A CHRONOLOGY RESEARCH CONTEXT FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS ON THE GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY, ARIZONA

by B. Sunday Eiselt and E. Christian Wells

P-MIP Technical Report No. 2003-02 2003

A CHRONOLOGY RESEARCH CONTEXT FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS ON THE GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY, ARIZONA

by B. Sunday Eiselt and E. Christian Wells

Submitted to Department of the Interior U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Arizona Projects Office Phoenix, Arizona Annual funding Agreement No. 03-NA-32-0010 Submitted by John C. Ravesloot, Coordinator Cultural Resource Management Program Department of Land and Water Resources Gila River Indian Community Sacaton, Arizona 85247

P-MIP Technical Report No. 2003-02 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... iv PREFACE ................................................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 2 METHODS ............................................................................................................................... 3 Stratigraphy........................................................................................................................... 3 Site Structure and Spatial Relationships ............................................................................... 4 Ceramic Cross Dating ........................................................................................................... 5 Seriation ................................................................................................................................ 6 Methods for Ordering Assemblages ................................................................................. 7 Typological Seriations .................................................................................................. 7 Attribute Seriations ....................................................................................................... 9 Assemblage Ratio Studies ........................................................................................ 9 Calibrated Seriations............................................................................................... 10 Stylistic Seriations .................................................................................................. 10 Data Recovery and Analysis........................................................................................... 12 Fieldwork .................................................................................................................... 12 Data Selection ............................................................................................................. 13 Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. 14 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 16 Absolute Dating .................................................................................................................. 16 Radiocarbon Dating ........................................................................................................ 16 Methodological Limitations........................................................................................ 17 Sampling Procedures .................................................................................................. 18 Previous Work ............................................................................................................ 19 Research Questions..................................................................................................... 19 Archaeomagnetic Dating ................................................................................................ 21 Methodological Limitations........................................................................................ 22 Sampling Procedures .................................................................................................. 22 Previous Work ............................................................................................................ 23 Research Questions..................................................................................................... 24 Thermoluminescence Dating .......................................................................................... 24 Methodological Limitations........................................................................................ 25 Sampling Procedures .................................................................................................. 25 Previous Work ............................................................................................................ 26 Research Questions..................................................................................................... 26 Other Dating Techniques ................................................................................................ 27 Tree-ring Dating.......................................................................................................... 27 Obsidian Hydration Dating ......................................................................................... 28 Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 29

ii

A SPECIAL NOTE ON THE CHRONOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF SURFACE MATERIALS .................................................................................................................. 32 RESEARCH THEMES........................................................................................................... 35 The Paleoindian and Archaic Periods ................................................................................. 35 The Early Archaic ........................................................................................................... 37 Research Questions..................................................................................................... 38 The Middle Archaic ........................................................................................................ 38 Research Questions..................................................................................................... 39 The Late Archaic/Early Agricultural Period................................................................... 41 Research Questions..................................................................................................... 43 The Early Formative and Pioneer Periods .......................................................................... 43 Research Questions..................................................................................................... 45 The Hohokam Sequence ..................................................................................................... 47 The Preclassic ................................................................................................................. 47 Hohokam Origins the Late Pioneer to Colonial Periods.......................................... 47 Research Questions................................................................................................. 49 The Sedentary Period.................................................................................................. 51 Research Questions................................................................................................. 51 The Classic Period .......................................................................................................... 53 Research Questions..................................................................................................... 54 The Protohistoric................................................................................................................. 55 Research Questions..................................................................................................... 55 The Historic Period ............................................................................................................. 57 Early Historic Period....................................................................................................... 57 Research Questions..................................................................................................... 58 The Late Historic Period................................................................................................. 59 Research Issues ........................................................................................................... 60 CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................... 62 REFERENCES CITED........................................................................................................... 63 APPENDIX............................................................................................................................. 96 REFERENCES FOR ARTIFACT ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 96

iii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Radiocarbon Dates from GRIC Sites........................................................................20 Table 2. Radiocarbon Dates from Snaketown Reported in Haury (1976)..............................21 Table 3. Archaeomagnetic Dates from Snaketown Reported in Haury (1976). .....................23 Table 4. TL Dates from GR-931.............................................................................................27 Table 5. Obsidian Hydration Dates from Snaketown Reported in Haury (1976)...................29 Table 6. Archaic Period Cultural Chronology ........................................................................36 Table 7. Late Archaic/Early Agricultural Period Cultural Chronology..................................42 Table 8. Hohokam and Historic Period Cultural Chronology (after Dean 1991)...................48

iv

PREFACE
The Pima-Maricopa Irrigation Project (P-MIP) will provide water to nearly 146,000 ac of farmland within the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC). A total of 77,000 ac of this project is a federally funded undertaking related to the Bureau of Reclamation Central Arizona Project Indian Distribution Division and administered by the GRIC under the federal Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-413). The full undertaking is anticipated ultimately to involve the construction of 82 mi of main-stem canal and approximately 2,400 mi of secondary canals that will irrigate farmland on the GRIC. The GRIC Cultural Resource Management Program (CRMP) has been established by the community to address the impacts of the irrigation project on cultural resources. This document is a component of the research design developed by the CRMP to guide archaeological research associated with the construction of P-MIP canals and irrigation laterals. This particular research context focuses on chronological studies pertaining to prehistoric and historic materials on the GRIC.

INTRODUCTION
Archaeologists have an acute interest in the long view of events and processes. This interest requires a temporal framework and a need to build chronologies. Time is used primarily as an organizing principle for past events, and the most basic archaeological questions involve the ordering of these events. Three primary types of data are used to develop chronologies: 1) the direct association of chronometric ages with cultural assemblages, 2) the relative stratigraphic association of cultural assemblages with one another and with geomorphic indicators, and 3) the association of time sensitive artifact types or attributes (time markers) with particular cultural assemblages. Dating archaeological remains, establishing the contemporaneity and duration of archaeological components, and coping with spatial or other variability not related to time are the essential issues in chronology. Also critical is how the questions asked of the archaeological record are related to the scale and precision of the dating methods employed. In the present document, we outline the methods used to date archaeological materials on the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) and those used to place them within a temporal framework. The research significance of chronological work is established through a review of current issues related to central Arizona culture history. Chronology is a primary concern for ongoing archaeological research on the GRIC and is an integral part of all of the research contexts produced thus far, as well as the research efforts undertaken by the Cultural Resource Management Program (CRMP) since its inception. At the most general level, the overarching research objective of our chronological studies is to document the co-evolution of human and natural systems along the middle Gila River, what McGlade (1995) refers to as the eco-dynamics of human modified landscapes. The theoretical framework guiding this research emphasizes the complex reciprocal connections linking human and ecological systems, and it acknowledges that historical events unfold within the context of dynamic landscapes. Variously identified as the new ecology or historical ecology, these approaches consider ideational, economic, and social aspects of human and ecological systems and how they interact to generate change through time (Botkin 1990; Crumley 1994; Zimmer 1994).

METHODS
Chronological studies attempt to solve three basic problems. The first is to order events of different types by means of absolute and relative dating methods. The second is to resolve the issue of contemporaneity so that events or phenomena that occur during similar times can be segregated and analyzed separately. The nature and duration of occupations is a third issue related directly to site and settlement histories. Methods commonly used to address these issues include stratigraphy and spatial relationships, artifact cross dating, artifact seriation, and absolute dating. Dates obtained by these methods may be relative or absolute in their scale of measurement. Relative dating establishes the timing of archaeological finds in relation to one another. Absolute dating provides a specific calendar age estimate with some degree of certainty attached. Dating methods are used to determine the age of objects and events. These dates are ordered to establish a chronology that provides a temporal framework in which the archaeological material can be placed. In this section, we review some of the major techniques that will be used to order assemblages on the GRIC and contribute to ongoing chronological studies in the Phoenix and Tucson basins.

STRATIGRAPHY
Stratigraphy refers to the physical patterning of strata in an excavated deposit as well as the analysis of such patterning. Stratigraphic studies provide the primary contextual data for reconstructing past behavior and building chronologies. The method is used to order features and assemblages based on the principles of superposition and association. The principle of superposition includes the assumption that lower layers were deposited before higher ones. Association refers to two or more artifacts or features residing within the same stratigraphic unit in close spatial proximity (i.e., clusters; Fagan 1983). Fieldwork involves recording the position and contents of discrete stratigraphic packages, some of which may be continuous, discontinuous, overlapping, or intrusive. Unraveling the sequence of stratigraphic units and establishing which ones are contemporaneous is the goal of stratigraphic interpretation. The interpretive process begins with grouping sets of contexts (clusters of associated materials within discrete strata) and eliminating others according to some rationale. Usually this rational is based on the assumption that contexts are contiguous, that they were deposited at the same time, or that they represent a single event or depositional episode. Relationships between grouped contexts are established using excavation records, trench profiles, and feature plan maps. Contexts then are ordered relative to each other. The resulting order is summarized in a series of diagrams. Typically, some form of a Harris Matrix is used (Harris 1989). The diagrams represent the best solution, or interpretation, of relative stratigraphic patterning. Date determinations are made independently for each context by examining their associated contents, including the presence of temporally diagnostic artifacts or features, 3

patterns of covariation between temporally diagnostic items (e.g., seriation), or absolute dates. Based on association arguments, the temporal meaning of one diagnostic item is transferred to other associated but less temporally sensitive items within the context. Date assignments for clusters are compared to stratigraphic interpretations as expressed in summary diagrams. Discordance between the ordering solution and dates leads to a reevaluation of stratigraphic relationships or the methods used to date the stratigraphic packages. The methods for recording and interpreting excavated stratigraphic sequences on the GRIC follow standard methods developed elsewhere in the Southwest. The GRIC-CRMP Excavation Manual (anonymous 1999) outlines the basic procedures for field identification and recording. The GRIC-CRMP uses a strata designation system developed by Desert Archaeology. Strata are defined as culturally significant deposits, such as the floor of a pit house or a distinct layer in a canal. The strata designations are divided into two primary categories, including strata inside structures and strata outside structures. Some commonly encountered non-feature and natural deposits (e.g., the plow zone in an agricultural field) also have been assigned a strata number. Each excavation unit, level, sample, or square is labeled undisturbed, minimally disturbed, or heavily disturbed. Interpretation of recorded stratigraphic sequences follows those outlined by Henderson (2001) and others (Abbott et al. 1994; Harris 1989). The method involves first summarizing stratigraphic relationships in a series of Harris Matrix diagrams. Badly disturbed and mixed deposits are eliminated from consideration. Identification of disturbed contexts is done in the field by examining trench profiles and excavated deposits. Field notes, maps, profiles, and photographs are further consulted during and after excavation. Architectural or other features and artifact or feature clusters then are seriated using diagnostic types or type attributes. Henderson (2001) uses the concept of age groups to seriate assemblages, which leads to sub-phase designations for Hohokam assemblages. The definition of an age group is based on the assumption that features grouped by similarities in the frequencies of diagnostic types should exhibit a similar temporal range. The inclusion of established phase designations based on established diagnostic types and age group designations based on covarying frequencies of artifact types increases temporal resolution while incorporating the maximum number of excavated assemblages into analysis. Each discrete context is assigned to one of the time periods by considering the seriation results in conjunction with architectural or other feature styles and the stratigraphic relationships defined in the Harris Matrix. Absolute dates for discrete contexts also are included when available. The three sets of independent temporal data (stratigraphy, seriation, and absolute dates) are checked for concordance in order to ensure the accuracy of stratigraphic interpretations and to examine the temporal resolution of contemporaneous deposits.

SITE STRUCTURE AND SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS

Other methods for ordering deposits are based on site structure considerations. Several Hohokam archaeologists have used the density of artifacts in pit house fill to order

structures relatively and to assess patterns of abandonment (Elson 1986; Ravesloot and Czaplicki 1988; Ruscavage 1992; Whittlesey 1986). The underlying premise is that earlier structures are more likely to be filled with trash, while the latest structures will contain lower quantities of trash. This model does not hold at all sites, however (e.g., Henderson 2001). In these cases, the degree of trash disposal seems to be related to feature location rather than temporal ordering. The relative ordering of deposits based on pit house fill will be examined as part of ongoing research. The spatial relationships of architectural units and features also may be useful in ordering deposits. Pit houses in Hohokam villages often are arranged in courtyards, with contemporary houses oriented toward a common open area (Henderson 1987; Howard 1985; Huntington 1986; Mitchell 1988; Wilcox et al. 1981). Such spatial arrangements may be useful in defining contemporary household deposits and features among GRIC assemblages. McKenna and Swarthout (1984) define three household configurations based on their work at historic Gila Butte and Santan area archaeological sites, which include traditional, transitional, and modern types. They relate changes in the spatial organization of the household complex to modifications in historic indigenous economies through time. Their model suggests that the central structure type, the geographical orientation of ancillary structures, and associated activities are good chronological predictors for Oodham and Pee Posh archaeological sites dating to the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Ongoing research at historic archaeological sites will test the applicability of the McKenna and Swarthout model. Household configuration may be used to draw inferences about site chronology when applicable.

CERAMIC CROSS DATING

Ceramic cross dating was the foundation of Hohokam chronology before the advent of radiocarbon and archaeomagnetic chronometry (Dean 1991:63). The presence of intrusive types that were dated using dendrochronology in other areas provided the first calendrical estimates. Early attempts sought to correlate Hohokam with Pueblo, Mogollon, or Sinagua phases, an approach that subsequently has been critiqued due to the wide range of overlap possible in matching phases and due to the association of pottery types with more than one phase in the Pueblo sequence (Schiffer 1982). Dean (1991) considers the chronological information inherent in the intrusive pottery types rather than their phase associations in his recent evaluation of Hohokam chronology. He uses manufacturing dates and overlapping type associations to increase the accuracy and resolution of the dates that can be assigned to associated Hohokam materials. This approach will be used to extract chronological information from sites on the GRIC containing intrusive ceramics. The technique should be most effective for dating Sedentary through Classic period Hohokam (Dean 1991) and Protohistoric to Early Historic materials (Cable 1990; Wells 2003a). Intrusive ceramics commonly found at Hohokam and Protohistoric to Early Historic sites on the GRIC include Pueblo, Mogollon, Salado, Tucson Basin Hohokam, and Tohono

Oodham types. Recent survey and excavation projects undertaken by the GRIC-CRMP have recovered approximately 180 Pueblo and Mogollon sherds. The vast majority of these date to the Sedentary Period, a pattern that is consistent with the findings at Snaketown (Gladwin et al. 1937:214). Pioneer and Colonial period intrusives are very rare. None have been identified during recent survey, although Gladwin et al. (1938:214) list several that date to the Santa Cruz Phase. Tucson Basin Hohokam types include approximately 13 Rincon Red-on-brown and 457 Tanque Verde Red-on-brown ceramics. Although these types are poorly dated in the Tucson Basin, their presence in GRIC sites help date assemblages to the late Sacaton and Soho Phases. The abundance of Gila and Tonto Polychrome, which totals over 4,000 sherds recovered thus far, securely dates Civano Phase materials on the GRIC (McCartney et al. 1994). Certain ceramic types with established manufacturing dates produced elsewhere in the Southwest also might be useful for inferring post-Classic occupations (e.g., Bayman and Ryan 1988; Betancourt 1978:60-61; Crown 1983, 1984; Deaver 1990), such as Jeddito Black-on-yellow (A.D. 1300 to 1600/1625; E. Adams et al. 1993; Colton 1956; Windes 1977), proto-Hopi yellow ware (A.D. 1300 to 1600/1625; Colton 1956; Windes 1977), and Matsaki polychrome (A.D. 1400 to 1680; Colton 1958; Fowler 1989; Kintigh 1985). Jeddito Black-on-yellow and other Hopi yellow wares have been located on the GRIC, but they are exceedingly rare. Wells (2003a) points out that most of them are found on major historic village sites distributed along the south side of the Gila River. Historic Tohono Oodham types defined by Fontana et al. (1962) likewise might be useful for dating Akimel Oodham and Pee Posh sites on the GRIC, although more work is needed to establish their chronological significance and to determine if the more common types (e.g., red ware, plain ware, and red-on-brown) can be distinguished from Gila River ceramics. Currently, only one identifiable type, Papago Glaze (A.D. 1786 to 1850; Caywood 1950; Fontana et al. 1962) has been recovered at Gila River sites. Approximately 15 of these sherds were found at sites along the south side of the Gila River. In summary, intrusive ceramics will be useful for dating ceramic period and historic sites on the GRIC. Emphasis will be placed on establishing strong associations between intrusives and middle Gila River assemblages, as well as diagnostic types and absolute chronometric dates. Covariation between dateable intrusive ceramics and temporally diagnostic artifact attributes or assemblage characteristics also will be examined.

SERIATION
Seriation is a descriptive analytic technique for ordering units along a single dimension (Spaulding 1978). The most widely used form is similarity seriation (Rowe 1959). Archaeological objects or groups of objects are arranged as a series in accordance with their similarities. Artifacts can be ordered with reference to any variety of characteristics, and the technique can be used to address a number of research questions (Johnson 1972). Frequency seriation is a method that is more strictly directed to chronological ordering. It involves

determining a sequence of sites or deposits by analyzing the relative frequencies of certain artifact classes within them. Frequency seriation establishes a relative chronology by using the assumption that artifact types or attributes show unimodal frequencies over time. They originate, increase in popularity, and eventually decline in use, producing familiar battleshipshaped curves (Dethlefsen and Deetz 1966; Ford 1962). This technique is used to order deposits within sites, and to order depositional events of different sites based on artifact or attribute frequencies (Marquardt 1978). Results derived from frequency seriation are uniformly reliable, being regularly confirmed by stratigraphy and chronometric dating. The goal of establishing a chronological seriation is the best general ordering of a set of units based on time. A good seriation technique should be capable of indicating contemporaneity as well as difference in time between units.

Methods for Ordering Assemblages

Central to any chronological seriation is observation. In order for a seriation to result variables must change in frequency over time. seriation approaches and we outline some of the GRIC assemblages. the selection of appropriate variables for in a chronological ordering, the selected In this section, we review a number of ways in which they may be used to order

Typological Seriations
Typological seriations involve plotting the frequencies of different artifact types from a given series of assemblages or deposits. Deposits are ordered based on the relative abundance of the different types they contain. Type frequency seriations require that wellestablished artifact typologies be in place for the region under study. There should be general agreement among researchers regarding the classification process, the temporal placement of types, and the validity of the types as chronological markers (Beck 1999:174). Classificatory problems usually are resolved through the development of keys, which provide standardized methods for categorizing artifacts. The temporal placement of types is established through independent dating and stratigraphy. The validity of types as timesensitive chronological markers is achieved if the type in question has a limited temporal distribution. Ceramics generally provide excellent time-sensitive types, but other artifact classes, such as projectile points, can be the source of ongoing debate in prehistoric studies. Multiple-type dating schemes have been used elsewhere in the Southwest to order assemblages (Duff 1996). They provide an effective way to obtain fine-grained seriations provided that there is temporal variation in the frequencies of seriated artifacts, and that a number of reasonably dated artifact types occur in varying frequencies within a series of assemblages. Satisfying results are produced when large and diverse assemblages are considered, even if some of the artifact types span several hundred years. They may not be

appropriate if only one or two types are present in an assemblage, or if types are defined by attributes that are not temporally sensitive. Typological seriation should be effective for ordering archaeological deposits on the GRIC given that numerous sites have produced highly diverse and dense assemblages of temporally diagnostic artifacts. The method is particularly cost effective for regional or extremely large data sets. Multi-type seriations will not be effective at producing finegrained seriations in all cases, however. The resolution of the seriation will depend on the diversity, density, and integrity of the deposits under scrutiny. Some portions of the regional sequence will be better suited for typological analysis than others. It is well known that ceramic types and phases are isomorphic for the Phoenix Basin Hohokam sequence (Wallace 2001). Unlike situations in other portions of the Southwest, the Hohokam decorated types do not overlap temporally (Masse 1982:87). This limits the utility of using multiple-type dating schemes to produce fine-grained seriations for the Hohokam ceramic sequence. Also, procedures for consistently categorizing Hohokam ceramics have not been developed, leading some to conclude that a lack of concordance between analysts is a significant challenge to Hohokam chronology building (Dean 1991; Doyel and Elson 1985; Henderson 1987; Wallace 2001; Wallace et al. 1995). Variables used in the typology are not discrete or well defined, and dating decisions based on the frequencies of types will not be replicable according to these authors. The relative sequence of Hohokam decorated ceramics is nonetheless established and well dated (Abbott 1988; Dean 1991; Haury 1937, 1976; Wallace and Craig 1988). Most phases are sufficiently short to produce detailed sequences, especially for regionally based research questions such as those being developed for the GRIC. Typological seriations will be carried out on ceramics as part of Stage I analysis (Newman and Eiselt 2003; Simon 2003) and on projectile points and other manufactured materials during initial classification (Eiselt 2002; Loendorf and Rice 2003). Deposits or sites grouped by similarities in the frequencies of different ceramic or other artifact types should exhibit similar temporal ranges, resulting in age-related assemblages (Henderson 2001). Typological seriations will be combined with other attribute or chronological information as part of P-MIP investigations. Typological seriation will not be used to refine the Hohokam chronology. Rather, the method will provide information on relative temporal intersite and intrasite relationships that are corroborated with independent data. Multiple-type dating schemes should be helpful in ordering historic deposits, which contain a wide range of artifact types with known manufacturing dates. The method also will be used to order surface assemblages. Hypothetical orderings will help to guide excavations, develop work plans, and generate research questions. The method may not be useful in ordering Archaic or Protohistoric deposits given that assemblage diversity and density is relatively low and given that later occupations frequently overlay existing sites. Problems in identification of such assemblages preclude the use of typological seriation in most cases.

