associated with hunting excursions and other logistical forays (Watson and Stoll,

2013). A regional analysis of cranial attributes of individuals in burials from multiple communities in the SW/NW region found traits suggestive of male exogamy (Byrd, 2014).

Population movement (and thus gene flow) among communities thus appears to have occurred at the level of individuals in many cases, and is illustrative of cooperation and social ties among near and distant communities.

The practice of agriculture apparently did not result in or develop in response to, population increases in the Tucson Basin or elsewhere throughout the SW/NW until at least ad 500, some

3,000 years after maize was incorporated into local food economies (Kohler and Reese, 2014).

From 1200 bc to 800 bc in the Tucson Basin, hunting pressure seems to be minimal on both large and small game animals, suggesting the local human population remained fairly constant over this time period (Waters et al., 2015). Similarly, plant resource breadth also remains fairly constant, with variation in resource use attributable more to environmental variation than to over- harvesting (Diehl, 2005a, 2015).

Community Organization and Ceremonialism

Changes in community organization accompanied the adoption and intensification of agricultural practice. Consequences of agriculture include increased territoriality, land and water rights, intra- 145 and intercommunity cooperation in labour and resource allocation, and the potential for increased vulnerability to local environmental conditions (Bowles and Choi, 2013; Crawford,

1988; Doolittle, 1991; Hunt, 1988; Hunt et al., 2005; Mabry, 2002; Strang, 2008). The potential for conflict also rises, as the need for protecting (or appropriating) land and resources become relevant to community survival.

In the case of irrigation communities that depended on the Santa Cruz River, negotiating and scheduling water use along the stream was crucial to the success of irrigated farming. Recent research has modelled potential sizes of irrigation systems and the amount of water needed to water the fields (Nials, 2015a; Vint, 2015a). With optimal stream flow conditions, no more than six contemporary farming communities, each with field systems of 10 to 15 hectares, could have been supported along the 25 kilometre stretch of river flowing through the Tucson Basin.

Currently, 10 such communities have been identified on this stretch of the Santa Cruz that date from between 1200 to 800 bc (Mabry, 2008a:Table 12.1). Water use by communities upstream of others would have affected when each could tap the river without reducing stream flow to those downstream. A local chronology built using Bayesian modelling of radiocarbon dates from these sites suggest that no more than four or five may have been coeval at any given time (Vint,

2015a), which suggests that demands on available river water were significant enough to limit how many farming communities could successfully irrigate off of the Santa Cruz River.

Geomorphic evidence also indicates that communities had to relocate or coalesce in response to flood events and periods of stream entrenchment. Floods could severely damage canal intakes and main canals that carried water from the river. Entrenchment would have lowered the stream 146 to depths below ground surface that made directing water into the canal impossible (Nials,

2015a, b). Irrigated farming may have allowed concentrated production of maize and cultivated weedy plants, but at the same time rendered communities vulnerable to local environmental conditions. The social environment may have also been unpredictable and dangerous at times, as suggested by several inhumations of individuals who died violently, and were buried in deviant fashion, found at the site of Las Capas (Watson and Byrd, 2015).

Estimating site and regional populations is difficult if nearly impossible due to insufficient data on site sizes, the numbers of houses and other census proxies. Again, Las Capas provides the best source of information for reconstructing population of the Santa Cruz River valley. Based on modelled labour requirements for canal and field construction, and potential productive maize yield from fields under ideal conditions, the maximum population of Las Capas was between 75 and 120 people at around 800 bc (Vint, 2015a). If the estimate of five or six contemporary irrigation communities being able to operate on the Santa Cruz River is accurate, then the basin- wide population at around 800 cal. bc may have ranged from 375 to 720 people; the lower end of the range is most likely. Estimating population for earlier and later time periods is not possible at this time.

Several classes or categories of artefacts are used to infer aspects of Early Agricultural period ritual practice. These include specialized architecture, fired-clay figurines, pipes, stone trays and the use of red ochre. Performance of ritual took place in both public and private space, and was probably structured by gender (Adams, 2015; Heidke, 2015; Watson and Byrd, 2015).

147

Village structure and architectural styles changed relatively slowly over time, and reflect changes in how and where certain events took place. From around 1250 – 800 bc, settlements are small and comprised of loosely clustered brush houses; no ‘specialized’ forms of architecture were built and public space was shared by all people. Starting around 800 bc, settlement structure becomes more formal, with houses arranged around open space (a ‘plaza’ of sorts) that typically included a large circular structure several times the size of typical habitation. These have been interpreted as communal structures used for ceremonial and political gatherings—indicating the practice of more secretive and controlled decision making by members of household corporate groups of the village (Mabry, 1998).

Perhaps the most visible yet archaeologically unrecognized public ritual space was the expanse of irrigated fields built, re-built and perpetuated by the community; these fields were the essence of the community itself, the source of its identity and sustenance. The practice of planting, tending and harvesting crops was a display of community life, the definition of who the people were. Today, the fields of modern acequía communities in northern New Mexico are the destination of processions from the village church following services dedicated to bringing a successful farming season (Rodríguez, 2006); they are the place where communities come together seasonally to repair canals, share news, resolve conflicts, celebrate life events and look to their future (Crawford, 1988; Eastman et al., 1997). It would be surprising to find this to be any different in significance 3,000 years in the past.

Other ritual performances are reflected in fired-clay figurines and pipes and these, too, appear to be strongly related to agriculture. Figurines may have been part of an Uto-Aztecan animist belief 148 system that perpetuated the tie between farmers and their crops, linking human and nonhuman beings—maize in particular—in a reciprocal path of existence (Heidke, 2015). They were often coated with red ochre, a treatment also done to deceased humans at the time of burial; this treatment may reflect the recognition of human and nonhuman agency among beings in the Early

Agricultural metaphysical world. Maize is typically described as female and associated with female deities, in Uto-Aztecan and Southwest Pueblo narratives (Anschuetz, 2010; Black, 1984;

Ford, 1994; Lumholtz, 1900). Although not distinctly anthropomorphic, the figurines do show bilateral symmetry of features, and, when sex is indicated, appear as female. The treatment of figurines as individuals is very apparent.

Pipes and smoking have been documented ethnographically as important in healing and cleansing ritual, and in ceremony to bring rain (Fewkes, 1894; Parsons, 1939; Stephen, 1936); they are typically associated with males in both social and ritual contexts. It is interesting to note that in the SW/NW archaeological record, pipes are found only during the Early Agricultural period in the southern Southwest; after about ad 50 they become spatially restricted to the

Colorado Plateau region of northern Arizona and the Pueblo region of northern New Mexico

(Adams, 2015).

Figure 7 summarizes the differential timing of additions to the ‘Neolithic package’ at Las Capas.

This case study is in the area with the earliest maize dates, but evidences a long period in which domesticated plants were grown and used in smaller quantities than previous models have suggested. Wild plant foods remained dominant for over 1000 years (or more). Even so, the site shows remarkably well-preserved examples of intensive cultivation by 1200 bc; cultivation of 149 weedy annuals in the fields may have been as important as growing maize. Residents were engaged in constructing canals, agricultural fields, storage pits and houses—a significant investment in place that led to creating different networks of social groups. These groups revolved around residence, water control, religious practices, hunting and continued tending of non-domesticated plants outside of the floodplain. Social diversity is also present in marriage patterns with men more mobile and showing the diversity expected of male exogamy.

The Transmission Process in the SW/NW

The available spatial, temporal, functional and social evidence suggests that maize was not a major part of the diet until much later in the SW/NW sequence than its earliest adoption, practised unevenly throughout the region, and yet had important social and ceremonial roles. The areas with both the earliest and most intensive cultivation were in river valley systems in the southern Southwest, including the Santa Cruz corridor of south-eastern Arizona. Other Early

Agricultural sites in riverine settings include the La Playa site in northern Sonora (Carpenter et al., 2005) and trincheras sites such as Cerro Juanaqueña lying next to rivers in northern

Chihuahua, southern New Mexico and southern Arizona (Hard and Roney, 1998, 2005; Hard et al., 2006) — although the earliest dates for adoption are not as early as in the Santa Cruz corridor. In addition, there is evidence for early maize in the Jornada area, near the Rio Grande

(Tagg, 1996). These river valley systems were in areas with abundant, perennial water sources especially during the ameliorating conditions of the Late Holocene. They were areas of abundance, not scarcity, and include areas where people were already creating productive niches 150 through spatially concentrated activities on hill slopes and valley bottoms in the Middle Archaic period.

Although the plateau, transition zone and mountains of the northern SW/NW show slightly later dates for the first adoption of corn than the Santa Cruz corridor, the locations of sites with cultigens were more variable. Many of the early dates are from cave sites but some are open sites—also in higher water table settings or near springs. Canals appear in several locations by

1000 bc (Damp et al., 2002). Like the southern Southwest, however, maize ubiquity in the northern Southwest was not high until much later. For example, Vierra (2008) shows how maize ubiquity on the Colorado Plateau was low from c. 1000–500 bc, increasing after this period to nearly 40% (and highly variable within the area). The presence of early corn in cave sites, many of which were excavated early in the history of Southwest archaeology, must be taken in the context of how these caves were used. Current interpretations of their use during the Early

Agricultural period have overlooked caves as important for ceremonial activities throughout the

SW/NW sequence.

In the Santa Cruz corridor of south-eastern Arizona wild plant (and animal) resources were more important than corn for nearly 2000 years and perhaps longer. Even while canals and gardens were being constructed to enhance the cultivation for maize, corn did not become a dominant part of the diet until after the Early Agricultural period, corresponding with the use of ceramic containers for storage and cooking after about ad 200 (and now called the Early Ceramic Period).

The earliest ceramic containers were tecomate shapes with size ranges that indicate their use as 151 storage jars (Heidke and Habicht-Mauche, 1998). Diehl and Waters (2006) have argued that it was the use of these ceramic containers that made intensification of maize production and consumption possible in the southern Southwest because storage of corn in pits was extremely risky. Seepage of moisture would have resulted in spoilage and loss of nutrients.

In the northern Southwest, at about the same time, ceramic containers were used for cooking that promoted higher nutritional benefits than provided by stone boiling (Blinman et al., 2017).

Although we agree that ceramics and more intensive consumption of maize go hand and hand, such a long preceramic period suggests that there may have been multiple factors contributing to the continuation of a low level of cultivation and use. In fact, what we think needs to be explained is why maize persisted at all, especially in the very places where there was abundance of wild resources, not scarcity. Large numbers of roasting pits at La Playa in Sonora, for example, have been found in association with a diversity of plants, including maize, especially after 1200 bc (Carpenter et al., 2005, 2008). Such a lag becomes more understandable if we consider maize adoption and use in the Early Agricultural period not just in terms of dietary contributions but also in terms of its taste, social contributions and perhaps associations with

Mesoamerican religious practices.

An alternative explanation for the importance of maize relates to its properties of sweetness and the related offshoot, fermentation. The ‘sugar hypothesis’ for maize (Blake, 2006; Iltis, 2000;

Smalley and Blake, 2003) is based on the high sugar content of the plant’s stalk, apparent selection for a gene tied to sweetness and ethnographic documentation of the production of maize beer in Mesoamerica and northern Mexico. Fermented beverages were and are central to 152 feasts and the cultivation of maize and preparation of beverages would have been important ways to facilitate social interaction (Blake, 2006:69). However, current evidence suggests that fermentation did not increase relative to other food resources until the development of ceramics, at least in the Sonoran desert, and Piperno and her colleagues (2009) have questioned whether maize stalk sweetness persisted.

Nonetheless, maize may have been considered as a special food and been a prominent part of feasting. In addition, it may have retained its association with Mesoamerica and aspects of

Mesoamerican ceremonialism. Raymond and DeBoer (2006) point out how maize was an important ceremonial food among all of the mobile farmers in their South American sample. It provided food during seasonal gatherings, could be prepared in number of ways and may have spread quite quickly even before sedentism. Exactly how maize came into the SW/NW and continued to be cultivated may therefore be importantly related to its social and ceremonial roles.

Debates over the process and routes of adoption have swung between migration (Bellwood,

1997; Berry and Berry, 1986; Hill, 2001) to small-scale interaction and exchange models (for example, Mabry, 2008a; Merrill et al., 2009; Wills, 1988). Added to this is the widespread distribution of Uto-Aztecan language speakers, who ethnographically range from the Great Basin to central Mexico. Followers of the migration hypothesis, such as Bellwood (1997; Hill, 2001) further suggest that language and farmers moved together.

There are several reasons to question the long-distance migration of farmers bringing maize to the SW/NW. First, there were already people living in the well-watered southern valleys where 153 the first maize appears, in fact, at many of the same sites. Second, there is continuity in everyday material practices without the technological changes one might expect with large-scale migration. Third, none of the other domesticates from Mesoamerica came at the same time

(Merrill et al., 2009). And finally, there is continuity in Middle Archaic subsistence practices.

There isn’t evidence for large-scale farming until hundreds and perhaps thousands of years later and no evidence that farmers pushed out foragers from their highly productive niches. Indeed,

Diehl (2005a, 2015) considers early farmers to be ‘farmagers’ who were as reliant on wild plants, if not more so, than maize. Early agriculture was thus more a concentration of production—maize and weedy annuals together—than intensification. Instead, maize is added to the repertoire—a repertoire that has many commonalities with Middle Archaic subsistence practices. Thus, we are inclined to agree with Merrill et al. (2009) that maize agriculture diffused primarily via group-to-group transmission of seeds and knowledge.

The actual route of diffusion has also been debated. Da Fonseca et al. (2015) have recently published genetic comparisons of highland US maize from caves dating to about 2000 bc and conclude that these samples are more similar to highland varieties from Mexico than they are to lowland samples from Mexico. They did not compare any samples from the Santa Cruz corridor, which could be up to 1000 years earlier. Nor is it necessary for there to have been a direct route from highland Mexico to the highlands of the northern SW/NW. In fact, the Sierra Madres end around the current international border. Maize could have diffused east and west, and north and south, once it reached the basin and range country, traveling along river corridors rather than simply through the highlands. Moreover, maize that was adapted to Mesoamerican temperate, montane environments may not have been so quickly and easily transferred to areas in the 154

Southwest’s mountains at elevations over 5000 feet, with their cold winters and short growing seasons. While a mountain origin in Mexico seems to be supported by the genetic analyses, an alternative and currently untested scenario is that maize travelled up the mountains and then where the Sierra Madre ends around the present day US/Mexico border or even further south, that it spread in multiple directions in the basins, reaching SE Arizona by 3050 bc. Only later did maize reach the highland caves in the US that were included in the samples analysed by Da

Fonseca et al. (2015).

Additional evidence for networks of diffusion are suggested by bioarchaeological analyses of

Early Agricultural period individuals suggesting that (1) men married into matrilocal households in the southern Southwest (Byrd, 2014); and (2) men continued to maintain greater foraging distances—even to the extent of having different diets than women (McClelland, 2005; Ogilvie,

2005; Watson and Stoll, 2013). These results point to men as the potential links between communities and as vectors for diffusion. Men would have been more mobile and the diffusion of crops followed their movements. This pattern also helps to explain why there are multiple projectile point forms found at sites in the same region (Sliva, 2015)—and even how people living contemporaneously might have practiced different levels of corn adoption. On the other hand, it is likely that women raised crops and thus information about how to plant was shared among women, perhaps through events that brought families of different backgrounds together.

Again, feasts are one of these events and might have been especially important contexts for the transmission of knowledge about both production and consumption, as well as seeds themselves.

155

Thus, we conclude that the diffusion of maize likely involved group-to-group transmission, probably through marriage networks, may have followed the mountains for part of its route (but not necessarily all) and did not involve a large number of people. It had to cross linguistic groups because maize was adopted in so many areas of the SW/NW during the Early Agricultural period. Keeping in mind that these areas are highly diverse in terms of projectile point styles, technological adaptations, use of maize and other material practices, it seems likely that marriage networks may have been an important way in which maize dispersed. In fact, the causal may go both ways in that aggregations and their associated feasts may have helped to create marriage networks and facilitated the flow of people and plants.

We think that niche construction during the Middle Archaic was one of the most important foundations for establishing networks of transmission of domesticated plants leading to the Early

Agricultural period. Concentration of use in more well watered and productive areas would have focused landscape alteration in particular areas. As conditions improved c. 2550 bc, these were places that would have been even more productive. While ameliorating climate conditions could open up new areas, those living in the highest areas of productivity would have little incentive to give up their positions, even perhaps becoming more entrenched in places where they had an advantage and investment. Las Capas, for example, is where the water table is the highest in the valley and where we have the longest and most robust record of continuous use. These would have been areas of surplus, not scarcity, and with the highest likelihood of developing new modes of territoriality as well as having the resources to host social events, which would have both created and periodically brought together different social groups.

156

These are exactly the conditions in which network theory predicts that diffusion operates especially well. Returning to the different factors that promote diffusion presented earlier, it is important to recognize that maize was unlike most other plants that were cultivated during the Early Agricultural period. Unlike succulents, it was an annual. And unlike many other seed bearing annuals it required much more attention from farmers, for it cannot reproduce without deliberate human action. It was a more complex process of diffusion than simply presenting seeds as gifts. Thus, in terms of the complexity of the innovation, it lies somewhere in the middle of the continuum between very simple and very complex because it entailed the transmission of knowledge about the plant’s behaviour, but not too complex that it required a long period of learning.

Network theories of diffusion favour the more rapid spread of ideas through high status nodes, which leads us to how status might have been established and maintained in Late and Middle

Archaic societies. Likely it varied, but as with later societies in the Southwest, religious practice was probably one of the most prominent ways that political and social power was grounded. If religion was one of the ways in which individuals held higher status and if the consumption of maize became an important part of religious practice, perhaps because of its association with southern or Mesoamerican practices, then this might be one way in which the dispersal of both seeds and knowledge was transmitted.

Centola’s (2015) network model for diffusion demonstrated that the optimal conditions for diffusion are created when positions in one social group are coeval with positions in other 157 groups. While there are a number of specific scenarios that might create multiple, overlapping social groups with status positions, we suggest that high status family members (based on age, oration and other skills) who are also prominent religious leaders or heads of associations that organize hunting or cooperative water control features would be those that would help promote diffusion. By their very position in these multiple groups, these leaders would be more effective nodes in the transmission of information than in a less complex social setting, especially if they promoted more frequent, periodic aggregations.

All of these conditions—multiple overlapping social groups each with status positions and increasing periodicity of interaction—characterize the ways in which we see some Middle

Archaic and Early Agricultural societies operating. At least for some time, people had to be convinced to adopt maize. Skilled practitioners, the culinary and social benefits of maize and overlapping networks in periodically aggregated sites all seem to be factors that converged in the adoption of maize among foragers in particular areas of the SW/NW. The human niche construction began by Middle Archaic foragers in the more abundant low elevation river valleys in the region put them in that middle ground between low and high degrees of social cohesion creating wide social bridges that enhanced the adoption of maize and set foragers in the SW/NW on an extended pathway toward farming that took over 2000 years.

158

Figures

159

Figure 1. Overview of geography/topographic elevation with key sites.

160

Figure 2. Map of Early Agricultural Period Sites in the Santa Cruz River Valley.

161

Figure 3. Examples of early maize from Las Capas.

162

Figure 4. Phytoliths recovered from agricultural field sediments at Las Capas (a, b, maize rondel side and top view; c, bottle gourd Lagenaria siceraria; d, undifferentiated cucurbita; e, freshwater sponge gemmosclere, which is indicative of clean and perennial or near-perrnial flow of the Santa Cruz River; f, modern Tohono O’odham bottle gourd reference).

163

Figure 5. Aerial view of bordered fields and irrigation canals (both outlined with white paint) at the site of Las Capas. 164

Figure 6. Large bell-shaped pits at the site of Las Capas.

165

Figure 7. Summary of Early Agricultural Period changes. 166

Table

167

Table 1. Radiocarbon Ages for maize from selected regional Early Agricultural Period sites in

Figure 1 (Calibrated in OxCal 4.2.3 with the IntCal13 curve; Bronk-Ramsey 20015; Reimer et al.

2013).

Site Conventional Age Calibrated Age Reference and Error, 14C B.C./A.D. (95.4% Years BP probability) Las Capas 4930 ±30 3780 ─ 3650 Vint 2015 Woodrat CC-3 3890 ±40 2480 ─ 2210 Hall 2010 Old Corn 3810 ±50 2460 ─ 2060 Huber 2005 Clearwater 3690 ±40 2200 ─ 1950 Mabry and Doolittle 2004 Three Fir Shelter 3610 ±170 2470 ─ 1540 Smiley 1994 Square Hearth 3505 ±65 2020 ─ 1660 Mabry 1998 Lukachukai 3455 ±45 1900 ─ 1650 Gilpin 1994 Los Pozos 3340 ±60 1860 ─ 1460 Gregory and Baar 1999 Tornillo Shelter 3225 ±240 2140 ─ 900 Upham et al. 1987 Valley Farms 3145 ±50 1520 ─ 1270 Huckell 2000 San Luis de Cabezon 3125 ±45 1500 ─ 1280 Huckell and McBride 1999 Bat Cave 3120 ±70 1600 ─ 1130 Wills 1988 El Taller 3080 ±50 1450 ─ 1210 Wocherl 2007 Cerro Juanaquena 3080 ±40 1440 ─ 1230 Roney and Hard 2002 Woodrat Midden CC-2 3030 ±50 1420 ─ 1120 Hall 2010 Jemez Cave 2990 ±40 1390 ─ 1050 Vierra and Ford 2006 La Playa 2975 ±51 1390 ─ 1020 Carpenter et al. 2008 Fresnal Rockselter 2945 ±55 1380 ─ 990 Tagg 1996 Milagro 2930 ±45 1270 ─ 1000 Huckell et al. 1995 Rillito Fan 2860 ±40 1190 ─ 910 Mabry 2008b Solar Well 2835 ±85 1230 ─ 810 Mabry 2008b Fairbank 2815 ±80 1210 ─ 810 Huckell 1990 Cortaro Fan 2790 ±60 1110 ─ 810 Mabry 2008b Costello-King 2780 ±60 1090 ─ 810 Ezzo and Deaver 1998 West End 2735 ±75 1090 ─ 790 Huckell 1990 LA 18091 2720 ±265 1600 ─ 200 Simmons 1986 Salina Springs 2630 ±45 910 ─ 590 Gilpin 1994 Camp Geronimo 2510 ±60 800 ─ 430 Ruble et al. 2015 Donaldson 2505 ±55 800 ─ 430 Huckell 1995:30 Kin Boko 2500 ±90 800 ─ 400 Smiley 1994 Tumamoc Hill 2470 ±270 1270 B.C. ─ A.D. 60 Fish et al. 1986 Santa Cruz Bend 2440 ±50 760 ─ 400 Mabry 1998 Stone Pipe 2390 ±50 760 ─ 380 Mabry 1998 Sheep Camp Shelter 2290 ±210 890B.C. ─ A.D. 130 Simmons 1986 Los Ojitos 2170 ±170 770 B.C. ─ A.D. 140 Huckell 1995:30 Larder Site 2130 ±40 360 ─ 40 Ahlstrom 2008 Turkey Pen Cave 2050 ±80 360 B.C. ─ A.D. 130 Matson and Chisholm 1991 Tularosa Cave 1940 ±90 180 B.C. ─ A.D. 320 Wills 1988 Chama Alcove 1840 ±50 A.D. 60 ─ A.D. 330 Vierra and Ford 2006 McEuen Cave ca. 1200 cal B.C. Mabry 2005b Kin Kahuna by 400 cal B.C. Geib and Spurr 2000 White Dog Cave by 600 cal B.C. Geib and Spurr 2000 Sand Dune Cave by 600 cal B.C. Geib and Spurr 2000

168

Bibliography

Adams, J. L. 2015. San Pedro phase grinding technology at Las Capas, AZ AA:12:111 (ASM). J. M. Vint (ed.), Implements of Change: Tools, Subsistence, and the Built Environment of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona. Tucson, AZ, Archaeology Southwest, pp. 95–160. (Anthropological Papers, No. 51.)

Ahlstrom, R. (ed.) 2008. Persistent Place: Archaeological Investigations at the Larder and Scorpion Knoll Sites, Clark County Wetlands Park, Nevada. Las Vegas, HRA, Inc. (HRA Papers in Archaeology No. 7.)

Ahmed, E. E. A. and Alama, S. H. A. A. 2010. Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench.) seed quality as affected by type and duration of storage. Agriculture and Biology J. of North America, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1–8.

Anderson, R. S., Jass, R. B., Toney, J. L., Allen, C. D., Cisneros-Dozal, L. M., Hess, M., Heikoop, J. and Fessenden, J. 2008. Development of the mixed conifer forest in Northern New Mexico and its relation to Holocene environmental change. Quaternary Research, Vol. 69, pp. 263–275.

Anschuetz, K. F. 2010 . Women are corn, men are rain: agriculture and movement among the Tewa in North Central New Mexico between A.D. 1250 and 1598. E. J.

Brown, K. Armstrong, D. M. Brugge and C. J. Condie (eds), Threads, Time, and Edification: Papers in Honor of Glenna Dean. Albuquerque, NM, Archaeological Society of New Mexico, pp. 7–20. (Papers of the Archaeological Society of New Mexico No. 36.)

Antevs, E. 1948. Climatic Changes and Pre-White Man.= Bulletin of the University of Utah, Vol. 38, No. 20, pp. 168–191.

Bayham, F. and Morris, D. H. 1986. Episodic use of a marginal environment: a synthesis. F. Bayham, D. H. Morris and S. Shackley, Prehistoric Hunter-gatherers of South Central Arizona: the Picacho Archaic Project. Tempe, Arizona State University, pp. 359–381.

Bellwood, P. 1997. Prehistoric cultural explanations for widespread linguistic families. P. McConvell and N. Evans (eds), Archaeology and Linguistics: Aboriginal in Global Perspective. Melbourne, Oxford University Press, pp. 123–134.

Berry, C. F. and Berry, M. S. 1986. Chronological and conceptual models of the Southwestern Archaic. C. J. Condie and D. D. Fowler (eds), Anthropology of the Desert West: Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jennings. Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press, pp. 253–327. (Anthropological Papers, No. 110.)

Black, M. E. 1984. Maidens and mothers: an analysis of Hopi corn metaphors. Ethnology, Vol. 23, pp. 279–288.

169

Blake, M. 2006. Dating the initial spread of Zea mays. J. Staller, R. Tykot, and B. Benz (eds), Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Prehistory, Linguistics, Biogeography, Domestication, and Evolution of Maize. Amsterdam, Academic Press, pp. 55–72.

Blinman, E., Heidke, J. M. and Miller, M. R. 2017. Southwestern cooking technologies. B. J. Mills and S. Fowles (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Southwest Archaeology. Oxford, University of Oxford Press.

Borck, L., Mills, B. J., Peoples, M. A. and Clark, J. J. 2015. Are social networks survival networks? An example from the Late Prehispanic U.S. Southwest. J. of Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 33–57.

Bowles, S. and Choi, J-K. 2013. Coevolution of farming and private property during the Early Holocene. Proc. Of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 110, No. 22, pp. 8830–8835.

Brack, M. L. (ed.) 2013. A San Pedro Phase Agricultural Field and Early Ceramic Period Occupations in the Middle Santa Cruz Valley, Southern Arizona: Investigations at the Stewart Brickyard and Rillito Loop Sites. Tucson, AZ, Desert Archaeology, Inc. (Technical Report, No. 2005–15.)

Bronk Ramsey, C. 2014. OxCal 4.2.4. http://c14.arch.ox.ac. uk/embed.php?File=oxcal.html, accessed September 2014.

Byrd, R. M. 2014. Phenotypic Variation of Transitional Forager-Farmers in the Sonoran Desert. Am. J. of Phys. Anthropology Vol. 155, pp. 579–580.

Carpenter, J. P., Sánchez, G. and Villalpando, C. M. E. 2005. The Late Archaic/Early Agricultural Period in Sonora, Mexico. B. J. Vierra (ed.), The Late Archaic Across the Borderlands. Austin, University of Texas Press, pp. 13–40.

Carpenter, J., Sánchez, G. and Villalpando, E. 2008. Prehispanic environmental and cultural dynamics on the southern periphery. J. Altschul and A. Rankin (eds), Fragile Patterns: Perspectives on Western Papaguería Archaeology. Tucson, AZ, SRI Press, pp. 287–308.

Centola, D. 2015. The social origin of networks and diffusion. American J. of Sociology, Vol. 120, No. 5, pp. 1295–1338.

Clement, C. R., W. M. Denevan, M. J. Heckenberger, A. B. Junequeira, E. G. Neves, W. G. Teixeira and W. I. Woods. 2015. The domestication of Amazonia before European conquest. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Vol. 282, No. 20150813. http://dx/doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.0813.

Conroy, J. L., Restrepo, A., Overpeck, J. T., Steinitz-Kannan, M., Cole, J. E., Bush, M. B. and Colinvaux, P. A. 2009. Unprecedented recent warming of surface temperatures in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean. Nature Geoscience, Vol. 2, pp. 46–50.

170

Copeland, A., Quade, J., Watson, J. T., McLaurin, B. T. and Villalpando, C. M. E. 2012. Stratigraphy and geochronology of La Playa archaeological aite, Sonora, Mexico. J. of Archaeological Science, Vol. 39, pp. 2934–2944.

Crawford, S. 1988. Mayordomo: Chronicle of an Acequia in Northern New Mexico. Albuquerque, NM, University of New Mexico Press.

Da Fonseca, R. R., Smith, B. D., Wales, N., Cappellini, E., Skoglund, P., Fumagalli, M., Alfredo Samaniego, J., Carøe, C., Ávila-Arcos, M. C., Hufnagel, D. E., Korneliussen, T. S., Vieira, F. G., Jakobsson, M., Arriaza, B., Willerslev, E., Nielson, R., Hufford, M. B., Albrechtsen, A., Ross- Ibarra, J. and Gilbert, M. T. P. 2015. The origin and evolution of maize in the Southwestern United States. Nature Plants, Vol. 1, Article 14003.

Damp, J. E., Hall, S. A. and Smith, S. J. 2002. Early irrigation on the Colorado Plateau near Zuni Pueblo, New Mexico. American Antiquity, Vol. 67, No. 4, pp. 665–676.

Diehl, M. W. 2005a. Early Agricultural Period foraging and horticulture in Southern Arizona: implications from plant remains. M. W. Diehl (ed.), Subsistence and Resource Use Strategies of Early Agricultural Communities in Southern Arizona. Tucson, AZ, Center for Desert Archaeology, pp. 73–90. (Anthropological Papers, No. 34.)

––– 2005b. When corn was not yet king. M. W. Diehl (ed.), Subsistence and Resource Use Strategies of Early Agricultural Communities in Southern Arizona. Tucson, AZ, Center for Desert Archaeology, pp. 1–18. (Anthropological Papers, No. 34.)

––– 2015. Foraging off the gardens: diet breadth and anthropogenic landscape change during the Early Agricultural Period in the Tucson Basin. J. M. Vint (ed.), Implements of Change: Tools, Subsistence, and the Built Environment of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona. Tucson, AZ, Archaeology Southwest, pp. 345–375. (Anthropological Papers, No. 51.)

Diehl, M. W. and Waters, J. A. 2006. Aspects of optimization and risk during the Early Agricultural Period in southeastern Arizona. D. Kennett and B. Winterhalder (eds), Behavioral Ecology and the Transition to Agriculture. Berkeley, CA, University of California Press, pp. 63– 86.

Doolittle, W. E. 1991. A finger on the Hohokam pulse. C. D. Breternitz (ed.), Prehistoric Irrigation in Arizona: Symposium 1988. Tempe, AZ, Soil Systems, Inc., pp. 139–154. (Soil Systems Publications in Archaeology, No. 17.)

–––1995. Indigenous development of Mesoamerican irrigation. Geographical Review, Vol. 85, No. 3, pp. 301–323.

–––2014. Economics and the process of making farmland. N. T. Håkansson and M. Widgren (eds), Landesque Capital: The Historical Ecology of Enduring Landscape Modifications. Walnut Creek, CA, Left Coast Press, Inc., pp. 31–48. 171

Doolittle, W. E. and Mabry, J. B. 2006. Environmental mosaics, agricultural diversity, and the evolutionary adoption of maize in the American Southwest. J. E. Staller, R. H. Tykot and B. F. Benz (eds), Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Prehistory, Linguistics, Biogeography, Domestication, and Evolution of Maize. Amsterdam, Academic Press, pp. 109– 121.

Drake, B. L., Wills, W. J. and Erhardt, E. B. 2012. The 5.1 ka aridization event, expansion of piñon-juniper woodlands, and the introduction of maize (Zea mays) in the American Southwest. The Holocene, Vol. 22, pp.1353–1360.

Eastman, C., King, J. P., and Meadows, N. A. 1997. Acequias, small farms, and the good life. Culture and Agriculture, Vol. 19, Nos 1 and 2, pp. 14–23.

Ezzo, J. A. and Deaver, W. L. 1998. Watering the Desert: Late Archaic Farming at the Costello- King Site. Tucson, AZ, Statistical Research, Inc. (Technical Series, 68.)

Fewkes, J. W. 1894. The snake ceremonies at Walpi. J. of American Ethnology and Archaeology, Vol. 4.

Fish, P. R., Fish, S. K., Long, A. and Miksicek, C. 1986. Early corn remains from Tumamoc Hill, Southern Arizona. American Antiquity, Vol. 51, No. 3, pp. 563–572.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 1983. Post-harvest Losses in Quality of Food Grains. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (FAO Food and Nutrition Paper, 29.)

Ford, R. I. 1994. Corn is our mother. S. Johannessen and C. A. Hastorf (eds), Corn and Culture in the Prehistoric New World. Boulder, CO, Westview Press, pp. 513–525.

Geib, P. R. and K. Spurr. 2000. The Basket Maker II– III transition on the Colorado Plateau. P. F. Reed (ed.), Foundations of Anasazi Culture: the Basketmaker-Pueblo Transition. Salt Lake City, UT, University of Utah Press, pp. 175–200.

Gilpin, D. 1994. Lukachukai and Salina Springs: Late Archaic/Early Basketmaker habitation sites in the Chinle Valley. Kiva,Vol. 60, No. 2, pp. 203–218.

Gregory, D. A. 1999. Excavations in the Santa Cruz River Floodplain: The Middle Archaic Component at Los Pozos. Tucson, AZ, Center for Desert Archaeology. (Anthropological Papers, No. 20).

Gregory, D. A. and Baar IV, S. W. 1999. Stratigraphy, chronology, and characteristics of the natural and cultural deposits. D. A. Gregory (ed.), Excavations in the Santa Cruz River Floodplain: The Middle Archaic Component at Los Pozos. Tucson, AZ, Center for Desert Archaeology, pp. 13–31. (Anthropological Papers, No. 20).

172

Hall, S. A. 1988. Prehistoric vegetation and environment at Chaco Canyon. American Antiquity Vol. 53, pp. 582–592.

–––. 2010. Early maize from Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, USA. Palynology, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 125–137.

Hard, R. J. and Roney, J. R. 1998. A massive terraced village complex in Chihuahua, Mexico, dated to 3000 years before present. Science, Vol. 279, pp. 1661–1664.

–––.2005. The transition to farming on the Río Casas Grandes and in the Southern Jornada Mogollon region. B. J. Vierra (ed.), The Late Archaic across the Borderlands: From Foraging to Farming. Austin, University of Texas Press, pp. 141–186.

Hard, R. J., MacWilliams, A. C., Roney, J. R., Adams K. R., and Merrill, W. L. 2006. Early agriculture in Chihuahua, Mexico. J. Staller, R. Tykot, and B. Benz (eds), Histories of Maize. Amsterdam, Academic Press, pp. 471–486.

Heidke, J. M. 2015. San Pedro and Early Cienega Phase clay objects and Hohokam pottery from Las Capas: dating, technology, use, and discard. J. M. Vint (ed.), Implements of Change: Tools, Subsistence, and the Built Environment of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural Community in Southern Arizona. Tucson, AZ, Archaeology Southwest, pp. 161– 226. (Anthropological Papers, No. 51.)

Heidke, J. M. and J. A. Habicht-Mauche 1998. The first occurrences and early distribution of pottery in the North American Southwest. Revista de Arqueología Americana, Vol. 14, pp. 65– 99.

Hill, J. H. 2001. Proto-Uto-Aztecan: a community of cultivators in Central Mexico? American Anthropologist, Vol. 103, pp. 913–934.

Huber, E. K. 2005. Early maize at the Old Corn Site (LA 137258). E. K. Huber and C. R. Van West (eds), Fence Lake Project. Volume 4: Synthetic Studies and Summary. Tempe, AZ, Statistical Research, Inc., pp. 36.1–36.34. (Technical Series, No. 84.)

Huckell, B. B. 1990. Late Preceramic Farmer-Foragers in Southeastern Arizona: A Cultural and Ecological Consideration of the Spread of Agriculture into the Arid Southwestern United States. Tucson, AZ, University of Arizona. (Ph.D. Dissertation, Arid Lands Resource Sciences).

–––. 1995. Of Marshes and Maize: Preceramic Agricultural Settlements in the Cienega Valley, Southeastern Arizona. Tucson, AZ, University of Arizona Press. (Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona, No. 59.)

–––.1996. The Archaic prehistory of the North American Southwest. J. of World Prehistory Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 305–373.

173

Huckell, B. B., Huckell, L. W. and Benedict, K. K. 2002. Maize agriculture and the rise of mixed foraging-farming economies. S. H. Schlanger (ed.), Traditions, Transitions, and Technologies: Themes in Southwestern Archaeology. Boulder, CO, University of Colorado Press, pp. 137–159.

Huckell, B. B., Huckell, L. and Fish, S. K. 1995. Investigations at Milagro, a Late Preceramic Site in the Eastern Tucson Basin. Tucson, AZ, Center for Desert Archaeology. (Technical Report, 94–5).

Huckell, L. W. 2000. Early Agricultural Period . K. D. Wellman (ed.), Farming Through the Ages: 3400 Years of Agriculture at the Valley Farms Site in the Northern Tucson Basin. Tucson, AZ, SWCA, Inc., pp. 227–274. (Cultural Resource Report, No. 98–226.)

–––. 2009. Ancient maize in the American Southwest: what does it look like and what can it tell us? J. E. Staller, R. H. Tykot and B. F. Benz (eds), Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Prehistory, Linguistics, Biogeography, Domestication, and Evolution of Maize. Walnut Creek, CA, Left Coast Press, Inc., pp. 97–107.

Huckell, L. W. and McBride, P. J. 1999. Paleoethnobotany. K. L. Brown (comp.), Data Recovery along the 1995 MAPCO Four Corners Pipeline: Sites in the San Juan Basin/Colorado Plateau, Sandoval, San Juan, and McKinley Counties, New Mexico, Volume 2. Albuquerque, NM, University of New Mexico, pp. 155–210.

Hunt, R. C. 1988. Size and the structure of authority in canal irrigation systems. J. of Anthropological Research, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 335–355.

Hunt, R. C., Guillet, D., Abbott, D. R., Bayman, J., Fish, P. R., Fish, S. K., Kintigh, K. W., and Neely, J. A. 2005. Plausible ethnographic analogies for the social organization of Hohokam canal irrigation. American Antiquity, Vol. 70, No. 3, pp. 433–456.

Iltis, H. H. 2000. Homeotic sexual translocations and the origin of maize (Zea mays, Poaceae): a new look at an old problem. Economic Botany, Vol. 54, pp. 7–42.

Jablonka, E. 2011. The entangled (and constructed) human bank. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, Vol. 366, p. 784.

Kendal, J., Tehrani, J. J. and Odling-Smee, J. 2011. Human niche construction in interdisciplinary focus. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, Vol. 366, pp. 785– 792.

Kohler, T. A. and Reese, K. M. 2014. Long and spatially variable Neolithic demographic transition in the North American Southwest. Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 111, No. 28, pp. 10101–10106.

Laland, K. N. and M. J. O’Brien. 2011. Cultural niche construction: an introduction. Biological Theory, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 191–202.

174

Lumholtz, C. 1900. Symbolism of the Huichol Indians. Collected Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History, Vol. 3, Part I. New York, American Museum of Natural History.

Mabry, J. B. 2002. The role of irrigation in the transition to agriculture and sedentism: a risk management model. S. H. Schlanger (ed.), Traditions, Transitions, and Technologies: Themes in Southwestern Archaeology. Boulder, CO, University of Colorado Press. pp. 178–199.

–––. 2005. Changing knowledge and ideas about the first farmers in Southeastern Arizona. B. J. Vierra (ed.), The Late Archaic Across the Borderlands: From Foraging to Farming. Austin, TX, University of Texas Press, pp. 41–83.

–––. 2006. Radiocarbon dating of the early occupations. J. H. Thiel and J. B. Mabry (eds), Rio Nuevo Archaeology, 2000–2003: Investigations at the San Augustín Mission and Mission Gardens, Tucson Presido, Tucson Pressed Brickyard, and Clearwater Site. Tucson, AZ, Desert Archaeology, Inc. (Technical Report, No. 2004–11 http:// www.archaeologysouthwest.org/pdf/rn/rio_nuevo_ch19.pdf).

–––. 2008a. Irrigation, short-term sedentism, and corporate organization during the San Pedro Phase. J. B. Mabry (ed.), Las Capas: Early Irrigation and Sedentism in a Southwestern Floodplain. Tucson, AZ, Center for Desert Archaeology, pp. 279–293. (Anthropological Papers, No. 28.)

–––. (ed.) 1996. Canals and Communities: Small Scale Irrigation Systems. Tucson, University of Arizona Press.

–––. (ed.) 1998. Archaeological Investigations of Early Village Sites in the Middle Santa Cruz Valley: Analyses and Synthesis, Part II. Tucson, AZ, Center for Desert Archaeology. (Anthropological Papers, No. 19).

–––. (ed.) 2008b. Las Capas: Early Irrigation and Sedentism in a Southwestern Floodplain. Tucson, Center for Desert Archaeology. (Anthropological Papers, No. 28).

Mabry, J. B. and Doolittle, W. E. 2008. Modeling the Early Agricultural frontier in the desert borderlands. L. D. Webster and M. McBrinn (eds), Archaeology Without Borders: Contact, Commerce, and Change in the U.S. Southwest and Northwestern Mexico. Boulder, CO, University Press of Colorado, pp. 55–70.

Matson, R. G. 1991. The Origins of Southwestern Agriculture. Tucson, AZ, University of Arizona Press.

Matson, R. G. and Chisholm, B. 1991. Basketmaker II subsistence: carbon isotopes and other dietary indicators from Cedar Mesa, Utah. American Antiquity, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 444–459.

McClelland, J. C. 2005. Bioarchaeological analysis of Early Agricultural Period skeletal remains from Arizona. M. W. Diehl (ed.), Subsistence and Resource Use Strategies of Early Agricultural 175

Communities in Southern Arizona. Tucson, AZ, Center for Desert Archaeology, pp. 53–68. (Anthropological Papers, No. 34.)

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L. and Cook, J. L. 2001. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 27, pp. 415–444.

Menking, Kirsten M. and Roger Y. Anderson. 2003. Contributions of La Niña and El Niño to Middle Holocene drought and Late Holocene moisture in the American Southwest. Geology, Vol. 31, No. 11, pp. 937–940.

Merrill, W. L., Hard, R. J., Mabry, J. B., Fritz, G. J., Adams, K. R., Roney, J. R. and MacWilliams, A. C. 2009. The diffusion of maize to the Southwestern United States and its impact. Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol.106, No. 50, pp. 21019–21026.

Miller, M. R., Graves, T. and Landreth, M. 2012. Further Investigations of Burned Rock Middens and Associated Settlements: Mitigation of Three Sites for the IBCT, Fort Bliss, Otero County, New Mexico. Fort Bliss, TX, Directorate of Public Works, Environmental Division, Fort Bliss Garrison Command. (Fort Bliss Cultural Resources Report, No. 10–21).

Mills, B. J. and Peeples, M. A. 2017. Reframing diffusion through social network theory. K. G. Harry and B. Roth (eds), Interaction and Connectivity in the Greater Southwest. Boulder, CO, University Press of Colorado (in press).

Monger, H. C. 2003. Millennial-scale climate variability and ecosystem response in the at the Jornada LTER site. D. Greenland, D. G. Goodin and R. C. Smith (eds), Climate Variability and Ecosystem Response at Long-term Ecological Research Sites. New York, Oxford University Press, pp. 341–369.

Nabhan, G. P. 1983. Papago Fields: Arid Lands Ethnobotany and Agricultural Ecology. Tucson, AZ, University of Arizona. (Ph.D. Dissertation).

1986. Ak-chin “arroyo mouth” and the environmental setting of the Papago fields in the Sonoran Desert. Applied Geography, Vol. 6, pp. 61–75.

Nials, F. L. 2015a. Life on the floodplain: the promise and perils of prehistoric irrigation agriculture at Las Capas. J. M. Vint (ed.), Implements of Change: Tools, Subsistence, and the Built Environment of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona. Tucson, AZ, Archaeology Southwest, pp. 419–468. (Anthropological Papers, No. 51.)

2015b. The stratigraphy and agricultural setting of Las Capas. In The Anthropogenic Landscape of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona. J. M. Vint and F. L. Nials (eds). Tucson, AZ, Archaeology Southwest, pp. 43–70. (Anthropological Papers, No. 50).

Odling-Smee, F. J., Laland, K. N., and Feldman, M. W. 2003. Niche Construction: The Neglected Process in Evolution. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press. 176

Ogilvie, M. D. 2005. A biological reconstruction of mobility patterns in Late Archaic populations. B. J. Vierra (ed.), The Late Archaic across the Borderlands: From Foraging to Farming. Austin, AZ, University of Texas Press, pp. 84–112.

O’Laughlin, T. C. 1980. The Keystone Dam Site and Other Archaic and Formative Sites in Northwest El Paso, Texas. El Paso, TX, University of Texas at El Paso. (Publications in Anthropology, No. 8).

Parsons, E. C. 1939. Pueblo Indian Religion. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Phillips, B. G., Berg, G. E., Aguila, L. and Macnider, B. S. 2001. Data Recovery at AZ U:5:33 (ASM) within the Pima Freeway Corridor Phoenix, Maricopa County, Arizona. Tempe, AZ, Archaeological Consulting Services, Ltd. (Cultural Resources Report, No. 116).

Piperno, D. R., Ranere, A. J., Holst, I., Iriarte, J. and Dickau, R. 2009. Starch grain and phytolith evidence for early ninth millennium B.P. maize from the Central Balsas River Valley, Mexico. Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 106, No. 13, pp. 5019–5025.

Proctor, D. L. 1994. Grain Storage Techniques: Evolution and Trends in Developing Countries. Rome, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. (Food and Agricultural Services Bulletin, Vol. 109).

Ranere, A. J., Piperno, D. R., Holst, I., Dickau, R. and Iriarte, J. 2009. The cultural and chronological context of Early Holocene maize and squash domestication in the Central Balsas River Valley, Mexico. Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 106, No. 13, pp. 5014– 5018.

Raymond, J. S. and DeBoer, W. R. 2006. Maize on the move. J. E. Staller, R. H. Tykot and B. F. Benz (eds), Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Prehistory, Linguistics, Biogeography, Domestication, and Evolution of Maize. Walnut Creek, CA, Left Coast Press, Inc., pp. 337–342.

Reimer, P. J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J. W., Blackwell, P. G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Buck, C. E., Cheng, H., Edwards, R. L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P. M., Guilderson, T. P., Haflidason, H., Hajdas, I., Hatté, C., Heaton, T. J., Hoffmann, D. L., Hogg, A. G., Hughen, K. A., Kaiser, K. F., Kromer, B., Manning, S. W., Niu, M., Reimer, R. W., Richards, D. A., Scott, E. M., Southon, J. R., Staff, R. A., Turney, C. S. M. and van der Plicht, J. 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal bp. Radiocarbon, Vol. 55, No. 4, pp. 1869–1887.

Rodríguez, S. 2006. Acequia: Water Sharing, Sanctity, and Place. Santa Fe, NM, School for Advanced Research Press. Rogers, E. M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations (fifth edn). New York, The Free Press.

177

Roney, J. R. and Hard, R. J. 2002. Transitions to agriculture: an introduction. S. H. Schlanger (ed.), Traditions, Transitions, and Technologies. Boulder, CO, University Press of Colorado, pp. 129–136.

Roth, Barbara J. 1992. Sedentary agriculturalists or mobile hunter-gatherers? Recent evidence on the Late Archaic occupation of the northern Tucson Basin. Kiva, Vol. 57, No. 4, pp. 291–314.

Ruble, E. C., Whitney, C. R., and Herr, S. A. 2015. Camp Geronimo, AZ O:12:75/AR–03–12– 04–1417 (ASM/TNF). S. A. Herr (ed.), Their Own Road: Archaeological Investigations along State Route 260 – Payson to Heber: Kohls Ranch Section. Tucson, AZ, Desert Archaeology, Inc., pp. 21–82. (draft). (Technical Report, No. 2006–03).

Ryan, B. and Gross, N. C. 1943. The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities. Rural Sociology, Vol. 8, pp. 15–24.

Schmader, M. 2001. Gimme shelter: uncovering Archaic structures in Rio Rancho and Santa Fe, New Mexico. Poster presented at the 66th Annual Meetings of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans.

Scott Cummings, L., Ladwig, J. L. and Yost, C. L. 2013. Phytolith Analysis of Maize Cob Fragments from Las Capas (AZ AA:12:111), Tucson, Arizona. Golden, CO, PaleoResearch Institute. (PaleoResearch Institute Technical Report, 13–027.)

Shennan, Stephen, 2011. Property and wealth inequality as cultural niche construction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, Vol. 366, pp. 918–926.

Simmons, A. H. 1986. New evidence for the early use of cultigens in the American Southwest. American Antiquity, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 73–89.

Sliva, R. J. 2015. Early Agricultural Period Projectile Points: Typology, Migration, and Social Dynamics from the Sonoran Desert to the Colorado Plateau. Tucson, AZ, Archaeology Southwest.

Smalley, J. and Blake, M. 2003. Sweet beginnings: stalk sugar and the domestication of maize. Current Anthropology, Vol. 44, pp. 675–703.

Smiley, F. E. 1994. The agricultural transition in the northern Southwest. Kiva, Vol. 60, No. 2, pp. 165–190.

Smith, B. D., 2007. Niche construction and the behavioral context of plant and animal domestication. Evolutionary Anthropology, Vol. 16, pp.188–199.

–––. 2011. The cultural context of plant domestication in Eastern North America. In The Origins of Agriculture: New Data, New Ideas. O. Bar-Yosef and T. D. Price (eds). Current Anthropology Vol. 52, Special Supplement 4, pp. 471–484.

178

–––. 2015. A comparison of niche construction theory and diet breadth models as explanatory frameworks for the initial domestication of plants and animals. J. of Archaeological Research, Vol. 23, pp. 215–262.

Snir, A., Nadel, D., Groman-Yaroslavski, I., Melamed, Y., Sternberg, M., Bar-Yosef, O. and Weiss, E. 2015. The origin of cultivation and protoweeds, long before Neolithic farming. PLoS ONE Vol. 10, No. 7: e0131422. doi:0131410.0131371/journal.pone.0131422.

Stephen, A. M. 1936. Hopi Journal of Alexander M. Stephen. New York, Columbia University Press. (Contributions to Anthropology No. XXIII).

Strang, V. 2008. The social construction of water. In Handbook of Landscape Archaeology. B. David and J. Thomas (eds). Walnut Creek, CA, Left Coast Press, Inc., pp. 123–130.

Tagg, M. D. 1996. Early cultigens from Fresnal Shelter, Southeastern New Mexico. American Antiquity, Vol. 61, No. 2, pp. 311–324.

Terrell, J. E., Hart, J. P., Barut, S., Celinese, N., Curet, A., Denham, T., Kusimba, C. M., Latinis, K., Oka, R., Palka, J., Pohl, M. E. D., Pope, K. O., Williams, P. R., Haines, H. and Staller, J. E. 2003. Domesticated landscapes: the subsistence ecology of plant and animal domestication. J. of Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 10, pp. 323–368.

Upham, S., MacNeish, R. S., Galinat, W., and Stevenson, C. M. 1987. Evidence concerning the origin of maiz de ocho. American Anthropologist, Vol. 89, pp. 410–419.

Valente, T. W. 1998. Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations. Social Networks, Vol. 19, pp. 60–89.

2005. Network models and methods for studying the diffusion of innovations. P. J. Carrington, J. Scott and S. Wasserman (eds), Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis. New York, Cambridge University Press, pp. 98–116.

Valente, T. W. and R. Myers. 2010. The messenger is the medium: communication and diffusion principles in the process of behaviour change. Estudios sobre las Culturas Contemporáneas, Época II, Vol. 16, No. 31, pp. 249–276.

Van Devender, T. R. 1987. Holocene vegetation and climate in the Puerto Blanco Mountains, southwestern Arizona. Quaternary Research, Vol. 27, pp. 51–72.

Vierra, B. 2008. Early agriculture on the southeastern periphery of the Colorado Plateau. L. Webster and M. McBrinn (eds), Archaeology without Borders: Contact. Commerce, and Change in the U.S. Southwest and Northwestern Mexico. Boulder, CO, University Press of Colorado, pp. 71–88.

179

Vierra, B. J. and Ford, R. I. 2006. Early maize agriculture in the Northern Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico. J. Staller, R. Tykot and B. Benz (eds), Histories of Maize. Amsterdam, Academic Press, pp. 497–510.

Vint, J. M. 2015a. Anthropogenic landscapes and the built environment of Las Capas, AZ AA:12:111 (ASM). J. M. Vint (ed.), Implements of Change: Tools, Subsistence, and the Built Environment of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona. Tucson, AZ, Archaeology Southwest, pp. 469–499. (Anthropological Papers, No. 51.)

Vint, J. M. (ed.). 2015b. Implements of Change: Tools, Subsistence, and the Built Environment of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona. Tucson, AZ, Archaeology Southwest. (Anthropological Papers, No. 51).

Vint, J. M. and Nials, F. L. (eds). 2015. The Anthropogenic Landscape of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona. Tucson, AZ, Archaeology Southwest. (Anthropological Papers, No. 50).

Waters, J. A., Reyes, S. M. and Wolff, S. E. 2015. Vertebrate faunal remains recovered from Las Capas, AZ AA:12:111 (ASM). J. M. Vint (ed.), Implements of Change: Tools, Subsistence, and the Built Environment of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona. Tucson, AZ, Archaeology Southwest, pp. 261–303. (Anthropological Papers, No. 51).

Watson, J. T. and Byrd, R. M. 2015. A bioarchaeological perspective on change and continuity in an Early Agricultural community. J. M. Vint (ed.), Implements of Change: Tools, Subsistence, and the Built Environment of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona. Tucson, AZ, Archaeology Southwest, pp. 377–388. (Anthropological Papers, No. 51.)

Watson, J. T. and Stoll, M. 2013. Gendered logistic mobility among the earliest farmers in the Sonoran Desert. Latin American Antiquity, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 433–450.

Watts, D. J. 2002. A simple model of global cascades on random networks. Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 99, No. 9, pp. 5766–71.

Watts, D. J. and Dodds, P. S. 2007. Influentials, networks, and public opinion formation. J. of Consumer Research, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 441–458.

Whittlesey, S. M. 2010. Sedentism, settlement pattern, and seasonality: thoughts on recurrent sedentism and the= making of place. In Recurrent Sedentism and the Making of Place: Archaeological Investigations at Las Capas, a Preceramic Period Farming Community in the Tucson Basin, Southern Arizona. S. M. Whittlesey, S. J. Hesse, and M. S. Foster (eds). Tucson, AZ, SWCA, Environmental Consultants, pp. 511–522. (SWCA Cultural Resources Report No. 07–556).

Whittlesey, S. M., Hesse, S. J., Lascaux, A. and Lyon, J. D. 2010. Water control and farming at Las Capas. S. M. Whittlesey, S. J. Hesse, and M. S. Foster (eds), Recurrent Sedentism and the 180

Making of Place: Archaeological Investigations at Las Capas, a Preceramic Period Farming Community in the Tucson Basin, Southern Arizona. Tucson, AZ, SWCA, Environmental Consultants, pp. 407–438. (SWCA Cultural Resources Report, No. 07–556).

Widgren, M. and Håkansson, N. T. (eds). 2014. Landesque Capital: The Historical Ecology of Enduring LandscapeModifications. Walnut Creek, CA, Left Coast Press, Inc.

Wills, W. H. 1988. Early Prehistoric Agriculture in the American Southwest. Santa Fe, NM, SAR Press.

Wöcherl, H. 2007. Chronology and sequence of occupation. H. Wöcherl (ed.), Archaeological Investigations at the El Taller, AZ AA:12:92 (ASM), and Rillito Fan, AZ AA:12:788 (ASM), Sites Along Eastbound I–10 between Sunset and Ruthrauff Roads, Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. Tucson, AZ, Center for Desert Archaeology, pp. 83–86. (Technical Report, No. 2003– 08).