Attribute Seriations
Attribute-based or numerical seriations involve plotting the frequencies of observations that are made on one or more variables of artifact types. Each variable (e.g., ceramic rim form, wall thickness, or ceramic shape) is measured or categorized in terms of a scale. The various mutually exclusive characteristics of the scale (the attributes) are used to order assemblages. Determining which observations are temporally-sensitive is a major concern in attribute seriations. Chronological trends are determined using independent dating techniques or exploratory data analysis. The downside of attribute studies when compared to typological analyses is that they are time consuming during data recording and analysis. Attribute analysis therefore will be conducted on a subsample of assemblages recovered during P-MIP survey and mitigation as part of Stage II analysis. While timeconsuming, attribute analysis tracks individual changes in artifact types that also can be used to inform behavioral studies (Abbot 2000), and attribute seriations can be used effectively on small or rare assemblages and sealed contexts such as burials. Several types of attribute studies are prevalent in the archaeological literature. These include artifact assemblage ratio analysis, calibrated seriation, and stylistic seriation, each of which potentially can contribute to chronology building on the GRIC.

Assemblage Ratio Studies

Assemblage ratio studies are effective for seriating units with small sample sizes or units that do not contain a high diversity of diagnostic artifact types, such as floors, single levels of test trenches, or limited duration activity areas. They attempt to define the structure of an assemblage based on simple ratio-scale variables rather than multidimensional aspects of artifact variability, typically focusing on a limited number of time-sensitive attributes that are present in most archaeological deposits. Instead of basing seriation on a combination of variables, assemblage ratio seriations are based on individual attributes or attribute sets alone. This eliminates much of the small sample problem, because even artifacts with only one attribute can be used at some level of analysis. The goal is to develop methods for ordering assemblages that lack other dateable material or diagnostic artifact types. Assemblage ratio studies are beneficial because they rely on simple analytical techniques, they bring more of a given assemblage into analysis, and they provide flexible and efficient methods for processing large sets of data. The drawback is that assemblage ratios may produce lowresolution or ambiguous seriations. Seriation by a limited set of attributes also ignores the associational aspects of the data (LeBlanc 1975:26) and, as Wallace (2001:180) points out, attribute analyses alone will not reveal temporal mixing as readily as well defined time-based typological studies. Despite these problems, the method has been effectively applied to Hohokam assemblages in the Phoenix Basin. Several attributes based on ceramic manufacturing techniques have been used, including buff ware, red ware, and plain ware percentage, decorated ceramic content, temper type, surface finish, and vessel form (Abbott 1983, 1988;

Abbot et al. 1994; Crown 1981; Cable and Gould 1988; Cable et al. 1988; Gregory 1988; Haury 1937; Henderson 1987, 2001; Lane 1989; Wallace et al. 1995). Researchers characterize the structure of a given ceramic assemblage that has been recovered from a welldated context or contexts in terms of these and other attribute ratios. Ceramic ratio values established from dated contexts of different ages are used to order similar assemblages lacking dateable materials.

Calibrated Seriations
One variant of attribute analysis uses multiple regression formulae to order assemblages along a continuum. Called a calibrated seriation by some (Rice and Lindauer 1990), this technique was first developed by Hantman (1983) and Plog and Hantman (1986) to overcome the problem of considering time as a series of successive units rather than a continuous flow (Marquardt 1978:302; Schacht 1984). The technique was first applied to Hohokam assemblages by Neitzel (1984), Henderson (1986, 1987) and Cable et al. (1988). In it, regression formulae are developed based on the relative occurrence of temporallydiagnostic ceramic attributes within unmixed contexts dated by independent means. The correlation formulae or predictive dating equations then are used to estimate the dates of other assemblages that are lacking dateable material. Each predicted score or date has the potential to fall anywhere along the line generated by the regression formulae. The premise underlying a calibrated seriation is that individual ceramic attributes may change in a regular pattern through time, allowing for more precise dating than is possible with broadly defined ceramic types. Another purported benefit is that the regression analysis yields a statistic called the standard error of estimate, which supplies a range of confidence for any date provided by the regression formulae. The potential drawbacks to the method include problems of context control, attribute selection, and sample size (Wallace 2001:180). Calibrated seriations nonetheless may provide a useful methodology for assigning dates to deposits if the regression formulae are carefully constructed from unmixed and well-dated artifact assemblages. It should be stressed, however, that calibrated seriations represent hypothetical, relative orderings of deposits. Dates produced by the regression formulae are heuristic rather than absolute.

Stylistic Seriations
Attribute data also are used to develop detailed stylistic seriations, of artifacts such as those recently produced for Hohokam buff wares by Wallace (2001). These studies depend on analysis of relatively pure, single component assemblages having a high diversity and density of a particular artifact type that is confined to a particular phase. Multiple variables of the artifact type are documented. Some of them are determined to be temporally diagnostic through the exploratory statistical analysis of their attributes. Time diagnostic attributes are used to seriate the artifacts, resulting in the division of types into smaller units

10

such as early, middle, or late. Stylistic seriations track changes in the development of a particular diagnostic type over the duration of its existence in a cultural system. The method usually involves the definition of new artifact types or refinement of typological descriptions and sequences. However, as the sequence becomes refined, the numbers of individual sherds or vessels that can be assigned to the refined categories is reduced. Wallaces (2001) study of middle Gila River Hohokam decorated wares provides a refined model of the post-Sweetwater decorated ceramic sequence. In it, he uses multidimensional scaling of ratio-scale data to sequence several assemblages based on a series of probable time-sensitive traits. Wallaces analysis has two overarching goals. The first is to clarify type descriptions in order to facilitate replicability in categorizing ceramics, and the second is to refine the ceramic sequence. His results identify 11 ceramic time segments from the end of Snaketown up to and including Casa Grande. He uses a 18 timesensitive variables to create this refined typology (2001:260). The extreme ends of the Hohokam ceramic sequence are not evaluated given limited comparative material. Wallace stresses that the proposed sequence is provisional. One of the major challenges facing this study thus is the validation of individual time segments, many of which do not exceed 25 years. Conventional dating methods available to Hohokam archaeologists have sigma error values greater than 25 years, and so it may be difficult to test Wallaces refined ceramic sequence. The duration of increments that a fine-grained stylistic seriation proposes to produce should be commensurate with the independent dating techniques available in an area in order for the new typology to be verified. The applicability of the refined sequence also should be evaluated. Stylistic analyses that use large and complex sets of attributes may produce types that are so rare in the archaeological record that they are useless for seriation (LeBlanc 1975:24). In other cases, highly detailed attribute analyses may be effective at identifying widespread types, but artifacts fitting these criteria may never be encountered in frequencies high enough to order assemblages. For example, Wallaces seriation requires sherd sizes that are 9 cm2. Sherds of this size are rare in the GRIC assemblages recovered thus far, but excavations planned as part of P-MIP mitigation may reveal more. The applicability of Wallaces refined seriation and type definitions will be assessed as part of ongoing P-MIP research, but the GRIC-CRMP will not attempt to replicate or add to this important study. Other portions of the regional sequence may be subjected to stylistic seriation analysis if sufficient collections are recovered. The key requirements for selecting archaeological materials to be used in stylistic seriations follow those developed by Wallace (2001:182). The quantity of measurable artifacts in the context must be sufficiently large to permit meaningful statistical analysis. There must be minimal temporal mixing of the deposit, and the duration of the context deposition must be brief. The artifacts to be seriated must originate from a minimal number of production centers, and the context must be one in which there is a reasonable expectation that short-term unmixed deposition could have occurred. Given that Early Formative, Pioneer Period, and Protohistoric assemblages are rare and not well defined in most cases, we do not expect to develop detailed ceramic seriations

11

for these periods. Research instead will focus on characterizing the structure and nature of these assemblages (e.g., Wells 2003a). Ongoing P-MIP research could, however, contribute a great deal to the study of historic ceramic typologies, given that a high number of sites and assemblages will be encountered during mitigation. The historic ceramic types developed by Fontana et al. (1967) based on Tohono Oodham ceramics will be evaluated using GRICCRMP data, and a refined typology will be developed following the methods and procedures outlined here (see also Simon 2003).

Data Recovery and Analysis

The theory, epistemology, and practice of seriation have received a great deal of attention in the past several decades (Cowgill 1972; Dethlefsen and Deetz 1966; Dunnell 1970; Johnson 1972; Plog 1973). Advances include critical examinations of the underlying assumptions of seriation, its relationship to chronological inference in real and simulated contexts and the exploration of alternative strategies for chronological investigations (Marquardt 1978:296). These studies examine the nature of the archaeological data and how they relate to ideal models of seriation theory. Most research, however, focuses on the practice of seriation, including the mathematical techniques used to order assemblages. In this section, we review the methods for data recovery and analysis that will be undertaken as part of P-MIP research.

Fieldwork
Ambiguous sequences are the result of several factors, including differences in the duration of compared deposits, temporal mixing, the use of variables or types that are not temporally diagnostic, or the techniques used to order assemblages. Ambiguous results are expected when the temporal units are very close in time. Several steps will be taken to ensure that seriations produce good chronological orderings. Care will be taken to sample deposits adequately, and data collection will be conducted in a controlled manner. Stratigraphic relationships will be summarized in a series of modified Harris Matrix diagrams (Harris 1989; see also Abbott et al. 1994), and seriations will be cross-referenced against recorded stratigraphy and absolute dates. Badly disturbed deposits will be removed from analysis. Discordance between seriations and stratigraphy or absolute dates will lead to a reevaluation of the collected data or the techniques used to produce artifact sequences as mentioned above. Comparability in the duration of deposits will be assessed through stratigraphy, the distribution of absolute dates, and diagnostic artifact contents. The procedure for assigning burials or other closed-finds to a temporal period will follow Abbot et al. (1994).

12

Data Selection
The selection of temporally diagnostic artifacts, variables, or attributes will be based on previous research and on exploratory data analysis techniques. Hohokam researchers working in the Phoenix Basin have identified several ceramic attributes that appear to change through time; these are reviewed briefly above. The P-MIP Ceramics Procedures Manual (Newman and Eiselt 2003) includes these variables as part of Stage II analysis, which will be conducted on a subset of the total materials recovered as part of P-MIP research (Simon 2003). One of the goals of chronology building on the GRIC will be to determine whether these variables are temporally diagnostic for middle Gila River assemblages. Given the temporal and spatial scope of the P-MIP project, we expect to identify additional temporally diagnostic artifact types and attributes that can be used to order prehistoric and historic deposits on the GRIC. Seriations can be carried out on a number of artifact types found at archaeological sites. However, selected artifacts should meet several criteria before being used to seriate assemblages. Ideally, they should be temporally diagnostic, have a short use-life, and their area of production should be demonstrated or inferred. The artifact type also should be abundant in assemblages, and stylistic or technological change should be relatively rapid and measurable (Marquardt 1978:304). Loendorf and Rice (2003) recently have developed a revised typology for projectile points that may be effective for seriating prehistoric and historic assemblages. Ceramics, however, will be the focus of much of the prehistoric chronological research given that they occur in high enough frequencies to be useful for ordering assemblages, that ceramic function may be inferred in most cases, and that production loci may be determined using geochemical source and temper analysis (Burton and Simon 2002; Miksa and Castro-Reino 2001). Manufactured artifacts also will play a role in seriating historic assemblages. Makers marks, product names, and technological or production attributes of commercial materials will help us to determine the production periods for individual artifacts, develop seriations based on multiple artifact frequencies, and establish median dates for artifact assemblages (South 1977; Teague 1980:124-125). References for the analysis of historic artifacts are included in the Appendix. The date and duration of occupations based on assemblage analysis will be verified with historic documents, maps, and resident testimony when available (South 1972; Ravesloot et al. 1992). These data will be used to define ceramic and projectile point typologies and develop refined seriations for protohistoric, early historic, and late historic assemblages. Abbott et al. (1994:168) point out that seriation often involves balancing two conflicting goals. The first is the inclusion of as many deposits as possible. The second is to produce an accurate seriation. As the number of artifacts in a deposit decreases, the reliability of the temporal ordering also decreases. The objective of chronological investigation is to bring as many deposits into the analysis as possible while still maintaining a high degree of accuracy. A related point is that the resolution of the seriation (the duration of the time segments it proposes to produce) also has to be balanced against the goal of including as many deposits as possible. As the number of variables (observations) required

13

for a seriation increases, the number of deposits likely containing them decreases. Fewer variables resolve the sample size problem, but usually at the expense of a fine-grained chronology or non-overlapping deposits. Steps will be taken during P-MIP research to balance the conflicting goals of seriation using the exploratory techniques, sample sizes, and variable choices utilized by other researchers (Abbott et al. 1994:168; Henderson 1987; Wallace 2001).

Data Analysis
Seriation can be carried out on incidence (presence-absence) or abundance data (relative to some absolute minimum) that are arranged in data matrices. Incidence data, recorded as present (1) or absent (0), often are used to seriate closed finds, such as burials, which contain a number of artifact types and represent discrete events not easily linked through stratigraphic correlations (Cowgill 1972). The best solution brings the 1s together as a group in each column. Seriations based on abundance matrices can be divided into three types, percentage, raw count, and ratio-scale. In percentage matrices, the total type count is a finite set, and row values are standardized. Raw count matrices include untransformed data. Raw counts frequently are converted to percentages in order to circumvent the problem of varying sample size. In the third kind of abundance matrix, the elements are logically independent ratio-scale variables calculated for each unit. Variables are chosen that presumably either increase or decrease through time. Data matrices are comprised of rows representing depositional units (e.g., features, strata, or sites) and columns representing artifact types or variables. Cell values represent the observations made on these variables (frequency counts or attribute states). Depositional units (rows) are rearranged to create a solution that brings together like observations within each column. If the variables that are chosen for seriation change over time, then the relative ordering of rows represents a chronological sequence. Rows within a matrix can be directly rearranged, but the task becomes more laborious as the number of variables increases. In order to overcome this, researchers typically employ mathematical techniques that reduce larger numbers of variables down to one or a few easily interpretable dimensions (Cowgill 1968, 1972; Matson and True 1974; True and Matson 1970; Washburn and Matson 1985). Data transformed by these methods result in a hypothetical relative ordering of deposits and deposit associations. Computer-generated orderings are verified using independently derived information such as stratigraphy, absolute dates, or mean artifact date formulas. Frequently, the ordering solution created by one mathematical technique is compared to the solution created by another technique in order to evaluate consistent patterning in the original data (Cowgill 1968). This portion of the research involves two steps, the selection of variables that show little variation in space and much more variation in time, and the ordering of deposits based on these variables using mathematical techniques. Mathematical orderings will be considered hypothetical until they can be corroborated with independent evidence. The

14

selection of variables follows the procedures outlined by Marquardt (1978) and Whallon (1987). Several data screening methods, including descriptive statistics and visual display techniques, first will be employed to determine which variables create an accurate representation of the structure or the pattern of variability inherent in the data. Incidence and abundance information will be used. This stage of analysis considers each variable separately and in combination. Linear or unimodal distributions of variables that are consistent with stratigraphy and independent dates are considered temporally diagnostic. Data screening will determine which, if any, multivariate techniques are warranted in a given analysis based on the structure of the data, and it will establish which variables or combinations of variables are good chronological predictors. Descriptive statistics and visual displays also will identify spatial or other sources of variability in the data that can be used to investigate non-chronological issues. The products of human behavior are complex, typically requiring the analysis of multiple variables at once. The number and types of observations required to capture this complexity will be explored through initial data screening. We do expect, however, that seriations will be based on the analysis of multiple variables in many cases. A number of mathematical techniques are available for the investigation of multivariate data, including factor analysis, multidimensional scaling, correspondence analysis, and cluster analysis, all of which potentially will be used to order assemblages on the GRIC. Multivariate techniques are particularly effective at ordering large and complex datasets, because they reduce observations on multiple variables down to a small number of major trends, or dimensions, that can be examined visually using scatterplots or dendrograms (Shennan 1990:244). Multivariate analysis also will be used in an exploratory approach aimed at distinguishing time-diagnostic variables (e.g., Marquardt 1978). This method involves the selection of variables that are known to change through time, some that may change through time, and some that have unknown temporal significance. The unknown variables that group with known variables then are selected as temporally significant. Those variables that do not group are excluded from further analysis. These may be related to spatial or other dimensions of variability that should be investigated further with different questions in mind. Assemblages will be seriated using two or more of these techniques and the rank order solutions will be visually compared in order to evaluate consistent patterning in the original data (see Cowgill 1968). The strength of correspondence between the different ordering techniques will be assessed using Spearmans Rank Correlation Coefficient and Kendalls Tau (e.g., Duff 1996). Significant disagreement between them may cause us to reevaluate the criteria used for classification and the methods used to collect the samples.

15

Summary
Ongoing P-MIP research will make use of artifact assemblage ratios already developed in the Phoenix Basin, and continue to search for other attributes that are strongly correlated with time using exploratory data analysis techniques on well-dated and unmixed assemblages. Prehistoric and historic contexts will be investigated and special attention will be given to temporal periods that are not well defined, including the Early Formative, Pioneer, and Protohistoric periods, as well as transitional phases such as the supposed Santan (Gladwin et al. 1937) and Santa Cruz to Sacaton shift. Most of the artifact assemblage studies conducted to date have focused on ceramics. Attributes recorded on a subset of materials as part of Stage II ceramic analysis will be used to generate temporally diagnostic ratio-scale data for ceramic-bearing sites (Newman and Eiselt 2003). The characteristics of other artifact and feature types also will be subjected to detailed typological and attribute studies. Aspects of projectile point morphology (Loendorf and Rice 2003), architecture, and manufactured artifacts (Eiselt 2002; Gregory 2001a; Haury 1976; Howard 1988; McKenna and Swarthout 1984; Mitchell 1994; Schroeder 1953; Teague 1980) will provide additional information on the relative ordering of Archaic, Hohokam, and Historic assemblages.

ABSOLUTE DATING
Absolute (chronometric) dating, also known as independent dating, refers to the process of obtaining calendar dates for archaeological or geological specimens. The absolute ages of many archaeological materials traditionally can be determined by a number of analytical techniques carried out to measure certain physical or chemical properties of a specimen, some of which change over time from a particular moment in the artifacts uselife. In the Hohokam Southwest, absolute dating often is used to evaluate chronological patterns established by relative dating methods, such as artifact seriation, and to fit site specific chronologies into the broader, regional Hohokam chronology. Chronometric studies of GRIC-CRMP collections are important in this regard, because they can provide a means for establishing, or contributing to, regional middle Gila chronology independent of the criteria used for defining traditional phase systematics. The application of three chronometric methodsradiocarbon dating, archaeomagnetic dating, and thermoluminescence datinghas the potential to make substantive contributions to GRICCRMP research. We discuss each technique below, along with suggestions regarding how each can address particular research questions.

Radiocarbon Dating
Radiocarbon dating is by far the most widely used method of chronometric dating available. An historical perspective on the development of the technique is outlined by Taylor (1987; see also Libby 1955). The technique provides a means of dating organic 16

remains independent of artifacts and local stratigraphic sequences by measuring the decay of the radioactive isotope, 14C, which decays in once-living organisms at a known constant rate (thereby reducing the original quantity by half every 5,730 40 years). Measuring the decreasing concentration of 14C in a sample provides an estimated date at which the organism died. The radiocarbon in a sample may be counted in two different ways: either by liquid scintillation counting or by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS). The former (often referred to as the conventional radiocarbon method) involves the counting of particles emitted in the slow radioactive decay of 14C, and requires several grams of carbon to produce a date. The latter technique employs a particle accelerator to separate carbon isotopes and count directly the 14C atoms in the sample, requiring only one milligram of carbon. Since the amount of radiocarbon in the atmosphere has varied over time, the radiocarbon ages produced by either measurement process must be converted into actual calendar years by calibration. Radiocarbon measurements made on the yearly growth rings of long-lived bristlecone pines and European oaks (e.g., Stuiver and Becker 1986; Stuiver and Pearson 1986) provide an annual record of the varying concentrations of 14C in the Earths atmosphere over the past four millennia. These data make it possible to account for slight variations in the atmospheric concentration of 14C and thus to construct a calibration curve that could translate radiocarbon ages (those determined using only a simple calculation based on radioactive half-life) into true calendar ages.