Yost, C. L. 2015. Phytolith analysis of Early Agricultural Period field sediments at Las Capas, AZ AA:12:111 (ASM). J. M. Vint and F. L. Nials (eds), The Anthropogenic Landscape of Las Capas, and Early Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona. Tucson, Archaeology Southwest, pp. 169–192. (Anthropological Papers, No. 50). 181

APPENDIX C

Tempo and Mode of Early Agricultural Period Settlements on the Santa Cruz River Floodplain, Southern Arizona

James M. Vint and Fred L. Nials

For submittal to American Antiquity

182

The Early Agricultural period (EAP) in the American Southwest and northwest Mexico begins at around 2100 cal BC, when a small-eared variety of popcorn introduced from present- day Mexico was first cultivated in the river valleys of this semi-arid region and incorporated into the broad-spectrum food economy as a regular though not dominant part of the diet (Diehl

2005a; Huckell et al. 2002; Huckell 2009; Matson 1991; Roth and McBrinn 2015). By 1500 cal

BC, canal irrigation was developed and in use in the Tucson Basin of southern Arizona on the

Santa Cruz River floodplain (Mabry 2006). In northern Sonora, Mexico, an extensive canal system was in use at the site of La Playa by 1200 cal BC (Carpenter et al. 2015; Copeland et al.

2012), and by about 1000 cal BC canals were in use near Zuni Pueblo on the Colorado Plateau in northwestern New Mexico (Damp et al. 2002). The more than 2000 years spanned by the EAP comprise the prelude to the Neolithic Demographic Transition in North America (Kohler and

Reese 2014), and the long but inexorable development of maize agriculture that is synonymous with Indigenous culture and identity. Agriculture did not lead directly to significant population increase until perhaps cal AD 500, after beans and squash had been added to the suite of domesticated cultigen, and fired-clay pottery allowed for high temperature and extended cooking of foods that enhanced their nutritive value. What did accompany the practice of early agriculture was the increased tethering of people to place, and a shift from a mobile hunting and foraging lifestyle to increasingly sedentary settlement tied to agricultural land (Huckell et al.

2002; Roth 1992, 2015; Roth and Freeman 2008).

This paper presents a study of EAP settlement in the Tucson Basin in southern Arizona that addresses the continuity and persistence of farming communities in the face of changing environmental and social conditions. Farming communities along the river were vulnerable to changes in river regime and events such as flooding and erosion. In addition to these physical 183 parameters, farmers are also constrained by neighboring settlements and access to arable land.

Chronological analysis of radiocarbon ages from 12 sites along the Santa Cruz River (Figure 1) is used to examine the temporal pattern of settlement ages—when they came into and out of use—and consider observed variation in relation to geomorphic conditions of the floodplain that affected (positively or negatively) agricultural potential. We use the site of Las Capas as an example of how farmers adjusted to changes in river condition, as well as one of a long-term stable farming locality over a period of more than 800 years. The time-depth of occupation and engineered agricultural landscape at this site demonstrate the commitment of early farmers to the land at a multi-generational scale. Control of land and water, the management of cultivated floodplain, and construction of canal-irrigated field systems, are suggested to be the initial processes of agricultural intensification during the EAP, rather than the goal of surplus production.

In the three decades since early maize was identified in the Tucson Basin, more than two dozen EAP sites have been investigated, and over 200 radiocarbon ages obtained on carbonized maize, in addition to scores more on other annual plants and wood charcoal. This wealth of information has resulted in perhaps one of the most robust chronometric data sets in the

Southwest for a given locality. As currently defined, the EAP consists of four phases that span the period of 2100 cal BC to cal AD 50 (Table 1). This chronology has been refined several times since the EAP was proposed in the 1980s (Huckell 1996), as new dates and analyses of material culture have been obtained. These phases present monolithic blocks of time that span

400 years or more each, a long period over which many events took place that were not necessarily contemporaneous or continuous. Changes through time in settlement location in response to variation in either river regime or the social landscape are not readily visible at the 184 phase level, and comparison of simple calibrated dates can provide only a broad relative measure of temporal variation in settlement. The large data set of EAP radiocarbon ages from multiple sites in the Tucson Basin presents an opportunity to address questions about temporal variation within these phases using Bayesian modeling, which can provide finer-grained age ranges than using calibrated ages alone (Bayliss 2009; Bronk Ramsey 2009a; Buck 2004; Whittle et al.

2008).

In the following sections the physical and social environments of the Tucson Basin are discussed, followed by a chronological analysis that demonstrates temporal variation among the sites in question. First, the environmental context of the Santa Cruz River is presented to establish potential limiting and favorable conditions for agriculture. Variation within and between stream reaches is discussed that suggests why there may be variation in where settlements are located along the river in response to immediate conditions. The social environment is then placed within the framework of Niche Construction Theory (NCT), with emphasis on cultural aspects of niche construction.

Two chronological models are then presented that demonstrate the fluidity of settlements along the Santa Cruz River in both location and tempo of use. Limitations and alternative approaches to this analysis are then discussed. The use of Bayesian modeling is shown to improve the temporal resolution of EAP chronology within archaeological phases, which otherwise appear as static blocks of time, thereby allowing relatively short-term processes to be observed. All radiocarbon analyses were conducted using OxCal 4.2.4, and use the IntCal13 calibration curve (Bronk Ramsey 2009a, 2014; Reimer et al. 2013); all calibrated and modelled ages are presented at 95.4 percent probability. The OxCal models and radiocarbon ages are provided in accompanying supplemental data tables. 185

The Tucson Basin and Santa Cruz River

The Tucson Basin is located in the Sonoran Desert of south-central Arizona (Figure 1), at an elevation of about 700 m (2300 ft). The basin is bounded by four mountain ranges having maximum elevations from about 1240 m to 2740 m (4000–9000 ft). These sky islands support biomes that range from Upper Sonoran Desert Scrub, oak woodlands, to conifer forests—all within a hard day’s hike from foothills to summit (Turner and Brown 1994). Annual rainfall within the basin averages about 30 mm/yr (12 in/yr), concentrated in the summer and winter months with most rain falling during the monsoon season from July through September. Summer rains are typically associated with brief, sometimes violent, localized convectional thunderstorms.

The Santa Cruz River originates in the some 90 km (50–55 miles) southeast of Tucson. From its origin, the river flows southward into Mexico about 40 km (25 miles) before making a westward bend around the Sierra San Antonio in Sonora. It then flows northward back into Arizona to enter the Tucson Basin near the present-day community of Green Valley. The river runs along the western side of the basin, constrained by the relatively steep foothills of the

Tucson Mountains and to the east by broad Pleistocene bajada slopes and terraces. Two of the river’s largest tributaries, the Rillito River and Cañada del Oro, join the Santa Cruz near the northern margin of the Tucson Basin (Figure 1). The combined drainage basins of these two streams constitute more than half the Santa Cruz watershed, and provide significant runoff to the river from summer storms and snowmelt, especially from the nearby Rincon and Santa Catalina

Mountains. The Santa Cruz and its larger tributaries are now characterized by ephemeral flow 186 within the Tucson Basin, but prior to early twentieth century groundwater exploitation, parts of their stream channels displayed discontinuous quasi-perennial spring-fed emergent flow. After exiting the Tucson Basin at the northern end of the Tucson Mountains, the stream channel broadens into a wide braided system known as the Santa Cruz Flats. Formerly the Santa Cruz occasionally flowed into the Gila River, but virtually all modern surface flow is diverted for agricultural use, evaporates, or infiltrates into deep-seated basin aquifer sediments before reaching the Gila (Anderson 1995).

Alluvial Cycles and the Floodplain

As with all rivers in arid and semi-arid regions, the Santa Cruz River was—and is—a linear oasis rich in plant and animal life. People have exploited the river’s water, plants, and animal resources for at least 6000 years, and almost certainly longer. Like most valleys in the

Southwest, the Santa Cruz valley was modified during the Holocene by several episodes of erosion followed by more protracted periods of sediment deposition and floodplain aggradation.

Together, this combined erosional and depositional phase of stream activity constitute an alluvial cycle (Haynes 1968). The modern Santa Cruz is eroding, and a deeply entrenched arroyo marks the river’s course through the Tucson Basin. Modern gully erosion appears to be the result of climate change exacerbated by groundwater extraction, grazing, farming, landscape modification and other human activities (Waters and Haynes 2001; Webb et al. 2014).

Climate change and its effects on vegetation may initiate quasi-synchronous erosional phases at a regional level. For example, extended droughts cause lowered watertables and decreased vegetative cover. This results in increased overland runoff, especially during larger precipitation events. Should an unusually large flood event or series of closely-spaced flood 187 events occur during the drought, e.g. during an El Niño event, increased runoff over weakened floodplain sediments make them particularly susceptible to erosion.

Once started in a given location, headward erosion extends the arroyo upstream. The rate of headward extension varies considerably, but normally ranges from a few m/yr to a few tens of m/yr. In extreme cases, however, the rate of gully extension may be catastrophically rapid. In south-central Utah, the Fremont River began eroding abruptly with a flood on Sept. 22, 1897; by

1909 many of the settlements along the river were abandoned (Hunt et al. 1953:19). Under similar historical conditions, the Santa Cruz River arroyo extended through the entire Tucson

Basin (Betancourt 1990; Webb et al. 2014). In both these instances, human landscape modifications accelerated erosion rates.

The erosional phase of an alluvial cycle is normally relatively short, lasting no more than a century or two (Bull 1988), but mid-Holocene erosional conditions lasted for more than 1500 years and stripped most earlier-deposited Holocene floodplain alluvium from the Tucson Basin valley floor (Haynes and Huckell 1986) . Irrespective of duration, arroyo erosion posed major setbacks to prehistoric agricultural endeavors, rendering them unsuitable for farming due to lowered watertables, loss of arable floodplain from lateral erosion, and stream entrenchment that made it difficult or impossible to establish functional canal headgates for irrigation. Similar difficulties were often noted with respect to late nineteenth and early twentieth century farming

(Bull 1997). While drought often appears to be one factor in initiation of arroyos, it is important to note that stream entrenchment may also occurs as part of the normal process of channel adjustment to changes in threshold conditions that maintain quasi-equilibrium of stream velocity and sediment load (Schumm and Hadley 1957). 188

Periods of aggradation appear to be typically characterized by smaller, less frequent, flood events. Watertable levels gradually rise, vegetation increases, and fluvial deposition becomes the dominant process. Deposition is initially confined within arroyo walls, but as the arroyo fills, often eventually spreads over the entire pre-arroyo floodplain. Increased vegetation in valley bottoms prolongs flood event durations, reduces peak discharges, traps sediments, increases floodwater infiltration, and reduces erosion potential. Local physical conditions, however, may lead to discontinuous channel erosion even during the depositional phase of an alluvial cycle.

Modern erosion-prevention activities such as grading and bank stabilization have hindered detailed reconstruction of the Santa Cruz River’s history in some parts of the valley, but geomorphic studies associated with archaeological projects conducted on the floodplain have resulted in detailed geomorphic histories in some segments of the river (Freeman 2000;

Huckleberry 2011a, b; Waters 1988a, b). Seven major alluvial cycles have occurred since initiation of the Altithermal climatic episode about 7500 cal BC (Supplemental Data Tables 1–3;

Antevs 1952; Haynes and Huckell 1986; Waters and Haynes 2001). Of particular interest to this discussion is Unit III, which began between 2730 and 2200 cal BC and ended between 660 and

280 cal BC. This episode of erosion and subsequent aggradation encompasses the Silverbell interval and San Pedro phase of the EAP.

Stream Reaches

The success of low-technology river-based irrigation such as that practiced during the

EAP is dependent on river behavior. In a relatively stable climatic regime, a prehistoric farmer would have had reasonable expectations for the availability of irrigation water, frequency and 189 magnitude of floods, consequences of floods on fields, necessity of maintenance of irrigation systems, etc. This knowledge would allow one to plan and design for events within normal ranges, and greatly increase probability of productive outcomes. Climates and environments undergo change, however, and numerous factors related to stream discharge and sediment load may influence the variables that control fluvial processes. Consequently, stream behavior often varies considerably from one location to another, even within short distances. Streams tend to adjust to changing conditions by adjusting stream velocity, gradient, depth, stream cross-section, flood duration and peak discharge, sediment size, channel pattern, valley shape, and eroding or aggrading, among many other stream characteristics (Schumm 1973). In addition, local bedrock conditions or vegetation may modify local processes to the extent that deposition may dominate locally even during the erosional phase of an alluvial cycle, and conversely, erosion may be the locally dominant geomorphic process even during a depositional phase. As climate and river processes change, geomorphic threshold conditions established previously are exceeded and the stream responds by changing the dominant process. The complexity of fluvial geomorphic processes prohibits greater explication in this forum. The interested reader is recommended to

Schumm (1977), Bull (1991), or Ritter (1986) for more detail.

Prior to modern groundwater exploitation many small to mid-size streams in drier environments were typically emergent (flowed on the surface) for some distance, then suddenly become submergent (no surface flow), sometimes for miles. At some downstream point the stream reappeared again to flow on the surface. This pattern might be repeated multiple times on a single stream. For the prehistoric drylands agriculturalist attempting to farm in a world where perennial streamflow was not universally available, the factors controlling stream emergence and submergence would have been particularly important. 190

Most streams have locations where particular geological conditions locally impede groundwater flow and cause groundwater to rise toward the surface. If high enough, the watertable, or surface of an aquifer, intersects the ground surface and springs, causing normally dry streams to be characterized by seasonal or perennial emergent flow. That portion of a stream between two such locations has been called a geomorphic stream reach and locations at the termini of a stream reach are called reach boundaries (Nials et al. 2011). Although many circumstances may create reach boundary conditions, two of the more common were recognized in the Tucson Basin: 1) near-surface presence of resistant bedrock or igneous bodies (e.g., dikes, small intrusions) that impinge on the alluvial aquifer beneath the valley, and 2) confluences of tributary and mainstem streams where both transport large amounts of groundwater. Irrespective of origin, reach boundaries typically have higher watertables that may feed springs, support cienegas, and have seasonal or perennial surface flow for some distance up- and downstream from the boundary. The predictably wetter nature of reach boundaries makes them ideal locations for agriculture, and boundaries predictably demonstrate longer-term occupation (Nials et al.

2011:726).

Two such reaches of the Santa Cruz River, the A-Mountain and the Cañada del Oro reaches, lie within the Tucson Basin (Figure 1). Not surprisingly, some of the earliest evidence for agriculture in the region is found near each of the reach boundaries. A-Mountain forms its eponymous reach boundary where subsurface volcanic rock impedes groundwater flow and brings it to the surface. Indeed, springs and cienegas at the A-Mountain reach boundary were the birthplace of Tucson and sustained more than 4000 years of occupation (Thiel and Mabry 2006).

Surface streamflow generated at the upper A-Mountain boundary sustained numerous EAP and 191 later prehistoric settlements within the reach. The A-Mountain reach continues about 13.7 km

(8.5 mi) downstream to the Cañada del Oro (CDO) reach boundary.

The A-Mountain/CDO reach boundary is formed by the closely-spaced confluences of the Rillito River and Cañada del Oro with the Santa Cruz (Figure 1). A groundwater mound formed as groundwater flowing down the mainstem and tributary valleys merged, and a large cienega formerly marked the boundary. Owing to their steep gradients, the tributaries transport large amounts of relatively coarse-grained sediment that have been deposited as a broad fan across the floodplain of the Santa Cruz (Huckleberry 2011b; Nials 2015a). The fan constricts the floodplain at this point, forcing the Santa Cruz River channel to the west edge of the floodplain, and causing the floodplain gradient to be steeper on the downstream side of the fan. These conditions create a broad, relatively smooth and easily-irrigated floodplain segment immediately downstream from the fan and the mouth of Cañada del Oro on the east side of the Santa Cruz.

All surface and groundwater generated within the drainage basin passes by this floodplain segment, and prior to modern pumping the area was more likely to have had high watertable levels and spring-fed surface flow even in times of drought. These conditions were particularly amenable to irrigation agriculture. During the aggradation period of Unit III, there appear to have been several instances of localized discontinuous arroyo erosion and subsequent healing within both stream reaches (Freeman 2000; Huckleberry 2011b; Nials 2008, 2015a, b). The continual processes of floodplain erosion and deposition, punctuated by damaging floods, determined where agricultural fields could sustainably be located. Active management of field locations and knowledge of historical river and environmental conditions allowed farmers to respond to variation in floodplain conditions.

192

Cultural Niche Construction and the Built Landscape

Niche construction theory (NCT) has become a favored approach to the study of domestication and the development of agriculture, with humans considered the “ultimate niche constructors (Odling-Smee and Laland 2011; Smith 2007, 2011a, b; Zeder 2012). Central to the processes of niche construction are ecological and cultural inheritance of manipulated environments, transferring them from one generation to the next (Odling-Smee and Laland

2011). These inheritances need not be passed within lineages, and in fact operate at an external level of the group or population. Ecological inheritance is the passing on of the modified environment and the continued maintenance of its altered composition, with the classic example being that of a beaver pond and its changes to the local environment. Cultural inheritance is just that—the passing on of shared beliefs, technologies, knowledge, all things cultural. Cultural niche construction is a subset of niche construction “that is the expression of culturally learned and transmitted knowledge” (Laland and O'Brien 2011; Odling-Smee and Laland 2011:226), and is expressed in our built environments, engineered landscapes, and social structure; it is encoded and transmitted by shared knowledge within and down generations. It is this latter form of niche construction and inheritance that is relevant here.

The processes behind the development of agriculture in the desert Southwest are difficult to quantify without having adequate ways to measure how people manipulated their environment prior to the adoption of maize cultivation. It is certain that people were intimately familiar with riverine resources, and knew how to manage and manipulate plant and animal communities to their advantage (Gregory 1999; Haury 1992; Roth and Freeman 2008). The understanding of river conditions, water availability, and “typical” climatic and weather patterns were important to 193 scheduling and anticipating when certain resources would become available. We have no direct evidence of wild resource management such as regular burning to enhance conditions for edible seed-bearing grasses, or the thinning or encouragement of tree resources such as mesquite; we must rely on abductive assumptions that people were active in controlling as best they could their local environment to optimize resource availability and procurement. Their existing knowledge of managing seed-bearing grasses on the floodplain would have facilitated the adoption of maize into the subsistence economy; such “pre-adaptation” to agriculture in the Southwest was proposed as early as the 1950s (Haury 1992:30; Willey and Phillips 1958:107).

Once maize was adopted by EAP farmers, their use of the floodplain became more labor and time intensive. Clearing fields, preparing them for planting, tending, harvest, and establishing new fields all required organization and scheduling for successful crops. Agriculture became further intensified when canal irrigation came into use by 1500 cal B.C. Canals and associated fields became long-term fixtures on the floodplain, and were used over multiple seasons, regularly maintained, and repaired. This engineered landscape regularly brought water from the river channel to locations that would naturally be wetted only in flood conditions, creating miniature riparian zones of their own.

Excavations at EAP sites that revealed the first evidence of canal irrigation were constrained in their ability to trace and identify the extent of the canal systems (Mabry et al.

2008; Whittlesey et al. 2010b), and in most cases canals were exposed and documented in the sidewalls of trenches; their sizes and lengths were inferred from limited information. More recent excavations at the site of Las Capas exposed canals and identified associated field cells (see below) over an extensive area and in detail that had not been previously possible (Nials 2015b).

While not approaching the scale of historic Akimel O’odham irrigation, and certainly not that of 194 the Hohokam in the Salt-Gila River Valley, EAP irrigation systems were more complex than previously documented. Canals were not large, the main ditch perhaps 2–2.5 meters wide and

0.75 m deep. Smaller lateral canals branched off the main stem to feed a series of field cells that ranged in size from perhaps 30 to 80 sq m, depending on location along the canal’s length. At its greatest extent, the system at Las Capas could have irrigated up to 15 hectares of fields (Nials

2015b). Based on experimental replications, the labor required to construct this system would have involved perhaps 40 people and more than a month of effort (Vint 2015a). Regular maintenance and reconstruction of the field system was necessary, and the coordination of water distribution through the canals and into the scores if not hundreds of field cells required close management. Though small in comparison to later systems, EAP irrigation systems were a significant investment of labor, time, and commitment.

Each of the canal systems documented at Las Capas was used over multiple years and likely decades, and not newly constructed each season. This “inheritance” of the engineered niche reflects the social development of landesque capital: “any investment in land with an anticipated life well beyond that of the present crop, or crop cycle” (Sheridan 2014:157). In other words, the built environment is more than just a source of production, but an integral socio- economic part of the community. The processes and negotiations to construct, maintain, operate, plant, and irrigate field systems involve the capital of labor and shared social interests (Eastman et al. 1997; Rodríguez 2006; Sheridan 2014); farming and irrigation were ineluctable parts of the social fabric of EAP community even though agriculture was not the predominate source of food. Irrigation systems have not been identified at, and probably were not part of, all EAP sites along the Santa Cruz River. Nonetheless, investment in “agricultural capital” was part of the

EAP economy by the San Pedro phase, and it was likely organized at the corporate community 195 or settlement level, not the household (Mabry 2008b). Communities were invested in maintaining long-term control of the landscape, an intertwined commitment to place and agriculture that required negotiation with neighboring communities and active management of agricultural land on a living floodplain. We now turn to the chronological analyses of agricultural communities on the Santa Cruz River floodplain.

Temporal Patterns of Site Use

Twelve sites that date to the Silverbell interval and San Pedro phase of the EAP were selected for the study based on two criteria. First, three or more radiocarbon dates from archaeological features were required to be suitable for the temporal analysis. Second, evidence of maize agriculture must be present in either the form of carbonized maize remains or agricultural features such as canals. Eleven sites are located on the margin of the Santa Cruz

River floodplain, either on the far edge of the geomorphic floodplain or the distal margin of the terrace just above the floodplain itself. The twelfth site, Milagro, is in the eastern Tucson Basin.

It is situated on the piedmont just above the north side of Tanque Verde Creek. This is a moderately large drainage that flows from the western flank of the . It feeds into the Pantano Wash, which then joins the Rillito River and in turn joins the Santa Cruz River in the northwestern Tucson Basin (Figure1). There was a high watertable and occasional emergent surface flow here until the onset of modern ground water pumping.

The nature of the site sample is constrained by several factors. Most sites along the Santa

Cruz River have been buried by flood sediments, and are not visible on the modern ground 196 surface, and others have been covered or destroyed by modern construction as the Tucson metropolitan area has expanded over the past 30 years. Excavation of these sites has been conducted primarily by cultural resource management projects in advance of highway, utility, or other infrastructure construction, with work limited to right-of-way boundaries and areas within construction footprints. As a consequence, it is not known if an excavated sample is representative of a given site, and often the actual areal extent of a site is unresolved due to burial and urban infrastructure.

Some sites presented here as discrete entities may actually be parts of a single, larger site whose limits cannot be defined because of the conditions noted above. For example, the Cortaro

Road and Dairy sites are separated by Interstate 10 and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, and

Las Capas and Costello King by the east-west trending Ina Road. Their boundaries are established by a combination of features and cultural deposits exposed during excavations and by the physical limit within which work was conducted; site boundaries in this case become management units as much as the spatial extent of past human activity. As archaeological projects increase in number and the corridor along the Santa Cruz River is more intensively investigated, the spatial association of sites and human use of the floodplain has become better understood. In fact, multiple sites have been combined by the Arizona State Museum and researchers into a single unit because several projects in a given area demonstrate that they are in fact part of the same entity. The sites presented here comprise about 30 percent of the excavated

EAP sites in the Tucson Basin. Some have more than one temporal component, but EAP features were clearly defined, and the dates are associated with temporally unmixed deposits. 197

Analytical Approach

A total of 160 radiocarbon ages from the 12 sites was used in the analysis (Supplemental

Data Tables 4 and 5); three optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dates from the site of Las

Capas were also used. Most sites had fewer than 20 samples, with the exception of Las Capas with 68 radiocarbon ages. All dated specimens were associated with cultural features. Most ages were obtained from annual or short-lived plants, but several were obtained from wood charcoal; because of this, the “charcoal outlier model” option was used to account for old wood effects on ages obtained from charcoal (Bronk Ramsey 2009b).

Two models were designed to explore patterns in site ages (Supplemental Data Tables 6–

9). Model 1 simply treats all dates from a site as falling within a single phase of occupation.

Model 2 compares sites to each other in a manner that looks at the dates within each site as a series of temporal events that reflect the periodicity of when people were actively living at and around the settlement. Within a given site, 14C ages might cluster together to suggest a single period of time during which the site was used, or dates might fall together into two or more groups. In the latter case, these were treated as discrete subgroups within a given site, such as

“Clearwater 1” and “Clearwater 2.” In most cases these subgroups are not stratigraphically or spatially defined; they are treated at the site level, and intended to illustrate periodicity in use over the course of a site’s history. There is also the question of temporal resolution provided by the OxCal model. Date ranges for groups based on only one or two radiocarbon ages may be broad due to the limited amount of temporal information they provide to the model, resulting in loosely constrained boundaries (Bronk Ramsey 2009a). Similarly, the trend of the calibration 198 curve can affect the resolution of groups where segments of the curve have accelerations, reversals, or plateaus compress or spread out calibrated dates.

Las Capas has subgroups defined by four stratigraphically distinct layers of floodplain deposits. This division is used in both models because it is a very well-defined sequence that is both behaviorally and geomorphically informative (and is discussed in detail in the section on

Las Capas below). Each stratum represents different conditions in the stream and channel regimes of the Santa Cruz River, and contains extensive archaeological deposits. The caveat of small sample sizes and their representativeness is to be kept in mind for sites other than Las

Capas. At present, we assume that they do reflect some accurate aspect of the site’s age and occupational history.

Site chronologies are constrained in the model by their own ages, and are not bounded by the date ranges for phases in the regional chronology presented in Table 1. By not constraining the sites to the period boundaries (such as assuming a terminus post quem of 1200 cal BC for the start of the San Pedro phase regardless of the modelled age range), temporal patterns are made apparent that would otherwise be masked by the artificially abrupt transitions from one defined phase to another. A good example of this is the occupation identified at Las Capas in the youngest stratum that dates to the San Pedro phase. The median modelled date range for this stratum is from about 800 to 730 cal BC (Tables 2 and 3; Vint 2015c), which falls at the beginning of the Early Cienega phase. However, the material culture is diagnostic of San Pedro phase technology. Furthermore, this stratum is capped by a single-event flood that effectively ended the San Pedro phase habitation at Las Capas. Temporally diagnostic artifacts and 14C ages that date to the Early Cienega phase were recovered from deposits that in turn cover the flood sediments (Nials 2015c; Vint 2015c). 199

Temporal Variation among Sites

Model 1 provides a fair resolution of variation among sites (Table 2; Figure 2). Sites in the CDO reach seem to date primarily to the San Pedro Phase, whereas sites in the A-Mountain reach date largely to the Silverbell Interval. Sites such as Stewart Brickyard, Dairy Site, Valley

Farms, Costello-King, the four strata of Las Capas, and Milagro have date ranges that are fairly short. Rillito Loop, Cortaro Road, Rillito Fan, El Taller, Los Pozos, and Clearwater have very long date ranges, due to both relatively few ages and the broad spans of time represented by the samples. Summed posterior probabilities of the modeled dates are presented in Figure 3. Most sites have distributions that are multi-modal and/or spread over multiple centuries. Breaking these modes in the distributions into groups should refine the resolution of site ages.

Model 2 date ranges for sites and subgroups are presented in Figure 4. There is some variation seen between the two reaches along the river: activity during the Silverbell interval is predominant in the A-Mountain reach, and most activity during the San Pedro phase occurred in the Cañada del Oro reach from Las Capas on downstream. Milagro also falls neatly within the

San Pedro phase. The HPD distributions in Figure 2 suggest perhaps six to eight sites were in use during a given span of time, with some overlap as sites came into and out of active use.

Two sites have gaps between temporal groups (Table 3), which suggest the site area fell out of use for some time. At Las Capas, most of the strata transition from one to the next based on both stratigraphic sequences and radiocarbon ages. There is a temporal gap between Strata

506 and 505 that is seen both in the stratigraphic sequence as an erosional unconformity and in the radiocarbon ages that is about 120 years long (Nials 2015c; Vint 2015c). The two temporal 200 groups at Clearwater are separated by about 330 years, suggesting that the immediate area was not actively farmed for a considerable period of time.

Temporal variation seen within the two reaches suggests that conditions may have been more favorable for agriculture during the San Pedro phase in the CDO reach than along the A-

Mountain reach. Both reaches show activity during the preceding Silverbell interval. The number of communities that could draw irrigation water from the Santa Cruz was dependent on available flow; water taken out of sites upstream would reduce water available to irrigators downstream

(an inescapable and conflict-inducing factor to any river-dependent irrigation system, past or present). Watertable farming during most periods would have been much more limited in extent, either around active cienegas or a very narrow strip along the stream bed. What is apparent, however, is that not all sites within a given period were in use at the same time, though some locations along the river were clearly favored places for settlement and farming for long periods of time.

Farmers had various options at their disposal to mitigate these adverse conditions. They could leave the area and relocate to a place on the river where conditions were still favorable for irrigation and watertable farming, assuming there was available arable land not already taken.

Alternatively, they could diversify the locations of fields in the valley, such as the mouths of washes coming off the east flank of the Tucson Mountains foothills to take advantage of any storm or snow-melt runoff. Other areas in the basin may have had favorable conditions in settings unrelated to the Santa Cruz River itself. An example here is Milagro, located in the eastern Tucson Basin. Although part of the Santa Cruz River’s watershed, conditions along the

Tanque Verde Wash are independent of those on the Santa Cruz River floodplain. Another 201 option was to remain in place despite adverse conditions. The site of Las Capas provides such an example.

Persistence of Settlement at Las Capas

Las Capas is situated in an ideal location for farming, just downstream from the start of the CDO reach of the Santa Cruz River (Figure 1). Excavations by multiple projects at this site have documented canals, extensive irrigated field systems, and a history of farming that extends over nearly 1000 years (Mabry 2008c; Vint 2015b; Vint and Nials 2015; Whittlesey et al.

2010a). The high-resolution chronology presented here uses 14C ages from the most recent and extensive excavations at the site (Vint 1992, 2015b; Vint and Nials 2015; Whitney et al. 2015).

Nearly 7 acres of the site were investigated in detail.

As noted above, all streamflow generated within the drainage basin necessarily passes by the site, with flow contributed by the Santa Cruz River, Rillito River, and Cañada del Oro. Flood runoff, groundwater, and sediment contributions are significantly larger from the tributaries than from the Santa Cruz itself. During much of its occupation, the watertable at Las Capas was high, base flow stream discharge was dependable, and the floodplain was wider than in most other river segments. However, over-steepening of the river channel at the confluence of the CDO and

Santa Cruz made the floodplain vulnerable to arroyo cutting near the reach boundary.

Paradoxically, large tributary sediment loads fostered extremely rapid sediment deposition and 202 rapid shifts in channel position (avulsion) for a short distance downstream from the reach boundary.

Floodplain alluvium is unusually thick at this location due the discharged loads from the combined three streams, with up to 6m of sediments having accumulated during and just after the

EAP occupation at the site. A series of four distinct strata that date to the Silverbell interval and

San Pedro phase represent different regimes of floodplain, river, and environmental conditions

(Figure 6; Nials 2015a; Nials 2015c). These strata vary in thickness across the site, but can be traced across the entire investigated area, allowing contemporaneous deposits to be correlated with each other. The site’s chronology is a combination of the floodplain’s geomorphic history and its anthropogenic landscape—the irrigated field systems and habitation loci. Each stratum is dated by the associated archaeological contexts, which accumulated as the floodplain aggraded through time.

Although no canals or fields were identified in the oldest stratum (Figure 6), maize was recovered from pits and other contexts. Canals and fields were documented in the three younger strata, along with hundreds of domestic features including shallow pithouses, large bell-shaped storage pits, roasting pits, and human and canid burials (Vint 2015c; Whitney et al. 2015). At its peak, around 800 cal B.C., perhaps 120 people lived at Las Capas and farmed up to 15 ha of irrigated fields (Mabry 2008b; Nials 2015b; Vint 2015a). In addition to maize, “crop weeds” such as goosefoot and amaranth that thrive in field margins and disturbed soil were encouraged if not actively cultivated for their nutritious seeds and greens, and contributed as much to the diet as did maize (Diehl 2005b, 2015; Haury 1992). This mixed farming and foraging strategy proved to be a resilient and stable subsistence economy for the 2000 years that comprise the EAP. 203

Analyses of macrobotanical, pollen, phytolith, and faunal assemblages do not indicate significant change in the local vegetation and animal populations over the course of the site’s history (Diehl 2015; Diehl and Davis 2015; Waters et al. 2015; Yost 2015). Hunting and foraging in the Tucson Basin appears not to have adversely impacted the local resource bases.

However, there is evidence of variation in river regime, and thus the immediate physical environment, that had both adverse and beneficial effects on the floodplain that impacted conditions for irrigated farming; there is also evidence of adverse impacts caused by irrigation itself.

Strata 507 and 506 (Figure 6) were deposited during the onset of the filling stage of Unit

III (Waters and Haynes 2001). Relatively large floods that characterize these strata appear to have diminished in frequency and magnitude near the end of the 506 interval, allowing a cumulic soil to develop at the surface. This horizon was relatively stable for a considerable period of time. Irrigation features are extensive and relatively sophisticated in design and maintenance in

Stratum 506. The upper surface of 506 is erosional in many places. There is a circa 120-year gap between Stratum 506 and the younger Stratum 505 that we attribute to scouring by floods at the onset of the overlying Stratum 505, rather than a gap in active use of the site.

Stratum 505 and the earliest part of Stratum 504 appear to represent an example of alluvial adjustment to a change in threshold conditions at the head of the stream reach, due either to stream gradient and/or avulsion (Figure 6). Stratum 505 reflects an initial stage of very rapid deposition of coarse sediments by frequent floods. Flood sediments overwhelmed existing canal and field systems in the older Stratum 506, and multiple abortive efforts to reconstruct parts of the system during the 505 interval were found buried by flood alluvium. Deposition of thick, coarse sandy sediments was followed by a period of massive erosion during which a large 204 portion of the site was removed by newly-formed arroyos, some of which were more than 5 m deep (Nials 2015c). Parts of these channels were almost completely filled by the end of this interval and human response was to place agricultural fields in broad, low, easily-irrigated depressions where some of the channels had been. Numerous deep backhoe trenches clearly revealed these stratigraphic relationships.

Deposition during the 504 interval was initially quite rapid, and alluvium was similar in character to the sandy Stratum 505 deposits. Fields and canals were cleaned of sediments and remodeled as needed. In several areas of the site multiple layers of fields were documented, showing remodeling to accommodate flood deposits and changes in surface topography (Figure

7). A second, very brief period of rapid downcutting occurred, and the presence of nearby arroyos in combination with application of irrigation waters, led to extensive subsurface erosion

(piping) and large sinks that damaged fields and canals (Nials 2015b). Parts of the field system were abandoned, and canals re-routed to avoid piping vents, and fields and irrigation were concentrated as far away from active piping sinks as possible. These newly-formed arroyos again filled rapidly and by the end of the 504 interval had almost completely disappeared. By the end of the 504 interval deposition had almost ceased, indicating that floodwaters no longer reached some portions of the floodplain. Additional irrigation was necessary and fields were strongly enriched by clay transported in irrigation waters.

Stratum 503 represents a single, very large flood that covered most of the floodplain and essentially terminated the San Pedro phase occupation of the site. Across most of the site area this flood deposited distinctive yellow-colored fine sandy sediment derived from Cañada del

Oro, blanketing the surface of Stratum 504, and filling canals and fields. Because of its unique characteristics this stratum forms an unusual, easily-recognized marker horizon. Sediment 205 mineralogies, distributions and thicknesses indicate that both major tributaries and the Santa

Cruz River were in flood simultaneously; the flow of the Santa Cruz along the west side of the stream channel forced the waters from the CDO to flow along and over the east banks of the floodplain, dropping their sediment load over much of the site area. This flood appears to mark the transition between San Pedro and Cienega phase use of Las Capas. Notably, a well- documented flood having similar characteristics in magnitude and origin occurred in October of

1983 that inflicted considerable damage to the infrastructure of Tucson, wrecking bridges and seriously flooding the communities of Rillito and Marana (Webb et al. 2014).

Discussion

Las Capas and contemporary settlements along the Santa Cruz were not desultory or opportunistic efforts at farming; they were communities defined by their shared investment in and practice of agriculture. The agricultural landscape was a stable and enduring product of cultural niche construction with consequences beyond food production. Sheridan (2014:168) observes that, as landesque capital, “labor investments in landscapes are physical, social, and symbolic … [and such investment] …produces and reproduces social organization and the cultural meanings that make particular land management patterns legitimate and appropriate.”

Agricultural intensification is not seen in production of crop surpluses, but as intensification in agricultural labor and infrastructure (Doolittle 2014; Morrison 1994; 2007:236–238). Irrigation may result in increased crop yields, but also more importantly increases the predictability and reliability of crop production, allows control over planting and harvesting schedules, and allows close control over (and protection of) crops. EAP irrigation was as much a means of resource concentration and management as it was increasing food production. The agricultural cycle formed the physical and temporal nexus of social integration (Stone et al. 1990), and as part of 206 this investment farming communities became persistent places on the floodplain.

Perhaps it is useful to consider site occupations in terms of “generations.” Assuming 25 years per generation, duration of site use tended to be on the order of three or fewer generations.

At Las Capas, the site with the best temporal control, the strata in which irrigation systems were documented span median intervals of about 3 to 5 generations. The longest span is seen in the oldest occupation at Las Capas, with dates suggesting use over the course of 21 generations.

However, this long period of time is misleading. Based on the insubstantial nature of available archaeological evidence in that stratum, it is unlikely that occupation was continuous over that length of time; this is most likely the case at the other sites that have similarly long median occupation spans.

Knowledge of the local riverine environment was obviously central to successful floodplain farming. The continuity of site use at the level of multiple generations, exemplified by

Las Capas, is testament to the environmental perception of EAP farmers. The stability of EAP agricultural technology could accommodate changes in the Santa Cruz River and respond to events such as minor floods and short-term periods of entrenchment. Farming techniques are taught and passed from generation to generation, and implicitly are founded on expectations of the local environment and climate (Dean 2000; Hassan 2000). Understanding “typical” river and seasonal patterns are crucial to planning when to plant, when to expect water shortage or surplus, and how to manipulate the farmscape to adjust for current and anticipated conditions; this collective memory would also include use and management of hunted and gathered resources.

The alluvial cycle that encompassed the Silverbell Interval and San Pedro phase appears to have been predictable enough that the irrigation and farming techniques in use were successful for over 1200 years. In other words, the engineered EAP agricultural niche provided stable and 207 consistent cultural inheritance of farming techniques passed down generation to generation

(Odling-Smee and Laland 2011:227).

Methodologically, chronological analyses remain a useful tool in the reconstruction of

EAP settlement. The development of software such as OxCal and the application of Bayesian modeling allow for much more precise chronometric reconstructions of settlement histories.

With the rapid increase in the number of available radiocarbon ages for a region such as

Southern Arizona, regional chronologies can be refined in resolution and identification of local variations. The study presented here illustrates the potential to more precisely identify trends in settlement and land use of a relatively small area. Alternative models to those presented here can be made based on different assumptions of how the sites are related to each other temporally, functionally, or geomorphically. Going forward it will be useful to incorporate the use of this kind of temporal modeling in creating research designs for specific projects as well as overarching regional research objectives. Obtaining and presenting radiocarbon ages that are as representative as possible of a site’s history is crucial for building accurate and behaviorally meaningful interpretations.

Conclusion

The development of agriculture—and agricultural communities—in the Tucson Basin is necessarily intertwined with the local physical environment. Dependence on riparian resources during the several thousand years prior to the introduction of maize led to a subsistence economy 208 in which people were intimately familiar with the growing cycles of seed-bearing grasses, when food resources came into and out of season, and the conditions favorable to their reliable production. It is quite likely that people had begun active management of these food resources well before the arrival of domesticated maize. Once maize and the attendant agricultural technology were adopted into the subsistence economy (planting techniques, water needs, growing seasons, harvest, and preparation and storage of seed for the following year’s crop), intensification of production techniques ensued. Active engineering of the floodplain landscape through land clearing, and the construction of canals and fields, created a built environment that was tuned both to the living nature of the Santa Cruz River floodplain and the social landscape of multiple communities who were anchored to the land through agriculture. The social consequences of this cultural niche construction (i.e., agricultural infrastructure and settlements) allowed for a stable and enduring subsistence economy that incorporated hunting and foraging coupled with maize cultivation.

It is interesting to note that in their discussion of “Preformative” (essentially the Archaic) and their definition of a broad “Early Agricultural Period” for North America, Willey and

Phillips (1958:107–108, 145–146) commented that “…the mere presence of agriculture is not of primary significance from a …developmental point of view…”, and that “…agriculture per se was not the explosive stimulus to cultural development that we had supposed it to be…[maize agriculture] becomes important only when it can be seen as dominant in the economy and integrated socially to produce the stable settlement patterns that we have postulated as the sine qua non of the .” Somewhat contrary to this observation, the temporal analyses presented here demonstrate deep and long-term commitments to place by Early Agricultural

Period farmers, exemplified by the site of Las Capas. Roth (2015) poses the question of “were 209 they sedentary and does it matter?” One answer to this is that the enduring nature of EAP infrastructure does matter because these two millennia of early farming established the conditions for agricultural village formation in the Southwest (Wallace 2003): anchoring to place, modification of the floodplain through agriculture, establishment of community boundaries, ownership of arable land, organization of labor, and the need for communities to negotiate and manage access to the essential resource of water. The tempo and mode of early farmers in the Tucson Basin was a process of consistency and persistence of agricultural practices on a changing floodplain landscape.

210

Tables

211

Table 1. The Early Agricultural Period chronology currently used for southern Arizona and northern Sonora.

Phase Date Range Cienga (Late) 400 B.C. - A.D. 50 Cienega (Early) 800 - 400 B.C. San Pedro 1200 - 800 B.C. "Unnamed" or Silverbell Interval ca. 2100 - 1200 B.C.

212

Table 2. OxCal Model 1 site occupation spans.

Occupation Start Median Median Range Median Range Start End Range Start (years) Range Rillito Loop 1800–950 1340 990–390 780 0–1230 580

Stewart Brickyard 1310 –930 1060 1050 –700 940 0 –530 120

Dairy Site 1110 –930 1010 1020 –870 950 0 –210 60

1390– Valley Farms 1130 1270 990–810 910 170–540 370

1810– Cortaro Road 1460 1610 820–510 730 700–1200 890

Costello -King 1080 –810 910 900 –670 790 0 –370 120

2030– Las Capas Stratum 507 1530 1700 1240–1110 1160 340–870 540 1240– Las Capas Stratum 506 1110 1160 1090–970 1020 30–240 140 Interval between Strata 506 and 505 50–200 120 Las Capas Stratum 505 950 –850 900 840 –790 810 20–150 90 Las Capas Stratum 504 840–790 810 760–690 730 40–140 80

2670– 800BC– Rillito Fan 1710 1960 AD190 530 990–2600 1490

3330– 1130BC– El Taller 1980 2300 AD180 820 970–3120 1540

2200– Los Pozos 1820 1990 1300–1020 1200 600–1080 790

2690– Clearwater 2080 2290 1600–1040 1420 570–1510 900

1390– Milagro 1010 1150 1120–680 960 0–630 190

Note: Dates are cal BC unless otherwise noted

213

Table 3. OxCal Model 2 site occupation spans.

Occupation Start Median Median Interval Median Range Start End Range End (years) Interval Rillito Loop 1 1560–1090 1320 1390–1040 1220 0–150 20 Rillito Loop 2 1260–940 1090 1120–850 990 0–120 20 Rillito Loop 3 1020–800 900 970–660 820 0–160 20

Stewart Brickyard 1290 –930 1060 1050 –720 940 0 –510 120

Dairy Site 1110 –930 1010 1020 –870 950 0 –200 50

Valley Farms 1 1760 –1230 1440 1470 –1150 1310 0 –230 50 Valley Farms 2 1260–1080 1170 1190–1000 1090 0–200 70 Valley Farms 3 1060–920 990 1000–850 930 0–170 50

Cortaro Road 1 1910 –1460 1620 1660 –1250 1500 0 –310 60 Cortaro Road 2 1520–1080 1260 1260–980 1110 0–310 70 Cortaro Road 3 1090–930 1000 1010–870 940 0–180 60 Cortaro Road 4 910–790 830 830–730 790 0–150 40

Costello -King 1060 –810 900 900 –680 790 0 –340 110

Las Capas Stratum 507 2040 –1530 1700 1240 –1110 1160 330 –880 540 Las Capas Stratum 506 1240–1110 1160 1090–970 1020 10–240 140 Interval between Strata 506 and 505 50–200 120 Las Capas Stratum 505 950 –850 900 840 –790 810 20–150 90 Las Capas Stratum 504 840–790 810 760–690 730 40–140 80

Rillito Fan 1 2100 –1690 1850 1880 –1430 1720 0 –330 40 Rillito Fan 2 1710–1110 1340 1010–780 910 0–180 60 Rillito Fan 3 950–600 800 800–380 710 0–250 20

El Taller 1 2870 –1970 2210 2200 –1400 1940 0 –680 170 El Taller 2 1680–1200 1360 1360–1010 1190 0–540 170 El Taller 3 1220–920 1050 1120–470 920 0–480 60

Los Pozos 1 2220 –1880 2000 2030 –1800 1920 0 –150 30 Los Pozos 2 1950–1700 1840 1870–1600 1740 0–180 40 Los Pozos 3 1760–1500 1620 1610–1380 1500 0–300 110 Los Pozos 4 1450–1290 1380 1380–1210 1300 0–200 60

Clearwater 1 2370 –2030 2170 2130 –1780 1970 0 –520 200 Interval between Clearwater 1 and 2 20–530 330 Clearwater 2 1920 –1470 1630 1620 –1140 1460 0–350 40

Milagro 1 1280 –1010 1130 1190 –970 1060 0 –240 50 Milagro 2 1110–860 990 1090–710 910 0–170 10 note: Dates are cal BC

214

Figures 215

Figure 1. Early Agricultural Period sites in the Tucson Basin (named sites are used in this study).

216

Figure 2. OxCal model 1 start and end highest probability distributions for site occupations. 217

Figure 3. Summed posterior probability distributions for modelled calibrated dates, showing modes.

218

Figure 4. OxCal model 2 start and end highest probability distributions for site occupations. 219

Figure 5. Excavated areas and documented canal system at Las Capas (AZ AA:12:111 [ASM]).

220

Figure 6. The floodplain stratigraphy at Las Capas (AZ AA:12:111 [ASM]).

221

Figure 7. A series of superimposed and remodeled fields in Stratum 504 at Las Capas (AZ

AA:12:111 [ASM]).

222

References Cited

Anderson, Thomas W.

1995 Summary of the Southwest Alluvial Basins, Regional Aquifer-system Analysis,

South-central Arizona and Parts of Adjacent States. Professional Paper No.1406-A. U.S.

Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

Antevs, Ernst

1952 Arroyo Cutting and Filling. Journal of Geology 60:375–385.

Bayliss, Alex

2009 Rolling Out Revolution: Using Radiocarbon Dating in Archaeology. Radiocarbon

51(1):123–147.

Betancourt, Julio Louis

1990 Tucson's Santa Cruz River and the Arroyo Legacy. Unpublished Ph. D.

dissertation, Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona.

Bronk Ramsey, Christopher

2009a Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates. Radiocarbon 51(1):1023–1045.

2009b Dealing with Outliers and Offsets in Radiocarbon Dating. Radiocarbon

51(3):1023–1045. 223

2014 OxCal 4.2.4, http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=oxcal.html, accessed

September 2014.

Buck, Caitlin E.

2004 Bayesian Chronological Data Interpretation: Where Now? In Tools for

Constructing Chronologies: Crossing Disiplinary Boundaries, edited by Caitlin E. Buck

and Andrew R. Millard, pp. 1–24. Lecture Notes in Statistics 177. Springer, London.

Bull, William B.

1988 Floods-Degradation and Aggradation. In Flood Geomorphology, edited by Victor

R. Baker, R. Craig Kochel and Peter C. Patton, pp. 157–165. John Wiley, New York.

1991 Geomorphic Responses to Climatic Change. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

1997 Discontinuous Ephmeral Streams. Geomorphology 19:227–276.

Carpenter, John P., Guadalupe Sánchez, James T. Watson, and Elisa Villalpando

2015 The La Playa Archaeological Project: Binational Interdisciplinary Research on

Long-Term Human Adaptation in the Sonoran Desert. Journal of the Southwest 57(2 and

3):213–264.

224

Copeland, Audrey, Jay Quade, James T. Watson, Brett T. McLaurin, and María Elisa

Villalpando C.

2012 Stratigraphy and Geochronology of La Playa Archaeological Site, Sonora,

Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Science 39:2934–2944.

Damp, Jonathan E., Stephen A. Hall, and Susan J. Smith

2002 Early Irrigation on the Colorado Plateau near Zuni Pueblo, New Mexico.

American Antiquity 67(4):665–676.

Dean, Jeffrey S.

2000 Complexity Theory and Sociocultural Change in the American Southwest. In The

Way the Wind Blows: Climate, History, and Human Action, edited by Roderick J.

McIntosh, Joseph A. Tainter and Susan K. McIntosh, pp. 89–118. Columbia University

Press, New York.

Diehl, Michael W. (editor)

2005a Subsistence and Resource Use Strategies of Early Agricultural Communities in

Southern Arizona. Anthropological Papers No. 34. Center for Desert Archaeology,

Tucson.

Diehl, Michael W. 225

2005b When Corn was not yet King. In Subsistence and Resource Use Strategies of

Early Agricultural Communities in Southern Arizona, edited by Michael W. Diehl, pp. 1–

18. Anthropological Papers No. 34. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

2015 Foraging off the Gardens: Diet Breadth and Anthropogenic Landscape Change

During the Early Agricultural Period in the Tucson Basin. In Implements of Change:

Tools, Subsistence, and the Built Environment of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural

Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona, edited by James M. Vint, pp. 345–375.

Anthropological Papers No. 51. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson.

Diehl, Michael W., and Owen K. Davis

2015 The Anthropogenic Landscape of the Las Capas Site, AZ AA:12:111 (ASM),

Evident in Pollens and Spores. In The Anthropogenic Landscape of Las Capas, and Early

Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona, edited by James M. Vint and

Fred L. Nials, pp. 155–168. Anthropological PapersNo. 50. Archaeology Southwest,

Tucson.

Doolittle, William E.

2014 Economics and the Process of Making Farmland. In Landesque Capital: The

Historical Ecology of Enduring Landscape Modifications, edited by N. Thomas

Håkansson and Mats Widgren, pp. 31–48. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek.

Eastman, Clyde, J. Phillip King, and Nicholas A. Meadows 226

1997 Acequias, Small Farms, and the Good Life. Culture and Agriculture 19(1/2):14–

23.

Freeman, Andrea K. L.

2000 Application of High-Resolution Alluvial Stratigraphy in Assessing the Hunter-

Gatherer/Agricultural Transition in the Santa Cruz River Valley, Southeastern Arizona.

Geoarcaheology 15(6):559–589.

Gregory, David A. (editor)

1999 Excavations in the Santa Cruz River Floodplain: The Middle Archaic Component

at Los Pozos. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

Gregory, David A.

2001 An Evaluation of Early Agricultural Period Chronology in the Tucson Basin. In

Excavations in the Santa Cruz River Floodplain: The Early Agricultural Period

Component at Los Pozos, edited by David A. Gregory, pp. 237–254. Anthropological

Papers No. 21. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

Hassan, Fekri A.

2000 Environmental Perception and Human Responses in History and Prehistory. In

The Way the Wind Blows: Climate, History, and Human Action, edited by Roderick. J.

McIntosh, Joseph A. Tainter and Susan K. McIntosh, pp. 121–140. Columbia University

Press, New York. 227

Haury, Emil W.

1992 The Greater American Southwest. In Emil W. Haury's Prehistory of the American

Southwest, edited by J. J. Reid and D. E. Doyel, pp. 18–48. University of Arizona Press,

Tucson.

Haynes, C. Vance Jr.

1968 Geochronology of Late Quaternary Alluvium. In Proceedings of the VII

Congress, International Association of Quaternary Research, edited by Roger B.

Morrison and Herbert E. Wright Jr., pp. 591–631. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake

City.

Haynes, C. Vance Jr., and Bruce B. Huckell

1986 Sedimentary Successions of the Prehistoric Santa Cruz River, Tucson, Arizona.

Open-File Report 86–15. Arizona Geological Survey, Tucson.

Huckell, Bruce B.

1996 The Archaic Prehistory of the North American Southwest. Journal of World

Prehistory 10(3):305–373.

Huckell, Bruce B., Lisa W. Huckell, and Karl K. Benedict 228

2002 Maize Agriculture and the Rise of Mixed Foraging-Farming Economies. In

Traditions, Transitions, and Technologies: Themes in Southwestern Archaeology, edited

by Sarah H. Schlanger, pp. 137–159. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Huckell, Lisa W.

2009 Ancient Maize in the American Southwest: What Does it Look Like and What

Can It Tell Us? In Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Prehistory,

Linguistics, Biogeography, Domestication, and Evolution of Maize, edited by John E.

Staller, Robert H. Tykot and Bruce F. Benz, pp. 97–107. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek,

California.

Huckleberry, Gary

2011a Alluvial Chronology for the Martinez Hill- Reach of the Santa Cruz

River in Southwest Tucson, Arizona. In Craft Specialization in the Southern Tucson

Basin: Archaeological Excavations at the Julian Wash Site, AZ BB:13:17 (ASM): Part 2.

Synthetic Studies, edited by Henry D. Wallace, pp. 629–650. Anthropological Papers No.

40. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

2011b Santa Cruz River Alluvial Stratigraphy and Geomorphology within the PCPIP

Corridor. In Archaeological and Geoarchaeological Investigations Along the Santa Cruz

River Floodplain: The Pima County Plant Interconnect Project, edited by Douglas B.

Craig, pp. 33–64. Technical Report 09-47. Northland Research, Tempe.

229

Hunt, Charles B., Paul Averitt, and Ralph L. Miller

1953 Geology and Geography of the Henry Mountains Region, Utah. Geological

Survey Professional Paper 228. United States Government Printing Office, Washington,

D.C.

Kohler, Timothy A., and Kelsey M. Reese

2014 Long and Spatially Variable Neolithic Demographic Transition in the North

American Southwest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(28):10101–

10106.

Laland, Kevin N., and Michael J. O'Brien

2011 Cultural Niche Construction: An Introduction. Biological Theory 6(3):191–202.

Mabry, Jonathan B.

2006 Radiocarbon Dating of the Early Occupations. In Rio Nuevo Archaeology, 2000-

2003: Investigations at the San Augustín Mission and Mission Gardens, Tucson Presido,

Tucson Pressed Brickyard, and Clearwater Site, edited by J. Homer Thiel and Jonathan

B. Mabry. Technical Report No. 2004-11

http://www.archaeologysouthwest.org/pdf/rn/rio_nuevo_ch19.pdf. Desert Archaeology,

Inc, Tucson.

230

2008a Chronology. In Las Capas: Early Irrigaiton and Sedentism in a Southwestern

Floodplain, edited by Jonathan B. Mabry, pp. 55–76. Anthropological Papers No. 28.

Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

2008b Irrigation, Short-term Sedentism, and Corporate Organization During the San

Pedro Phase. In Las Capas: Early Irrigation and Sedentism in a Southwestern

Floodplain, edited by Jonathan B. Mabry, pp. 279–293. Anthropological Papers No. 28.

Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

Mabry, Jonathan B. (editor)

2008c Las Capas: Early Irrigation and Sedentism in a Southwestern Floodplain.

Anthropological Papers No. 28. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

Mabry, Jonathan B., James P. Holmlund, Fred L. Nials, and Manuel R. Palacios-Fest

2008 Modeling Canal Characteristics and Trends. In Las Capas: Early Irrigation and

Sedentism in a Southwestern Floodplain, edited by Jonathan B. Mabry, pp. 235–248.

Anthropological Papers No. 28. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

Matson, R. G.

1991 The Origins of Southwestern Agriculture. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Morrison, Kathleen D. 231

1994 The Intensification of Production: Archaeological Approaches. Journal of

Archaeological Method and Theory 1(2):111–159.

2007 Rethinking Intensification: Power Relations and Scales of Analysis in Precolonial

South . In Seeking a Richer Harvest: The Archaeology of Subsistence

Intensification, Innovation, and Change, edited by Tina L. Thurston and Christopher T.

Fisher, pp. 235–247. Springer, New York, New York.

Nials, Fred L.

2015a Life in the Las Capas Landscape: Geomorphic Context and the Setting for

Irrigation Agriculture. In The Anthropogenic Landscape of Las Capas, an Early

Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona, edited by James M. Vint and

Fred L. Nials, pp. 17–42. Anthropological Papers No. 50. Archaeology Southwest,

Tucson.

2015b Life on the Floodplain: The Promise and Perils of Prehistoric Irrigaiton

Agriculture at Las Capas. In Implements of Change: Tools, Subsistence, and the Built

Environment of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern

Arizona, edited by James M. Vint, pp. 419–468. Anthropological Papers No. 51.

Archaeology Southwest, Tucson.

2015c The Stratigraphy and Agricultural Setting of Las Capas. In The Anthropogenic

Landscape of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern 232

Arizona, edited by James M. Vint and Fred L. Nials, pp. 43–70. Anthropological Papers

No. 50. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson.

Nials, Fred L., David A. Gregory, and J. Brett Hill

2011 The Stream Reach Concept and the Macro-Scale Study of Riverine Agriculture in

Arid and Semiarid Environments. Geoarchaeology 26(5):724–761.

Odling-Smee, F. John, and Kevin N. Laland

2011 Ecological Inheritance and Cultural Inheritance: What are they and How do they

Differ? Biological Theory 6(3):220–230.