Methodological Limitations
With radiocarbon dating, almost any sample of organic material can be dated directly. There are a number of limitations, however (see Shott 1992). First, the size of the archaeological sample is important. Larger samples are generally better, because sample preparation procedures, such as purification and distillation, remove some matter. In addition, whenever possible, multiple samples should be collected and dated from associated strata. The trend of the samples will provide a general estimate of the actual date of deposition and will allow for the identification and removal of outliers. Outliers, that is, dates that lie outside one or two standard deviations from the midpoint of the overall range of dates, likely represent possible errors rather than true age measurements. There is almost always the chance of obtaining different measurements from samples taken from the same piece of wood. For example, the heartwood in a large tree will be much older than the outer rings of that tree. Errors also occur when there is poor association between the age of the death of the wood (i.e., the event dated by radiocarbon dating) and the cultural use of the wood. Schiffer (1982, 1986) and others (e.g., Berry 1982; Smiley and Ahlstrom 1998:25-97) document and discuss some of the ways in which populations introduced old wood into their settlements, such as by collecting fallen trees and branches from the desert floor. Second, because the isotopic decay rate is logarithmic, radiocarbon dating has significant upper and lower limits. The method is not very accurate for recent deposits, since so little decay has occurred that the error factor may be larger than the date obtained. The practical upper limit is about 50,000 years, because so little 14C remains after almost 9 half-

17

lives that it is difficult to detect and to obtain an accurate reading, regardless of the size of the sample. Radiocarbon dating using the AMS method, however, has been successful at extending this limit with very small samples. In addition to the upper and lower limits, there are extended periods of fluctuation and reversal in radiocarbon age, represented as horizontal portions of the calibration curve, between ca. A.D. 1040 and 1180 and between ca. A.D. 1300 and 1420. Dates falling within these two ranges tend to have greater errors (e.g., McCartney et al. 1994:22-23), because samples of different true ages can yield the same radiocarbon result. Thus, dating techniques other than the radiocarbon method are probably more useful for samples suspected to have been deposited during these periods. Alternatively, obtaining extended counts by AMS, which lower the error association with the measurements, are particularly useful for specimens that date to these intervals. Radiocarbon dating is a probabilistic technique, and any set of dates may be distributed purely by chance over a considerable range of radiocarbon years. The interpretation of radiocarbon dates should follow the practice established by Dean (1991). His determinations are calibrated using tree-ring dates, and each date is expressed as a range of calendar years referring to one-sigma intervals. In this approach, little importance is given to the midpoint of the determination, because once a radiocarbon date is calibrated, the probability curve for the determination is no longer normally distributed around the midpoint and there is no way of expressing the statistical meaning of the midpoint (Rice 1998:21). Generally, dates should be calibrated using the computer software program, CALIB version 4.3 or later (Stuiver and Reimer 1993), based on the curve presented by Stuiver and Becker (1986). Whenever possible, only AMS dates from annual plants containing terminal rings should be obtained with measured, rather than estimated, isotope ratios (see Schiffer 19897:312). Radiocarbon dates with confidence intervals ranging greater than 200 years should be rejected (see Waterbolk 1983; cf. Dean 1991:75), since this range will not help to distinguish between phase intervals, which generally do not exceed two centuries.

Sampling Procedures
In general, composite samples should not be sampled. Only whole pieces larger than 1 cm should be collected, although smaller corn or bean specimens may also be recovered. Also, great care must be taken in collecting and packing samples in order to avoid contamination by more recent carbon. For each sample, clean trowels should be used to avoid cross contamination between samples. The samples should be stored in chemically neutral materials, such as polyethylene bags, to avoid picking up new 14C from the packaging. The packaging also should be airtight to avoid contact with atmospheric 14C. Also, the stratigraphic context of the specimen should be examined carefully to determine that a carbon sample location was not contaminated by carbon from a later or an earlier period. All samples should be submitted to the NSF-Arizona Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory at the University of Arizona, Tucson, for analysis.
3

18

Previous Work
A total of 160 charcoal samples from 21 sites (GR-68, 140, 441, 455, 460, 522, 556, 660, 904, 905, 906, 907, 917, 931, 1085, 1086, 1087, 1088, 1089, 1112, 1113) have been obtained from archaeological excavation by the GRIC-CRMP since 1995. Of these samples, 30 have been dated by conventional (decay counting) or AMS radiocarbon analysis (Table 1). Twenty-six of these samples are wood charcoal that derive from various cultural features encountered during a geomorphological survey along the middle Gila River (Waters and Ravesloot 2000:5154; see also Waters 1996, 2001b; Waters and Ravesloot 2001). Two samples represent charred Prosopis seed fragmentsone from a fire pit and one from a storage pitfrom GR-931 (Woodson 2002:248251). Finally, two samples consist of wood charcoal remains associated with an Archaic period water storage feature at GR-917 (Ravesloot et al. 2003; see also Foster 2002:8687). In addition to the samples studied by the GRIC-CRMP, six samples of carbonized annuals were obtained and assayed from excavation of the Maricopa Road Site (AZ T:16:13 [ASU]; see Lascaux and Ravesloot 1993:37).

Research Questions
Radiocarbon assays have the potential to address several questions important to GRIC-CRMP research. First, radiocarbon dates obtained from samples associated with Archaic and Early Formative sites can shed important light on the timing and pace of the initial development of Hohokam lifeways in the early part of the first millennium A.D. (e.g., Plog 1980:810). Apart from Snaketown, there are few sites in the GRIC that have produced direct evidence for Early Formative occupation, although five sites (GR-367, 688, 691, 696, 814) may hold subsurface deposits dating to this period (Wells and Greenspan 2002:416). Site GR-367 is located near the cluster of Middle Archaic sites in the northern portion of the GRIC and contains a predominantly plain ware ceramic assemblage. The other sites appear in an east-to-west linear pattern following the course of the Gila River, beginning just west of GR-1157. Notably, a dart point was found at site GR-688, suggestive of the Late Archaic, and site GR-814 yielded a Cienga Short (ca. 750 B.C.A.D. 150) or Gypsum (ca. 2550 B.C. A.D. 450) projectile point, also pointing to Late Archaic or Early Formative occupation (Loendorf and Rice 2002:2122, 2930). A clearer picture of the transition from Archaic to Hohokam patterns is critical for understanding the ways in which agriculture and sedentism created conditions conducive to the formation of early Hohokam villages (Cable and Doyel 1987; Doelle 1985; Morris 1969; Wills and Huckell 1994). Another important contribution that radiocarbon studies can make to GRIC-CRMP research is anchoring the chronological sequence for Snaketown with absolute dates. In the 1970s, Haury submitted 31 samples (mostly aggregated fragments of wood charcoal) for study (Haynes et al. 1971). The resulting dates, shown in Table 2, represent tree-ringcorrected calendar years obtained by conventional radiocarbon analysis. Some of the dates are at odds with Haurys original chronology in that some dates from superimposed strata overlap or are inconsistent with his phases based on ceramics and stratigraphy (Haury

19

Table 1. Radiocarbon Dates from GRIC Sites.

Site No. AZ T:16:13 (ASU) AZ T:16:13 (ASU) AZ T:16:13 (ASU) AZ T:16:13 (ASU) AZ T:16:13 (ASU) AZ T:16:13 (ASU) GR-1082 GR-1082 GR-1083 GR-1085 GR-917 GR-917 GR-931 GR-931 Lab No. AA-7668 AA-7669 AA-7670 AA-7671 AA-7672 Material screwbean screwbean screwbean monocot stem corn cupule Radiocarbon Age 1055 50 935 55 985 55 985 55 1125 55
a

Calibrated Age 902-1019 1020-1186 1001-1155 993-1151 782-984

Context pithouse fill pithouse floor pithouse fill fill fill

AA-7673 corn cupule 1015 50 983-1028 pithouse A-9795 wood charcoal < 185 < 280 hearth A-9796 wood charcoal 1255 55 1090-1260 hearth A-9792 wood charcoal 2235 65 2150-2340 hearth A-9790 wood charcoal 475 60 500-540 hearth A-11734 wood charcoal 2815 140 3079-2776 water storage feature A-11735 wood charcoal 2905 120 3172-2918 water storage feature AA-47237 Prosopis seed 255 47 416-414 storage pit AA-47236 Prosopis seed 713 45 674-652 fire pit AA-27112 wood charcoal 175 40 0-290 dispersed A-9791 wood charcoal 400 70 320-520 burned field AA-27109 wood charcoal 470 40 500-530 dispersed AA-27114 wood charcoal 565 60 525-645 pithouse floor AA-27110 wood charcoal 570 40 540-630 hearth AA-27108 wood charcoal 945 45 790-930 dispersed AA-27118 wood charcoal 965 40 790-930 dispersed AA-27105 wood charcoal 1630 45 1420-1560 dispersed in canal AA-27116 wood charcoal 1765 60 1570-1760 dispersed in canal A-9789 wood charcoal 2070 80 1930-2150 hearth Beta-93419 wood charcoal 2460 60 2360-2710 roasting pit AA-27113 wood charcoal 2490 45 2380-2730 dispersed AA-27107 wood charcoal 2660 50 2750-2780 dispersed A-9794 wood charcoal 2665 50 2750-2840 hearth AA-27121 wood charcoal 3430 50 3610-3810 roasting pit AA-27115 wood charcoal 3920 50 4260-4420 dispersed AA-27119 wood charcoal 4200 55 4650-4830 dispersed AA-27111 wood charcoal 4460 50 4970-5280 dispersed AA-27106 wood charcoal 4485 55 4980-5300 dispersed AA-27117 wood charcoal 4580 50 5090-5440 dispersed AA-27120 wood charcoal 8915 105 9800-10,210 distal end of terrace AA-27104 wood charcoal 14,770 200 17,340-18,030 distal end of terrace Note : The "AA" prefix on the Lab No. indicates a date obtained by AMS; all others represent dates obtained by conventional (decay counting) analysis. Dates from AZ T:16:13 (ASU) come from Lascaux and Ravesloot 1993:Table3.1. Conventional Radiocarbon Age ( C yr B. P.) 1; corrected for carbon-isotope fractionation Calibrated Age (cal yr B.P.) 1; all calibrations made using the program CALIB 4.2 (Stuiver and Reimer 1993)
14

1976:333-338). Marmaduke and Henderson (1995:59) note that the problem is related to the fact that most of Haurys samples represent charcoal aggregates, which present numerous problems with interpretation. Calibrated AMS dates from samples collected as part of GRICCRMP research can expand and possibly refine the Snaketown sequence. A more secure chronology for Snaketown is important because the site and its surrounding settlement have long been fundamental to establishing broader chronologies for much of the Hohokam region (e.g., Dean 1991; Gladwin et al. 1938; Plog 1980; Schiffer 1982). 20

Table 2. Radiocarbon Dates from Snaketown Reported in Haury (1976).

Lab No. Material Radiocarbon Age Calibrated Age Context A-598 charcoal 220 110 1560-1760 crematorium TX-888 charcoal 530 80 flood plain A-788 charred corn 900 120 660-950 house A-599 charred corn 920 120 660-930 house SI-188 charred corn 990 70 640-820 house A-603 charcoal 1010 100 895-1075 house A-689 charcoal 1030 120 755-960 crematorium A-596 charcoal 1050 100 865-1020 test unit A-604 charcoal 1050 100 865-1020 house SI-187 charcoal 1130 70 800-920 test unit A-815 charcoal 1150 120 660-950 sub-floor test unit SI-190 charcoal 1200 70 665-885 pit A-735 charcoal 1240 110 625-885 midden A-731 charcoal 1240 160 570-910 midden SI-189 charcoal 1260 70 640-830 house A-817 charcoal 1310 180 475-885 hearth A-734 charcoal 1340 100 555-785 house A-786 charcoal 1350 80 560-660 sub-floor test unit A-601 charcoal 1370 130 460-780 pit A-818 charcoal 1400 120 440-660 pit A-741-1 charcoal 1430 110 420-640 pit A-742 charcoal 1510 90 360-565 test unit A-1072 charcoal 1540 70 350-540 crematorium A-814 charcoal 1540 90 320-550 pit GX-328 charcoal 1580 105 pit TX-891 calcium carbonate 1580 60 canal lining A-743 charcoal 1640 250 60-590 pit A-816 charcoal 1710 110 90-360 sub-floor test unit A-771 charcoal 1810 300 150BC-AD450 sub-floor pit A-873 charcoal 1890 220 160BC-AD290 roasting pit GX-329 charcoal 2375 110 sub-floor test unit Note : All cases represent dates obtained from conventional (decay counting) analysis.
a a b

Conventional Radiocarbon Age ( C yr B. P.) 1, corrected for carbon-isotope fractionation

14

Calibrated Age (cal yr B.P.) 1; all calibrations made using the intercept method with tree-ring data from and Damon et al. (1966), Stuiver and Suess (1966), and Suess (1965)

Archaeomagnetic Dating
Archaeomagnetic datingdating archaeological and geological materials by comparing their magnetic data with known changes in the Earths magnetic fieldhas become increasingly reliable in establishing behavioral referents for archaeological data (Eighmy and Doyel 1987; Eighmy and Hathaway 1987; Eighmy and McGuire 1989; Eighmy and Sternberg, eds. 1990; Eighmy et al. 1980; Sternberg 1997; Wolfman 1984). In archaeomagnetic dating, oriented specimens are recovered from baked immobile archaeological features, such as clay-rich sediment surrounding a hearth. The direction of iron particles (magnetite and hematite) contained within the sample are determined in the laboratory using a magnetometer. The basic premise is that when the sample was last heated,

21

these minerals assumed the direction and a proportional intensity of the magnetic field that surrounded them at that time. The date of the combustion event is obtained by measuring these properties and comparing them to known changes in the Earths magnetic field. Since the Earths magnetic pole has reversed itself at known intervals over time, comparing the alignment of the iron mineral particles to a master curve provides a reference date. The polar curve expressed in a particular region does not provide an absolute date, however, and must be calibrated by an independent technique, such as radiocarbon dating.

Methodological Limitations
Using this technique, the date at which the sample was last exposed to superheated temperatures (usually above 500 C) can be established. There are a number of limitations, however. First, archaeomagnetic dating is based on the assumption that the magnetization of the sample records attributes of the Earths magnetic field that existed when the archaeological featured cooled for the last time. However, there is the possibility that subsequent heating may have produced a secondary magnetization, as in the case of an accidental fire. Often, visual inspection of the archaeological context of the specimen can indicate if this is a possibility. Second, it is necessary to know the approximate age of the sample to avoid miscorrelations, since the samples polarity may match multiple portions of the master curve (see Deaver 1989; Eighmy and Klein 1989; Sternberg 1989; Sternberg and McGuire 1990). Third, the microscopic iron particles in some types of sediment may undergo chemical changes after they have been heated. Such chemical alterations can cause the iron particles to realign themselves with the Earths magnetic field at the time of the chemical change. Finally, the skill of the archaeologist collecting the sample and the number of the samples used to calibrate the archaeomagnetic master curve can affect the precision with which archaeologists can determine a date for a feature. In interpreting archaeomagnetic dates, it must be kept in mind that they are useful only in a relative fashion, for example, in evaluating phases established by ceramic seriation. Archaeomagnetic dates also are useful, however, in conjunction with radiocarbon assays and other techniques to locate temporal units with respect to calendar dates. Archaeomagnetic dates that have an Alpha 95 reading greater than five degrees should be rejected, since those greater than five degrees generally are regarded as imprecise (Eighmy and McGuire 1988:17). Multiple options for each archaeomagnetic date should be evaluated for their concordance with other lines of evidence. The option that most closely follows these data should be selected. If none of the options correspond to the archaeological data, then no dates should be chosen.

Sampling Procedures
Collection procedures should follow those described in Eighmy and Sternberg (1990). The primary consideration in selecting suitable samples for archaeomagnetic dating is

22

whether any movement has occurred in the sample since baking. Disturbed features will introduce unknown amounts of error in the results. As such, it must be determined if the sample can be extracted without breaking. In addition, since local magnetic fields can introduce error, it is necessary to obtain at least five samples from any single locale.

Previous Work
Archaeomagnetic dating has yet to be applied by GRIC-CRMP. However, Haury (1976:331-333) made use of the technique at Snaketown. Haury processed 20 baked clayrich sediment samples, mostly from domestic contexts (Table 3). He found that the samples ranged in age from 300 ( 37 years) B.C. to A.D. 1440 ( 20 years) and, for the most part, supported the chronology established by ceramic cross dating and tree-ring dating. In addition, 20 archaeomagnetic samples from the Maricopa Road Site (AZ T:16:13 [ASU]) were analyzed (Deaver 1993). These samples ranged from the early Colonial period to the Sedentary/Classic transition, although the majority date to the Sedentary period. Table 3. Archaeomagnetic Dates from Snaketown Reported in Haury (1976).
Lab No. Material Archaeomagnetic Age Context 49 baked clay AD 1440 20 room, U:13:22 50 baked clay 1410 27 room, U:13:22 53 baked clay 1410 44 room, U:13:22 51 baked clay 1350 17 room, U:13:22 41 baked clay 1145 15 house 44 baked clay 1120 23 house 42 baked clay 1120 13 house 43 baked clay 1105 29 house 48 baked clay 1065 29 house 38 baked clay 965 30 house 52 baked clay 770 24 house 56 baked clay 765 15 hearth 57 baked clay 740 24 house 32 baked clay 740 7 house 55 baked clay 630 14 house 33 baked clay 330 37 house 31 baked clay 1 BC 23 house 39 baked clay 200 BC 41 house 34 baked clay 250 BC 39 hearth 40 baked clay 300 BC 37 house Note : All samples are from Snaketown, unless otherwise noted.
a a

Archaeomagnetic Age (yr AD or BC) 1

23

Research Questions
Archaeomagnetic dating can be used to address at least two major research issues in the middle Gila drainage. First, archaeomagnetic dating can be applied to very early Hohokam contexts to refine the chronology surrounding the Archaic-to-Hohokam transition around A.D. 200. Several hearth features were recently uncovered at GR-660 (C. Loendorf, these hearths may provide important temporal resolution to this period. Second, since very few absolute dates are available from Early Formative contexts, archaeomagnetic dating can help to model early Hohokam settlement patterns. As noted above, a cluster of five sites (GR-367, 688, 691, 696, 814) in the northern portion of the reservation may hold subsurface deposits dating to this period (see Wells and Greenspan 2002:416). In addition to these research issues, archaeomagnetic dating can be used in conjunction with radiocarbon dating and applied to other contexts, such as canals (see Eighmy and Howard 1991) to aid in establishing and evaluating other segments of the middle Gila chronology.

Thermoluminescence Dating
Often, radiocarbon and archaeomagnetic dating may be difficult to accomplish, because these techniques depend on artifact associations with organic remains or buried features, such as hearths. In addition, radiocarbon and tree-ring dating have the problem, particularly in the arid region of the middle Gila, of old wood, where the event dated can be much earlier than the artifacts with which it is associated (Schiffer 1986). This problem becomes more acute for younger samples, because wood can preserve for periods comparable to those of ceramics. One solution to these problems is thermoluminescence (TL) datinga chronometric dating method based on the fact that some materials, when heated, give off a flash of light (see Aitken 1985, 1989). Principles of TL dating of archaeological ceramics have been previously reviewed (Aitken 1985, 1989), most recently in an archaeological context by Feathers (1997) and by Dykeman et al. (2002). Basically, the technique works because the intensity of light is proportional to the amount of radiation to which the sample has been exposed and the length of time since the sample was heated. In this way, the physical phenomenon of luminescence may be used to date artifacts that were made from (or include) crystalline minerals that have been subjected to strong heating. Applications commonly involve clay fired to make pottery (e.g., Barnett 1999; Feathers 2000; Feathers and Rhode 1998; Kojo 1991), but it is used also for dating chert tools that have been burnt, for example by being dropped accidentally into a fire. TL dating of ceramic materials from surface assemblages has the potential to provide important chronological resolution in cases where charcoal is absent or is not directly associated with cultural features (Dunnell and Feathers 1994). The potential of TL dating arises from the fact that the event dated, usually a heating event, is often the archaeological target event, thus mitigating the need for associations to be established between the sample and surrounding temporal diagnostics.

24

Methodological Limitations
There are two important limitations to TL dating ceramic materials. First, unlike radiocarbon dating, which dates the cutting of wood, TL dating reveals the date of the combustion event associated with firing pottery and not of the feature or deposit with which the ceramic is associated. This may be a problem in cases where pottery is traded, curated, or recycled over long periods (see Nelson 1991; Skibo 1994). Second, while the intervals produced from TL dating are generally shorter and sometimes more reliable than radiocarbon or archaeomagnetic dating, variation in testing parameters, particularly archaeological dose (accumulated radiation) and anomalous fading (loss of a normally stable signal through time), often make it difficult to fit the specimens decay to a linear or logarithmic function, and thus to determine a corrected age for the sample (see Lalou and Valladas 1989). Nevertheless, as Rice (1998:32) notes, error associated with TL dates is mostly influenced by the nature of the soil surrounding the specimen (see also Dunnell and Feathers 1994:121). If the sherd is surrounded by fairly homogenous sediments, then it likely will have been exposed to relatively similar levels of radiation on all sides, and the error range associated with the date will tend to be small (see Aiken 1985:264). While researchers cannot determine a priori that they have a homogenous soil environment, they can make educated judgments on what are likely to be better or poorer contexts for TL dates. For example, middens are not good contexts for obtaining sherds for TL dates, since these deposits have more complex environmental histories (Dunnell and Dancey 1983), which lead the radioactivity of their environmental dose rates to vary over short distances.

Sampling Procedures
Collection procedures for samples are straightforward (see Feathers 1997). Ceramic sherd samples should be a minimum of 0.5 cm in thickness and 3 cm in diameter. Other kinds of samples, such as baked clay or daub, may be collected in open ended or opaque PVC tubes approximately 12 cm in length and 6 cm in diameter. While it advisable to protect the sample from direct sunlight, there is no need to sample at night and the orientation of the specimen is not important. The sample is taken by introducing the tube into a freshly cleaned back surface; if this proves difficult, a block may be cut from the unit of interest. The specimen tube or block should then be wrapped in black plastic to prevent further exposure to light and to preserve the environmental moisture content. The exposed material at either end of the tube is used in the determination of the annual radiation dose and the internal unexposed portion is used to measure the palaeodose. Regardless of sample type, all specimens should be selected from contexts that maximize two parameters: 1) compositional homogeneity within a sphere of 30 cm in diameter around the sample, and 2) contextual stability over the post-depositional period. Both parameters are important for obtaining accurate measurements of the sample does rate. In addition, excessive heating and exposure to ionizing radiation of the sample (i.e., about 100 C) should be avoided, along with unnecessary pretreatments, such as glues and

25

preservatives. Especially high levels of heat and light can reduce the luminescence signal and contaminants can affect the signal as well as the radioactive assay. Roughly 100 g of recently deposited sediment surrounding the sample (up to 30 cm away) also should be submitted in order that the TL starting point at the time of deposition can be measured and a suitable correction applied. In the case of an aeolian deposit, which is common along the middle Gila River, this may collected as a surface peel on adhesive tape or from the subsurface of the deposit. Aeolian sediments are more likely to have undergone considerable solar exposure prior to deposition and therefore are more likely to have been effectively zeroed. In general, the older the sediment the less significant the surface residual correction becomes. Care also must be taken ensure that the sample is selected from an undisturbed site and has not been subject to re-exposure by bioturbation.

Previous Work
Only four ceramic samples have been submitted for TL dating from GRIC-CRMP collections (Table 4). All samples derive from excavation contexts at GR-981: Specimen 609 from a suspected pottery manufacturing local, Specimen 469.1 from a large pit, Specimen 527 from a thermal pit, and Specimen 574.1 from a small pit (see Woodson 2002:214, 218; Woodson and Morgan 2002:120). Surrounding sediment samples also were submitted for analysis to characterize the radioactivity of local soils. In the case of Sample UW734, Feathers (2002:274-275) notes that high radioactivity and anomalous fading resulted in a younger than expected date for the sample. Other specimens dated by TL from features in the same depositional stratum as Sample UW734 produced dates ranging from A.D. 165866 (corrected) to 183649 (uncorrected), suggesting that the sample or its TL date may be problematic.

Research Questions
TL dating of GRIC-CRMP materials may be most useful for ceramics in cases where deposits are suspected to date to late or post-Classic times. The broad range of dates published for radiocarbon samples from Protohistoric contexts, for example, may reflect a serious methodological constraint of radiocarbon dating, since this technique reaches its upper limit of sensitivity after the A.D. 1500s (Dean 1991:96; Doyel 1995:485-486; Ravesloot and Whittlesey 1987:96-97). A similar problem applies to archaeomagnetic dating (Wolfman 1984; e.g., Deaver 1989; Eighmy and Doyel 1987; Eighmy and Hathaway 1987; Eighmy and McGuire 1989). One potentially useful alternative to these techniques is TL dating of ceramic materials, since this procedure is not subject to the calibration problems that prevent radiocarbon and archaeomagnetic dating from providing reasonably modest intervals for sites occurring after the 1500s (Feathers 1997; e.g., Dykeman et al. 2002; Feathers 2000; Rice 1998b). Further, TL dating provides temporal information for cultural

26

Table 4. TL Dates from GR-931.

Site No. GR-931 GR-931 GR-931 GR-931
a b

Lab No. UW734 UW735 UW736 UW737

Material ceramic sherd ceramic sherd ceramic sherd ceramic sherd

Uncorrected Age 1563 34 1836 49 1808 21 1762 20

Corrected Age 1456 53

1658 66

Context pottery production area large pit thermal pit small pit

Uncorrected TL Age (AD) 1 Corrected TL Age (AD) 1; corrected using procedures outlined by Huntley and Lamothe (2001)

products rather than natural onesa potentially important difference given the sparse nature of Protohistoric assemblages.

Other Dating Techniques

In addition to the techniques discussed above, tree-ring dating and obsidian hydration dating have been employed in the Hohokam region. While useful in appropriate contexts, these methods hold less potential for chronometric studies in the GRIC because datable samples are rare. Nevertheless, it is important to discuss each of these procedures in case samples are discovered that can be dated.

Tree-ring Dating
Tree-Ring dating is based on the principle that the growth rings on certain species of trees reflect variations in seasonal and annual rainfall (see Stokes and Smiley 1968). Trees from the same species, growing in the same area or environment will be exposed to the same conditions, and hence their growth rings will match at the point where their lifecycles overlap. By comparing the pattern of tree rings in trees whose lifespans partially overlap, these patterns can be extended back in time. By matching the tree rings on an archaeological sample to a master sequence of tree ring patterns, the absolute age of a sample can be established. The primary limitation on tree ring dating for the middle Gila region is that the species often recovered from the area do not have sufficiently distinct seasonal patterns that they can be used to construct a tree ring sequence (see Fritts 1976). As a result, there is no master sequence established for local species (but see Dean et al. 1996). However, datable species, including Ponderosa Pine and Douglas Fir, have been found at Snaketown. Haury (1976:326327) obtained four samples, whose growth rings overlap, from architectural features in residential contexts. The composite chronology of the four specimens is only 41 years long, which is too short to be reliable for dating. Haury notes, however, that the ring pattern bears some resemblance to the master chronology of the American Southwest from

27

A.D.

1140 to the early 1180s, which would suggest that Snaketown was abandoned a century later than expected based on ceramic studies. While this seemed unreasonable to Haury at the time, despite recognizing Classic period settlement at three neighboring sites (AZ U:13:21, AZ U:13:22, and AZ U:13:24; Haury 1976:4853; see also Wilcox et al. 1981:212), recent work at GR-1157, which encompasses Snaketown, indicates that settlement surrounding Snaketown extended into the Classic period (Wells and Greenspan 2002). Although they are relatively rare, datable species, such as juniper, pinyon, ponderosa, and Douglas Fir, may be recovered from GRIC-CRMP excavation. Due to the high precision and accuracy of dendrochronology, all potential tree-ring samples should be collected. For the most part, these should be from in situ contexts, such as burned posts or burned roof beams. All samples should be tied with a cotton string, wrapped in cotton batting, and secured with additional string. All samples should be submitted to the Laboratory of TreeRing Research at the University of Arizona, Tucson, for analysis.

Obsidian Hydration Dating

Obsidian hydration dating is based on the idea that when a new surface of obsidian is exposed to the atmosphere, such as during the manufacture of glass tools, water begins to slowly diffuse from the surface into the interior of the specimen (see Evans and Meggars 1960; Friedman and Smith 1960). This results in the formation of a water-rich hydration rind that increases in depth with time. When this hydrated layer reaches a thickness of about 0.5 microns, it becomes recognizable as a birefringent (doubly refractive) rim when observed as a thin section under a microscope. Formation of the hydration rim is affected not only by time but also by several other variables (see Mazer et al. 1991). The most important of these are chemical composition and temperature, although water vapor pressure and soil alkalinity also may play a role in some contexts (e.g., Freter 1993; Friedman et al. 1994, 1997; Hull 2001; Michels and Tsong 1980; Morganstein et al. 1999; Ridings 1996; Stevenson et al. 1998, 2000). Once a hydration layer has been measured, it can be used to determine the relative ages of items or, in some circumstances, can be converted into an estimated absolute age. In order to transform the hydration rim value to a calendar age, the rate of the diffusion of water into the sample must be determined or estimated. The hydration rate is typically established empirically through the calibration of measured samples recovered in association with materials whose cultural age is known or whose age can be radiometrically determined, usually through radiocarbon dating methods (Meighan 1976). Using this technique, any sample of obsidian can be dated. There are several limitations, however. The rate of hydration is not uniform throughout the world. Variations exist in temperature over time and from site to site. Temperature effects are particularly difficult to model. Variations also exist in the chemical composition of the sample, which can affect the rate at which the sample hydrates. Samples from different obsidian sources, for example, have been found to hydrate at different rates. Moisture is another source of variability, such that the amount of moisture present at a site can affect the hydration rate of an obsidian sample. It is therefore necessary to produce a calibration curve for each

28

archaeological site or area being studied, and this is not always possible. Finally, artifact reuse may lead to an erroneous date. This is especially relevant in the Hohokam region, and along the middle Gila in particular, where obsidian may be curated and reused over long periods (C. Loendorf, personal communication, 2003). While obsidian hydration dating is mostly applied to samples obtained by excavation, its use in dating surface assemblages also has been established (Beck and Jones 1994). Still, obsidian hydration has not been applied to enough specimens in GRIC collections to be of much value for regional syntheses (see Darling 2001). Nevertheless, Haury (1976:338-339) submitted 18 obsidian artifacts from Snaketown for hydration dating. Only seven had secure contexts and measurable hydration rims (Table 5). The dates are difficult to interpret, however, since they were established using a hydration rate from West Mexico (Meighan 1970), which may not be appropriate for the Sonoran desert along the middle Gila River.

Discussion
The techniques reviewed in this section indicate that chronometric dating is a potentially useful means for evaluating, and possibly supporting, aspects of the middle Gila chronology independent of relative dating methods. We single out here three topics for further consideration: sampling strategies, sources of error, and interpretive challenges. First, most of the analytical techniques discussed here require samples to be selected from larger aggregates and subsamples to be taken from individual artifacts or ecofacts. The process is divided into two stages: the selection of objects for dating and the selection of samples chosen from those objects (see Orton 2000:177-184). The first stage is needed because assemblages can be very large, and the analytical techniques can be very expensive or very time-consuming. The second stage is important because, as is often the case with the chronometric techniques discussed here, a sample cannot be repeatedly studied. Above all, samples should be chosen from undisturbed contexts that are situated in a stratified series of deposits. These contexts also should include large ceramic assemblages and, ideally, large numbers of diagnostic artifacts characteristic of the associated phase. Table 5. Obsidian Hydration Dates from Snaketown Reported in Haury (1976).
Site No. GR-898 GR-898 GR-898 GR-898 GR-898 GR-898 GR-898
a

Lab No. 1-1 1-2 1-3 2 3-1 4 5

Material obsidian obsidian obsidian obsidian obsidian obsidian obsidian

Hydration Age AD 740-897 767-897 740-897 767-897 382-554 630-774 822-946

Context mound mound mound mound mound pit house floor

Corrected Hydration Date Range (AD) representing 1

29

In the case of dating archaeological features, sample size often seems to be determined largely by financial or time constraints rather than archaeological or statistical considerations. The specific number of chronometric samples to be analyzed using a particular technique will depend on decisions and sampling situations that develop during the course of research. It is often the case, however, that inferences about very large populations have to be drawn from very small samples. In some situations, the object or assemblage is not the ultimate target, but only a way of providing information about the context, or about the behavior that produced that context. Special care is needed under these circumstances to ensure that the sample is actually related to the behaviorfor example, that the piece of charcoal is contemporary with the feature within which it is found, and for which it has been used to date. As a result, it is best to sample all the material from a selected context rather than some from each context (Cowgill 1964). Further sampling from the unselected contexts is recommended if it is necessary to increase the sample size for rare categories since, as Dean (1991:77) makes clear, further development of the chronological parameters of the Hohokam sequence must be accomplished through the detailed consideration of the distribution of dates within the individual phases. Second, while absolute dating is useful for identifying the time when an artifact was used in antiquity, absolute ages are seldom precise because, in the absence of historical records, it is not possible to fix the age of a given artifact to an exact calendrical position. Instead, most absolute dates represent an age expressed as a time span or range. As Dean (1978) points out, absolute dating in archaeology involves two sources of error. First, all absolute dating techniques carry some form of measurement error, which is reported as a standard deviation for radioisotopic techniques (Browman 1981). The second source of error is associational and concerns the potential disparity between the dated and target events as a result of depositional processes that impact archaeological remains (Schiffer 1982, 1986). Braun (1985:515-517) provides a model of the relationship between these sources of error. As a result of these factors, absolute dates should not stand alone, but should be used in conjunction with other dating techniques, especially artifact seriation and cross dating methods. Along these lines, approaches to generating chronological sequences should involve a comparison of expected and observed results (Plog 1980:6-7). Expectations based on particular arguments should be compared with either chronometric or artifactual observations and the goodness-of-fit should be evaluated with appropriate quantitative studies (Dean 1978). For these kinds of studies, it is important to reiterate that multiple dates should be obtained from the same context to increase the reliability of the date range and to avoid anomalous and uninterpretable results. However, in cases where the chronology of a set of features is unknown or poorly established, it may be more desirable to sample a greater number of deposits rather than multiple samples from fewer deposits. Third, available chronometric techniques generally lack the resolving power to discriminate intervals less than 100 years. The lack of temporal sensitivity holds the greatest problem for short periods, such as the Pioneer (ca. A.D. 700800), although it also creates problems for chronometrically discerning phase boundaries (see Plog 1980:47). Thus, interpretation of dates should be based on an aggregated dating technique, such as that outlined by Dean (1991), Eighmy and McGuire (1988), Schiffer (1982), and Smiley and

30

Ahlstrom (1998) for acceptance and rejection of specific dates. Schiffer (1987:313; see also Waterbolk 1983:639) uses the term strong case to describe approaches that involve careful sample selection and close attention to context and association. This approach consists of assembling all available dates that can be assigned to minimally relevant units, usually phases, and seeing if any meaningful patterns can be abstracted from the array (Dean 1991:69). After eliminating from consideration those dates that fall outside well provenienced clusters, the weighted average of dates from multiple samples from features should be used to provide a single date for each feature. The weighted average of all dates from features that belong to an established phase will then provide a single-phase date, which can be taken to represent the midpoint of the phase. Weighted averages are important because they take into account situations in which sample sizes are greater for certain periods by giving more weight to cases that are represented by greater numbers of samples. This strategy differs from that proposed by Dean (1991:7073) in which unweighted averages are used to derive phase midpoints. One potential problem with taking weighted averages is sample bias, if dated features from a certain period are more numerous than those from another. To avoid this problem, great care must be taken to select for study only those samples with secure contexts. Careful recovery in the field, judicious sample selection, and the rejection of some dates for specific contextual reasons all obviate, or at least reduce, to some degree concerns about averaging. Pooling dates (or date ranges) to produce a mean value for a deposit or an entire phase should not be done indiscriminately (Aitken 1990:96-97; Schiffer 1987:312; Shott 1992:212; see also Majewski and OBrien 1987). Several methods exist for averaging or pooling dates and identifying statistical outliers, especially when considering radiocarbon assays (e.g., Aitchinson et al. 1991; Buck et al. 1994; Long and Rippeteau 1974; Ward and Wilson 1978). However, central tendencies (i.e., mean values) are not useful for comparing the absolute age of phases, since phases are not single events. Rather, as Eighmy and LaBelle (1996) advocate, it is often more appropriate to try to determine an age range for them. They express phase age in terms of a range of dates with a pooled probability between 0.025 and 0.975 (the two-sigma range) or between 0.158 and 0.841 (the one-sigma range). These probability ranges are calculated by pooling the calibrated probability distributions for each sample (such as determined by CALIB software; Stuiver and Reimer 1989) and standardizing them by the number of radiocarbon determinations used to date the phase (Eighmy and LaBelle 1996:54). The distribution of time interval probabilities produces a histogram reflecting the distribution of pooled (and standardized) probabilities for the phase. The standardization of the distribution (i.e., weighting the average or pooled distribution) allows one to compare directly the calibrated phase ages of different phases independent of the number of samples used. Distributions that are highly unimodal result from internal agreement of the individual 14C determinations. Distributions that are not unimodal, but strung out, result when sets of dates do not cluster (Eighmy and LaBelle 1996:54).