Reimer, Paula J., Edouard Bard, Alex Bayliss, J. Warren Beck, Paul G. Blackwell, Christopher

Bronk Ramsey, Caitlin E. Buck, Hai Cheng, R. Lawrence Edwards, Michael Friedrich, Pieter M.

Grootes, Thomas P. Guilderson, Haflidi Haflidason, Irka Hajdas, Christine Hatté, Timothy J.

Heaton, Dirk L. Hoffmann, Alan G. Hogg, Konrad A. Hughen, K. Felix Kaiser, Bernd Kromer,

Sturt W. Manning, Mu Niu, Ron W. Reimer, David A. Richards, E. Marian Scott, John R.

Southon, Richard A. Staff, Christian S. M. Turney, and Johannes van der Plicht

2013 IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves 0–50,000 Years cal

BP. Radiocarbon 55(4):1869–1887.

Ritter, Dale F.

1986 Process Geomorphology. 2nd ed. William C. Brown Publishers, Dubuque.

233

Rodríguez, Sylvia

2006 Acequia: Water Sharing, Sanctity, and Place. School for Advanced Research,

Santa Fe.

Roth, Barbara J.

1992 Sedentary Agriculturalists or Mobile Hunter-Gatherers? Recent Evidence on the

Late Archaic Occupation of the Northern Tucson Basin. Kiva 57(4):291–314.

2015 Were They Sedentary and Does it Matter? Early Farmers in the Tucson Basin. In

Late Holocene Research on Foragers and Farmers in the Desert West, edited by Barbara

J. Roth and Maxine E. McBrinn, pp. 108–135. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Roth, Barbara J., and Andrea Freeman

2008 The Middle Archaic Period and the Transition to Agriculture in the Sonoran

Desert of Arizona. Kiva 73(3):321–353.

Roth, Barbara J., and Maxine E. McBrinn

2015 Late Holocene Research on Foragers and Farmers in the Desert West. University

of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Schumm, Stanley A. 234

1973 Geomorphic Thresholds and Complex Response of Drainage Systems. In Fluvial

Geomorphology, edited by Marie Morisawa, pp. 299–310. Publications in

Geomorphology. State University of New York at Binghamton.

1977 The Fluvial System. Wiley Interscience, New York.

Schumm, Stanley A., and Richard F. Hadley

1957 Arroyos and the Semiarid Cycle of Erosion. American Journal of Science

255(3):161–174.

Sheridan, Michael

2014 The Social Life of Landesque Capital and a Tanzanian Case Study. In Landesque

Capital: The Historical Ecology of Enduring Landscape Modifications, edited by N.

Thomas Håkansson and Mats Widgren, pp. 155–171. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek.

Smith, Bruce D.

2007 Niche Construction and the Behavioral Context of Plant and Animal

Domestication. Evolutionary Anthropology 16:188–199.

2011a A Cultural Niche Construction Theory of Initial Domestication. Biological Theory

6(3):260–271.

235

2011b General Patterns of Niche Construction and the Management of 'Wild' Plant and

Animal Resources by Small-scale Pre-Industrial Societies. Philosophical Transactions of

the Royal Society B (366):836–848.

Stone, Glenn Davis, Robert McC. Netting and M. Priscilla Stone

1990 Seasonality, Labor Scheduling, and Agricultural Intensification in the Nigerian

Savanna. American Anthropologist 92:7–23.

Thiel, J. Homer, and Jonathan B. Mabry (editors)

2006 Rio Nuevo Archaeology Program, 2000-2003: Investigations at the San Augustine

Mission and Mission Gardens, Tucson Presidio, Tucson Pressed Brick Company, and

Clearwater Site. Available at http://www.archaeologysouthwest.org/what-we-

do/investigations/to/final-report-rio-nuevo-archaeology-20002003, accessed June, 2017.

Technical Report No. 2004-11. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

Turner, Raymond M., and David E. Brown

1994 Sonoran Desertscrub. In Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and

Northwestern Mexico, edited by David E. Brown, pp. 180–221. University of Utah Press,

Salt Lake City.

Vint, James M.

2015a Anthropogenic Landscapes and the Built Environment of Las Capas, AZ

AA:12:111 (ASM). In Implements of Change: Tools, Subsistence, and the Built 236

Environment of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern

Arizona, edited by James M. Vint, pp. 469–499. Anthropological Papers No. 51.

Archaeology Southwest, Tucson.

2015b Las Capas, AZ AA:12:111 (ASM), Introduced: Background, Chronology, and

Research Orientation. In Implements of Change: Tools, Subsistence, and the Built

Environment of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural Community in Southern Arizona, edited

by James M. Vint, pp. 1–31. Anthropological Papers No. 51. Archaeology Southwest,

Tucson.

Vint, James M. (editor)

2015 Implements of Change: Tools, Subsistence, and the Built Environment of Las

Capas, an Early Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona.

Anthropological Papers No. 51. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson.

Vint, James M., and Fred L. Nials (editors)

2015 The Anthropogenic Landscape of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural Irrigation

Community in Southern Arizona. Anthropological Papers No. 50. Archaeology

Southwest, Tucson.

Wallace, Henry D. (editor) 237

2003 Roots of Sedentism: Archaeological Excavations at Valencia Vieja, a Founding

Village in the Tucson Basin of Southern Arizona. Anthropological Papers No. 29. Center

for Desert Archaeology, Tucson.

Waters, Jennifer A., Stephanie M. Reyes, and Sarah E. Wolff

2015 Vertebrate Faunal Remains Recovered from Las Capas, AZ AA:12:111 (ASM).

In Implements of Change: Tools, Subsistence, and the Built Environment of Las Capas,

an Early Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona, edited by James M.

Vint, pp. 261–303. Anthropological Papers No. 51. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson.

Waters, Michael R.

1988a Holocene Alluvial Geology and Geoarchaeology of the San Xavier Reach of the

Santa Cruz River, Arizona. Geological Society of America Bulletin 100:479–491.

1988b The Impact of Fluvial Processes and Landscape Evolution on the Archaeological

Sites and Settlement Patterns along the San Xavier Reach of the Santa Cruz River,

Arizona. Geoarcaheology 3:205–219.

Waters, Michael R., and C. Vance Jr. Haynes

2001 Late Quaternary Arroyo Formatoin and Climate Change in the American

Southwest. Geology 29(5):399–402.

Watson, James T. 238

2011 Bioarchaeology of the First Farmers in the Sonoran Desert.

, accessed

November, 2015. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson.

Watson, James T., and Rachael M. Byrd

2015 A Bioarchaeological Perspective on Change and Continuity in an Early

Agricultural Community. In Implements of Change: Tools, Subsistence, and the Built

Environment of Las Capas, an Early Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern

Arizona, edited by James M. Vint, pp. 377–388. Anthropological Papers No. 51.

Archaeology Southwest, Tucson.

Watson, James T., and Danielle O. Phelps

2016 Violence and Perimortem Signaling among Early Irrigation Communities in the

Sonoran Desert. Current Anthropology 57(5):586–609.

Webb, Robert H., Julio L. Betancourt, R. Roy Johnson, and Raymond M. Turner

2014 Requiem for the Santa Cruz: An Environmental History of an Arizona River.

University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Whitney, Gregory J., Robert J. Sinensky, George L. Tinseth, Barry Price Steinbrecher, Jessica

M. South, and Michael L. Brack 239

2015 Field Methods and Feature Descriptions: Excavations at Las Capas, an Early

Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona. Technical Report 2014-01.

Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

Whittle, Alasdair, Alex Bayliss, and Frances Healy

2008 The Timing and Tempo of Change: Examples from the Fourth Millenium cal. BC

in Southern England. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 18(1):65–70.

Whittlesey, Stephanie M., S. Jerome Hesse, and Michael S. Foster (editors)

2010a Recurrent Sedentism and the Making of Place: Archaeological Investigations at

Las Capas, a Preceramic Period Farming Community in the Tucson Basin, Southern

Arizona. Cultural Resources Report No. 07-556. SWCA Environmental Consultants,

Tucson.

Whittlesey, Stephanie M., S. Jerome Hesse, Annick Lascaux, and Jerry D. Lyon

2010b Water Control and Farming at Las Capas. In Recurrent Sedentism and the Making

of Place: Archaeological Investigations at Las Capas, a Preceramic Period Farming

Community in the Tucson Basin, Southern Arizona, edited by Stehphanie M. Whittlesey,

S. Jerome Hesse and Michael S. Foster, pp. 407–438. SWCA Cultural Resources Report

No. 07-556. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Tucson.

Willey, Gordon R., and Philip Phillips 240

1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press,

Chicago.

Yost, Chad L.

2015 Phytolith Analysis of Early Agricultural Period Field Sediments at Las Capas, AZ

AA:12:111 (ASM). In The Anthropogenic Landscape of Las Capas, and Early

Agricultural Irrigation Community in Southern Arizona, edited by James M. Vint and

Fred L. Nials, pp. 169–192. Anthropological Papers No. 50. Archaeology Southwest,

Tucson.

Zeder, Melinda A.

2012 The Broad Spectrum Revolution at 40: Resource Diversity, Intensification, and an

Alternative to Optimal Foraging Explanations. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

31:241–264.

241

Supplemental Data

242

Supplemental Data Table 1. Santa Cruz River erosion cycles OxCal model code.

Plot() { Outlier_Model("Charcoal",Exp(1,-10,0),U(0,3),"t"); Sequence("Waters and Haynes 2001and Haynes and Huckell 1986 Santa Cruz Stratigraphic Chronology") { Boundary("Start I"); R_Date("I Beta-14537", 7970, 130) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; Boundary("Transition I/II"); Phase("II") { R_Date("II A-1783", 3980, 100) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("II Beta-81048", 4380, 60) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("II A-1858", 4400, 220) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("II A-1854", 4850, 90) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("II AA-3855", 5105, 55) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("II A-3861", 5540, 95) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; }; Boundary("Transition II/III"); Phase("III") { R_Date("III Beta-13707", 2520, 105) { 243

Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("III A-2817", 2520, 130) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("III A-1857", 2520, 140) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("III Beta-14715", 2530, 80) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("III A-1892", 2630, 100) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("III A-3627", 2650, 120) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("III Beta-85537", 3650, 60) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("III A-2816", 3650, 100) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("III CAMS33965", 3810, 60) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("III CAMS33961", 3990, 60) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("B2 Ina A-3104", 3730, 110) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("B2 Ina A-3147", 3240, 50) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; 244

R_Date("B2 Ina A-3145", 3230, 100) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("B2 Ina A-3148", 3140, 80) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("B2 Ina A-2451", 2870, 100) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("B2 Ina A-2237", 2820, 250) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("B2 Ina A-2452", 2720, 210) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("B2 Ina A-4038", 2700, 90) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("B2 Ina A-2453", 2700, 130) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; Interval("Interval III"); }; Boundary("Transition III/IV"); Phase("IV") { R_Date("IV A-1887", 1960, 80) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("IV Beta-14820", 2190, 105) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("IV A-1883", 2030, 230) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("IV A-1782", 2290, 80) 245

{ Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("IV A-1781", 2300, 110) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("IV A-4080", 2420, 70) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("IV AA-887", 2450, 220) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; }; Boundary("Transition IV/V"); Phase("V") { R_Date("V A-3140", 1020, 200) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("V Beta-13705", 1310, 75) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("V A-2814", 1620, 180) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("V A-2813", 1790, 120) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("V Beta-14822", 1840, 80) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("V Beta-13706", 1890, 70) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("V Beta-14823", 1920, 85) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); 246

}; R_Date("V A-2812", 1950, 120) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; }; Boundary("Transition V/VI"); Phase("VI") { R_Date("VI A-1890", 610, 90) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("VI A-1885", 630, 80) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("VI Beta-13710", 650, 125) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("VI Beta-13703", 660, 80) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("VI AA-721", 730, 90) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("VI AA-720", 960, 120) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; }; Boundary("Transition Vi/VII"); R_Date("A-4667", VII A-4667, 480) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("A-2444", VII A-2444, 490) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; Boundary("End VII"); }; }; 247

Supplemental Data Table 2. Santa Cruz River erosion cycles OxCal model output.

Indices Amodel 107.3 Aoverall Name Unmodelled (BC/AD) Modelled (BC/AD) 108.9 from to median from to % median A C Outlier_Model Charcoal -160 10 95.4 -10 100 - Exp(1,-10,0) -3.17 0.05 -0.74 -0.74 100 2.21E- U(0,3) 17 3 1.515 3.60E-17 2.061 95.4 1.086 100 96.7 Sequence Waters and Haynes 2001 and Haynes and Huckell 1986 Santa Cruz Stratigraphic Chronology Boundary Start I -11550 -6510 95.4 -7570 97.8 - R_Date I Beta-14537 -7300 6530 -6880 -7250 -6450 95.4 -6820 100.1 99.5 Boundary Transition I/II -6450 -4060 95.4 -4690 98.8 Phase II - R_Date II A-1783 -2870 2200 -2500 -2870 -2370 95.4 -2600 91.7 99.7 - R_Date II Beta-81048 -3330 2890 -3020 -3330 -2830 95.4 -2990 99.9 99.5 - R_Date II A-1858 -3640 2490 -3080 -3630 -2550 95.4 -3070 102.5 99.5 - R_Date II A-1854 -3920 3370 -3640 -3920 -3340 95.4 -3610 99.9 99.5 - R_Date II AA-3855 -4040 3770 -3880 -4040 -3680 95.4 -3860 99.8 99.6 - R_Date II A-3861 -4620 4070 -4390 -4580 -4030 95.4 -4350 97.1 99.4 Boundary Transition II/III -2730 -2200 95.4 -2460 99.7 Phase III R_Date III Beta-13707 -890 -390 -630 -870 -410 95.4 -650 104.8 99.7 R_Date III A-2817 -940 -360 -630 -920 -400 95.4 -660 104.5 99.7 R_Date III A-1857 -980 -250 -630 -970 -400 95.4 -670 104.7 99.6 R_Date III Beta-14715 -810 -410 -640 -820 -440 95.4 -650 106 99.7 R_Date III A-1892 -1010 -430 -790 -1010 -470 95.4 -780 104.5 99.6 R_Date III A-3627 -1090 -410 -810 -1100 -470 95.4 -800 104.6 99.6 - R_Date III Beta-85537 -2210 1880 -2030 -2200 -1780 95.4 -2000 100.1 99.4 - R_Date III A-2816 -2340 1740 -2030 -2310 -1680 95.4 -2000 100.8 99.3 - R_Date III CAMS33965 -2470 2050 -2260 -2460 -2000 95.4 -2220 102.3 99.3 - R_Date III CAMS33961 -2840 2290 -2520 -2590 -2110 95.4 -2370 73.7 98.7 - R_Date B2 Ina A-3104 -2480 1830 -2150 -2450 -1780 95.4 -2110 102.8 99.4 - R_Date B2 Ina A-3147 -1630 1420 -1520 -1640 -1320 95.4 -1500 99.9 99.6 - R_Date B2 Ina A-3145 -1750 1260 -1510 -1750 -1200 95.4 -1490 100 99.3 - R_Date B2 Ina A-3148 -1620 1210 -1400 -1610 -1120 95.4 -1380 99.9 99.7 R_Date B2 Ina A-2451 -1380 -820 -1060 -1380 -780 95.4 -1040 99.9 99.6 248

R_Date B2 Ina A-2237 -1620 -400 -1030 -1600 -480 95.4 -1020 104.1 99.3 R_Date B2 Ina A-2452 -1410 -400 -900 -1400 -470 95.4 -900 104.9 99.4 R_Date B2 Ina A-4038 -1120 -550 -880 -1090 -570 95.4 -850 100.8 99.7 R_Date B2 Ina A-2453 -1220 -480 -880 -1210 -510 95.4 -860 103.1 99.6 Interval Interval III 1710 2270 95.4 1980 99.9 Boundary Transition III/IV -660 -280 95.4 -480 99.7 Phase IV R_Date IV A-1887 -170 230 40 -350 100 95.4 -80 62 99.7 R_Date IV Beta-14820 -490 60 -240 -410 10 95.4 -230 108.5 99.8 R_Date IV A-1883 -760 430 -70 -470 70 95.4 -200 110.6 99.8 R_Date IV A-1782 -750 -110 -350 -500 -90 95.4 -290 111.2 99.8 R_Date IV A-1781 -770 -110 -380 -520 -50 95.4 -290 115.9 99.7 R_Date IV A-4080 -770 -390 -550 -570 -170 95.4 -420 105 99.6 R_Date IV AA-887 -1120 -30 -570 -560 -20 95.4 -320 93.3 99.7 Boundary Transition IV/V -230 180 95.4 -10 99.7 Phase V R_Date V A-3140 630 1390 990 620 1260 95.4 930 98.7 99.6 R_Date V Beta-13705 590 890 720 600 960 95.4 750 100.4 99.8 R_Date V A-2814 1 770 410 50 790 95.4 440 102.3 99.6 R_Date V A-2813 -40 540 230 10 570 95.4 270 103.4 99.7 R_Date V Beta-14822 1 390 180 20 440 95.4 210 102 99.7 R_Date V Beta-13706 -50 330 120 -20 370 95.4 160 102.9 99.7 R_Date V Beta-14823 -160 330 90 -50 380 95.4 140 104.9 99.6 R_Date V A-2812 -360 350 50 -90 420 95.4 140 106.2 99.6 Boundary Transition V/VI 840 1390 95.4 1180 99.4 Phase VI R_Date VI A-1890 1220 1450 1350 1240 1480 95.4 1350 102.6 99.8 R_Date VI A-1885 1250 1440 1340 1250 1470 95.4 1350 101.7 99.9 R_Date VI Beta-13710 1040 1490 1320 1170 1480 95.4 1330 111.7 99.8 R_Date VI Beta-13703 1220 1430 1330 1220 1460 95.4 1340 102.9 99.8 R_Date VI AA-721 1040 1420 1270 1160 1460 95.4 1300 109.8 99.8 R_Date VI AA-720 770 1280 1080 1010 1440 95.4 1240 84 99.6 Boundary Transition Vi/VII 1280 1680 95.4 1430 99.7 R_Date A-4667 980 ... 1620 1320 2290 95.4 1660 111.4 99.8 R_Date A-2444 900 ... 1620 1400 2670 95.4 1900 120.8 99.7 Boundary End VII 1520 2960 95.4 2160 99

249

Supplemental Data Table 3. Modelled date ranges for Santa Cruz River erosion cycles.

Modeled Ages 95.4% likelihood Erosion Cycle 14C Age1 Event occurred between: median: Start I 8000 rcyBP 11550 and 6510 cal B.C. 7570 cal B.C. Transition from I/II 5600 rcyBP 6450 and 4060 cal B.C. 4690 cal B.C. Transition from II/III 4000 rcyBP 2730 and 2200 cal B .C. 2460 cal B.C. (Cycle III duration) (1710 to 2270 years) (1980 years) Transition from III/IV 2500 rcyBP 660 and 280 cal B.C. 480 cal B.C. Transition from 2000 rcyBP 230 cal B.C. and cal A.D. 180 10 cal B.C. IV/V Transition from 1000 rcyBP cal A.D. 840 and 1390 cal A.D. 1180 V/VI Transition from 500 rcyBP cal A.D. 1280 and 1680 cal A.D. 1430 VI/VII End VII cal A.D. 1520 and present –

1Waters and Haynes 2001

250

Supplemental Data Table 4. Dated sample types by site.

canid cf. annual Arctostaphylos atriplex bone zea charred Fabacea juniper large mequite Prosopis Quercus seed plant charcoal charcoal gelatin mays charcoal monocot charcoal charcoal seed maize charcoal phragmites seed shell coat Total Clearwater (AZ BB:13:6) 1 2 1 2 1 7 Cortaro Road (AZ AA:12:232) 4 8 1 13 Costello-King (AZ AA:12:503) 1 5 6 Dairy Site (AZ AA:12:285/744) 4 1 2 7 El Taller (AZ AA:12:92) 4 1 5 Las Capas (AZ AA:12:111) 1 1 55 4 5 2 68 Los Pozos (AZ AA:12:91) 1 9 3 13 Milagro (AZ BB:10:46) 5 5 Rillito Fan (AZ AA:12:788) 1 3 1 1 6 Rillito Loop (AZ AA:12:252) 6 6 Stewart Brickyard (AZ AA:12:51) 3 1 4 Valley Farms (AZ AA:12:736) 1 19 20 Total 1 1 1 1 2 15 1 1 1 1 114 1 6 11 2 1 160

251

Supplemental Data Table 5. Radiocarbon samples used in site models.

Arizona State 13C/12C Museum Site Lab Sample ratio Conventional Site Name Number (ASM) Number Dated Material o/oo Age Reference Rillito Loop AZ AA:12:252 Beta-56613 charcoal 3070 ±90 Gregory 1993 Rillito Loop AZ AA:12:252 Beta-56610 charcoal 3050 ±80 Gregory 1993 Rillito Loop AZ AA:12:252 Beta-56611 charcoal 2900 ±70 Gregory 1993 Rillito Loop AZ AA:12:252 Beta-56609 charcoal 2840 ±60 Gregory 1993 Rillito Loop AZ AA:12:252 Beta-56615 charcoal 2720 ±60 Gregory 1993 Rillito Loop AZ AA:12:252 Beta-56614 charcoal 2690 ±70 Gregory 1993 Stewart Brickyard AZ AA:12:51 Beta-193388 maize -10.6 2890 ±40 Brack, ed. 2013 Stewart Brickyard AZ AA:12:51 Beta-208861 maize 2850 ±40 Brack, ed. 2013 Stewart Brickyard AZ AA:12:51 Beta-208858 maize -8.6 2840 ±40 Brack, ed. 2013 Stewart Brickyard AZ AA:12:51 Beta-208859 phragmites -10 2790 ±40 Brack, ed. 2013 Dairy Site AZ AA:12:285/744 Beta-229377 Prosopis seed -22.6 2880 ±40 Chenault 2009; Thurtle 2003 Dairy Site AZ AA:12:285/744 Beta-229376 Prosopis seed -22.8 2850 ±40 Chenault 2009; Thurtle 2003 Dairy Site AZ AA:12:285/744 Beta-229374 maize -11.1 2830 ±40 Chenault 2009; Thurtle 2003 Dairy Site AZ AA:12:285/744 Beta-171879 maize 2820 ±40 Chenault 2009; Thurtle 2003 Dairy Site AZ AA:12:285/744 Beta-229375 maize -10.3 2820 ±40 Chenault 2009; Thurtle 2003 Dairy Site AZ AA:12:285/744 Beta-171878 maize 2810 ±40 Chenault 2009; Thurtle 2003 Dairy Site AZ AA:12:285/744 NA phragmites 2800 ±40 Chenault 2009; Thurtle 2003 Valley Farms AZ AA:12:736 AA-28496 maize 3145 ±50 Roth and Wellman 2001 Valley Farms AZ AA:12:736 AA-27835 maize 2974 ±45 Roth and Wellman 2001 Valley Farms AZ AA:12:736 AA-27836 maize 2952 ±55 Roth and Wellman 2001 Valley Farms AZ AA:12:736 AA-28497 maize 2950 ±55 Roth and Wellman 2001 Valley Farms AZ AA:12:736 AA-27438 maize 2940 ±50 Roth and Wellman 2001 Valley Farms AZ AA:12:736 AA-28498 maize 2930 ±50 Roth and Wellman 2001 Valley Farms AZ AA:12:736 AA-27838 maize 2923 ±63 Roth and Wellman 2001 Valley Farms AZ AA:12:736 AA-27427 maize 2920 ±45 Roth and Wellman 2001 Valley Farms AZ AA:12:736 AA-27429 maize 2915 ±55 Roth and Wellman 2001 Valley Farms AZ AA:12:736 AA-27435 maize 2910 ±50 Roth and Wellman 2001 Valley Farms AZ AA:12:736 AA-27437 maize 2895 ±55 Roth and Wellman 2001 Valley Farms AZ AA:12:736 AA-27837 maize 2895 ±50 Roth and Wellman 2001 Valley Farms AZ AA:12:736 AA-28495 maize 2835 ±50 Roth and Wellman 2001 Valley Farms AZ AA:12:736 AA-27436 maize 2830 ±50 Roth and Wellman 2001 Valley Farms AZ AA:12:736 AA-27431 maize 2820 ±70 Roth and Wellman 2001 Valley Farms AZ AA:12:736 AA-27433 maize 2820 ±45 Roth and Wellman 2001 Valley Farms AZ AA:12:736 AA-27434 maize 2800 ±55 Roth and Wellman 2001 Valley Farms AZ AA:12:736 AA-27432 maize 2790 ±50 Roth and Wellman 2001 Valley Farms AZ AA:12:736 AA-27428 maize 2760 ±45 Roth and Wellman 2001 Valley Farms AZ AA:12:736 AA-27430 cf. zea mays 2750 ±60 Roth and Wellman 2001 Cortaro Road AZ AA:12:232 Beta-168799 maize -10.1 3320 ±40 Hesse and Lascaux 2009:Table 9.1 252

Cortaro Road AZ AA:12:232 Beta-168795 maize -10.0 2960 ±40 Hesse and Lascaux 2009:Table 9.1 Cortaro Road AZ AA:12:232 Beta-168797 maize -9.1 2840 ±40 Hesse and Lascaux 2009:Table 9.1 Cortaro Road AZ AA:12:232 Beta-168801 maize -8.6 2840 ±40 Hesse and Lascaux 2009:Table 9.1 Cortaro Road AZ AA:12:232 Beta-168805 charcoal -18.4 2830 ±40 Hesse and Lascaux 2009:Table 9.1 Cortaro Road AZ AA:12:232 Beta-168796 maize -11.1 2820 ±40 Hesse and Lascaux 2009:Table 9.1 Cortaro Road AZ AA:12:232 Beta-168802 maize -8.6 2820 ±40 Hesse and Lascaux 2009:Table 9.1 Cortaro Road AZ AA:12:232 Beta-169945 charcoal -24.9 2810 ±70 Hesse and Lascaux 2009:Table 9.1 Cortaro Road AZ AA:12:232 Beta-168800 seed coat -23.3 2700 ±40 Hesse and Lascaux 2009:Table 9.1 Cortaro Road AZ AA:12:232 Beta-168787 charcoal -24.7 2680 ±60 Hesse and Lascaux 2009:Table 9.1 Cortaro Road AZ AA:12:232 Beta-168791 maize -9.7 2630 ±40 Hesse and Lascaux 2009:Table 9.1 Cortaro Road AZ AA:12:232 Beta-168793 maize -9.2 2620 ±40 Hesse and Lascaux 2009:Table 9.1 Cortaro Road AZ AA:12:232 Beta-168789 charcoal -25.0 2600 ±60 Hesse and Lascaux 2009:Table 9.1 Costello-King AZ AA:12:503 Beta-89859 maize -11.5 2780 ±60 Ezzo and Deaver 1998 Costello-King AZ AA:12:503 Beta-89860 maize -12.4 2770 ±60 Ezzo and Deaver 1998 Costello-King AZ AA:12:503 Beta-89861 maize -12.3 2770 ±60 Ezzo and Deaver 1998 Costello-King AZ AA:12:503 Beta-89862 maize -11.5 2690 ±60 Ezzo and Deaver 1998 Costello-King AZ AA:12:503 Beta-89863 maize -11.3 2620 ±60 Ezzo and Deaver 1998 Costello-King AZ AA:12:503 GX-25030-G-AMS canid bone gelatin -10.0 2600 ±50 Ezzo and Stiner 2000 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-331700 atriplex charcoal -10.7 3360 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-292150 maize -15.5 3130 ±40 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-292149 maize 3050 ±40 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-325662 maize -10.5 3010 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-333939 maize -10.8 2980 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-306696 phragmites -22.6 2970 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-306697 phragmites -23.6 2970 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-304545 maize -10.3 2950 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-304538 maize -9.9 2940 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-306690 phragmites -24.3 2930 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-304542 maize -10.9 2930 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-325663 maize -11 2930 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-325664 maize -10.8 2930 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-325655 maize -11.2 2920 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-333940 maize -10.1 2920 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-304541 maize -11.2 2920 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-306685 maize -12.6 2910 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-304531 maize -10.5 2900 ±40 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-304534 maize -11.1 2900 ±40 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-325659 maize -10.2 2900 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-325657 maize -11.4 2890 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-304535 maize -10.6 2880 ±40 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-304539 maize -10.1 2880 ±40 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-325661 maize -10.2 2880 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-304547 maize -11 2880 ±30 Vint 2015 253

Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-304536 maize -11.1 2870 ±40 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-306688 maize -10.5 2870 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-304546 Prosopis seed -22.3 2870 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-304532 maize -11.1 2860 ±40 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-304533 maize -10.7 2860 ±40 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-325660 maize -24.5 2860 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-306689 maize -10.4 2850 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-325665 Prosopis seed -22.2 2850 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-304544 maize -10.5 2840 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-325658 maize -10.7 2780 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-306694 maize -10.5 2770 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-306692 maize -9.6 2770 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-306691 maize -10.3 2740 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-306687 maize -10.6 2730 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-306693 maize -10.9 2730 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-333934 maize -8.7 2730 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-333937 maize -10.2 2720 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-339685 maize -8.5 2720 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-325656 maize -9.8 2720 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-333938 maize -7.9 2700 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-333936 maize -11.2 2660 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-325653 Prosopis seed -23.5 2660 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-358015 maize -10.3 2650 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-333932 maize -9.9 2630 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-358016 maize -22.1 2600 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-339690 maize -10.2 2600 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-339691 Prosopis seed -9.8 2600 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-358016 Quercus shell -22.1 2600 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-339687 Quercus shell -10.8 2560 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-339688 phragmites -10.9 2560 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-306683 maize -22.3 2550 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-339695 large seed -9.8 2530 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-333930 maize -10 2530 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-358014 maize -11.1 2530 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-344167 maize -9.7 2520 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-339694 maize -10 2500 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-339693 maize -10.8 2500 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-339686 maize -10.3 2500 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-339689 maize -23.5 2490 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-344169 maize -10.9 2470 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-339696 maize -11.1 2450 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-306684 maize -10.6 2450 ±30 Vint 2015 Las Capas AZ AA:12:111 Beta-333935 Prosopis seed -23 2380 ±30 Vint 2015 254

Rillito Fan AZ AA:12:788 Beta-264662 charcoal -22.1 3480 ±40 Huckleberry 2011:Table 3.2 Rillito Fan AZ AA:12:788 Beta-251172 charcoal -21.6 3470 ±40 Huckleberry 2011:Table 3.2 Rillito Fan AZ AA:12:788 Beta-264664 charcoal -21.6 3000 ±40 Huckleberry 2011:Table 3.2 Rillito Fan AZ AA:12:788 PRI-09-97-432 Fabacea charcoal -12 2815 ±20 Huckleberry 2011:Table 3.2 Rillito Fan AZ AA:12:788 PRI-09-97-495 Arctostaphylos charcoal -19.9 2555 ±20 Huckleberry 2011:Table 3.2 Rillito Fan AZ AA:12:788 PRI-09-97-431 charred monocot -21.1 2510 ±110 Huckleberry 2011:Table 3.2 El Taller AZ AA:12:92 Beta-161850 maize -24 3730 ±40 Wocoerl 2007 El Taller AZ AA:12:92 Beta-161854 maize -10.3 3080 ±50 Wocoerl 2007 El Taller AZ AA:12:92 Beta-161855 maize -10 3010 ±40 Wocoerl 2007 El Taller AZ AA:12:92 Beta-161846 Prosopis seed -23.5 2970 ±40 Wocoerl 2007 El Taller AZ AA:12:92 Beta-164173 maize -12.3 2830 ±40 Wocoerl 2007 Los Pozos AZ AA:12:91 Beta-432714 Prosopis seed -23.1 3610 ±30 Wocherl, personal communication Los Pozos AZ AA:12:91 Beta-430935 Prosopis seed -26 3470 ±30 Wocherl, personal communication Los Pozos AZ AA:12:91 Beta-124111 maize -10.7 3340 ±60 Gregory et al. 2007 Los Pozos AZ AA:12:91 Beta-124114 maize -10.4 3300 ±80 Gregory et al. 2007 Los Pozos AZ AA:12:91 Beta-124113 maize -10.3 3230 ±50 Gregory et al. 2007 Los Pozos AZ AA:12:91 Beta-124112 maize -10.7 3140 ±50 Gregory et al. 2007 Los Pozos AZ AA:12:91 Beta-430931 maize -10.4 3110 ±30 Wocherl, personal communication Los Pozos AZ AA:12:91 Beta-430934 cf. zea mays -19.3 3090 ±30 Wocherl, personal communication Los Pozos AZ AA:12:91 Beta-430932 maize -10.6 3040 ±30 Wocherl, personal communication Los Pozos AZ AA:12:91 Beta-414202 maize -11.7 3040 ±30 Wocherl, personal communication Los Pozos AZ AA:12:91 Beta-430933 maize -11.3 3030 ±30 Wocherl, personal communication Los Pozos AZ AA:12:91 Beta-414203 Prosopis seed -27.9 3030 ±30 Wocherl, personal communication Los Pozos AZ AA:12:91 Beta-414201 maize -11 3020 ±30 Wocherl, personal communication Clearwater AZ BB:13:6 Beta-157018 juniper charcoal -25 3800 ±40 Mabry 2006 Clearwater AZ BB:13:6 Beta-175842 maize -10.9 3690 ±40 Mabry 2006 Clearwater AZ BB:13:6 Beta-175843 charcoal -25.3 3680 ±40 Mabry 2006 Clearwater AZ BB:13:6 Beta-160381 maize -10.4 3650 ±40 Mabry 2006 Clearwater AZ BB:13:6 Beta-175844 charcoal -24.8 3620 ±40 Mabry 2006 Clearwater AZ BB:13:6 Beta-190713 mequite charcoal -24.5 3280 ±40 Mabry 2006 Clearwater AZ BB:13:6 Beta-193150 annual plant -8.3 3220 ±40 Mabry 2006 Milagro AZ BB:10:46 AA-12055 maize 2930 ±45 Huckell et al. 1995 Milagro AZ BB:10:46 AA-12056 maize 2915 ±45 Huckell et al. 1995 Milagro AZ BB:10:46 AA-12053 maize 2910 ±45 Huckell et al. 1995 Milagro AZ BB:10:46 AA-1074 maize 2780 ±90 Huckell et al. 1995 Milagro AZ BB:10:46 AA-12054 maize 2775 ±60 Huckell et al. 1995

255

Supplemental Data Table 6. OxCal site model 1 code.

Options() { kIterations=1000; }; Plot() { Outlier_Model("Charcoal",Exp(1,-10,0),U(0,3),"t"); Sequence("Rillito Loop") { Boundary("Start Rillito Loop"); Phase("Rillito loop") { R_Date("Rillito Loop Beta-56613", 3070, 90) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("Rillito Loop Beta-56610", 3050, 80) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("Rillito Loop Beta-56611 ", 2900, 70) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("Rillito Loop Beta-56609 ", 2840, 60) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("Rillito Loop Beta-56615 ", 2720, 60) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("Rillito Loop Beta-56614 ", 2690, 70) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; Interval("Rillito Loop Interval"); Sum("Rillito Loop Sum") { }; }; Boundary("End Rillito Loop"); }; Sequence("Stewart Brickyard") 256

{ Boundary("Start Stewart Brickyard"); Phase("Stewart Brickyard") { R_Date("Stewart Brickyard Beta-193388 ", 2890, 40); R_Date("Stewart Brickyard Beta-208861 ", 2850, 40); R_Date("Stewart Brickyard Beta-208858 ", 2840, 40); R_Date("Stewart Brickyard Beta-208859 ", 2790, 40); Interval("Stewarr Brickyard Interval"); Sum("Stewart Brickyard Sum") { }; }; Boundary("End Stewart Brickyard"); }; Sequence("Dairy Site") { Boundary("Start Dairy Site"); Phase("Dairy Site") { R_Date("Dairy Site Beta-229377", 2880, 40); R_Date("Dairy Site Beta-229376", 2850, 40); R_Date("Dairy Site Beta-229374", 2830, 40); R_Date("Dairy Site Beta-171879", 2820, 40); R_Date("Dairy Site Beta-229375", 2820, 40); R_Date("Dairy Site Beta-171878", 2810, 40); R_Date("Dairy Site-NA", 2800, 40); Interval("Dairy Site Interval"); Sum("Dairy Site Sum") { }; }; Boundary("End Dairy Site"); }; Sequence("Valley Farms") { Boundary("Start Valley Farms"); Phase("Valley Farms") { R_Date("Valley Farms AA-28496", 3145, 50); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-27835", 2974, 45); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-27836", 2952, 55); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-28497", 2950, 55); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-27438", 2940, 50); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-28498", 2930, 50); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-27838", 2923, 63); 257

R_Date("Valley Farms AA-27427", 2920, 45); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-27429", 2915, 55); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-27435", 2910, 50); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-27437", 2895, 55); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-27837", 2895, 50); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-28495", 2835, 50); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-27436", 2830, 50); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-27431", 2820, 70); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-27433", 2820, 45); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-27434", 2800, 55); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-27432", 2790, 50); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-27428", 2760, 45); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-27430", 2750, 60); Interval("Valley Farms Interval"); Sum("Valley Farms Sum") { }; }; Boundary("End Valley Farms"); }; Sequence("Cortaro Road") { Boundary("Start Cortaro Road"); Phase("Cortaro Road") { R_Date("Cortaro Road Beta-168799", 3320, 40); R_Date("Cortaro Road Beta-168795", 2960, 40); R_Date("Cortaro Road Beta-168797", 2840, 40); R_Date("Cortaro Road Beta-168801", 2840, 40); R_Date("Cortaro Road Beta-168805", 2830, 40) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("Cortaro Road Beta-168796", 2820, 40); R_Date("Cortaro Road Beta-168802", 2820, 40); R_Date("Cortaro Road Beta-169945", 2810, 70) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("Cortaro Road Beta-168800", 2700, 40); R_Date("Cortaro Road Beta-168787", 2680, 60) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("Cortaro Road Beta-168791", 2630, 40); R_Date("Cortaro Road Beta-168793", 2620, 40); 258

R_Date("Cortaro Road Beta-168789", 2600, 60) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; Interval("Cortaro Road Interval"); Sum("Cortaro Road Sum") { }; }; Boundary("End Cortaro Road"); }; Sequence("Costello-King") { Boundary("Start Costello-King"); Phase("Costello-King") { R_Date("Costello-King Beta-89859 ", 2780, 60); R_Date("Costello-King Beta-89860 ", 2770, 60); R_Date("Costello-King Beta-89861 ", 2770, 60); R_Date("Costello-King Beta-89862 ", 2690, 60); R_Date("Costello-King Beta-89863 ", 2620, 60); R_Date("Costello-King GX-25030-G-AMS", 2600, 50); Interval("Costello-King Interval"); Sum("Costello-King Sum") { }; }; Boundary("End Costello-King"); }; Sequence("Las Capas") { Boundary("Start LCA 507"); Phase("LCA 507") { R_Date("507 Beta-331700", 3360, 30) { }; R_Date("507 Beta-292150", 3130, 40) { }; R_Date("507 Beta-292149", 3050, 40) { }; Interval("LCA 507 Interval"); Sum("LCA 507 Sum") { 259

}; }; Boundary("Transition 507/506"); Phase("LCA 506") { R_Date("506 Beta-325662", 3010, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-333939", 2980, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-306697", 2970, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-306696", 2970, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-304545", 2950, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-304538", 2940, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-325664", 2930, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-325663", 2930, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-304542", 2930, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-306690", 2930, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-304541", 2920, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-333940", 2920, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-325655", 2920, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-306685", 2910, 30) { 260

}; R_Date("506 Beta-325659", 2900, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-304534", 2900, 40) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-304531", 2900, 40) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-325657", 2890, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-304547", 2880, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-325661", 2880, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-304539", 2880, 40) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-304535", 2880, 40) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-304546", 2870, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-306688", 2870, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-304536", 2870, 40) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-325660", 2860, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-304533", 2860, 40) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-304532", 2860, 40) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-325665", 2850, 30) { }; 261

R_Date("506 Beta-306689", 2850, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-304544", 2840, 30) { }; Interval("LCA 506 Interval"); Sum("LCA 506 Sum") { }; }; Boundary("End LCA 506"); Interval("Interval 506/505"); Boundary("Start LCA 505"); Phase("LCA 505") { R_Date("505 Beta-325658", 2780, 30) { }; R_Date("505 Beta-306692", 2770, 30) { }; R_Date("505 Beta-306694", 2770, 30) { }; R_Date("505 Beta-306691", 2740, 30) { }; R_Date("505 Beta-306693", 2730, 30) { }; R_Date("505 Beta-306687", 2730, 30) { }; R_Date("505 Beta-333934", 2730, 30) { }; R_Date("505 Beta-325656", 2720, 30) { }; R_Date("505 Beta-339685", 2720, 30) { }; R_Date("505 Beta-333937", 2720, 30) { }; 262

R_Date("505 Beta-333938", 2700, 30) { }; R_Date("505 Beta-325653", 2660, 30) { }; R_Date("505 Beta-333936", 2660, 30) { }; Interval("LCA 505 Interval"); Sum("LCA 505 Sum") { }; }; Boundary("Transition 505/504"); Phase("LCA 504") { R_Date("E-WH Beta-358015", 2650, 30) { }; R_Date("504 Beta-333933", 2640, 30) { }; R_Date("504 Beta-339690", 2600, 30) { }; R_Date("E-WH Beta-358016", 2600, 30) { }; R_Date("504 Beta-339691", 2600, 30) { }; R_Date("504 Beta-339688", 2560, 30) { }; R_Date("504 Beta-339687", 2560, 30) { }; R_Date("504 Beta-306683", 2550, 30) { }; R_Date("504 Beta-339695", 2530, 30) { }; R_Date("504 Beta-333930", 2530, 30) { 263

}; R_Date("504 Beta-344167", 2520, 30) { }; R_Date("504 Beta-339694", 2500, 30) { }; R_Date("504 Beta-339693", 2500, 30) { }; R_Date("504 Beta-339686", 2500, 30) { }; R_Date("504 Beta-339689", 2490, 30) { }; R_Date("504 Beta-344169", 2470, 30) { }; R_Date("504 Beta-339696", 2450, 30) { }; R_Date("504 Beta-306684", 2450, 30) { }; Interval("LCA 504 Interval"); Sum("LCA 504 Sum") { }; }; Boundary("Transition LCA 504/503"); Phase("Stratum 503") { Date("OSL usu-964",N(2012-2780,360)); Date("OSL usu-965",N(2012-2710,320)); Date("OSL usu-966",N(2012-2670,470)); }; Boundary("Transition 503/502"); Date("Date 503/502"); R_Date("502-E-WH Beta-358014", 2530, 30) { }; R_Date("502 Beta-333935", 2380, 30) { }; R_Date("502-E-WH Beta-358013", 2380, 30) 264

{ }; Sum("Las Capas Sum") { }; }; Sequence("Rillito Fan") { Boundary("Start Rillito Fan"); Phase("Rillito fan") { R_Date("Rillito Fan Beta-264662", 3480, 40); R_Date("Rillito Fan Beta-251172", 3470, 40); R_Date("Rillito Fan Beta-264664", 3000, 40); R_Date("Rillito Fan PRI-09-97-432", 2815, 20); R_Date("Rillito Fan PRI-09-97-495", 2555, 20); R_Date("Rillito Fan PRI-09-97-431", 2510, 110); Interval("Rillito Fan Interval"); Sum("Rillito Fan Sum") { }; }; Boundary("End Rillito Fan"); }; Sequence("El Taller") { Boundary("Start El Taller"); Phase("El Taller") { R_Date("El Taller Beta-161850", 3730, 40) { }; R_Date("El Taller Beta-161854", 3080, 50) { }; R_Date("El Taller Beta-161855", 3010, 40) { }; R_Date("El Taller Beta-161846", 2970, 40) { }; R_Date("El Taller Beta-164173", 2830, 40) { }; Interval("El Taller Interval"); Sum("El Taller Sum") 265

{ }; }; Boundary("End El Taller"); }; Sequence("Los Pozos") { Boundary("Start Los Pozos"); Phase("Los Pozos") { R_Date("Los Pozos Beta-432714", 3610, 30); R_Date("Los Pozos Beta-430935", 3470, 30); R_Date("Los Pozos Beta-124111", 3340, 60); R_Date("Los Pozos Beta-124114", 3300, 80); R_Date("Los Pozos Beta-124113", 3230, 50); R_Date("Los Pozos Beta-124112", 3140, 50); R_Date("Los Pozos Beta-430931", 3110, 30); R_Date("Los Pozos Beta-430934", 3090, 30); R_Date("Los Pozos Beta-430932", 3040, 30); R_Date("Los Pozos Beta-414202", 3040, 30); R_Date("Los Pozos Beta-430933", 3030, 30); R_Date("Los Pozos Beta-414203", 3030, 30); R_Date("Los Pozos Beta-414201", 3020, 30); Interval("Los Pozos Interval"); Sum("Los Pozos Sum") { }; }; Boundary("End Los Pozos"); }; Sequence("Clearwater") { Boundary("Start Clearwater"); Phase("Clearwater") { R_Date("Clearwater B-157018 ", 3800, 40); R_Date("Clearwater B-175842 ", 3690, 40); R_Date("Clearwater B-175843 ", 3680, 40); R_Date("Clearwater B-160381 ", 3650, 40); R_Date("Clearwater B-175844 ", 3620, 40); R_Date("Clearwater B-190713", 3280, 40); R_Date("Clearwater B-193150", 3220, 40); Interval("Clearwater Interval"); Sum("Clearwater Sum") { }; 266

}; Boundary("End Clearwater"); }; Sequence("Milagro") { Boundary("Start Milagro"); Phase("Milagro") { R_Date("Milagro AA-12055 ", 2930, 45); R_Date("Milagro AA-12056 ", 2915, 45); R_Date("Milagro AA-12053 ", 2910, 45); R_Date("Milagro AA-1074 ", 2780, 90); R_Date("Milagro AA-12054 ", 2775, 60); Interval("Milagro Interval"); Sum("Milagro Sum") { }; }; Boundary("End Milagro"); }; }; 267

Supplemental Data Table 7. OxCal site model 1 output.

Indices Amodel 95.2 Name Unmodelled (BC/AD) Modelled (BC/AD) Aoverall 95.6 from to % median from to % median A C Charcoal Outlier_Model -120 10 95.4 -10 100 Exp(1,-10,0) -3.17 -0.05 95.4 -0.74 -0.73 100 U(0,3) 2.21E-17 3 95.4 1.515 3.60E-17 2.046 95.4 0.888 100 99.5 Rillito Loop Sequence Start Rillito Loop Boundary -1720 -890 95.4 -1320 96 Rillito loop Phase Rillito Loop Beta-56613 R_Date(3070,90) -1520 -1050 95.4 -1320 -1440 -900 95.4 -1190 82.6 99.4 Rillito Loop Beta-56610 R_Date(3050,80) -1500 -1050 95.4 -1300 -1430 -920 95.4 -1190 84.4 99.4 Rillito Loop Beta-56611 R_Date(2900,70) -1290 -900 95.4 -1090 -1260 -850 95.4 -1060 102.9 99.7 Rillito Loop Beta-56609 R_Date(2840,60) -1200 -840 95.4 -1010 -1190 -830 95.4 -990 102.8 99.8 Rillito Loop Beta-56615 R_Date(2720,60) -1000 -790 95.4 -880 -1020 -770 95.4 -880 91.4 99.8 Rillito Loop Beta-56614 R_Date(2690,70) -1020 -760 95.4 -860 -1030 -750 95.4 -880 90 99.7 Rillito Loop summed Sum -1010 99.8 End Rillito Loop Boundary -1000 -450 95.4 -790 98.3 Stewart Brickyard Sequence Start Stewart Brickyard Boundary -1290 -930 95.4 -1060 98.4 Stewart Brickyard Phase Stewart Brickyard Beta-193388 R_Date(2890,40) -1210 -940 95.4 -1070 -1120 -930 95.4 -1020 91.2 99.7 Stewart Brickyard Beta-208861 R_Date(2850,40) -1130 -900 95.4 -1010 -1100 -920 95.4 -1000 114 99.8 Stewart Brickyard Beta-208858 R_Date(2840,40) -1130 -900 95.4 -1000 -1090 -910 95.4 -1000 113.6 99.8 Stewart Brickyard Beta-208859 R_Date(2790,40) -1050 -830 95.4 -940 -1060 -860 95.4 -980 94.3 99.8 Stewart Brickyard summed Sum -1000 99.8 End Stewart Brickyard Boundary -1060 -720 95.4 -940 99 Dairy Site Sequence Start Dairy Site Boundary -1110 -930 95.4 -1010 98.7 Dairy Site Phase Dairy Site Beta-229377 R_Date(2880,40) -1210 -930 95.5 -1060 -1060 -920 95.4 -990 74.8 99.7 Dairy Site Beta-229376 R_Date(2850,40) -1130 -900 95.4 -1010 -1050 -920 95.4 -980 116 99.7 Dairy Site Beta-229374 R_Date(2830,40) -1120 -890 95.4 -990 -1040 -920 95.4 -980 124.6 99.8 Dairy Site Beta-171879 R_Date(2820,40) -1120 -850 95.4 -970 -1040 -920 95.4 -980 122.9 99.8 Dairy Site Beta-229375 R_Date(2820,40) -1120 -850 95.4 -970 -1040 -920 95.4 -980 123 99.7 Dairy Site Beta-171878 R_Date(2810,40) -1080 -840 95.4 -960 -1040 -910 95.4 -980 119.5 99.7 Dairy Site-NA R_Date(2800,40) -1050 -840 95.4 -950 -1030 -910 95.4 -980 114.5 99.7 Dairy Site summed Sum -980 99.7 End Dairy Site Boundary -1020 -870 95.4 -950 99 Valley Farms Sequence Start Valley Farms Boundary -1380 -1130 95.4 -1260 98.8

268

Valley Farms Phase Valley Farms AA-28496 R_Date(3145,50) -1520 -1270 95.4 -1420 -1350 -1120 95.4 -1240 18.4 99.4 Valley Farms AA-27835 R_Date(2974,45) -1390 -1040 95.4 -1190 -1290 -1040 95.4 -1160 102.9 99.8 Valley Farms AA-27836 R_Date(2952,55) -1380 -1000 95.4 -1160 -1270 -1000 95.4 -1140 105.5 99.8 Valley Farms AA-28497 R_Date(2950,55) -1380 -1000 95.4 -1160 -1270 -1000 95.4 -1130 105.5 99.9 Valley Farms AA-27438 R_Date(2940,50) -1370 -1000 95.4 -1150 -1260 -1000 95.4 -1130 104.1 99.9 Valley Farms AA-28498 R_Date(2930,50) -1280 -980 95.4 -1130 -1260 -990 95.4 -1120 103.9 99.9 Valley Farms AA-27838 R_Date(2923,63) -1370 -920 95.4 -1120 -1260 -940 95.4 -1110 106.8 99.8 Valley Farms AA-27427 R_Date(2920,45) -1270 -990 95.4 -1120 -1240 -990 95.4 -1110 102.9 99.8 Valley Farms AA-27429 R_Date(2915,55) -1270 -930 95.4 -1110 -1260 -940 95.4 -1100 104.8 99.9 Valley Farms AA-27435 R_Date(2910,50) -1260 -940 95.4 -1100 -1230 -940 95.4 -1100 103.7 99.9 Valley Farms AA-27437 R_Date(2895,55) -1240 -920 95.4 -1080 -1220 -930 95.4 -1080 104.7 99.9 Valley Farms AA-27837 R_Date(2895,50) -1230 -930 95.4 -1080 -1220 -930 95.4 -1080 103.8 99.9 Valley Farms AA-28495 R_Date(2835,50) -1190 -840 95.3 -1000 -1160 -900 95.4 -1010 104 99.9 Valley Farms AA-27436 R_Date(2830,50) -1130 -840 95.4 -990 -1160 -900 95.4 -1000 103.9 99.9 Valley Farms AA-27431 R_Date(2820,70) -1200 -820 95.4 -990 -1200 -890 95.4 -1010 105 99.9 Valley Farms AA-27433 R_Date(2820,45) -1120 -840 95.4 -980 -1120 -900 95.4 -990 103.3 99.9 Valley Farms AA-27434 R_Date(2800,55) -1110 -830 95.4 -960 -1130 -880 95.4 -990 102.2 99.8 Valley Farms AA-27432 R_Date(2790,50) -1080 -820 95.4 -940 -1120 -880 95.4 -980 100.5 99.8 Valley Farms AA-27428 R_Date(2760,45) -1010 -810 95.4 -910 -1050 -860 95.4 -960 79.9 99.8 Valley Farms AA-27430 R_Date(2750,60) -1030 -800 95.4 -900 -1110 -850 95.4 -970 76 99.7 Valley Farms summed Sum -1070 100 End Valley Farms Boundary -1000 -810 95.4 -910 99.4 Cortaro Road Sequence Start Cortaro Road Boundary -1800 -1460 95.4 -1600 99.2 Cortaro Road Phase Cortaro Road Beta-168799 R_Date(3320,40) -1700 -1500 95.4 -1600 -1670 -1450 95.4 -1550 92 99.9 Cortaro Road Beta-168795 R_Date(2960,40) -1290 -1030 95.4 -1170 -1290 -1030 95.4 -1170 99.9 99.8 Cortaro Road Beta-168797 R_Date(2840,40) -1130 -900 95.4 -1000 -1130 -900 95.4 -1000 100 99.8 Cortaro Road Beta-168801 R_Date(2840,40) -1130 -900 95.4 -1000 -1130 -900 95.4 -1000 99.8 99.8 Cortaro Road Beta-168805 R_Date(2830,40) -1120 -890 95.4 -990 -1120 -830 95.4 -970 99.9 99.8 Cortaro Road Beta-168796 R_Date(2820,40) -1120 -850 95.4 -970 -1120 -850 95.4 -970 99.9 99.9 Cortaro Road Beta-168802 R_Date(2820,40) -1120 -850 95.4 -970 -1120 -850 95.4 -970 99.9 99.9 Cortaro Road Beta-169945 R_Date(2810,70) -1200 -810 95.5 -970 -1190 -790 95.4 -960 100.1 99.7 Cortaro Road Beta-168800 R_Date(2700,40) -930 -800 95.4 -860 -930 -800 95.4 -860 99.9 99.9 Cortaro Road Beta-168787 R_Date(2680,60) -980 -770 95.4 -850 -980 -740 95.4 -840 100.8 99.8 Cortaro Road Beta-168791 R_Date(2630,40) -900 -760 95.4 -810 -900 -770 95.4 -810 101.3 99.9 Cortaro Road Beta-168793 R_Date(2620,40) -900 -670 95.4 -800 -900 -760 95.4 -800 103.5 99.9 Cortaro Road Beta-168789 R_Date(2600,60) -910 -540 95.4 -780 -910 -660 95.4 -790 124.6 99.8 Cortaro Road summed Sum -940 100 End Cortaro Road Boundary -820 -520 95.4 -730 99.2 Costello-King Sequence Start Costello-King Boundary -1060 -810 95.4 -910 96.4