31

A SPECIAL NOTE ON THE CHRONOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF SURFACE MATERIALS

The surface archaeological record of the GRIC includes one of the most spectacular, yet poorly studied cultural sequences in south-central Arizona. This area did not experience the population boom of the latter twentieth century and the resulting influx of federally funded projects that impacted the archaeological record in other areas. Over the past several years, the GRIC-CRMP has surveyed over 130,000 ac and recorded nearly 1,000 archaeological sites ranging in age from Archaic to Historic. Thousands of isolated artifacts also have been provenienced. This regional record is the foundation for future mitigation activities. Excavation will be used to test sites interpreted within the framework of site survey (Ebert 1992). More importantly, the surficial distribution of artifacts and features constitute and important source of archaeological data independent of subsurface remains (Dunnell and Dancey 1983:270). In addition to sites, individual artifacts and features or their attributes are the primary units of discovery and measurement, a methodological approach referred to as distributional archaeology (Ebert 1992), non-site archaeology (Thomas 1975), or off-site archaeology (Foley 1981). As stated above, one of GRIC-CRMPs overarching research interests is the coevolution of human and natural systems (McGlade 1995). The focal point of this research effort is the middle Gila River landscape and the remnant settlement systems within it (Dewar 1991; Dewar and McBride 1992). Settlement pattern analysis of surface remains is a primary objective of ongoing research. Dating surface remains and placing them in a chronological context is critical to this research effort. Chronological control of surface materials will be established using several techniques that have proven effective in other regions (Beck 1999; Dewar 1991; Dewar and McBride 1992; Jones and Beck 1992). These include the use of temporally diagnostic artifact types to define phases of site occupation, frequency seriation models that identify age-related groups of surface assemblages, and mathematical models that estimate the rates at which sites were created and abandoned over time. We also are concerned with understanding the intervening archaeological problems of taphonomy and preservation. The goal of chronological analysis is to create a serial order of sites, establish the degree to which sites of a similar age represent contemporaneous occupations, and assess temporal patterns of village movement and demographic change within and between intervals. Temporal markers will be tallied by more inclusive spatial units such as loci, sites, site clusters, and environmental zones (e.g., topographic, vegetation, or elevation) in order to assess differential land use and settlement patterns over time. The GRIC archaeological record is composed of large, expansive sites that represent long-term residential occupations, numerous artifact scatters in non-residential areas, canal features, rock art sites, and isolated artifacts. Residential areas were occupied intermittently or continuously over thousands of years in many cases, leading to dense surface assemblages that are highly mixed. Isolated artifact scatters, on the other hand, are difficult to classify and place within a regional settlement system and chronological framework. Artifact reuse, site reoccupation, village movement, and post-depositional processes all affect our ability to examine temporal and spatial patterns. In order to overcome these problems, we currently 32

are developing models for interpreting the function and dynamic histories of various kinds of sites. Darling et al. (2003) recently examined the process of village drift among historic riverine settlement systems. The model correlates village movement with changes in the Gila River channel, and demonstrates that historic villages drift in predictable ways within a localized area called a settlement district. Village structure, which includes agricultural fields, canals, rancheras, and cemeteries, is consistent despite repeated short-distance moves across the landscape. The resulting settlement pattern reveals a horizontal stratigraphy that records village movement through time based on temporally diagnostic artifacts. The village drift model provides important information regarding dynamic riverine settlement systems and how they move over time. This information helps us to unravel the complexities of historic villages and Hohokam multi-site settlement complexes and isolate temporal components within them. The classification of sites and the identification of site boundaries also are critical to ongoing chronological studies based on surface remains. Much of the GRIC record consists of isolated artifact scatters with variable characteristics, but the functional interpretation of them remains ambiguous. Wells et al. (2003) recently employed density and diversity measures to classify ambiguous artifact scatters as small habitation settlements and nonresidential locales, such as camps, activity areas, and field camps. They show that settlement areas are spatially patterned with particular kinds of activities taking place in geomorphic zones surrounding the primary village (Ravesloot and Waters 2003). Spaces outside of villages contain specialized activity loci, representing short term, but probably recurrent practices or events. The classification of ambiguous artifact scatters establishes several expectations regarding the nature of artifact assemblages and the kinds of chronological data they may contain. We would expect that such activity areas were used repeatedly, but not simultaneously, over the duration of the primary village occupation. Attempts will be made to understand the function and taphonomic history of such artifact scatters according to the Wells et al. (2003) model as part of ongoing chronological analysis. We also seek to describe the natural resources of the survey area to the fullest extent possible. Cataloging the mineralogical, hydrological, pedological, and geobotanical resources of the present day is accompanied by attempts to characterize the past environment. This latter goal is approached first through landscape reconstruction based on analysis of geomorphology, soils, and sediments (Waters 2001a, 2001b). Augmenting these methods are attempts to understand vegetation and climate history in the region by means of mapping modern floral communities and describing their relationship to geological substrates, acquiring paleobotanical data through analyzing sediment cores, and reconstructing hydrological conditions (Adams et al. 2002). These basic data are fundamental to our broader goals of reconstructing the co-evolution of human and natural systems and chronological settlement pattern studies (Waters and Ravesloot 2001). Ongoing chronological research with surface finds focuses on taphonomic issues, classification of site types, documentation of the distribution of isolated remains, and the establishment of relevant spatial units for settlement pattern analysis based on modern

33

analogs, including the Village Drift and geomorphic models. We recognize that surface materials represent remnant settlement patterns and as such are not direct representations of past occupations. The nature and history of surface materials need to be examined before issues of site chronology can be addressed. A synthesis of settlement pattern data currently is underway. This analysis will result in a master chronology for surface materials on the GRIC. Site distributions and the master chronology will be used to plan and guide excavations and generate research questions for future studies. The analysis also will be used to test sites interpreted within the framework of site survey, and it will provide an important source of information independent of subsurface remains.

34

RESEARCH THEMES
The ultimate goal of ongoing chronological research is to identify the nature and pace of change evident in the material record of the GRIC and relate these findings to regional social developments from the Archaic to the Historic periods. This section provides on overview of the culture history of the Phoenix Basin and identifies the major chronological research questions that will be considered as part of ongoing P-MIP research (e.g., Bayman 2002; Darling 2001; Eiselt 2002; Greenspan 2003; Regan 2001; Rice 2003; Rice and Ravesloot 2001, 2003; Rodrigues and Loendorf 2003; Waters 2001b; Wells 2003a, 2003b; Woodson 2003). Recent summaries of dating evidence provided by Huckell (1996), Gregory (2001a), Dean (1991), Eighmy and Doyel (1987) and Wallace et al. (1995) help to frame this discussion.

THE PALEOINDIAN AND ARCHAIC PERIODS

Little is known of the Paleoindian and Archaic periods in south central Arizona. Sites of this age typically are deeply buried, or they consist of surface or near surface occupations that lack dateable material (Huckell 1996). Site identification usually rests on projectile point morphology and the characteristics of lithic assemblages. The term Archaic refers to the post-Paleoindian, pre-ceramic portion of Southwestern culture history, extending from approximately 10,000 B.P. to around 3,200 B.P. (Huckell 1996). The Archaic is characterized by broad-spectrum hunting and gathering and greater emphasis on the collection and processing of plant resources. In this section, we outline the major chronological issues pertaining to the Archaic Period. Additional research themes not related to chronology are presented in Rice (2003). Three culture-historical frameworks have guided Paleoindian and Archaic research in southern Arizona. These include the Cochise Culture (Sayles 1983; Sayles and Antevs 1941), the Desert Culture (Jennings 1956, 1957, 1973), and the Picosa and Oshara Traditions (Irwin-Williams 1967, 1973, 1979). Jennings viewed the Cochise culture of Arizona as one of three regional variants in his Desert Culture concept, whereas Irwin-Williams San Dieguito-Pinto tradition (1979) is roughly equivalent. Sayles and Anteves (1941; see also Sayles 1983) utilized geologic and archaeological investigations along Whitewater Draw to create a four-part sequence for the Cochise Culture, separating it into the Sulfur Spring, the Cazador, the Chiricahua, and the San Pedro stages. Waters (1986a) reinterpretation of the chronology placed the Sulfur Spring stage between about 10,000 and 8,000 B.P., the Chiricahua stage between 3,500 and 2,500 B.P., and the San Pedro stage between 2,500 and 2,000 B.P., firmly establishing this chronology within the Holocene period. He rejected the Cazador stage on geological grounds. The three stages are roughly contemporaneous with the Early, Middle, and Late Archaic/Early Agricultural sequences, each of which is associated with distinctive tool types, adaptive strategies, and climatic regimes (Table 6). 35

Table 6. Archaic Period Cultural Chronology.

North American Southwest Region Years B.P. 1500
San Pedro San Pedro Chiricahua San Pedro Huckell 1996 Sayles 1983

Great Basin Haury 1950 Grayson 1993

Late Archaic

Waters 1986a

Warren and Crabtree 1986

Desert and Rosgate Series

2500

Late Archaic/ Early Agricultural

Gypsum

3500
ChiricahuaAmargosa II

4500

Middle

Middle Archaic Pinto

5500
Chiricahua (Stage Gap) VentanaAmargosa I Early

6500

7500

8500
(Disconformity) Lake Mojave/ Silver Lake

9500

Cazador Sulpher Spring

Paleoarchaic

10,500
Ventana Sulpher Spring

11,500

36

The Early Archaic

Ventana Cave, located towards the southern end of the Castle Mountain Range, has yielded the best evidence for early occupation of south-central Arizona (Huckell 1996). The Ventana Complex (10,700 to 8,700 B.P.) represents the earliest cultural assemblage in Ventana Cave. Although rudimentary, lithics do show some affinities with Great Basin Stemmed Series materials (Willig and Aikens 1988), particularly those of the Lake Mojave Culture (11,200 and 7,500 B.P.) in Southern California (Campbell et al. 1937; Huckell 1996; Grayson 1993:24). The Ventana Complex does not contain stemmed points. It does, however, include one lanceolate point with a concave base, similar to Great Basin Concavebased points that are associated with stemmed series materials in the Great Basin (Grayson 1993:240). The later Ventana/Amargosa-I points (Haury 1950) are stemmed and they are stylistically similar to Lake Mojave/Silver Lake points found in the central and southern Great Basin. These occur in levels dating between 8,700 and 6,000 B.P. in Ventana Cave. They appear to pre-date and overlap with Middle Archaic Pinto points in the same deposits (Huckell 1984a:190-193). Although attributed to the Early Archaic in the Southwest by Huckell (1996b), Great Basin researchers are beginning to think of this period as the Paleoarchaic (Jones and Beck 1999). The Paleoarchaic is distinguished from earlier Clovis and mid-Holocene Archaic occupations based on inferred subsistence, settlement, and land use patterns. The distinction is made because there is no clear justification for separating Paleoindian and Archaic based on the current record. Generalized mobile foraging strategies seem to characterize Great Basin cultural systems from the terminal Pleistocene to the early Holocene. These include high mobility, brief residential occupations, widespread use of fine-grained volcanic rock tool stone, a wide range of variability in stemmed point styles, and a broad-spectrum diet. Stemmed points occur in a diversity of Great Basin settings, including high-altitude environments, even though most researchers believe that populations still may have been tethered to pluvial lake and grassland settings (Bedwell 1973; Grayson 1993). The occupation of central Arizona by stemmed point carriers is likely related to the movement of Great Basin populations during the middle part of the Paleoarchaic. The Sulfur Spring stage of the Cochise Culture (Huckell 1996; Sayles and Anteves 1941; Sayles 1983) fits well within the culture-historical framework developed for the Great Basin Paleoarchaic although some important distinctions do exist. Grinding implements are rare and are often absent at Great Basin stemmed sites. The Sulphur Spring stage assemblage, by contrast, is distinguished by large numbers of milling stones, handstones, and fire-cracked rock, indicating a greater reliance on wild plant harvesting much earlier than in the Great Basin. South-central Arizona assemblages also lack the characteristic crescent tool. Finally, the Sulfur Spring stage occurs relatively late in the Great Basin Stemmed Series sequence, sometime between 9,500 and 8,700 B.P. (Huckell and Haynes 1995).

37

Research Questions
There is little to no evidence for Paleoindian occupation of the GRIC, and only five Early Archaic projectile points have been recovered thus far (Loendorf and Rice 2003). However, Paleoindian period and Early Archaic remains may be present in the Holocene alluvium or eolian sand sheets and dunes that overlay older Pleistocene deposits (Waters 2001a). They also may be found on Pleistocene fans. The Holocene sediments date to at least 5,000 B.P. (Huckleberry 1993), but the maximum age is unknown. Deposits that are found in the Holocene alluvium likely are buried from one to six meters below the modern ground surface. Ongoing chronological research pertaining to Paleoindian and Early Archaic assemblages focus on locating the sedimentary packages that pre-date 6,000 B.P. and correlating these with other similar sediments across the GRIC. A related goal is to generate the geochronological data needed to predict the locations of buried deposits and reconstruct local environmental conditions through time. Inferences about past environments will be related to human adaptations in large river basins. Work with cultural assemblages will focus on documenting the nature and function of tool kits and associated organic remains in order to reconstruct patterns of mobility and subsistence that may be related to Great Basin traditions. Specific research questions include the following: When did humans first occupy the GRIC? Are there unrecognized patterns of variability within Paleoindian or Early Archaic assemblages found on the GRIC? How do assemblages from the GRIC compare to Paleoindian and Early Archaic manifestations elsewhere in Southern Arizona, the Great Basin, New Mexico, and northern Mexico? What are the ages of presumed temporally diagnostic projectile point types and other elements of the Early Archaic lithic toolkit? What was the pace and mode of cultural changes over this interval?

The Middle Archaic

The Middle Archaic is represented by the Chiricahua Stage of the Cochise Culture. The material inventory includes basin metates, mortars, and pestles, as well as Pinto/San Jose, Gypsum, Chiricahua, and Cortaro style projectile points, all of which may be contemporaneous in south-central Arizona (Bayham et al. 1986; Haury 1950; Sayles and Antevs 1941, Sayles 1983). Haury (1950) labeled the assemblage Chiricahua-Amargosa II at Ventana Cave. The period extends from 5,500 B.P. to 3,500 B.P., and it overlaps 38

significantly with an interval of heightened aridity during the Middle Holocene (Hall 1985; Waters 1986b; Haynes 1987). Originally referred to as the Altithermal by Antevs (1955), recent work demonstrates that Middle Holocene environmental conditions varied greatly with time and across space in western North America. Populations in south-central Arizona may have shifted to well-watered areas, such as large river valleys, and some groups may have begun tethering themselves to smaller regions that provided access to the floodplain and upper bajada (Gregory 1999). Contrasting patterns in the distribution of projectile point styles and differences in settlement pattern and landscape use suggest that local traditions began to diverge during the Middle Archaic. This cultural divergence, as well as variability in regional settlement and subsistence systems, may have been an important prerequisite to the adoption of agriculture. Chiricahua and Cortaro style points (ca. 4,800 to 4,000 B.P.) seem to be confined to areas south of the Mogollon Rim (Roth and Huckell 1992; Gregory 1999; but see also Matson 1991). Sites frequently consist of large, deep middens located on the alluvial terraces of major tributaries or adjacent to well-watered basins on the desert floor. Sedentary foraging populations that moved only short distances within the Sonoran or Chihuahua region used Chiricahua style points (Bayham et al. 1986). Cortaro style points seem to be associated with a second sedentary population practicing an early form of maize agriculture. Some have suggested that Cortaro-makers migrated into southern Arizona during the middle Archaic from locations further south in Mexico (Berry and Berry 1986; Gregory 1999:121; Huckell 1995a; Rice 2003:48). Pinto/San Jose and Gypsum points have a much wider temporal and spatial distribution, occurring throughout the Great Basin and Southwest. In central Arizona, Pinto/San Jose-style points have been found in sites dating from 8,100 to 4,000 B.P. Gypsum may represent a transitional style that extends from 4,400 B.P. into the Late Archaic Period (Mabry 1998). Both point styles are associated with short-term base camps located on valley floors and in the smaller mountain ranges. These populations may have spent part of the winter in the Sonoran and Chihuahuan deserts, but their seasonal round also took them well into the Northern Colorado Plateau, the Great Basin, and the Mojave Desert.

Research Questions
Although the pace of Middle Archaic research is rapidly progressing, more work needs to be done to establish the chronological placement and range of variability within projectile point styles (particularly Pinto/San Jose and Gypsum), and determine their relative association with styles in other regions (Loendorf and Rice 2003). The organization of populations, particularly the more sedentary ones inhabiting the floodplains and bajadas, as well as variability in the subsistence and settlement systems associated with diagnostic artifacts also needs to be defined with additional research. Recent excavations in the Tucson Basin and elsewhere suggest that the adoption of agriculture occurred in some places within the Sonoran Desert during the Middle Archaic, but several unresolved issues remain. These include the degree of commitment to farming among different groups, the settlement and

39

subsistence strategies associated with early maize agriculture, the presence and importance of native cultigens and the management of wild plant resources, and the first appearance of water management facilities. The GRIC-CRMP has recently conducted classificatory and metric analysis of 91 Middle Archaic projectile points found during P-MIP survey (Loendorf and Rice 2003). All of the recognized types are present in the collection. Metric analysis indicates that Pinto/San Jose points may be divided into two variants (Pinto/San Jose A and Pinto/San Jose B). Twelve teardrop-shaped points also may date to the Middle Archaic period. The distribution of Pinto/San Jose and Chiricahua/Cortero points across the GRIC is significantly different (Rice 2003:99), suggesting that sedentary and mobile foragers occupied separate areas along the middle Gila River. Attributes of projectile points and spatial distributions will be compared to independent absolute age estimates and stratigraphic associations as these become available. Other specific research questions that will be addressed as part of ongoing P-MIP activities include the following: Is variability in projectile point style related to temporal, spatial, ethnic, or functional differences in Middle Archaic assemblages? How do the artifacts, ecofacts, and features associated with diagnostic projectile point types define foraging strategies and settlement patterns through time on the GRIC? What is the temporal and spatial distribution of San Jose/Pinto style projectile points? What is the temporal and spatial distribution of Gypsum style projectile points? Is there evidence for the introduction of maize during this early period? When does this occur and how is it related to other aspects of landscape use, settlement, and subsistence? Is there evidence for the domestication of wild plants (e.g., mesquite, cactus, amaranth, and agave) or water management strategies that predate the introduction of maize agriculture? What is the timing for the full suite of crops characterizing the Lower Sonoran Desert Complex (e.g., corn, beans, squash, and cotton)? What was the pace and mode of cultural changes over this interval?

40

The Late Archaic/Early Agricultural Period

The Late Archaic/Early Agricultural period refers to the interval between the appearance of maize and the introduction of ceramic technology, extending from 3,500 B.P. and 2,000 or 1,500 B.P. (Huckell 1995b, 1996). The term Archaic refers to pre-ceramic complexes that lack agriculture, whereas the term Early Agricultural Period refers to preceramic complexes with agriculture. The Late Archaic was replaced by the Early Agricultural Period around 3,200 B.P. (Huckell 1996; Gregory 2001a; Mabry 1998; Matson 1991; Roney and Hard 2000), although it likely persisted until 1,800 B.P. in drier areas (Stone and Bostwick 1996). The Early Agricultural Period is divided into three phases: an unnamed phase to accommodate the undetermined timing of the arrival of maize in the Southwest, the San Pedro Phase, and the Cienega Phase (Huckell 1995b, 1996). Gregorys recent evaluation of available radiocarbon dates helps frame ongoing chronological discussions and identifies relevant research questions (Gregory 2001a; Table 7). The earliest documented San Pedro manifestations may represent immigrant populations from Mexico that had already fully incorporated maize cultivation into the subsistence base (M. S. Berry 1985). Sites are located along riverine terraces and they include oval houses that are four to five meters in diameter with bell-shaped storage pits and hearths (Huckell 1995b). Cienega period sites include large, complex village settlements containing circular houses approximately six to eight meters in diameter. The manner in which maize arrived to various parts of the Southwest, the rate at which it was adopted, and the timing of these events and processes as well as their material correlates are not well understood. It remains to be seen whether material culture associated with the earliest maize will be classified as San Pedro or whether it is associated with earlier Middle Archaic materials. Huckells (1995, 1996) unnamed period, which lasts from 1500 to 1200 B.C. is subsequently retained in order to accommodate additional data. Temporal resolution is relatively poor during the first part of the San Pedro Phase, which lasts from 1200 B.C. to 800 B. C. The beginning date of the phase ultimately may be moved forward in time as a result (Gregory 2001a). The current boundary between the San Pedro and Cienega phases is strongly influenced by the effects of the calibration curve, leading to false precision and clustering of dates. Gregory (2001a) therefore places the beginning of the Cienega phase at 800 B.C. and the termination at A.D. 150, and he argues that the resulting long length of time that marks the period is masking the presence of two clusters of dates. He proposes a separation of this period into early (800 B.C. to 400 B.C.) and late (400 B.C. to A.D. 150) divisions based on analysis of site structure and house morphology among Tucson Basin sites (Gregory 2001b). The intensity of site occupation also tends to increase over time. Greater chronological control within these intervals will depend upon careful evaluation of suites of dates from individual occupations and on seriation techniques applied to various material classes.

41

Table 7. Late Archaic/Early Agricultural Period Cultural Chronology.

Years A.D. 650 A.D. 550 A.D. 450 A.D. 350 A.D. 250 A.D. 150 A.D. 50 150 B.C. 250 B.C. 350 B.C. 450 B.C. 550 B.C. 650 B.C. 750 B.C. 850 B.C. 950 B.C. 1050 B.C. 1150.B.C. 1250 B.C. San Pedro Phase Early Cienega Phase Cienega Phase Cienega Phase Late Cienega Phase Agua Caliente Phase Early Ceramic Horizon Agua Caliente Phase Agua Caliente Phase Huckell 1995, 1996 Wallace et al. 1995 Sweetwater Estrella Vahki/Tortolita Mabry 1997 Gregory 2001a

Tortolita

Tortolita Phase Boundaries Ambiguous

Late Archaic/Early Agricultural

San Pedro Phase

San Pedro Phase

1350 B.C. Unnamed Period Middle Archaic 1450 B.C. Unnamed Period

42

Research Questions
Early Agricultural villages have yet to be found along the Gila River, but there is considerable potential that they may be found buried within the T-2 terrace based on the surface distribution of diagnostic projectile points. Sites also may be located in the erosion banks of modern channels. Roasting pits and hearths dating to the Late Archaic have been found in buried terraces of the Gila River, and 61 San Pedro and Cienega points have been recovered as part of GRIC-CRMP survey, indicating the presence of Early Agricultural people in the general area. Specific research questions that will be addressed as part of ongoing P-MIP activities include the following: How does the Tucson Basin sequence compare to the Middle Gila River sequence? What is the nature and timing of the earliest appearance of maize on the GRIC? Is the earliest appearance of maize associated with San Pedro Materials? Can the Cienega phase be divided into early and late components based on absolute dating methods, stratigraphy, or seriation? Are there differences in patterns of land use, settlement, and subsistence from the San Pedro to Cienega phases that can be related to Ceramic Period and later Hohokam origins? Do the intensity and duration of occupations increase over time?