269

Costello-King Phase Costello-King Beta-89859 R_Date(2780,60) -1090 -810 95.4 -930 -970 -800 95.4 -870 96.2 99.4 Costello-King Beta-89860 R_Date(2770,60) -1080 -800 95.4 -920 -970 -800 95.4 -860 102.7 99.5 Costello-King Beta-89861 R_Date(2770,60) -1080 -800 95.4 -920 -970 -800 95.4 -860 102.7 99.5 Costello-King Beta-89862 R_Date(2690,60) -1000 -780 95.4 -860 -920 -790 95.4 -850 113.8 99.6 Costello-King Beta-89863 R_Date(2620,60) -920 -540 95.3 -800 -910 -770 95.4 -830 109.1 99.6 Costello-King GX-25030-G-AMS R_Date(2600,50) -900 -540 95.4 -790 -900 -770 95.4 -820 93 99.5 Costello King summed Sum -850 99.6 End Costello-King Boundary -900 -680 95.4 -790 97.2 Las Capas Sequence Start LCA 507 Boundary -2040 -1530 95.4 -1700 98.6 LCA 507 Phase 507 Beta-331700 R_Date(3360,30) -1750 -1540 95.5 -1650 -1740 -1520 95.5 -1640 88.3 99.8 507 Beta-292150 R_Date(3130,40) -1500 -1290 95.4 -1400 -1500 -1290 95.4 -1400 99.6 99.9 507 Beta-292149 R_Date(3050,40) -1420 -1200 95.4 -1310 -1420 -1210 95.4 -1310 101.5 99.9 LCA 507 summed Sum -1400 99.9 Transition 507/506 Boundary -1240 -1110 95.4 -1160 99 LCA 506 Phase 506 Beta-325662 R_Date(3010,30) -1390 -1120 95.5 -1250 -1220 -1070 95.4 -1140 32.9 99.7 506 Beta-333939 R_Date(2980,30) -1380 -1110 95.4 -1200 -1200 -1050 95.4 -1140 79.4 99.8 506 Beta-306697 R_Date(2970,30) -1290 -1050 95.4 -1190 -1200 -1050 95.4 -1130 86.8 99.8 506 Beta-306696 R_Date(2970,30) -1290 -1050 95.4 -1190 -1200 -1050 95.4 -1130 86.8 99.7 506 Beta-304545 R_Date(2950,30) -1260 -1050 95.4 -1160 -1200 -1040 95.4 -1120 91.9 99.8 506 Beta-304538 R_Date(2940,30) -1260 -1040 95.4 -1150 -1200 -1040 95.4 -1120 96.2 99.8 506 Beta-325664 R_Date(2930,30) -1220 -1020 95.4 -1130 -1190 -1030 95.4 -1110 102.9 99.9 506 Beta-325663 R_Date(2930,30) -1220 -1020 95.4 -1130 -1190 -1030 95.4 -1110 102.9 99.8 506 Beta-304542 R_Date(2930,30) -1220 -1020 95.4 -1130 -1190 -1030 95.4 -1110 102.9 99.8 506 Beta-306690 R_Date(2930,30) -1220 -1020 95.4 -1130 -1190 -1030 95.4 -1110 102.9 99.9 506 Beta-304541 R_Date(2920,30) -1220 -1020 95.4 -1110 -1180 -1020 95.4 -1100 109.5 99.9 506 Beta-333940 R_Date(2920,30) -1220 -1020 95.4 -1110 -1180 -1020 95.4 -1100 109.5 99.9 506 Beta-325655 R_Date(2920,30) -1220 -1020 95.4 -1110 -1180 -1020 95.4 -1100 109.5 99.9 506 Beta-306685 R_Date(2910,30) -1210 -1010 95.4 -1100 -1170 -1010 95.4 -1090 113.2 99.9 506 Beta-325659 R_Date(2900,30) -1210 -1000 95.4 -1080 -1170 -1010 95.4 -1090 113.8 99.9 506 Beta-304534 R_Date(2900,40) -1220 -970 95.4 -1090 -1170 -1010 95.4 -1090 117.9 99.9 506 Beta-304531 R_Date(2900,40) -1220 -970 95.4 -1090 -1170 -1010 95.4 -1090 117.9 99.9 506 Beta-325657 R_Date(2890,30) -1200 -970 95.4 -1070 -1160 -1010 95.4 -1080 112.5 99.9 506 Beta-304547 R_Date(2880,30) -1200 -930 95.4 -1060 -1160 -1000 95.4 -1080 109.9 99.9 506 Beta-325661 R_Date(2880,30) -1200 -930 95.4 -1060 -1160 -1000 95.4 -1080 109.9 99.9 506 Beta-304539 R_Date(2880,40) -1210 -930 95.5 -1060 -1160 -1000 95.4 -1080 115.7 99.9 506 Beta-304535 R_Date(2880,40) -1210 -930 95.5 -1060 -1160 -1000 95.4 -1080 115.8 99.9 506 Beta-304546 R_Date(2870,30) -1130 -930 95.4 -1040 -1130 -1000 95.4 -1070 105.4 99.8 506 Beta-306688 R_Date(2870,30) -1130 -930 95.4 -1040 -1130 -1000 95.4 -1070 105.3 99.9 506 Beta-304536 R_Date(2870,40) -1200 -920 95.4 -1040 -1160 -1000 95.4 -1080 110.6 99.9 270

506 Beta-325660 R_Date(2860,30) -1120 -920 95.4 -1030 -1130 -1000 95.4 -1060 96.5 99.8 506 Beta-304533 R_Date(2860,40) -1190 -910 95.4 -1030 -1160 -1000 95.4 -1070 101.5 99.9 506 Beta-304532 R_Date(2860,40) -1190 -910 95.4 -1030 -1160 -1000 95.4 -1070 101.5 99.8 506 Beta-325665 R_Date(2850,30) -1120 -920 95.4 -1010 -1120 -1000 95.4 -1060 81.6 99.7 506 Beta-306689 R_Date(2850,30) -1120 -920 95.4 -1010 -1120 -1000 95.4 -1060 81.5 99.8 506 Beta-304544 R_Date(2840,30) -1110 -910 95.4 -1000 -1120 -1000 95.4 -1050 62.9 99.7 LCA 506 summed Sum -1090 99.9 End LCA 506 Boundary -1090 -970 95.4 -1020 99.5 Interval 506/505 Interval 50 200 95.4 120 99.7 Start LCA 505 Boundary -950 -850 95.4 -900 99.7 LCA 505 Phase 505 Beta-325658 R_Date(2780,30) -1010 -840 95.4 -930 -930 -830 95.4 -870 69 99.9 505 Beta-306692 R_Date(2770,30) -1000 -830 95.4 -910 -930 -830 95.4 -870 89.7 99.9 505 Beta-306694 R_Date(2770,30) -1000 -830 95.4 -910 -930 -830 95.4 -870 89.7 99.9 505 Beta-306691 R_Date(2740,30) -980 -810 95.4 -880 -920 -820 95.4 -860 109.7 100 505 Beta-306693 R_Date(2730,30) -930 -810 95.4 -870 -910 -810 95.4 -860 108.3 100 505 Beta-306687 R_Date(2730,30) -930 -810 95.4 -870 -910 -810 95.4 -860 108.3 100 505 Beta-333934 R_Date(2730,30) -930 -810 95.4 -870 -910 -810 95.4 -860 108.3 100 505 Beta-325656 R_Date(2720,30) -920 -810 95.4 -870 -910 -810 95.4 -860 107.1 100 505 Beta-339685 R_Date(2720,30) -920 -810 95.4 -870 -910 -810 95.4 -860 107.1 100 505 Beta-333937 R_Date(2720,30) -920 -810 95.4 -870 -910 -810 95.4 -860 107.1 100 505 Beta-333938 R_Date(2700,30) -910 -800 95.4 -850 -900 -810 95.4 -850 105.7 99.9 505 Beta-325653 R_Date(2660,30) -900 -790 95.4 -820 -900 -800 95.4 -830 85 100 505 Beta-333936 R_Date(2660,30) -900 -790 95.4 -820 -900 -800 95.4 -830 85 100 LCA 505 summed Sum -860 100 Transition 505/504 Boundary -840 -790 95.4 -810 100 LCA 504 Phase E-WH Beta-358015 R_Date(2650,30) -900 -790 95.4 -810 -830 -790 95.4 -800 115.2 100 504 Beta-333933 R_Date(2640,30) -900 -780 95.4 -810 -830 -780 95.4 -800 116.3 99.9 504 Beta-339690 R_Date(2600,30) -830 -760 95.4 -800 -820 -760 95.4 -790 105.2 100 E-WH Beta-358016 R_Date(2600,30) -830 -760 95.4 -800 -820 -760 95.4 -790 105.2 100 504 Beta-339691 R_Date(2600,30) -830 -760 95.4 -800 -820 -760 95.4 -790 105.2 100 504 Beta-339688 R_Date(2560,30) -810 -550 95.4 -770 -810 -750 95.4 -780 133.5 100 504 Beta-339687 R_Date(2560,30) -810 -550 95.4 -770 -810 -750 95.4 -780 133.7 100 504 Beta-306683 R_Date(2550,30) -810 -550 95.4 -760 -810 -740 95.4 -780 141.7 100 504 Beta-339695 R_Date(2530,30) -800 -540 95.4 -670 -800 -730 95.4 -770 124.5 100 504 Beta-333930 R_Date(2530,30) -800 -540 95.4 -670 -800 -730 95.4 -770 124.5 100 504 Beta-344167 R_Date(2520,30) -800 -540 95.4 -640 -800 -730 95.4 -760 109.2 100 504 Beta-339694 R_Date(2500,30) -790 -530 95.4 -640 -800 -720 95.4 -760 95.1 100 504 Beta-339693 R_Date(2500,30) -790 -530 95.4 -640 -800 -720 95.4 -760 95 100 504 Beta-339686 R_Date(2500,30) -790 -530 95.4 -640 -800 -720 95.4 -760 95.1 100 504 Beta-339689 R_Date(2490,30) -790 -510 95.4 -640 -790 -720 95.4 -750 95.1 100 504 Beta-344169 R_Date(2470,30) -770 -430 95.4 -630 -790 -710 95.4 -750 97.2 99.9 271

504 Beta-339696 R_Date(2450,30) -760 -410 95.4 -580 -780 -710 95.4 -740 80.1 99.9 504 Beta-306684 R_Date(2450,30) -760 -410 95.4 -580 -780 -710 95.4 -740 80.1 99.9 LCA 504 summed Sum -770 100 Transition LCA 504/503 Boundary -760 -690 95.4 -730 99.8 Stratum 503 Phase OSL usu-964 N(-768,360) -1490 -40 95.4 -770 -780 -640 95.4 -710 139.1 100 OSL usu-965 N(-698,320) -1340 -50 95.4 -700 -770 -640 95.4 -710 140.9 100 OSL usu-966 N(-658,470) -1600 290 95.4 -660 -770 -610 95.4 -710 140.4 100 Transition 503/502 Boundary -750 -610 95.4 -700 99.8 Date 503/502 -720 -560 95.4 -640 100 502-E-WH Beta-358014 R_Date(2530,30) -800 -540 95.4 -670 -690 -530 95.4 -590 82 99.9 502 Beta-333935 R_Date(2380,30) -730 -390 95.3 -450 -540 -410 95.4 -480 88.4 99.9 502-E-WH Beta-358013 R_Date(2380,30) -730 -390 95.3 -450 -500 -390 95.4 -420 120.5 100 Las Capas summed Sum -890 99.9 Rillito Fan Sequence Start Rillito Fan Boundary -2640 -1700 95.4 -1960 98.9 Rillito fan Phase Rillito Fan Beta-264662 R_Date(3480,40) -1900 -1690 95.4 -1810 -1900 -1690 95.4 -1790 99.1 99.9 Rillito Fan Beta-251172 R_Date(3470,40) -1900 -1680 95.4 -1800 -1890 -1680 95.4 -1780 99.3 99.9 Rillito Fan Beta-264664 R_Date(3000,40) -1400 -1110 95.4 -1240 -1400 -1110 95.4 -1240 99.9 99.8 Rillito Fan PRI-09-97-432 R_Date(2815,20) -1020 -910 95.4 -960 -1020 -910 95.4 -960 99.8 99.8 Rillito Fan PRI-09-97-495 R_Date(2555,20) -810 -590 95.5 -780 -810 -590 95.4 -780 103.4 99.9 Rillito Fan PRI-09-97-431 R_Date(2510,110) -900 -390 95.4 -620 -900 -430 95.4 -710 99.4 99.5 Rillito Fan summed Sum -1050 99.9 End Rillito Fan Boundary -800 180 95.4 -530 98 El Taller Sequence Start El Taller Boundary -3260 -1980 95.4 -2290 98.8 El Taller Phase El Taller Beta-161850 R_Date(3730,40) -2290 -1980 95.3 -2130 -2280 -1970 95.5 -2100 99.8 99.8 El Taller Beta-161854 R_Date(3080,50) -1450 -1210 95.4 -1340 -1450 -1210 95.4 -1340 100 99.8 El Taller Beta-161855 R_Date(3010,40) -1400 -1120 95.4 -1250 -1400 -1120 95.4 -1250 99.7 99.8 El Taller Beta-161846 R_Date(2970,40) -1380 -1050 95.4 -1190 -1380 -1050 95.4 -1190 100 99.9 El Taller Beta-164173 R_Date(2830,40) -1120 -890 95.4 -990 -1130 -900 95.4 -1000 94.6 99.8 El Taller summed Sum -1260 99.9 End El Taller Boundary -1140 120 95.4 -830 98.9 Los Pozos Sequence Start Los Pozos Boundary -2190 -1800 95.4 -1980 99.2 Los Pozos Phase Los Pozos Beta-432714 R_Date(3610,30) -2110 -1880 95.4 -1970 -2030 -1780 95.4 -1940 86.8 99.8 Los Pozos Beta-430935 R_Date(3470,30) -1890 -1690 95.4 -1800 -1890 -1690 95.4 -1800 99.5 99.9 Los Pozos Beta-124111 R_Date(3340,60) -1860 -1460 95.5 -1630 -1780 -1460 95.4 -1630 99.9 99.8 Los Pozos Beta-124114 R_Date(3300,80) -1780 -1410 95.4 -1580 -1770 -1410 95.4 -1580 100.1 99.8 Los Pozos Beta-124113 R_Date(3230,50) -1620 -1410 95.4 -1510 -1620 -1410 95.4 -1510 100 99.8 272

Los Pozos Beta-124112 R_Date(3140,50) -1510 -1270 95.4 -1410 -1510 -1270 95.4 -1410 100.2 99.8 Los Pozos Beta-430931 R_Date(3110,30) -1440 -1280 95.4 -1380 -1440 -1280 95.4 -1380 99.7 99.9 Los Pozos Beta-430934 R_Date(3090,30) -1430 -1270 95.4 -1350 -1430 -1270 95.4 -1350 100.1 99.9 Los Pozos Beta-430932 R_Date(3040,30) -1400 -1210 95.4 -1300 -1400 -1220 95.4 -1300 102.2 99.9 Los Pozos Beta-414202 R_Date(3040,30) -1400 -1210 95.4 -1300 -1400 -1220 95.4 -1300 102.2 99.9 Los Pozos Beta-430933 R_Date(3030,30) -1400 -1130 95.4 -1280 -1400 -1210 95.4 -1290 102.5 99.9 Los Pozos Beta-414203 R_Date(3030,30) -1400 -1130 95.4 -1280 -1400 -1210 95.4 -1290 102.4 99.9 Los Pozos Beta-414201 R_Date(3020,30) -1400 -1130 95.4 -1270 -1400 -1200 95.4 -1280 102.5 99.9 Los Pozos summed Sum -1390 100 End Los Pozos Boundary -1300 -1030 95.4 -1200 99.3 Clearwater Sequence Start Clearwater Boundary -2680 -2070 95.4 -2290 98.7 Clearwater Phase Clearwater B-157018 R_Date(3800,40) -2460 -2050 95.3 -2240 -2340 -2040 95.4 -2200 96.1 99.8 Clearwater B-175842 R_Date(3690,40) -2200 -1950 95.4 -2080 -2200 -1960 95.4 -2080 100.7 99.9 Clearwater B-175843 R_Date(3680,40) -2200 -1940 95.4 -2070 -2200 -1940 95.4 -2070 100.5 99.8 Clearwater B-160381 R_Date(3650,40) -2140 -1910 95.4 -2020 -2140 -1910 95.4 -2020 100.1 99.9 Clearwater B-175844 R_Date(3620,40) -2140 -1880 95.4 -1980 -2140 -1880 95.4 -1980 100.1 99.9 Clearwater B-190713 R_Date(3280,40) -1660 -1450 95.4 -1560 -1660 -1450 95.4 -1570 101.3 99.9 Clearwater B-193150 R_Date(3220,40) -1610 -1410 95.4 -1490 -1620 -1430 95.4 -1510 90 99.9 Clearwater summed Sum -2010 99.9 End Clearwater Boundary -1600 -1050 95.4 -1420 99.1 Milagro Sequence Start Milagro Boundary -1390 -1010 95.4 -1140 98.4 Milagro Phase Milagro AA-12055 R_Date(2930,45) -1270 -1000 95.4 -1130 -1220 -990 95.4 -1080 98.2 99.8 Milagro AA-12056 R_Date(2915,45) -1260 -970 95.4 -1110 -1210 -980 95.4 -1080 106.1 99.7 Milagro AA-12053 R_Date(2910,45) -1240 -940 95.4 -1100 -1200 -980 95.4 -1070 108.3 99.8 Milagro AA-1074 R_Date(2780,90) -1200 -790 95.4 -950 -1170 -840 95.4 -1030 85.9 99.6 Milagro AA-12054 R_Date(2775,60) -1090 -800 95.4 -930 -1130 -850 95.4 -1010 67.8 99.6 Milagro summed Sum -1060 99.8 End Milagro Boundary -1130 -680 95.4 -960 97.3 Order

273

Supplemental Data Table 8. OxCal site model 2 code.

Plot() { Outlier_Model("Charcoal",Exp(1,-10,0),U(0,3),"t"); Sequence("Rillito Loop") { Boundary("Start Rillito Loop 1"); R_Date("Rillito Loop Beta-56613", 3070, 90) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("Rillito Loop Beta-56610", 3050, 80) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; Interval("Rillito Loop 1 Interval"); Boundary("End Rillito Loop 1"); Boundary("Start Rillito Loop 2"); R_Date("Rillito Loop Beta-56611 ", 2900, 70) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("Rillito Loop Beta-56609 ", 2840, 60) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; Interval("Rillito Loop 2 Interval"); 274

Boundary("End Rillito Loop 2"); Boundary("Start Rillito Loop 3"); R_Date("Rillito Loop Beta-56615 ", 2720, 60) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("Rillito Loop Beta-56614 ", 2690, 70) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; Interval("Rillito Loop 3 Interval"); Boundary("End Rillito Loop 3"); }; Sequence("Stewart Brickyard") { Boundary("Start Stewart Brickyard"); Phase("Stewart Brickyard") { R_Date("Stewart Brickyard Beta-193388 ", 2890, 40); R_Date("Stewart Brickyard Beta-208861 ", 2850, 40); R_Date("Stewart Brickyard Beta-208858 ", 2840, 40); R_Date("Stewart Brickyard Beta-208859 ", 2790, 40); Interval("Stewart Brickyard Interval"); }; Boundary("End Stewart Brickyard"); }; Sequence("Dairy Site") 275

{ Boundary("Start Dairy Site"); Phase("Dairy Site") { R_Date("Dairy Site Beta-229377", 2880, 40); R_Date("Dairy Site Beta-229376", 2850, 40); R_Date("Dairy Site Beta-229374", 2830, 40); R_Date("Dairy Site Beta-171879", 2820, 40); R_Date("Dairy Site Beta-229375", 2820, 40); R_Date("Dairy Site Beta-171878", 2810, 40); R_Date("Dairy Site-NA", 2800, 40); Interval("Dairy Site Interval"); }; Boundary("End Dairy Site"); }; Sequence("Valley Farms") { Boundary("Start Valley Farms 1"); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-28496", 3145, 50); Interval("Valley Farms 1 Interval"); Boundary("End Valley Farms 1"); Interval("Interval 1/2"); Boundary("Start Valley Farms 2"); Phase("Valley Farms 2") { R_Date("Valley Farms AA-27835", 2974, 45); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-27836", 2952, 55); 276

R_Date("Valley Farms AA-28497", 2950, 55); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-27438", 2940, 50); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-28498", 2930, 50); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-27838", 2923, 63); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-27427", 2920, 45); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-27429", 2915, 55); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-27435", 2910, 50); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-27437", 2895, 55); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-27837", 2895, 50); Interval("Valley Farms 2 Interval"); }; Boundary("End Valley Farms 2"); Interval("Interval 2/3"); Boundary("Start Valley Farms 3"); Phase("Valley Farms 3") { R_Date("Valley Farms AA-28495", 2835, 50); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-27436", 2830, 50); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-27431", 2820, 70); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-27433", 2820, 45); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-27434", 2800, 55); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-27432", 2790, 50); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-27428", 2760, 45); R_Date("Valley Farms AA-27430", 2750, 60); Interval("Valley Farms 3 Interval"); }; Boundary("End Valley Farms 3"); 277

}; Sequence("Cortaro Road") { Boundary("Start Cortaro Road 1"); R_Date("Cortaro Road Beta-168799", 3320, 40); Interval("Cortaro Road 1 Interval"); Boundary("End Cortaro Road 1"); Boundary("Start Cortaro Road 2"); Interval("Cortaro Road 2 Interval"); R_Date("Cortaro Road Beta-168795", 2960, 40); Boundary("End Cortaro Road 2"); Boundary("Start Cortaro Road 3"); Phase("Cortaro Road 3") { R_Date("Cortaro Road Beta-168797", 2840, 40); R_Date("Cortaro Road Beta-168801", 2840, 40); R_Date("Cortaro Road Beta-168805", 2830, 40) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("Cortaro Road Beta-168796", 2820, 40); R_Date("Cortaro Road Beta-168802", 2820, 40); R_Date("Cortaro Road Beta-169945", 2810, 70) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; Interval("Cortaro Road 3 Interval"); 278

}; Boundary("End Cortaro Road 3"); Boundary("Start Cortaro Road 4"); Phase("Cortaro Road 4") { R_Date("Cortaro Road Beta-168800", 2700, 40); R_Date("Cortaro Road Beta-168787", 2680, 60) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; R_Date("Cortaro Road Beta-168791", 2630, 40); R_Date("Cortaro Road Beta-168793", 2620, 40); R_Date("Cortaro Road Beta-168789", 2600, 60) { Outlier("Charcoal", 1); }; Interval("Cortaro Road 4 Interval"); }; Boundary("End Cortaro Road 4"); }; Sequence("Costello King") { Boundary("Start Costello-King"); Phase("Costello King") { R_Date("Costello-King Beta-89859 ", 2780, 60); R_Date("Costello-King Beta-89860 ", 2770, 60); 279

R_Date("Costello-King Beta-89861 ", 2770, 60); R_Date("Costello-King Beta-89862 ", 2690, 60); R_Date("Costello-King Beta-89863 ", 2620, 60); R_Date("Costello-King GX-25030-G-AMS", 2600, 50); Interval("Costello-King Interval"); }; Boundary("End Costello King"); }; Sequence("Las Capas") { Boundary("Start 507"); Phase("507") { R_Date("507 Beta-331700", 3360, 30) { }; R_Date("507 Beta-292150", 3130, 40) { }; R_Date("507 Beta-292149", 3050, 40) { }; Interval("LCA 507 Interval"); }; Boundary("Transition 507/506"); Phase("506") { 280

R_Date("506 Beta-325662", 3010, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-333939", 2980, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-306697", 2970, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-306696", 2970, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-304545", 2950, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-304538", 2940, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-325664", 2930, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-325663", 2930, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-304542", 2930, 30) { }; 281

R_Date("506 Beta-306690", 2930, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-304541", 2920, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-333940", 2920, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-325655", 2920, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-306685", 2910, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-325659", 2900, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-304534", 2900, 40) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-304531", 2900, 40) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-325657", 2890, 30) { }; 282

R_Date("506 Beta-304547", 2880, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-325661", 2880, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-304539", 2880, 40) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-304535", 2880, 40) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-304546", 2870, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-306688", 2870, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-304536", 2870, 40) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-325660", 2860, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-304533", 2860, 40) { }; 283

R_Date("506 Beta-304532", 2860, 40) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-325665", 2850, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-306689", 2850, 30) { }; R_Date("506 Beta-304544", 2840, 30) { }; Interval("LCA 506 Interval"); }; Boundary("End 506"); Interval("Interval 506/505"); Boundary("Start 505"); Phase("505") { R_Date("505 Beta-325658", 2780, 30) { }; R_Date("505 Beta-306692", 2770, 30) { }; R_Date("505 Beta-306694", 2770, 30) { 284

}; R_Date("505 Beta-306691", 2740, 30) { }; R_Date("505 Beta-306693", 2730, 30) { }; R_Date("505 Beta-306687", 2730, 30) { }; R_Date("505 Beta-333934", 2730, 30) { }; R_Date("505 Beta-325656", 2720, 30) { }; R_Date("505 Beta-339685", 2720, 30) { }; R_Date("505 Beta-333937", 2720, 30) { }; R_Date("505 Beta-333938", 2700, 30) { }; R_Date("505 Beta-325653", 2660, 30) { 285

}; R_Date("505 Beta-333936", 2660, 30) { }; Interval("LCA 505 Interval"); }; Boundary("Transition 505/504"); Phase("504") { R_Date("E-WH Beta-358015", 2650, 30) { }; R_Date("504 Beta-333933", 2640, 30) { }; R_Date("504 Beta-339690", 2600, 30) { }; R_Date("E-WH Beta-358016", 2600, 30) { }; R_Date("504 Beta-339691", 2600, 30) { }; R_Date("504 Beta-339688", 2560, 30) { }; 286

R_Date("504 Beta-339687", 2560, 30) { }; R_Date("504 Beta-306683", 2550, 30) { }; R_Date("504 Beta-339695", 2530, 30) { }; R_Date("504 Beta-333930", 2530, 30) { }; R_Date("504 Beta-344167", 2520, 30) { }; R_Date("504 Beta-339694", 2500, 30) { }; R_Date("504 Beta-339693", 2500, 30) { }; R_Date("504 Beta-339686", 2500, 30) { }; R_Date("504 Beta-339689", 2490, 30) { }; 287

R_Date("504 Beta-344169", 2470, 30) { }; R_Date("504 Beta-339696", 2450, 30) { }; R_Date("504 Beta-306684", 2450, 30) { }; Interval("LCA 504 Interval"); }; Boundary("Transition 504/503"); Phase("Stratum 503") { Date("OSL usu-964",N(2012-2780,360)); Date("OSL usu-965",N(2012-2710,320)); Date("OSL usu-966",N(2012-2670,470)); }; Boundary("Transition 503/502"); Date("Date 503/502"); R_Date("502-E-WH Beta-358014", 2530, 30) { }; R_Date("502 Beta-333935", 2380, 30) { }; R_Date("502-E-WH Beta-358013", 2380, 30) 288

{ }; }; Sequence("Rillito Fan") { Boundary("Start Rillito Fan 1"); R_Date("Rillito Fan Beta-264662", 3480, 40); R_Date("Rillito Fan Beta-251172", 3470, 40); Interval("Rillito Fan 1 Interval"); Boundary("End Rillito Fan 1"); Boundary("Start Rillito Fan 2"); R_Date("Rillito Fan Beta-264664", 3000, 40); R_Date("Rillito Fan PRI-09-97-432", 2815, 20); Interval("Rillito Fan 2 Interval"); Boundary("End Rillito Fan 2"); Boundary("Start Rillito Fan 3"); R_Date("Rillito Fan PRI-09-97-495", 2555, 20); R_Date("Rillito Fan PRI-09-97-431", 2510, 110); Interval("Rillito Fan 3 Interval"); Boundary("End Rillito Fan 3"); }; Sequence("El Taller") { Boundary("Start El Taller 1"); R_Date("El Taller Beta-161850", 3730, 40) { }; 289

Interval("El Taller 1 Interval"); Boundary("End El Taller 1"); Boundary("Start El Taller 2"); Phase("El Taller 2") { R_Date("El Taller Beta-161854", 3080, 50) { }; R_Date("El Taller Beta-161855", 3010, 40) { }; R_Date("El Taller Beta-161846", 2970, 40) { }; Interval("El Taller 2 Interval"); }; Boundary("End El Taller 2"); Boundary("Start El Taller 3"); R_Date("El Taller Beta-164173", 2830, 40) { }; Interval("El Taller 3 Interval"); Boundary("End El Taller 3"); }; Sequence("Los Pozos") { Boundary("Start Los Pozos 1"); 290

R_Date("Los Pozos Beta-432714", 3610, 30); Interval("Los Pozos 1 Interval"); Boundary("End Los Pozos 1"); Boundary("Start Los Pozos 2"); R_Date("Los Pozos Beta-430935", 3470, 30); Interval("Los Pozos 2 Interval"); Boundary("End Los Pozos 2"); Boundary("Start Los Pozos 3"); Phase("Los Pozos 3") { R_Date("Los Pozos Beta-124111", 3340, 60); R_Date("Los Pozos Beta-124114", 3300, 80); R_Date("Los Pozos Beta-124113", 3230, 50); Interval("Los Pozos 3 Interval"); }; Boundary("End Los Pozos 3"); Boundary("Start Los Pozos 4"); Phase("Los Pozos") { R_Date("Los Pozos Beta-124112", 3140, 50); R_Date("Los Pozos Beta-430931", 3110, 30); R_Date("Los Pozos Beta-430934", 3090, 30); R_Date("Los Pozos Beta-430932", 3040, 30); R_Date("Los Pozos Beta-414202", 3040, 30); R_Date("Los Pozos Beta-430933", 3030, 30); R_Date("Los Pozos Beta-414203", 3030, 30); R_Date("Los Pozos Beta-414201", 3020, 30); 291

Interval("Los Pozos 4 Interval"); }; Boundary("End Los Pozos 4"); }; Sequence("Clearwater") { Boundary("Start Clearwater 1"); Phase("Clearwater 1") { R_Date("Clearwater B-157018 ", 3800, 40); R_Date("Clearwater B-175842 ", 3690, 40); R_Date("Clearwater B-175843 ", 3680, 40); R_Date("Clearwater B-160381 ", 3650, 40); R_Date("Clearwater B-175844 ", 3620, 40); Interval("Clearwater 1 Interval"); }; Boundary("End Clearwater 1"); Interval("Interval Clearwater 1/2"); Boundary("Start Clearwater 2"); R_Date("Clearwater B-190713", 3280, 40); R_Date("Clearwater B-193150", 3220, 40); Interval("Clearwater 2 Interval"); Boundary("End Clearwater 2"); }; Sequence("Milagro") { Boundary("Start Milagro 1"); 292

Phase("Milagro 1") { R_Date("Milagro AA-12055 ", 2930, 45); R_Date("Milagro AA-12056 ", 2915, 45); R_Date("Milagro AA-12053 ", 2910, 45); Interval("Milagro 1 Interval"); }; Boundary("End Milagro 1"); Boundary("Start Milagro 2"); R_Date("Milagro AA-1074 ", 2780, 90); R_Date("Milagro AA-12054 ", 2775, 60); Interval("Milagro 2 Interval"); Boundary("End Milagro 2"); }; Order("Order Probabilities") { }; }; 293

Supplemental Data Table 9. OxCal site model 2 output.