THE EARLY FORMATIVE AND PIONEER PERIODS

The Early Formative period refers to the interval between the adoption of ceramic containers and the appearance of decorated ceramics. The period typically is divided into two phases based on material culture differences, with earlier phases showing greater affinities with Late Archaic and Early Agricultural assemblages (Howard 1987; Szuter and Bayham 1987). Typical characteristics include small villages or hamlets in valley floor locations, basin or trough metate grinding assemblages, increased sedentism, and the expansion of agricultural efforts. The Red Mountain (A.D. 150 to 300) and Vahki (A.D. 300 to 500) phases represent this period in the Phoenix Basin. In the Tucson Basin, where the Early Formative is better defined, phases include Agua Caliente (A.D. 150 to 450) and Tortolita (A.D. 550 to 650). Although opinion is somewhat divided, many researchers in the Phoenix Basin currently place the beginning of the Pioneer period at around A.D. 550 or 650 with the 43

introduction of decorated ceramics during the Estrella Phase (Ciolek-Torrello 1995; Mabry 1998; Wallace et al. 1995). Limited evidence has been offered that house size and site structure also changed at this time (Doyel 1991), but in general, the Estrella and Sweetwater Phases are best characterized as a part of Early Formative Period regional developments. The emergence and archaeological identification of the Hohokam as an integrated cultural pattern appears during the Snaketown Phase of the late Pioneer Period (A.D. 650 to 900) according to recent discussions (see Wallace et al. 1995). Our current understanding of the Red Mountain Phase in the Phoenix Basin is limited to data derived from only a few sites or site components in the Salt River area (Cable and Doyel 1987; Hackbarth 1992; Henderson 1989; Morris 1969). However, approximately 25 of the poorly dated square and rectangular houses excavated at Snaketown may belong to the Red Mountain Phase (Cable et al. 1985:247-255). Red Mountain sites are similar to contemporaneous Agua Caliente sites in the Tucson Basin. Similarities include circular, oval, and bean-shaped pit houses, large communal houses, plain ware pottery, large projectile points, basin and slab metates, flexed and seated inhumation and primary cremation, and floodwater agriculture (Ciolek-Torrello 1995; Doyel 1993; Mabry 1998). Although we know relatively little about the Red Mountain Phase in the Phoenix Basin, variability in architecture and the long length of the Agua Caliente phase in the Tucson Basin suggests that it may be possible to subdivide this period with additional work (Gregory 2001a). The Red Mountain phase likely contains similar variability through time. The refinement of the Cienega to Agua Caliente phase boundaries also needs further attention according to Gregory (2001a). Calibrated age ranges suggest that the boundary could be pushed backwards by perhaps 100 years. The origin of the Red Mountain phase likewise may be pushed back with additional work (Dean 1991:79) as indicated by recent chronological analysis at La Cuenca del Deimento and La Escuela Cuba (Hackbarth 1992; Henderson 1989). Additional research may show that Phoenix and Tucson basin chronologies are synchronous. Dating the Red Mountain/Agua Caliente Phase is important for understanding the nature and timing of fully developed ceramic container technologies and how this might relate to agricultural intensification or new demands on female labor (Crown and Wills 1995; Heidke and Ferg 2001). The Vahki phase represents a significant departure from earlier Red Mountain developments, and it is during this time that regional differences seem to become more pronounced. Characteristics include Vahki Plain and Vahki Red ceramics, a newly developed figurine complex, settlements with plaza-oriented layouts, the construction of large square communal houses, a mortuary pattern characterized by both cremations in pits or trenches, flexed and semiflexed inhumations, and an increased reliance on agriculture (Doyel 1991, 1993; Gladwin et al. 1937; Haury 1976:68; Wallace 2000; Wilcox et al. 1981). Direct evidence of agricultural technology for the Vahki phase is lacking, but the permanence of houses, increased social complexity, and higher population levels suggest that more intensive production systems were in place as early as A.D. 300. There is, however, some debate as to the timing of the Vahki phase. Dean (1991:79) notes that recently obtained radiocarbon dates place the interval from A.D. 300 to 500, but

44

that radiocarbon determinations made during the 1950s indicate a post-date A.D. 500 timing for the phase. The later dates overlap with the subsequent Estrella and Sweetwater Phases of the Pioneer Period. Dean suggests that dates run during the 1950s may be inaccurate, but more information is needed. The Tortolita Phase, defined in the Tucson Basin, is roughly equivalent to the Vahki Phase in terms of material culture. Yet, Tortolita materials also date to a significantly later period from A.D. 600 to 700 (Gregory 2001a). Deaver and CiolekTorrello (1995:512) place the beginning of the Tortolita Phase slightly earlier at A.D. 425. The chronometric dates provided by Dean (1991) suggest that the Phoenix Basin and Tucson Basin culture histories are asynchronous, that regional differences emerge first in the Phoenix Basin, and that subsequent developments spread to adjoining areas very slowly (Doyel 1991). Recent chronological work at the Grewe site contradicts this interpretation. Henderson (2001) proposes a division of the Pioneer Period into two phases with the boundary set at approximately A.D. 670. The earlier, Vahki phase extends from ca. A.D. 500/550 to 670 at the Grewe site, which makes it contemporary with the Tortolita Phase in the Tucson Basin. The later Pioneer Period division is represented by the Snaketown Phase. The intervening Estrella (ca. A.D. 500s) and Sweetwater (ca. A.D. 650s) phases are missing in the Pioneer component at Grewe and, as Henderson points out, they are not well represented at any Hohokam site, including Snaketown (Wilcox et al. 1981:143-145). She further states that there is not much beyond ceramics to distinguish these phases, which calls into question their validity as distinctive taxonomic units. The Estrella and Sweetwater phases also are poorly dated. Independent dates associated with contextually sound Estrella and Sweetwater features overlap those of Vahki or Snaketown features to the point that they are temporally indistinguishable using current chronometric techniques. Decorated red-on-gray ceramics likewise do not appear in the Tucson Basin and Mogollon area until the middle A.D. 600s, further suggesting that additional work in the Phoenix Basin may lead to a temporal revision. Wallace et al. (1995) instead prefer a later and much compressed duration for Estrella and Sweetwater phases, lasting from about A.D. 620 to 700. They see the phases as valid, suggesting that they are difficult to identify because they are very brief. If the Estrella and Sweetwater Phases are genuine taxonomic units separating the Vahki and Snakewater Phases, then many more wellcontrolled dates will be necessary to affirm their chronological validity and place them accurately in time (Dean 1991).

Research Questions
Major research questions for the Early Formative period center on the nature and timing of several important innovations, including the intensification of floodwater farming, the development of ceramic container technologies, and the appearance of more formalized architecture. These changes in material culture have been linked to a steady growth of populations, regional cultural differentiation, intensified use of large river flood plains, and increased social complexity. Yet it also is obvious that Early Formative settlements were not fully sedentary. Populations continued to use upland settings and emphasize wild plant

45

harvesting. There also is good evidence for in situ development from an earlier Late Archaic/Early Agricultural base, as well as significant temporal and spatial variability in the material record that is not well understood (Ciolek-Torrello 1995). Independent chronometric dates are rare for Early Formative/Early Pioneer assemblages. Excavations at the Grewe site and elsewhere suggest that the temporal position of the Red Mountain and Vahki Phases (and thus the beginning of the Pioneer Period) could be adjusted in the future (Wallace et al. 1995). Additional work may demonstrate that Tucson and Phoenix Basin sequences are relatively synchronous, suggesting that regional differences are not as pronounced as they appear with current data. Decorated ceramics nonetheless may have appeared first in the Phoenix Basin, but it is not clear if these are associated with a definable phase or phases. Wallace et al. (1995) further suggest that some of the traits typically assigned to the Vahki Phase, such as plaza-oriented village layout, may occur only briefly prior to the inception of decorated ceramics. The Early Formative to Early Pioneer Period therefore represents an important developmental continuum, but very little is known about the nature and timing of regional sequences. Early Formative Period sites are currently not well defined on the GRIC, although recent survey has revealed the presence of a number of ceramic and lithic scatters that also lack decorated ceramics and historic materials. These sites may represent single component Early Formative occupations. Most of them are located on the Holocene eolian sand sheet and Holocene fan within the Blackwater and Memorial Management Areas on the GRIC. Other Early Formative components likely will be found associated with major Hohokam settlements at Snaketown, Santan, Casa Blanca, and Sweetwater, where Pioneer Period decorated ceramics have been recovered from surface contexts. Specific research questions that will be addressed as part of ongoing P-MIP activities include the following: How does the middle Gila River Early Formative sequence compare to the Tucson Basin and other Phoenix Basin sequences? Are regional sequences synchronous? Are Red Mountain Phase materials present on the GRIC? What is the duration and timing of this phase? Can the Red Mountain Phase be subdivided based on absolute dating methods or seriation techniques? What is the duration and timing of the Vahki Phase? What are the sequences of major cultural innovations during the Vahki Phase? Are the Estrella and Sweetwater Phases valid taxonomic units, and what, besides ceramics, defines them?

46

Is there a temporal overlap between Vahki, Estrella, Sweetwater, and Snaketown Phases?

THE HOHOKAM SEQUENCE

The Hohokam cultural pattern is described as an integrated regional belief system that is distinguished by large-scale irrigation agriculture, red-on-buff pottery, a distinctive iconography, exotic ornaments and artifacts, a cremation mortuary complex, large multi-site settlements, and public architecture (Wilcox and Sternberg 1983; Wilcox 1979, 1980, 1988, 1991; Doyel 1991). Most Southwest archaeologists believe that Hohokam culture developed from indigenous Archaic populations (Cable and Doyel 1987; Feinman 1991; Wallace et al. 1995) even though aspects of material patterning suggest contact with Mesoamerican groups. These include ball courts, figurines, copper bells, macaws, and pyrite mirrors. Hohokam chronology is a major topic of concern in Sonoran Desert archaeology. The order of Hohokam phases as well as the dating of the Colonial to Sedentary and Sedentary to Classic transitions is well established. There is less agreement on the beginning and termination points of the sequence and the timing of the Pioneer and Colonial periods (Table 8).

The Preclassic
Hohokam regional developments reached their maximum extent during the Preclassic (A.D. 750 to around A.D. 1050 or 1150). The period is characterized by relatively continuous population growth, increased social differentiation, elaborate material culture, and complex public works projects, such as canal systems, ball courts, plazas, and plaster-capped trash mounds. The middle Gila River Valley and the Salt River Valley were the primary locations of these cultural developments. The Preclassic includes the Pioneer, Colonial and Sedentary Periods. Within this temporal framework, there is a growing consensus on the beginning of the Hohokam cultural pattern, but not necessarily on the nature and pace of these developments (see Plog 1980). There is less agreement on the dating of the Gila Butte to Santa Cruz and Santa Cruz to Sacaton transitions. The division of the Sedentary Period into earlier Sacaton and later Santan phases also is debated.

Hohokam Origins the Late Pioneer to Colonial Periods

The origin of the Hohokam cultural pattern takes place some time between the later part of the Pioneer Period and beginning of the Colonial Period, although disagreement over which and how many traits comprise the Hohokam cultural system have led to a number of chronological revisions. Long count chronologies place it at the Vahki Phase (Haury 1937, 1976). These formulations see the pace of cultural change as relatively slow, with traits

47

Table 8. Hohokam and Historic Period Cultural Chronology (after Dean 1991).

Year A.D. 1900 A.D. 1800 A.D. 1700

Period

Phase

Historic

Undefined A.D. 1600 A.D. 1500 A.D. 1400 A.D. 1300 A.D. 1200 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1000 A.D. 900 Santa Cruz A.D. 800 A.D. 700 Pioneer A.D. 600 A.D. 500 A.D. 400 A.D. 300 A.D. 200 Red Mountain A.D. 100 A.D. 0 undefined boundary Early Formative Colonial Gila Butte Snaketown Estrella/Sweetwater? Vahki Sedentary Sacaton Classic Civano Soho Santan? Protohistoric Polvern?

48

being introduced sequentially rather than as a complex. Short count chronologies place Hohokam beginnings well within the first millennium A.D. (Gladwin 1942, 1948; Plog 1980; Schiffer 1982, 1987). These researchers place greater emphasis on the presence of large, Snaketown type ball courts, the first appearance of dance mounds, the Colonial mortuary complex, the advent of naturalistic iconography in rock art and ceramics, and large-scale irrigation agriculture. Doyel (1991) sees most of the innovations occurring in the Snaketown Phase with some in the Gila Butte Phase. Wilcox (1979; Wilcox and Sternberg 1983) places the innovations primarily in the Gila Butte Phase. Wallace et al. (1995) go even further, suggesting that the Hohokam regional system developed within the first half of the Gila Butte phase. The rapid appearance and spread of an identifiable ideological system (or religious cult) that is regional in scope is seen as marking the beginning of the sequence (Doyel 1991). Although characteristic traits of the Hohokam system appear first in Snaketown Phase, these are limited in scope and have a restricted geographic distribution, being confined primarily to the middle Gila River according to this model. Wallace et al. (1995) offer additional evidence from ceramics that the Hohokam regional system developed and dispersed to peripheral areas from the Phoenix Basin by A.D. 750 to 800. Once established, the Hohokam regional system experienced an increase in population and artistic florescence that peaked in the Santa Cruz Phase of the Colonial Period (A.D. 900 to 1000). Large, nucleated villages were developed and irrigation systems were expanded (Wilcox 1979; Teague 1984). Characteristic Hohokam traits extended into regions peripheral to the Phoenix Basin where canal irrigation was not possible. Other changes included the elaboration of stone sculpture and shell ornament production, increased diversity in pottery designs with the introduction of quartered patterns, hatching, and trailing lines, the first appearance of figurines with coffee bean eyes, and the presence of pit, rather than trench, cremations (Haury 1937:258). Grooving or exterior incising on ceramics also disappeared during the late Gila Butte Phase.

Research Questions
The late Pioneer to Colonial interval witnessed the origin and rapid expansion of the Hohokam cultural pattern that peaked in the Santa Cruz Phase. These developments may have been the result of Mesoamerican or northern Sonoran influences and the diffusion of a unifying ideological system that began in the Phoenix Basin. Numerous excavations have established agreed upon dates for the beginning of the Snaketown Phase and the Snaketown to Gila Butte transition (Dean 1991). There also is a growing consensus that the Hohokam regional system originated during the Gila Butte Phase. Changes within these intervals, however, are rapid and widespread. Additional research is needed to clarify the nature and pace of cultural change that characterizes the beginning of the Hohokam sequence, especially within the middle Gila River where large-scale excavations are limited. Attention should focus on obtaining numerous high quality absolute dates and conducting detailed seriation studies to identify and sequence the innovations that mark the beginning of the Hohokam cultural pattern.

49

Cultural development during the Colonial Period is relatively continuous and regionally variable, leading to some confusion over phase boundaries (see Plog 1980). It also is clear that different material classes display overlapping temporal patterns and dissimilar trajectories. The confusion over the Gila Butte to Santa Cruz transition has to do with an apparent reversal in absolute ages for several sites (Dean 1991). The distribution of transitional dates is later than the dates for the subsequent Santa Cruz Phase. Several researchers have shown that the criteria used to identify Gila Butte and Santa Cruz Red-onbuff ceramics could account for this disparity (Henderson 1987, 2001; Wallace 1992, 2001; Wallace et al. 1995). The issue rests on the correlation of incising with trailing line spacing on bowls. The result is that a significant number of Gila Butte Red-on-buff ceramics are incorrectly identified as Santa Cruz Red-on-buff. A similar problem exists for assigning materials to the Santa Cruz to Sacaton phase transition, which is thought to take place at around A.D. 970 (Dean 1991:84). The presence of painted rims on flare-rimmed bowls is seen as a diagnostic attribute of Sacaton Red-on-buff ceramics, although it also appears to be a common trait among Santa Cruz Red-on-buff ceramics (Wallace 2001:256). Trailing lines, once thought to be a diagnostic trait for Santa Cruz Red-on-buff, appear on early Sacaton ceramics. Detailed seriation studies by Wallace (2001) and others help to clarify the criteria used to distinguish ceramics. Additional work is needed to establish the timing of these and other changes in material culture that would help to define the Gila Butte to Santa Cruz and Santa Cruz to Sacaton phase boundaries if they actually exist (Henderson 2001:195). Specific research questions that will be addressed as part of ongoing P-MIP activities include the following: Are changes in material culture introduced sequentially throughout the late Pioneer through early Colonial Period, or do they appear suddenly as part of a cultural complex at the beginning of the Colonial Period? What is the timing of specific innovations, or traits associated with the Hohokam pattern (Doyel 1991) and where do these appear first? Are there differences in the timing of innovations among individual settlements within the GRIC? How do cultural sequences on the GRIC compare to other regional chronologies? What is the pace and mode of ceramic change during this interval and does it correlate with other material culture or social changes? What other characteristics, besides ceramics, define the Gila Butte to Santa Cruz and Santa Cruz to Sedentary phase boundaries? What are the durations of these transitions?

50

The Sedentary Period

A shift to mass-produced ceramics and the loss of artistic quality characterize the Early Sedentary Period (Gumerman and Haury 1979). This shift is associated with continued growth in the number, size, and extent of Hohokam settlements and canal networks, with many large sites reaching their maximum size and complexity at this time (Crown 1991). Hohokam exchange and interaction networks also reached their greatest distribution, and the amount of exotic materials at large sites indicates that some social differentiation had developed (Doyel 1991; Nelson 1986). An apparent increase in the diversity of decorated ceramic vessel size and shape with an emphasis on woven, geometric designs also typify the period. Stone carving is less ornate, but shell work is more elaborate and includes new techniques such as etching and painting. Although houses became larger and more refined, ball courts were much reduced in size, as represented by the Casa Grande ball court type (Gumerman and Haury 1979:82). In general, the Colonial to Early Sedentary Periods represents a developmental continuum likely made possible by a predictable river streamflow and stable floodplain regime (Waters and Ravesloot 2001). Dating different aspects of this continuum and relating it to statements about changes in social organization and land use is a major research theme for Hohokam studies. The Hohokam cultural pattern that was established during the previous centuries was significantly transformed during the Late Sedentary Period starting as early as A.D. 1050 (Doyel 1991, 1993). Changes in settlement patterns, intra- and inter-site organization, political alignments, exchange relationships, and material culture characterize this interval. Villages in peripheral areas, and some of those in the core area such as Snaketown and Grewe were abandoned, and populations resettled primarily along the major river drainages (Abbott 2000; Crown 1991; Doyel 1991; Gregory 1991; Ravesloot and Lascaux 1993). Incipient platform mounds were constructed in the Phoenix Basin at this time, signaling the beginning of a change in public architecture (Gregory 1987; Haury 1976). Other modifications include an increase in the production of red ware pottery, a decrease in the production of red-on-buff ceramics and ornate artifacts, and an emphasis on urn cremation burial, all of which are characteristic elements of the later Classic Period (Abbott 1982, 1985; Crown 1981; Doyel 1981). These changes appear to coincide with a period of major downcutting and channel widening along the middle Gila River that began at around A.D. 1020 (Huckleberry 1996; Waters and Ravesloot 2001).

Research Questions
Research questions for the Sedentary Period emphasize the timing of two major changes in the Hohokam cultural pattern. These include the growth and consolidation of the regional system and its apparent decline. The growth of the system seems to be associated with the diversification of landscape use and population increases along the middle Gila

51

River. The decline may be related to a transformation of the river floodplain. Given the extent of cultural and environmental change throughout this interval, it may be possible to subdivide the Sedentary Period and examine the validity of the Santan Phase. Gladwin et al. (1938) first postulated the Santan Phase for the Gila River Valley as the latter half of the Sedentary Period. Evidence is based largely on ceramics and on an apparent gap in chronometric dates that extends from A.D. 1025 and 1150 (Eighmy and Doyel 1987). Dean (1991) suggests that the gap represents a regular bias inherent in the chronometric techniques, although it could be related to a lack of excavated material from the Sedentary to Classic transition or misidentification of transitional assemblages. This leaves open the possibility for a Santan Phase. Excavations at Las Colinas and Grand Canal Ruins produced evidence for an intermediate ceramic type called Santan Red-on-buff that may date to this interval, but no other phase characteristics were defined as part of the study (Crown 1981; Lane 1989; Weed 1974). Subsequent analysis of ceramics has called into question the validity of the Santan Red-on-buff type and other ceramic changes thought to mark the Santan Phase (Abbott 1988). The recent excavations at Pueblo Grande, however, reveal the presence of a deep post-supported pit house, an S-2 type pithouse, and a stone-lined pit house, as well as trench cremations, which may represent Santan Phase materials. Specific research questions for the Sedentary period therefore include the following: Do changes in the flow regime of the middle Gila River coincide with major cultural changes during the middle Sedentary Period? What are the sequences of material culture, settlement, and subsistence changes throughout this interval? Can the Sedentary Period be subdivided based on independent chronometric dates or changes in material culture? Is the Santan Phase a genuine taxonomic unit and if so, how is it defined? Does the apparent gap in dates from A.D. 1025 to 1150 reflect a regular bias inherent in the chronometric systems used to define the Hohokam sequence? What is the timing and duration of the Santan Phase if it exists and is it correlated with a period of major landscape change along the middle Gila River? Are there significant differences in the patterns of landscape use through time among settlements along the middle Gila River? Are all settlements effected by changes in the flow regime of the middle Gila River at the same or different times?

52

 What is the timing of Classic Period cultural traits, such as red ware ceramics, platform mounds, and urn cremation burials, that first develop during the Sedentary Period? Where do these occur first, and can they be correlated with the timing of major flood events or the differential impact of flooding among communities?

The Classic Period

The Classic period (A.D. 1150 to 1450) is divided into the Soho and Civano phases. A hierarchy of settlement types emerged during this time, including villages with only one or a few walled residential compounds, and settlements with one or more platform mound compounds as well as other compounds (Doyel 1980, 1991). Changes culminating during the Soho phase included a shift in burial practices from cremations to inhumations and urn cremations, the development of new domestic architectural forms including post-reinforced and adobe-walled structures and walled compounds, a further reduction in red-on-buff pottery, and an increase in red ware pottery production (Crown 1991; Doyel 1980, 1991). The ballcourt system declined and was replaced by the platform mound complex (Gregory 1987). By the Civano phase, specific large settlements, such as Casa Grande, contained one or more platform mounds, numerous compounds, a ball court, and a tower or Great House (Wilcox 1991:262). These various types of Classic period settlements have been postulated to form distinct irrigation communities or sociopolitical organizations consisting of a series of integrated villages along a single canal or canal system (Gregory 1991; Howard 1987). Such developments may reflect increasing social differentiation, and possibly the existence of elite groups (Doyel 1991; Wilcox 1991; Wilcox and Shenk 1977), although recent compositional analysis of ceramics in the Tucson Basin show that neither production or distribution were regulated by platform mound leaders (Harry et al. 2002). Changes manifested in the Civano phase, including the adoption of Gila Polychrome, platform mounds, inhumation burial, and room block architecture, typically are associated with the Salado culture or Salado phenomenon, which likely spread to the Phoenix Basin during this period. The end of the Classic Period was marked by the collapse of the system of platform mound communities and the depopulation of the Phoenix Basin. The abandonment of several late Classic period communities has been suggested to coincide with a period of drought and flood conditions that substantially reduced or destroyed irrigation systems (Nials et al. 1989). However, stratigraphic evidence for such flooding is absent in the middle Gila River (Waters and Ravesloot 2000, 2001). This leads Waters and Ravesloot (2001:292-293, 2003:6) to suggest that internal or external human causes should be considered as contributors to the decline of the Hohokam cultural pattern and the reorganization of populations during the subsequent Polvorn period.

53

Research Questions
There is little dispute over the validity of the Soho and Civano Phases as valid taxonomic units. The Soho Phase also is one of the most securely dated units in the Hohokam sequence, extending from around A.D. 1150 or 1200 to A.D. 1325 (Dean 1991; Eighmy and McGuire 1988). A sharp ceramic boundary also separates the Soho and Civano phases at around A.D. 1300. Gila Polychrome, which has been securely dated using tree ring chronology, is correlated with changes in architecture and other classes of artifacts that mark this transition. Dates for the termination of the Civano Phase and the end of the Hohokam cultural pattern also is relatively consistent, occurring between A.D. 1350 and 1450, although it may have persisted as late as 1500. Good, high quality dates are generally lacking for the post1450 interval, leaving open the possibility that the Civano lasted for another 50 years. A lack of dates for the terminal end of the phase may be due to the methodological constraints of radiocarbon and archaeomagnetic dating, which reach an upper limit of sensitivity at around this time (Dean 1991:96). A lack of dates also may be the result of problems in assigning materials to this interval. More research is needed to characterize and date the end of the Classic Period. The nature and duration of this transition carries important implications for understanding the cause or causes of the abrupt decline, which has been attributed to environmental change (Graybill and Nials 1989; Graybill et al. 1999; Huckleberry 1999; Nials et al. 1989), warfare (LeBlanc 1999; Rice 2001; Wallace and Doelle 2001), and European-introduced diseases (Fink 1991; Reff 1990; Roberts and Ahlstrom 1997). Specific research questions pertaining to the Classic Period therefore include the following: What is the pace of development during the Soho Phase, and what is the timing of specific innovations that lead to the initial Civano florescence? Do innovations occur simultaneously or sequentially and how do they overlap in time and space? What is the timing of events that signal the decline of the Hohokam tradition during the late Civano Phase? What is the pace and mode of the decline and how does it play out among communities or settlements of different sizes and qualities? Does the location of a settlement condition the timing of its abandonment and population dispersal? How can the end of the Hohokam cultural pattern be characterized and when does this occur?

54

THE PROTOHISTORIC
Archaeologists working in the American Southwest typically refer to the time of transition between prehistory and history as the Protohistoric, ca. A.D. 1450-1700 (e.g., Bronitsky 1985; Cable 1990; Doelle 1984; Doelle and Wallace 1990; Gilpin and Phillips 1998; McGuire 1982; Ravesloot and Whittlesey 1987; Riley 1987; Wilcox and Masse 1981). The archaeology of this period remains poorly understood due to the small sample of excavated material, poor chronometric control, and lack of a cohesive framework for interpreting materials (Gilpin and Phillips 1998; Ravesloot and Whittlesey 1987; Whittlesey et al. 1998). Primary sources of information include Spanish ethnohistorical documents that are relevant to the early contact period primarily. Additional data from the early part of the sequence is needed to fully understand the decline of the Hohokam tradition and the transition to historical populations. The end of the sequence also is poorly defined since the actual time and extent of initial contact varied throughout the region. Most researchers set the end at roughly 1700 (Whittlesey 1996), although some have argued against the term Protohistoric altogether or have limited the period to 1536 (Cordell 1984; Di Peso 1981; Fontana 1965; McGregor 1965). Siress (1984) defined the Polvorn Phase based on work at the site of El Polvorn in the Queen Creek drainage (see also Crown and Sires 1984). This phase may include materials that date to the early part of the Protohistoric sequence. Traits include ranchera style settlement pattern, jacal-style residential structures, intrusive proto-Hopi yellow wares, San Carlos Red-on-brown, and Tanque Verde Red-on-brown pottery, and Sobaipuri-style projectile points. Changes in ceramic inventories from the preceding Civano Phase include decreased proportions of prehistoric red-on-buff ceramics and imported marine shell, and increased proportions of Salt and Gila red wares and Salado polychromes. Subsequent efforts to identify Polvorn Phase artifacts and deposits have been relatively unsuccessful given that absolute dates (i.e., radiocarbon and archaeomagnetic assays) overlap significantly with Late Classic samples (Abbott et al. 1994; Ahlstrom et al. 1995; Doyel 1995; Henderson and Hackbarth 2000; Howell 1993:145-147; Marmaduke and Henderson 1995:137), and given that few diagnostic Polvorn artifacts or features have been identified. Researchers currently debate whether the Polvorn Phase represents a new set of cultural traditions replacing the older Hohokam pattern (Chenault 1993), or rather a continuation of organizational strategies aimed at coping with demographic decline at the end of the Civano (Hackbarth 1995). The timing of the Polvorn Phase also has not been established, and there is little consensus about how it might differ from later Protohistoric developments.

Research Questions
Accurate temporal placement and site and feature identification remain the two most critical challenges to archaeological research on the Protohistoric Period. Few absolute dates

55

are available from inferred Protohistoric sites. Those that do exist range broadly from A.D. 1277 to 1859 (Wells 2003a:10). Dean (1991) places the origin at around A.D. 1500. This broad range of dates likely reflects the methodological constraints of radiocarbon and archaeomagnetic dating as discussed above. One potentially useful alternative is thermoluminescence (TL) dating of ceramic materials. This procedure is not subject to the calibration problems that prevent radiocarbon and archaeomagnetic dating from providing reasonably modest intervals for sites occurring after the 1500s (Feathers 1997; e.g., Crown and Sires 1984; Dykeman et al. 2002; Feathers 2000; Rice 1998). Changes in the assemblage proportions of ceramic wares and the ratios of certain temper types associated with plain wares, such as phyllite, schist, and sand, also appear to be temporally sensitive (e.g., Abbott 1994; Cable and Gould 1988; Cable and Mitchell 1988; Crown 1981; Deaver 1990; Newman and Woodson 2002), even though the validity of possible temporal markers such as Sobaipuri projectile points, and Sobaipuri pottery (Di Peso 1951, 1953) is debated (Loendorf and Rice 2003; Masse 1981; Ravesloot and Whittlesey 1987). Both absolute and relative dating techniques therefore should be used in an attempt to resolve chronological issues pertaining to Protohistoric research on the GRIC. The second research issue involves the identification of Protohistoric assemblages. A number of characteristics have been defined as outlined above. In general, however, Protohistoric settlement types and material assemblages are highly variable. Identifying them depends on recognizing a constellation of subtle material culture patterns. The spatial and temporal dimensions of this variability currently are poorly understood. Additional work is needed to characterize this variability and establish the signature or signatures of Protohistoric assemblages and how these change through time, rather than relying on the presence or absence of hallmark traits. Work should include detailed studies of historic material culture patterns. Recent analysis of GRIC surface assemblages by Wells (2003a) promises to increase our ability to detect and identify Protohistoric materials. Chronological research questions presented here are generated from this document. What are the characteristics and configurations of characteristics that define assemblages dating to this interval? What is the range of variability among artifact and feature classes that helps to identify spatial and temporal patterns? Is the transition from the Civano Phase to the early Protohistoric gradual or abrupt? Does this transition represent a continuation of Late Civano Phase demographic change or does it constitute a new set of behaviors or traditions? What does the transition look like and where does it occur first? Can thermoluminescence dating contribute to resolving temporal issues?

56

 Do changes in artifact and artifact attribute ratios help to order assemblages along a continuum within this interval? At what point does the Protohistoric end, and what typifies this termination, if anything?

THE HISTORIC PERIOD

The Historic period (A.D. 1700 to present), which began with Spanish contact, comprises the time for which written records of the region exist. Because the actual time and extent of initial contact varies throughout southern Arizona, the conventional date of A.D. 1700 is used here as the beginning date. This lengthy period is subdivided into the Hispanic era (ca. 1700 to 1853), encompassing the time of Spanish and Mexican occupation of southern Arizona, and the American era, beginning with the Gadsden Purchase until the present. Limited archaeological evidence is available for the Historic period in southern Arizona, especially in the areas inhabited by the Akimel Oodham. Consequently, this period is known primarily from ethnohistorical documentation. Studies pertaining to nineteenth and twentieth century archaeological materials from the GRIC and elsewhere nonetheless suggests that the American era may be subdivided with additional work (Eiselt 2002; Gasser et al. 1990; Layhe 1986; McKenna and Swarthout 1984; Ravesloot et al. 1992; Rice et al. 1983).

Early Historic Period

Comparatively little written information was obtained on Akimel Oodham settlements or people in the middle Gila Valley during the Hispanic era. Living far beyond the Hispanic frontier, the Akimel Oodham managed to escape involvement in the events and turbulence in the south and had only sporadic contact with Euroamericans (Ezell 1961, 1983:153; Russell 1908; Wilson 1999). Spanish accounts nonetheless identify at least six self-sufficient and autonomous Akimel Oodham settlements primarily along the Gila River west of the Casa Grande Ruins (Bolton 1948:I:127129; Doelle 1981; Ezell 1961, 1983; Russell 1908; Wilson 1999). The Pee Posh Halchidoma established settlements on either side of Akimel Oodham territory between 1823 and 1848 according to Mexican documents (Spier 1933; Wilson 1999). Ezell (1994) characterizes the Hispanic Period as a time of economic and military expansion, which led to the development of significant social and economic autonomy. This experience would determine the nature of social adjustments during later periods. He argues that the Oodham and Pee Posh developed the patterns of social organization and social control that characterize hydraulic agriculture societies by the 1840s (Whittfogel 1959). Commitment to irrigation agriculture made them wealthy and self-sufficient by the time that the Americans arrived in the territory, but it also made them vulnerable to environmental changes later. Village structure and location, social organization, division of labor, and 57

concepts of property evolved to meet the demands of a traveling consumer market in need of supplies and protection. The development of irrigation, the introduction of wheat, and the intensification of corn production accompanied, or were in some way stimulated by, raiding, increased population density, the consolidation of tribal structure, and the creation of alliances (Winter 1973). This system collapsed at the end of the nineteenth century when settlers began to stay in the middle Gila River Valley and divert water to their own farms (Ezell 1994; Ortiz 1973).

Research Questions
Investigations in southeastern Arizona (Di Peso 1951, 1953, 1956; Doyel 1977; Huckell 1984b; Masse 1981; Seymor 1989) have amassed a modest amount of data on Protohistoric and early Historic Sobaipuri sites, although contextual information often is problematic (Ravesloot and Whittlesey 1987). Work within the middle Gila River Valley is limited to the West Side Farms Project at the Ak-Chin Indian Community (Gasser et al. 1990) and recent excavations at the historic Sweetwater Village (Woodson, ed. 2002). These excavations show that the Early Historic Period is characterized by ranchera settlement pattern with possible year-round occupation of large, primary villages (Doelle 1981; Ezell 1961). Circular and oval structures or kis are the dominant house type. Other diagnostic characteristics include the presence of Sonoran wheat, white-seeded devils claw, cattle and horse bones, trade beads, Sobaipuri projectile points, Sobaipuri ceramics, black-on-buff ceramics and Period I Papago Ceramics, including red-on-brown, white-on-red, green glaze, red, and plain (Cable 1990; Fontana et al. 1962). Sites also lack nineteenth century materials such as manufactured glass, metal, rubber, and plastic. The recovery of a Mexican onequarter Real, minted between 1832 and 1838, at the historic Sweetwater site suggests that the Oodham participated in the regions cash economy at an early date, as indicated by historic documents (Woodson 2002; Eiselt 2002; Ezell 1994). What is unknown at this point is the degree to which the Early Historic material record differs from the Protohistoric, as well as the nature and pace of Oodham economic and political developments during the Spanish era. Pee Posh villages on the GRIC also have never been investigated despite the important role they played as close allies during the historic period (Ezell 1994). Given that Oodham and Pee Posh society was greatly altered by Spanish contact, it should be possible to distinguish Protohistoric from Early Historic economic and social strategies. It also should be possible to distinguish Oodham from Pee Posh occupations given that most of the early historic villages mentioned in documents have been relocated (Eiselt et al. 2002; Wilson 1999). Research with GRIC-CRMP materials will focus on documenting the evolution and boom of the Oodham agrarian and military complex as outlined by Ezell (1994; see also Eiselt 2002), and distinguishing this from Pee Posh as well as earlier Protohistoric and later Historic archaeological materials. Chronometric analysis will focus on obtaining high-quality thermoluminescence dates and refining ceramic typologies. Research questions include the following:

58

 When were European introductions, such as domesticated plant and animal species, tools, and other types of material culture, adopted by the Oodham and Pee Posh? Does the ceramic typology developed by Fontana et al. (1962) have temporal validity? Can this ceramic typology be used to date Oodham or Pee Posh sites on the GRIC? At what point do settlement locations and village sizes begin to change as a result of European contact and increased raiding? What are the indicators and mechanisms of Oodham and Pee Posh economic growth as documented in the ethnohistoric record, and what is the nature and pace of this growth? At what point is a cash economy (rather than a barter economy) adopted by the Oodham and Pee Posh? At what point do discrete Pee Posh villages develop on the GRIC and how are these different from Oodham settlements?

The Late Historic Period

Euroamerican contacts with the Akimel Oodham in the middle Gila Valley increased after 1846 because of the Mexican-American War and the Gadson Purchase of 1853. New markets were subsequently developed by the Oodham to supply grain to the military, as well as to immigrants heading for California, resulting in a period of unprecedented prosperity during the Pre-Reservation Period (Doelle 1981; Ezell 1983, 1994; Hackenberg 1955; Russell 1908). This prosperity extended into first part of the Early Reservation Period starting in 1859. By the 1870s, the agrarian economy began to falter, although horse breeding and ranching experienced a minor upsurge during the 1890s. The rapid influx of Euroamerican settlers led to the construction of upstream canals that diverted much of the water to non-Indian farmers (Dobyns 1981; Ezell 1983). Uncertainty and variable crop yields caused the break-up of several villages and increased individual mobility, especially among the Pee Posh, whose traditional settlements were abandoned by the late 1800s (Ezell 1983; Hackenberg 1955). High mobility was accompanied by a shift in housing style from traditional kis to the adobe house starting in 1885. Shifts in housing were the result of federal administrative policies that rewarded individuals who adopted Euroamerican ways. By the 1890s, Oodham and Pee Posh people of all ages were drawn into the wage labor economy of the Phoenix Basin because of a failing agricultural economy, and children were increasingly sent off to boarding schools, which further eroded agrarian lifestyles. The Oodham thus refer to the period between 1890 and 1930 as the forty years of famine (Ortiz 1973). 59

The most ambitious effort to rectify the economic plight of the Oodham and Pee Posh People was the San Carlos Project Act of 1924. This project authorized the construction of a water storage dam on the Gila River and it provided for the irrigation of 50,000 acres of Indian land. The first allotments at Gila River began during this period in 1914. In 1921, the commissioners annual report announced the completion of allotment work. Whereas most families once had farmed ten acres or less, each person now received ten acres and family farms increased in size to as much as eighty acres. Changes in allotment period housing include the introduction of the Sandwich House during the 1920s (Willigen 1970). Archaeological research also shows that site structure and settlement pattern were modified as a result of allotment policies (McKenna and Swarthout 1984). Allotting did nothing to increase the water supply, however, and little was done to coordinate the allotment program with the small-scale irrigation projects being built at the time (Hackenberg 1955:6062). Funds made available as part of Roosevelts Indian New Deal starting in 1933 helped to bring the San Carlos Irrigation Project to a close and reestablish ranching on the community, albeit on a limited scale (Kneale 1935, 1950; Wright 1935). Although agriculture was restored to the GRIC by the 1930s, it would never be as profitable as it was when the Oodham and Pee Posh were in control of their own economy and the social institutions and practices that supported it.

Research Issues
Ethnohistoric research defines four major shifts in Oodham and Pee Posh society during the Late Historic Period. These include the Pre-Reservation Period (1846-1859), the Early Reservation Period (1859-1869), the Allotment Period (1910-1921), and a period of reformation brought about by the San Carlos Irrigation Project and the Indian New Deal during the 1930s and 1940s (Ezell 1994). Each of these intervals is marked by significant changes in economy, material culture, social practices, household organization, and settlement pattern. Such changes were widespread and rapid, leading to the development of a distinctive Reservation Period archaeological record on the GRIC that requires additional research. One of the primary goals of chronological work therefore will be to document temporal patterns in settlement, subsistence, and landscape use over this interval (Eiselt 2002). Site and feature chronology will be determined using historic documents, resident testimony, and the mean date for glass and ceramic materials developed by South (1977). Souths procedure was applied to nineteenth- and twentieth-century ceramic and glass materials recovered in historic Phoenix (Cable et al. 1982) and Tempe (Griffith 1987), as well as a number of indigenous sites (Gasser et al. 1990; Layhe 1986; McKenna and Swarthout 1984; Ravesloot et al. 1992). It is important to point out, however, that there are many problems with the use of mean date formulas for historical-period artifacts, particularly for the late nineteenth century and later. Majewski and OBrien (1987) summarize some of the critiques of the method. Thus, dates derived from the mean date formula will be crossreferenced against historic documents. Changes in architecture, site structure, and settlement pattern also characterize the historic period (Garrett and Russell 1983; Layhe 1986;

60

McKenna and Swarthout 1984; Ravesloot et al. 1992; Rice et al. 1983; Russell 1908). These changes will be assessed relative to other dating techniques. Virtually nothing is known about temporal changes in Oodham or Pee Posh ceramics during the Late Historic period or how they might relate to historic types defined by Fontana et al. (1962). Ceramic studies therefore will be the focus of ongoing chronological work. Summary research questions include the following: Are the four periods defined by ethnohistorical research evident in the archaeological record of the GRIC? How are they manifested? At what point do changes in architecture and household organization occur on the GRIC? Where do these changes occur first and what is the pace and scale of change during the different periods? Does the advent of the Allotment Period lead to modifications in settlement pattern and site structure as the McKenna and Swarthout (1984) model predicts? What characteristics define Pee Posh site chronology, if any? Do ceramics found at GRIC sites conform to temporal types developed by Fontana et al. (1962) based on Tohono Oodham ceramics? What is the nature and timing of population movements on the GRIC during this interval?