Indices Amodel 179.1 Aoverall Name Unmodelled (BC/AD) Modelled (BC/AD) 172.8 from to % median from to % median A C Charcoal -50 10 95.4 0 100 1,-10,0 -3.17 -0.05 95.4 -0.74 -0.72 100 0,3 2.21E-17 3 95.4 1.515 3.60E-17 1.527 95.4 0.654 100 99.9 Rillito Loop Start Rillito Loop 1 -1560 -1090 95.4 -1320 98.6 Rillito Loop Beta-56613 (3070,90) -1520 -1050 95.4 -1320 -1460 -1100 95.4 -1290 110.4 99.7 Rillito Loop Beta-56610 (3050,80) -1500 -1050 95.4 -1300 -1410 -1080 95.4 -1250 105.8 99.8 Rillito Loop 1 Interval 0 150 95.4 20 99.9 End Rillito Loop 1 -1390 -1040 95.4 -1220 99.8 Start Rillito Loop 2 -1260 -940 95.4 -1090 99.9 Rillito Loop Beta-56611 (2900,70) -1290 -900 95.4 -1090 -1200 -930 95.4 -1060 116.2 99.9 Rillito Loop Beta-56609 (2840,60) -1200 -840 95.4 -1010 -1160 -900 95.4 -1020 110.8 99.9 Rillito Loop 2 Interval 0 120 95.4 20 100 End Rillito Loop 2 -1120 -850 95.4 -990 99.9 Start Rillito Loop 3 -1020 -800 95.4 -900 99.9 Rillito Loop Beta-56615 (2720,60) -1000 -790 95.4 -880 -980 -790 95.4 -870 109.3 99.8 Rillito Loop Beta-56614 (2690,70) -1020 -760 95.4 -860 -970 -770 95.4 -850 115 99.6 Rillito Loop 3 Interval 0 160 95.4 20 100 End Rillito Loop 3 -970 -660 95.4 -820 98.8 Stewart Brickyard Start Stewart Brickyard -1290 -930 95.4 -1060 98.9 Stewart Brickyard Stewart Brickyard Beta-193388 (2890,40) -1210 -940 95.4 -1070 -1120 -930 95.4 -1020 90.8 99.6 Stewart Brickyard Beta-208861 (2850,40) -1130 -900 95.4 -1010 -1110 -920 95.4 -1000 113.9 99.6 Stewart Brickyard Beta-208858 (2840,40) -1130 -900 95.4 -1000 -1090 -910 95.4 -1000 113.8 99.5 Stewart Brickyard Beta-208859 (2790,40) -1050 -830 95.4 -940 -1060 -860 95.4 -980 94.8 99.4 Stewart Brickyard Interval 0 510 95.4 120 98.1 End Stewart Brickyard -1050 -720 95.4 -940 98.1 Dairy Site Start Dairy Site -1110 -930 95.4 -1010 98.6 Dairy Site Dairy Site Beta-229377 (2880,40) -1210 -930 95.5 -1060 -1060 -920 95.4 -990 74.8 99.4 Dairy Site Beta-229376 (2850,40) -1130 -900 95.4 -1010 -1050 -920 95.4 -980 115.9 99.4 Dairy Site Beta-229374 (2830,40) -1120 -890 95.4 -990 -1040 -920 95.4 -980 124.5 99.4 Dairy Site Beta-171879 (2820,40) -1120 -850 95.4 -970 -1040 -920 95.4 -980 123 99.4 294

Dairy Site Beta-229375 (2820,40) -1120 -850 95.4 -970 -1040 -920 95.4 -980 123 99.4 Dairy Site Beta-171878 (2810,40) -1080 -840 95.4 -960 -1040 -910 95.4 -980 119.5 99.4 Dairy Site-NA (2800,40) -1050 -840 95.4 -950 -1030 -910 95.4 -980 114.6 99.4 Dairy Site Interval 0 200 95.4 50 97.9 End Dairy Site -1020 -870 95.4 -950 98.7 Valley Farms Start Valley Farms 1 -1760 -1230 95.4 -1440 99.4 Valley Farms AA-28496 (3145,50) -1520 -1270 95.4 -1420 -1510 -1260 95.4 -1390 91.8 99.9 Valley Farms 1 Interval 0 230 95.4 50 100 End Valley Farms 1 -1470 -1150 95.4 -1310 99.9 Interval 1/2 0 290 95.4 130 99.9 Start Valley Farms 2 -1260 -1080 95.4 -1170 99.6 Valley Farms 2 Valley Farms AA-27835 (2974,45) -1390 -1040 95.4 -1190 -1220 -1050 95.4 -1140 100.8 99.8 Valley Farms AA-27836 (2952,55) -1380 -1000 95.4 -1160 -1210 -1050 95.4 -1130 119.9 99.8 Valley Farms AA-28497 (2950,55) -1380 -1000 95.4 -1160 -1210 -1050 95.4 -1130 120.5 99.7 Valley Farms AA-27438 (2940,50) -1370 -1000 95.4 -1150 -1210 -1050 95.4 -1130 120 99.7 Valley Farms AA-28498 (2930,50) -1280 -980 95.4 -1130 -1210 -1050 95.4 -1130 120.1 99.7 Valley Farms AA-27838 (2923,63) -1370 -920 95.4 -1120 -1210 -1050 95.4 -1130 124.4 99.8 Valley Farms AA-27427 (2920,45) -1270 -990 95.4 -1120 -1210 -1050 95.4 -1130 115.9 99.8 Valley Farms AA-27429 (2915,55) -1270 -930 95.4 -1110 -1210 -1050 95.4 -1130 119.1 99.7 Valley Farms AA-27435 (2910,50) -1260 -940 95.4 -1100 -1210 -1050 95.4 -1130 114.7 99.8 Valley Farms AA-27437 (2895,55) -1240 -920 95.4 -1080 -1210 -1040 95.4 -1120 109.2 99.8 Valley Farms AA-27837 (2895,50) -1230 -930 95.4 -1080 -1210 -1040 95.4 -1120 106.1 99.8 Valley Farms 2 Interval 0 200 95.4 70 99.7 End Valley Farms 2 -1190 -1000 95.4 -1090 99.7 Interval 2/3 0 200 95.4 100 99.8 Start Valley Farms 3 -1060 -920 95.4 -990 99.7 Valley Farms 3 Valley Farms AA-28495 (2835,50) -1190 -840 95.3 -1000 -1020 -900 95.4 -960 122.8 99.9 Valley Farms AA-27436 (2830,50) -1130 -840 95.4 -990 -1020 -900 95.4 -960 125.9 99.9 Valley Farms AA-27431 (2820,70) -1200 -820 95.4 -990 -1020 -890 95.4 -960 134.1 99.9 Valley Farms AA-27433 (2820,45) -1120 -840 95.4 -980 -1020 -900 95.4 -960 127 99.9 Valley Farms AA-27434 (2800,55) -1110 -830 95.4 -960 -1020 -890 95.4 -960 131 99.9 Valley Farms AA-27432 (2790,50) -1080 -820 95.4 -940 -1020 -890 95.4 -960 124.6 99.9 Valley Farms AA-27428 (2760,45) -1010 -810 95.4 -910 -1010 -890 95.4 -960 87.4 99.8 Valley Farms AA-27430 (2750,60) -1030 -800 95.4 -900 -1020 -880 95.4 -960 88.3 99.8 Valley Farms 3 Interval 0 170 95.4 50 99.7 End Valley Farms 3 -1000 -850 95.4 -930 99.1 Cortaro Road Start Cortaro Road 1 -1910 -1460 95.4 -1620 99.4 Cortaro Road Beta-168799 (3320,40) -1700 -1500 95.4 -1600 -1690 -1490 95.4 -1570 98.9 99.9 Cortaro Road 1 Interval 0 310 95.4 60 100

295

End Cortaro Road 1 -1660 -1250 95.4 -1500 99.9 Start Cortaro Road 2 -1520 -1080 95.4 -1260 99.9 Cortaro Road 2 Interval 0 310 95.4 70 100 Cortaro Road Beta-168795 (2960,40) -1290 -1030 95.4 -1170 -1290 -1050 95.4 -1180 104.3 99.9 End Cortaro Road 2 -1260 -980 95.4 -1110 99.9 Start Cortaro Road 3 -1090 -930 95.4 -1000 99.8 Cortaro Road 3 Cortaro Road Beta-168797 (2840,40) -1130 -900 95.4 -1000 -1040 -910 95.4 -980 120.2 99.9 Cortaro Road Beta-168801 (2840,40) -1130 -900 95.4 -1000 -1040 -910 95.4 -980 120.2 99.9 Cortaro Road Beta-168805 (2830,40) -1120 -890 95.4 -990 -1040 -910 95.4 -970 122.1 99.9 Cortaro Road Beta-168796 (2820,40) -1120 -850 95.4 -970 -1040 -910 95.4 -970 123.2 99.9 Cortaro Road Beta-168802 (2820,40) -1120 -850 95.4 -970 -1040 -910 95.4 -970 123.2 99.9 Cortaro Road Beta-169945 (2810,70) -1200 -810 95.5 -970 -1050 -900 95.4 -970 130.1 99.9 Cortaro Road 3 Interval 0 180 95.4 60 99.8 End Cortaro Road 3 -1010 -870 95.4 -940 99.9 Start Cortaro Road 4 -910 -790 95.4 -830 99.8 Cortaro Road 4 Cortaro Road Beta-168800 (2700,40) -930 -800 95.4 -860 -870 -790 95.4 -820 98.8 99.9 Cortaro Road Beta-168787 (2680,60) -980 -770 95.4 -850 -870 -780 95.4 -810 127.6 99.9 Cortaro Road Beta-168791 (2630,40) -900 -760 95.4 -810 -840 -780 95.4 -810 122.7 99.9 Cortaro Road Beta-168793 (2620,40) -900 -670 95.4 -800 -840 -780 95.4 -810 117.6 99.9 Cortaro Road Beta-168789 (2600,60) -910 -540 95.4 -780 -850 -760 95.4 -810 133.3 99.8 Cortaro Road 4 Interval 0 150 95.4 40 99.6 End Cortaro Road 4 -830 -730 95.4 -790 99.5 Costello King Start Costello-King -1060 -810 95.4 -900 97.2 Costello King Costello-King Beta-89859 (2780,60) -1090 -810 95.4 -930 -970 -800 95.4 -860 95.5 98.9 Costello-King Beta-89860 (2770,60) -1080 -800 95.4 -920 -970 -800 95.4 -860 102.2 99 Costello-King Beta-89861 (2770,60) -1080 -800 95.4 -920 -970 -800 95.4 -860 102.2 98.9 Costello-King Beta-89862 (2690,60) -1000 -780 95.4 -860 -920 -790 95.4 -850 114.1 99.2 Costello-King Beta-89863 (2620,60) -920 -540 95.3 -800 -910 -770 95.4 -830 109.3 99 Costello-King GX-25030-G-AMS (2600,50) -900 -540 95.4 -790 -900 -770 95.4 -820 92.6 98.7 Costello-King Interval 0 340 95.4 110 96.6 End Costello King -900 -680 95.4 -790 95.7 Las Capas Start 507 -2040 -1530 95.4 -1700 99.3 507 507 Beta-331700 (3360,30) -1750 -1540 95.5 -1650 -1740 -1520 95.4 -1640 87.7 99.9 507 Beta-292150 (3130,40) -1500 -1290 95.4 -1400 -1500 -1290 95.4 -1400 99.7 99.9 507 Beta-292149 (3050,40) -1420 -1200 95.4 -1310 -1420 -1210 95.4 -1310 101.6 100 LCA 507 Interval 330 880 95.4 540 99.5 Transition 507/506 -1240 -1110 95.4 -1160 97.5

296

506 506 Beta-325662 (3010,30) -1390 -1120 95.5 -1250 -1220 -1070 95.4 -1140 33.2 99.6 506 Beta-333939 (2980,30) -1380 -1110 95.4 -1200 -1200 -1050 95.4 -1140 79.8 99.4 506 Beta-306697 (2970,30) -1290 -1050 95.4 -1190 -1200 -1050 95.4 -1130 87.2 99.4 506 Beta-306696 (2970,30) -1290 -1050 95.4 -1190 -1200 -1050 95.4 -1130 87.2 99.4 506 Beta-304545 (2950,30) -1260 -1050 95.4 -1160 -1200 -1040 95.4 -1120 92.2 99.4 506 Beta-304538 (2940,30) -1260 -1040 95.4 -1150 -1200 -1040 95.4 -1120 96.5 99.5 506 Beta-325664 (2930,30) -1220 -1020 95.4 -1130 -1190 -1030 95.4 -1110 103 99.6 506 Beta-325663 (2930,30) -1220 -1020 95.4 -1130 -1190 -1030 95.4 -1110 103 99.5 506 Beta-304542 (2930,30) -1220 -1020 95.4 -1130 -1190 -1030 95.4 -1110 103 99.6 506 Beta-306690 (2930,30) -1220 -1020 95.4 -1130 -1190 -1030 95.4 -1110 103 99.5 506 Beta-304541 (2920,30) -1220 -1020 95.4 -1110 -1180 -1020 95.4 -1100 109.4 99.6 506 Beta-333940 (2920,30) -1220 -1020 95.4 -1110 -1180 -1020 95.4 -1100 109.4 99.6 506 Beta-325655 (2920,30) -1220 -1020 95.4 -1110 -1180 -1020 95.4 -1100 109.4 99.6 506 Beta-306685 (2910,30) -1210 -1010 95.4 -1100 -1180 -1010 95.4 -1090 113.1 99.7 506 Beta-325659 (2900,30) -1210 -1000 95.4 -1080 -1170 -1010 95.4 -1090 113.7 99.7 506 Beta-304534 (2900,40) -1220 -970 95.4 -1090 -1180 -1010 95.4 -1090 117.7 99.6 506 Beta-304531 (2900,40) -1220 -970 95.4 -1090 -1180 -1010 95.4 -1090 117.7 99.6 506 Beta-325657 (2890,30) -1200 -970 95.4 -1070 -1160 -1010 95.4 -1080 112.3 99.6 506 Beta-304547 (2880,30) -1200 -930 95.4 -1060 -1160 -1000 95.4 -1080 109.7 99.5 506 Beta-325661 (2880,30) -1200 -930 95.4 -1060 -1160 -1000 95.4 -1080 109.8 99.5 506 Beta-304539 (2880,40) -1210 -930 95.5 -1060 -1170 -1000 95.4 -1080 115.6 99.6 506 Beta-304535 (2880,40) -1210 -930 95.5 -1060 -1170 -1000 95.4 -1080 115.5 99.5 506 Beta-304546 (2870,30) -1130 -930 95.4 -1040 -1130 -1000 95.4 -1070 105.2 99.5 506 Beta-306688 (2870,30) -1130 -930 95.4 -1040 -1130 -1000 95.4 -1070 105.3 99.5 506 Beta-304536 (2870,40) -1200 -920 95.4 -1040 -1160 -1000 95.4 -1080 110.5 99.5 506 Beta-325660 (2860,30) -1120 -920 95.4 -1030 -1130 -1000 95.4 -1060 96.5 99.4 506 Beta-304533 (2860,40) -1190 -910 95.4 -1030 -1160 -1000 95.4 -1070 101.5 99.5 506 Beta-304532 (2860,40) -1190 -910 95.4 -1030 -1160 -1000 95.4 -1070 101.5 99.5 506 Beta-325665 (2850,30) -1120 -920 95.4 -1010 -1120 -1000 95.4 -1060 81.8 99.3 506 Beta-306689 (2850,30) -1120 -920 95.4 -1010 -1120 -1000 95.4 -1060 81.8 99.3 506 Beta-304544 (2840,30) -1110 -910 95.4 -1000 -1120 -1000 95.4 -1050 63.1 99.3 LCA 506 Interval 10 240 95.4 140 97.7 End 506 -1090 -970 95.4 -1020 98.8 Interval 506/505 50 200 95.4 120 99.5 Start 505 -950 -850 95.4 -900 99 505 505 Beta-325658 (2780,30) -1010 -840 95.4 -930 -930 -830 95.4 -870 69.1 99.6 505 Beta-306692 (2770,30) -1000 -830 95.4 -910 -930 -830 95.4 -870 89.7 99.6 505 Beta-306694 (2770,30) -1000 -830 95.4 -910 -930 -830 95.4 -870 89.7 99.6 505 Beta-306691 (2740,30) -980 -810 95.4 -880 -920 -820 95.4 -860 109.7 99.7 505 Beta-306693 (2730,30) -930 -810 95.4 -870 -910 -810 95.4 -860 108.3 99.7 505 Beta-306687 (2730,30) -930 -810 95.4 -870 -910 -810 95.4 -860 108.3 99.7 297

505 Beta-333934 (2730,30) -930 -810 95.4 -870 -910 -810 95.4 -860 108.3 99.7 505 Beta-325656 (2720,30) -920 -810 95.4 -870 -910 -810 95.4 -860 107.2 99.7 505 Beta-339685 (2720,30) -920 -810 95.4 -870 -910 -810 95.4 -860 107.2 99.7 505 Beta-333937 (2720,30) -920 -810 95.4 -870 -910 -810 95.4 -860 107.1 99.7 505 Beta-333938 (2700,30) -910 -800 95.4 -850 -900 -810 95.4 -850 105.7 99.7 505 Beta-325653 (2660,30) -900 -790 95.4 -820 -900 -800 95.4 -830 84.7 99.8 505 Beta-333936 (2660,30) -900 -790 95.4 -820 -900 -800 95.4 -830 84.7 99.8 LCA 505 Interval 20 150 95.4 90 99.7 Transition 505/504 -840 -790 95.4 -810 99.9 504 E-WH Beta-358015 (2650,30) -900 -790 95.4 -810 -830 -790 95.4 -800 115.2 100 504 Beta-333933 (2640,30) -900 -780 95.4 -810 -830 -780 95.4 -800 115.9 100 504 Beta-339690 (2600,30) -830 -760 95.4 -800 -820 -760 95.4 -790 105.2 100 E-WH Beta-358016 (2600,30) -830 -760 95.4 -800 -820 -760 95.4 -790 105.3 100 504 Beta-339691 (2600,30) -830 -760 95.4 -800 -820 -760 95.4 -790 105.2 100 504 Beta-339688 (2560,30) -810 -550 95.4 -770 -810 -750 95.4 -780 133.5 100 504 Beta-339687 (2560,30) -810 -550 95.4 -770 -810 -750 95.4 -780 133.4 100 504 Beta-306683 (2550,30) -810 -550 95.4 -760 -810 -740 95.4 -780 141.6 100 504 Beta-339695 (2530,30) -800 -540 95.4 -670 -800 -730 95.4 -770 124.5 100 504 Beta-333930 (2530,30) -800 -540 95.4 -670 -800 -730 95.4 -770 124.5 100 504 Beta-344167 (2520,30) -800 -540 95.4 -640 -800 -730 95.4 -760 109.3 100 504 Beta-339694 (2500,30) -790 -530 95.4 -640 -800 -720 95.4 -760 95.1 100 504 Beta-339693 (2500,30) -790 -530 95.4 -640 -800 -720 95.4 -760 95.1 100 504 Beta-339686 (2500,30) -790 -530 95.4 -640 -800 -720 95.4 -760 95.1 100 504 Beta-339689 (2490,30) -790 -510 95.4 -640 -790 -720 95.4 -750 95.2 100 504 Beta-344169 (2470,30) -770 -430 95.4 -630 -790 -710 95.4 -750 97.3 100 504 Beta-339696 (2450,30) -760 -410 95.4 -580 -780 -710 95.4 -740 80 100 504 Beta-306684 (2450,30) -760 -410 95.4 -580 -780 -710 95.4 -740 80 99.9 LCA 504 Interval 40 140 95.4 80 99.9 Transition 504/503 -760 -690 95.4 -730 99.9 Stratum 503 OSL usu-964 (-768,360) -1490 -40 95.4 -770 -780 -640 95.4 -710 139.1 100 OSL usu-965 (-698,320) -1340 -50 95.4 -700 -780 -640 95.4 -710 140.9 100 OSL usu-966 (-658,470) -1600 290 95.4 -660 -770 -610 95.4 -710 140.4 100 Transition 503/502 -750 -610 95.4 -700 99.8 Date 503/502 -730 -560 95.4 -640 100 502-E-WH Beta-358014 (2530,30) -800 -540 95.4 -670 -690 -530 95.4 -590 82.1 100 502 Beta-333935 (2380,30) -730 -390 95.3 -450 -540 -410 95.4 -480 88.4 100 502-E-WH Beta-358013 (2380,30) -730 -390 95.3 -450 -500 -390 95.4 -420 120.5 99.9 Rillito Fan Start Rillito Fan 1 -2100 -1690 95.4 -1850 99 Rillito Fan Beta-264662 (3480,40) -1900 -1690 95.4 -1810 -1900 -1690 95.4 -1810 105.3 99.8 Rillito Fan Beta-251172 (3470,40) -1900 -1680 95.4 -1800 -1870 -1680 95.4 -1770 101.1 99.9 298

Rillito Fan 1 Interval 0 330 95.4 40 100 End Rillito Fan 1 -1880 -1430 95.4 -1720 99.7 Start Rillito Fan 2 -1710 -1110 95.4 -1340 99.9 Rillito Fan Beta-264664 (3000,40) -1400 -1110 95.4 -1240 -1380 -1050 95.4 -1210 95.2 99.9 Rillito Fan PRI-09-97-432 (2815,20) -1020 -910 95.4 -960 -1030 -910 95.4 -980 97.7 100 Rillito Fan 2 Interval 0 180 95.4 60 100 End Rillito Fan 2 -1010 -780 95.4 -910 100 Start Rillito Fan 3 -950 -600 95.4 -800 99.9 Rillito Fan PRI-09-97-495 (2555,20) -810 -590 95.5 -780 -810 -590 95.4 -780 103.4 99.9 Rillito Fan PRI-09-97-431 (2510,110) -900 -390 95.4 -620 -800 -540 95.4 -750 115 99.6 Rillito Fan 3 Interval 0 250 95.4 20 99.7 End Rillito Fan 3 -800 -380 95.4 -710 97.5 El Taller Start El Taller 1 -2870 -1970 95.4 -2210 99 El Taller Beta-161850 (3730,40) -2290 -1980 95.3 -2130 -2280 -1970 95.4 -2100 99.9 99.9 El Taller 1 Interval 0 680 95.4 170 99.9 End El Taller 1 -2200 -1400 95.4 -1940 99.8 Start El Taller 2 -1680 -1200 95.4 -1360 99.8 El Taller 2 El Taller Beta-161854 (3080,50) -1450 -1210 95.4 -1340 -1420 -1190 95.4 -1290 88.4 99.9 El Taller Beta-161855 (3010,40) -1400 -1120 95.4 -1250 -1390 -1130 95.4 -1260 113.3 100 El Taller Beta-161846 (2970,40) -1380 -1050 95.4 -1190 -1380 -1120 95.4 -1240 92.9 99.9 El Taller 2 Interval 0 540 95.4 170 99.7 End El Taller 2 -1360 -1010 95.4 -1190 99.9 Start El Taller 3 -1220 -920 95.4 -1050 99.9 El Taller Beta-164173 (2830,40) -1120 -890 95.4 -990 -1120 -900 95.4 -990 101.3 99.9 El Taller 3 Interval 0 480 95.4 60 100 End El Taller 3 -1120 -470 95.4 -920 99.6 Los Pozos Start Los Pozos 1 -2220 -1880 95.4 -2000 99.7 Los Pozos Beta-432714 (3610,30) -2110 -1880 95.4 -1970 -2040 -1890 95.4 -1960 100.2 99.9 Los Pozos 1 Interval 0 150 95.4 30 100 End Los Pozos 1 -2030 -1800 95.4 -1920 99.9 Start Los Pozos 2 -1950 -1700 95.4 -1840 99.9 Los Pozos Beta-430935 (3470,30) -1890 -1690 95.4 -1800 -1880 -1690 95.4 -1790 100.1 100 Los Pozos 2 Interval 0 180 95.4 40 100 End Los Pozos 2 -1870 -1600 95.4 -1740 99.9 Start Los Pozos 3 -1760 -1500 95.4 -1620 99.9 Los Pozos 3 Los Pozos Beta-124111 (3340,60) -1860 -1460 95.5 -1630 -1690 -1460 95.4 -1570 99.9 100 Los Pozos Beta-124114 (3300,80) -1780 -1410 95.4 -1580 -1670 -1450 95.4 -1560 120.9 100 Los Pozos Beta-124113 (3230,50) -1620 -1410 95.4 -1510 -1630 -1440 95.4 -1540 92.3 100 Los Pozos 3 Interval 0 300 95.4 110 99.9

299

End Los Pozos 3 -1610 -1380 95.4 -1500 99.9 Start Los Pozos 4 -1450 -1290 95.4 -1380 99.7 Los Pozos Los Pozos Beta-124112 (3140,50) -1510 -1270 95.4 -1410 -1420 -1270 95.4 -1350 73.2 99.6 Los Pozos Beta-430931 (3110,30) -1440 -1280 95.4 -1380 -1410 -1280 95.4 -1340 81.6 99.6 Los Pozos Beta-430934 (3090,30) -1430 -1270 95.4 -1350 -1410 -1270 95.4 -1350 97.6 99.6 Los Pozos Beta-430932 (3040,30) -1400 -1210 95.4 -1300 -1400 -1260 95.4 -1350 107.3 99.6 Los Pozos Beta-414202 (3040,30) -1400 -1210 95.4 -1300 -1400 -1250 95.4 -1350 107.4 99.6 Los Pozos Beta-430933 (3030,30) -1400 -1130 95.4 -1280 -1400 -1250 95.4 -1350 97.1 99.6 Los Pozos Beta-414203 (3030,30) -1400 -1130 95.4 -1280 -1400 -1250 95.4 -1350 97.2 99.6 Los Pozos Beta-414201 (3020,30) -1400 -1130 95.4 -1270 -1400 -1240 95.4 -1350 82.8 99.6 Los Pozos 4 Interval 0 200 95.4 60 99.2 End Los Pozos 4 -1380 -1210 95.4 -1300 98.2 Clearwater Start Clearwater 1 -2370 -2030 95.4 -2170 98.5 Clearwater 1 Clearwater B-157018 (3800,40) -2460 -2050 95.3 -2240 -2280 -2030 95.4 -2140 60.9 99.8 Clearwater B-175842 (3690,40) -2200 -1950 95.4 -2080 -2200 -1970 95.4 -2080 108.5 99.9 Clearwater B-175843 (3680,40) -2200 -1940 95.4 -2070 -2190 -1960 95.4 -2070 108.3 99.9 Clearwater B-160381 (3650,40) -2140 -1910 95.4 -2020 -2140 -1940 95.4 -2050 100.6 99.9 Clearwater B-175844 (3620,40) -2140 -1880 95.4 -1980 -2140 -1930 95.4 -2020 85.6 99.9 Clearwater 1 Interval 0 520 95.4 200 99.6 End Clearwater 1 -2130 -1780 95.4 -1970 99.7 Interval Clearwater 1/2 20 530 95.4 330 99.9 Start Clearwater 2 -1920 -1470 95.4 -1630 99.7 Clearwater B-190713 (3280,40) -1660 -1450 95.4 -1560 -1640 -1460 95.4 -1560 104.6 99.9 Clearwater B-193150 (3220,40) -1610 -1410 95.4 -1490 -1610 -1430 95.4 -1500 97.5 99.9 Clearwater 2 Interval 0 350 95.4 40 99.9 End Clearwater 2 -1620 -1140 95.4 -1460 99.4 Milagro Start Milagro 1 -1280 -1010 95.4 -1130 98.7 Milagro 1 Milagro AA-12055 (2930,45) -1270 -1000 95.4 -1130 -1210 -1010 95.4 -1100 108.1 99.7 Milagro AA-12056 (2915,45) -1260 -970 95.4 -1110 -1200 -1010 95.4 -1100 113.5 99.7 Milagro AA-12053 (2910,45) -1240 -940 95.4 -1100 -1200 -1010 95.4 -1100 114.2 99.7 Milagro 1 Interval 0 240 95.4 50 99.8 End Milagro 1 -1190 -970 95.4 -1060 99.8 Start Milagro 2 -1110 -860 95.4 -990 99.8 Milagro AA-1074 (2780,90) -1200 -790 95.4 -950 -1070 -840 95.4 -960 116.7 99.8 Milagro AA-12054 (2775,60) -1090 -800 95.4 -930 -1050 -820 95.4 -940 104.8 99.6 Milagro 2 Interval 0 170 95.4 10 100 End Milagro 2 -1090 -710 95.4 -910 98.8 Order Probabilities

300

Supplemental Data Appendix 1. OSL samples from Las Capas.

301

302

303

304