61

CONCLUSION
This research context provides a summary of the major chronological issues that will be addressed as part of ongoing P-MIP research. It also reviews the chronometric methods used to order sites and assemblages on the GRIC. From a methodological standpoint, we are most concerned with dating archaeological remains, establishing the contemporaneity and duration of archaeological components, and coping with spatial and other variability not related to time. The dating methods outlined here will be applied to surface and buried materials of all ages where appropriate. Dated remains are ordered to establish a chronology, and the pace and mode of change is assessed as part of this process. This chronology provides a temporal framework in which the archaeological material can be placed. Models of demographic, behavioral, and environmental change are built around this temporal framework. Chronological analysis helps to answer a number of specific research questions, many of which are outlined here, and many more of which are described in other GRIC-CRMP research contexts and planning documents that deal with specific topics. The overarching goal of our chronological studies, however, is to trace the co-evolution of human and natural systems along the middle Gila River from the Archaic Period to modern times. By doing this, we hope to create a better understanding of past and present cultural-natural landscapes, and demonstrate the relevance of Oodham and Pee Posh heritage to Phoenix Basin research more generally.

62

REFERENCES CITED
Abbott, D. R. 1983 A Technological Assessment of Ceramic Variation in the Salt-Gila Aqueduct Area: Toward a Comprehensive Documentation of Hohokam Ceramics. In Hohokam Archaeology along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project, Volume 8(1): Material Culture, edited by L. S. Teague and P. L. Crown, pp. 1118. Archaeological Series No. 150. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1988 Form, Function, Technology, and Style in Hohokam Ceramics. In The 1982-1984 Excavation at Las Colinas: Material Culture, edited by D. R. Abbott, K. E. Beckwith, P. L. Crown, R. T. Euler, D. A. Gregory, J. R. London, M. B. Saul, L. A. Schwalbe, and M. Bernard-Shaw. Archaeological Series No. 162. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. 2000 Ceramics and Community Organization among the Hohokam. Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. University of

Abbott, D. R., D. R. Mitchell, and J. A. Merewether 1994 Chronology. In The Pueblo Grande Project, Volume 2: Feature Descriptions, Chronology, and Site Structure, edited by D. R. Mitchell, pp. 157254. Publications in Archaeology No. 20. Soil Systems, Phoenix, Arizona. Adams, K. R., S. J. Smith, and M. Palacios-Fest 2002 Pollen and Micro-Invertebrates from Modern Earthen Canals and Other Fluvial Environments along the Middle Gila River, Central Arizona: Implications for Archaeological Interpretation. Gila River Indian Community Anthropological Research Papers No. 1. Cultural Resources Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona. Adams, E. C., M. T. Stark, and D. S. Dosh 1993 Ceramic Distribution and Exchange: Jeddito Yellow Ware and Implications for Social Complexity. Journal of Field Archaeology 20:321. Aitchinson, T., B. Ottaway, and A. S. Al-Ruzaiza 1991 Summarizing a Group of 14C Dates on the Historical Time Scale: With a Worked Example from the late Neolithic of Bavaria. Antiquity 65:108116. Aitken, M. J. 1985 Thermoluminescence Dating. Academic Press, London. 1989 1990 Luminescence Dating: A Guide for Non-specialists. Archaeometry 31:147160. Science-based Dating in Archaeology. Longman, London.

63

Anonymous 1999 GRIC-CRMP Excavation Manual. Unpublished manuscript on file, Cultural Resource Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona. Antevs, E. 1955 Geologic-climatic Dating in the West. American Antiquity 20:317355. Barnett, S. M. 1999 Date List 6: Luminescence Dates for Late Bronze Age and Iron Age Pottery Assemblages in Eastern and Northern Britain. Ancient TL 17:2340. Bayham, F. E., D. H. Morris, and M. S. Shackley 1986 Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers of South Central Arizona: Picacho Reservoir Archaic Project. Anthropological Field Studies No. 13. Office of Cultural Resource Management, Arizona State University, Tempe. Bayman, J. A. 2002 Marine Shell Artifact Studies on the Gila River Indian Community, Arizona. P-MIP Technical Report No. 02-08. Cultural Resource Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona. Bayman, J. M., and R. M. Ryan 1988 Lower Colorado Buffware and the Protohistoric Period in Southern Arizona. Pottery Southwest 15(1). Beck, C. 1999 Dating the Archaeological Record and Modeling Chronology. In Models for the Millennium: Great Basin Anthropology Today, edited by C. Beck, pp. 171181. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Beck, C., and G. T. Jones 1994 Dating Surface Assemblages Using Obsidian Hydration. In Dating Exposed and Surface Contexts, edited by C. Beck, pp. 4776. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Bedwell, S. F. 1973 Fort Rock Basin: Prehistory and Environment. Eugene. University of Oregon Books,

Berry, C. F., and M. S. Berry 1986 Chronological and Conceptual Models of the Southwestern Archaic. In Anthropology of the Desert West: Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jennings, edited by C. J. Condie and D. D. Fowler, pp. 253327. Anthropological Papers No. 110. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

64

Berry, M. S. 1985 The Age of Maize in the Greater Southwest: A Critical Review. In Prehistoric food Production in North America, edited by R. I. Ford, pp. 279307. Museum of Anthropology Anthropological Papers No. 75. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. 1982 Time, Space, and Transition in Anasazi Prehistory. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Betancourt, J. L. 1978 An Archaeological Synthesis of the Tucson Basin: Focus on Santa Cruz and its Riverpark. Archaeological Series No. 116. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. Bolton, H. E. 1948 Kino's Historical Memoir of Pimera Alta. 2 Vols. University of California Press, Berkeley. Botkin, D. B. 1990 Discordant Harmonies. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Braun, D. P. 1985 Absolute Seriation: A Time-Series Approach. In For Concordance in Archaeological Analysis: Bridging Data Structure, Quantitative Technique, and Theory, edited by C. Carr, Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, Illinois. Bronitsky, G. 1985 The Protohistoric Pimans of Southeastern Arizona: A Review of History, Archaeology, and Material Culture. In Southwestern Culture History: Collected Papers in Honor of Albert H. Schroeder, edited by C. H. Lange, pp. 139151. Papers of the Archaeological Society of New Mexico Vol. 10. Ancient City Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Browman, D. L. 1981 Isotopic Discrimination and Correction Factors in Radiocarbon Dating. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 4, edited by M. Schiffer, pp. 241 295. Academic Press, New York. Buck, C. E., C. D. Litton, and E. M. Scott 1994 Making the Most of Radiocarbon Dating: Some Statistical Considerations. Antiquity 68:252263. Burton, J. H., and A. W. Simon 2002 Geologic Reconnaissance of Potential Ceramic Temper Sources on Lands of the Gila River Indian Community. Unpublished manuscript on file, Cultural Resources Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, Tempe, Arizona.

65

Cable, J. S. 1990 Who Were the Protohistoric Occupants of Ak-Chin? A Study Concerning the Relationship Between Ethnicity and Ceramic Style. In Archaeology Of The Ak-Chin Indian Community West Side Farms Project, Volume 5: Subsistence Studies and Synthesis and Interpretation, edited by R. E. Gasser, R. K. Robinson, and C. D. Breternitz, pp. 23.123.65. Publications in Archaeology No. 9. Soil Systems, Phoenix, Arizona. Cable, J. S., and D. E. Doyel 1987 Pioneer Period Village Structure and Settlement Pattern in the Phoenix Basin. In Hohokam Village: Site Structure and Organization, edited by D. E. Doyel, pp. 2170. American Association of Science Publications No. 87-15. Southwestern and Rocky Mountain Division, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Cable, J. S., and R. R. Gould 1988 The Casa Buena Ceramic Assemblage: A Study of Typological Systematics and Ceramic Change in Classic Period Assemblages. In Excavations at Casa Buena: Changing Hohokam Land Use along the Squaw Peak Parkway, Volume 1, edited by J. B. Howard, pp. 271357. Publications in Archaeology No. 11. Soil Systems, Phoenix, Arizona. Cable, J. S., L. Henry, and D. E. Doyel 1982 City of Phoenix Archaeology of the Original Townsite Blocks 1 and 2. Publications in Archaeology No. 1. Soil Systems, Phoenix, Arizona. Cable, J. S., K. S. Hoffman, D. E. Doyel, and F. Ritz (editors) 1985 City of Phoenix, Archaeology of the Original Townsite, Block 24-East. Publications in Archaeology No. 8. Soil Systems, Phoenix, Arizona. Cable, J. S., A. Turley, and R. W. Effland 1988 The La Lomita Pequea Ceramic Assemblage. In Excavations at La Lomita Pequea: A Santa Cruz/Sacaton Phase Hamlet in the Salt River Valley, edited by D. R. Mitchell, pp. 95177. Publications in Archaeology No. 10. Soil Systems, Phoenix, Arizona. Campbell, E. W. C., W. H. Campbell, E. Antevs, C. A. Amsden, J. A. Barbieri, and F. D. Bode 1937 The Archaeology of Pleistocene Lake Mojave: A Symposium. Southwest Museum Papers No. 11. San Diego, California. Caywood, L. R. 1950 Hispanic Pottery as a Guide in Historical Studies. In For the Dean: Essays in Anthropology in Honor of Byron Cummings on His Eighty-ninth Birthday, September 20, 1950, edited by E. K. Reed and D. S. King, pp. 7797. Hohokam Museums Association, Tucson, Arizona.

66

Chenault, M. L. 1993 The Hohokam Post-Classic Polvorn Phase. In Early Desert Farming and Irrigation Settlements: Archaeological Investigations in the Phoenix Sky Harbor Center, Volume 4: Special Studies, Synthesis and Conclusions, edited by D. H. Greenwald and J. H. Ballagh, pp. 117140. Archaeological Report No. 93-17. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Flagstaff, Arizona. Ciolek-Torrello, R. 1995 The Houghton Road Site, the Agua Caliente Phase, and the Early Formative Period in the Tucson Basin. Kiva 60:531574. Colton, H. S. 1956 Pottery Types of the Southwest: Tsegi Orange Ware, Winslow Orange Ware, Homolovi Orange Ware, Jeddito Yellow Ware, Awatovi Yellow Ware. Ceramic Series No. 3C. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff. 1958 Pottery Types of the Southwest: Wares 14, 15, 16, 17: Alameda Brown Wares, Lower Colorado Buffware, Prescott Gray Ware, San Francisco Mountain Gray Ware. Ceramic Series No. 3D. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff. Cordell, L. S. 1984 Prehistory of the Southwest. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. Cowgill, G. L. 1964 The Selection of Samples from Large Sherd Collections. 29:467473. American Antiquity

1968 Archaeological Applications of Factor, Cluster, and Proximity Analysis. American Antiquity 33:367375. 1972 Models, Methods, and Techniques for Seriation. In Models in Archaeology, edited by D. Clark, pp. 381424. Methuen and Company, London. Crown, P. L. 1981 Analysis of Las Colinas Ceramics. In The 1968 Excavations at Mound 8, Las Colinas Ruins Group, Phoenix, Arizona, edited by L. C. Hammack and A. P. Sullivan, pp. 87169. Archaeological Series No. 154. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1983 Intrusive Ceramics and the Identification of Hohokam Exchange Networks. In Proceedings of the 1983 Hohokam Symposium, Part II, edited by A. E. Dittert and D. E. Dove, pp. 439458. Occasional Paper No. 2. Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix.

67

1984 Ceramic Vessel Exchange in Southern Arizona. In Hohokam Archaeology Along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct: Synthesis and Conclusions, edited by L. S. Teague and P. L. Crown, pp. 251303. Archaeological Series No. 150. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1991 The Hohokam: Current Views of Prehistory and the Regional System. In Chaco and Hohokam: Prehistoric Regional Systems in the American Southwest, edited by P. L. Crown and W. J. Judge, pp. 135157. School of American Research, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Crown, P. L., and E. W. Sires 1984 The Hohokam Chronology and Salt-Gila Aqueduct Project Research. In Hohokam Archaeology Along The Salt-Gila Aqueduct CAP. Vol. IX: Synthesis and Conclusions, edited by L. S. Teague and P. L. Crown, pp. 7385. Archaeological Series No. 150. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. Crown, P. L., and W. H. Wills 1995 Economic Intensification and the Origins of Ceramic Containers in the American Southwest. In The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies, edited by W. K. Barnett and J. W. Hoopes, pp. 241254. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Crumley, C. L. (editor) 1994 Historical Ecology: Cultural Knowledge and Changing Landscapes. Seminar Series. School of American Research, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Damon, P. E., A. Long, and D. C. Grey 1966 Fluctuation of Atmosphere C14 during the Last Six Millennia. Geophysical Research 71:10551063. Advance

Journal of

Darling, J. A. 2001 Obsidian Sourcing Studies, Research Design and Analysis Plan. P-MIP Technical Report No. 00-08. Cultural Resource Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona. Darling, J. A., J. C. Ravesloot, and M. R. Waters 2003 Village Drift and Riverine Settlement: Modeling Akimel Oodham Land Use. American Anthropologist, under review. Dean, J. S. 1978 Independent Dating in Archaeological Analysis. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 1, edited by M. Schiffer, pp. 223255. Academic Press, New York.

68

1991 Thoughts on Hohokam Chronology. In Exploring the Hohokam: Prehistoric Desert Peoples of the American Southwest, edited by G. J. Gumerman, pp. 61150. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Dean, J. S., M. C. Slaughter, and D. O. Bowden III 1996 Desert Dendrochronology: Tree-ring Dating Prehistoric Sites in the Tucson Basin. Kiva 62:726. Deaver, W. L. 1989 Southwestern Archaeomagnetic Secular Variation: The Hohokam Data. In The 1982-1984 Excavations at Las Colinas: Syntheses and Conclusions, edited by L. Teague and W. Deaver, pp. 741. Archaeological Series No. 162. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1990 Native American Ceramics. In Archaeology of the Ak-Chin Indian Community West Side Farms Project: Material Culture and Human Remains, edited by R. E. Gasser, C. K. Robinson, and C. D. Breternitz, pp. 15.115.35. Publications in Archaeology No. 9. Soil Systems, Phoenix, Arizona. 1993 Archaeomagnetic Dating. In The Maricopa Road Site: A Pre-Classic Hohokam Village, edited by J. C. Ravesloot and A. Lascaux, pp. 297310. Anthropological Field Studies No. 28. Office of Cultural Resource Management, Arizona State University, Tempe. Deaver, W. L., and R. Ciolek-Torrello 1995 Early Formative Period Chronology for the Tucson Basin. Kiva 60:481530. Dethlefsen, E., and J. Deetz 1966 Deaths Heads, Cherubs, and Willow Trees: Experimental Archaeology in Colonial Cemeteries. American Antiquity 31:502510. Dewar, R. E. 1991 Incorporating Variation in Occupation Span in Settlement-Pattern Analysis. American Antiquity 56:604620. Dewar, R. E., and K. A. McBride 1992 Remnant Settlement Patterns. In Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes, edited by J. Rossingnol and L. Wandsnider, pp. 227255. Plenum Press, New York. Di Peso, C. C. 1951 The Babocomari Village Site on the Babocomari River, Southeastern Arizona. Publication No. 5. Amerind Foundation, Dragoon, Arizona. 1953 The Sobaipuri Indians of the Upper San Pedro River Valley. Publication No. 6. Amerind Foundation, Dragoon, Arizona.

69

1956 The Upper Pima of San Cayetano del Tumacacori: An Archaeohistorical Reconstruction of the Ootam of the Pimera Alta. Publication No. 7. Amerind Foundation, Dragoon, Arizona. 1981 Discussion of Masse, Doelle, Sheridan and Reff Papers from Southwestern Protohistory Conference. In The Protohistoric Period in the American Southwest, A.D. 1450-1700, edited by D. R. Wilcox and W. B. Masse, pp. 113128. Anthropological Research Papers No. 24. Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. Dobyns, H. F. 1989 The Pima-Maricopa. Chelsea House Publishers, New York. Doelle, W. H. 1981 The Gila Pima in the Seventeenth Century. In The Protohistoric Period in the North American Southwest, AD 1450-1700, edited by D. R. Wilcox and W. B. Masse, pp. 5770. Anthropological Research Papers 24. Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. 1984 The Tucson Basin During the Protohistoric Period. The Kiva 49:195211.

1985 Excavations at the Valencia Site, a Preclassic Hohokam Village in the Southern Tucson Basin. Anthropological Papers No. 3. Institute for American Research, Tucson, Arizona. Doelle, W. H., and H. D. Wallace 1990 The Transition to History in the Pimera Alta. In Perspectives on Southwest Prehistory, edited by P. E. Minnis and C. L. Redman, pp. 239257. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Doyel, D. E. 1977 Excavations in the Middle Santa Cruz River Valley, Southeastern Arizona. Contributions to Highway Salvage Archaeology in Arizona No. 44. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1980 Hohokam Social Organization and the Sedentary to Classic Tradition. In Current Issues in Hohokam Prehistory, edited by F. Plog, pp. 2340. Anthropological Research Papers No. 23. Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. 1981 Late Hohokam Prehistory in Southern Arizona. Contributions to Archaeology No. 2. Gila Press, Scottsdale, Arizona. 1991 Hohokam Cultural Evolution in the Phoenix Basin. In Exploring the Hohokam: Prehistoric Desert People of the American Southwest, edited by G. J. Gumerman, pp. 231278. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

70

1993 Interpreting Prehistoric Cultural Diversity in the Arizona Desert. In Culture and Contact: C. Di Peso's Gran Chichimeca, edited by A. Woosley and J. Ravesloot, pp. 39 63. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 1995 A Regional Perspective on the Late Classic Period in the Phoenix Basin. In Archaeological Investigations at Pueblo Blanco: The MCDOT Alma School Road Project, edited by D. E. Doyel, A. T. Black, and B. S. Macnider, pp. 483495. Archaeological Resources Report No. 90. Archaeological Consulting Services, Tempe, Arizona. Doyel, D. E., and M. D. Elson 1985 Hohokam Settlement and Economic Systems in the Central New River Drainage, Arizona. Publications in Archaeology No. 4. Soil Systems, Phoenix, Arizona. Duff, A. I. 1996 Ceramic Micro-Seriation: Types or Attributes. American Antiquity 61:89101. Dunnell, R. C. 1970 Seriation Method and Its Evaluation. American Antiquity 35:305319. Dunnell, R. C., and W. S. Dancey 1983 The Siteless Survey: A Regional Scale Data Collection Strategy. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 5, edited by M. B. Schiffer. Academic Press, New York. Dunnell, R. C., and J. K. Feathers 1994 Thermoluminescence Dating of Surficial Archaeological Material. In Dating Exposed Surface Contexts, edited by C. Beck, pp. 115137. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Dykeman, D. D., R. H. Towner, and J. K. Feathers 2002 Correspondence in Tree-Ring and Thermoluminescence Dating: A Protohistoric Navajo Pilot Study. American Antiquity 67:145164. Ebert, J. I. 1992 Distributional Archaeology. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Eighmy, J. L., and D. E. Doyel 1987 A Reanalysis of First Reported Archaeomagnetic Dates for the Hohokam Area, Southern Arizona. Journal of Field Archaeology 14:331342. Eighmy, J. L., and J. B. Howard 1987 Contemporary Archaeomagnetic Results and the Accuracy of Archaeomagnetic Dates. Geoarchaeology 2:41-61.

71

Eighmy, J. L., and P. Y. Klein 1989 Comparing Archaeomagnetic Pole Positions in Chronometric Analysis of Archaeological Components. The Kiva 55:2332. Eighmy, J. L., and J. M. LaBelle 1996 Radiocarbon Dating of Twenty-Seven Plains Complexes and Phases. Anthropologist 41:5369. Plains

Eighmy, J. L., and R. H. McGuire 1989 Dating the Hohokam Phase Sequence: An Analysis of Archaeomagnetic Dates. Journal of Field Archaeology 16:215231. Eighmy J. L., and R. S. Sternberg (editors) 1990 Archaeomagnetic Dating. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Eighmy, J. L., R. S. Sternberg, and R. F. Butler 1980 Archaeomagnetic Dating in the American Southwest. American Antiquity 45:507 517. Eiselt, B. S. 2002 Historic Vernacular Dwellings on the Gila River Indian Community, Arizona. PMIP Technical Report No. 2002-11. Gila River Indian Community, Cultural Resources Management Program, Sacaton, Arizona. Eiselt, B. S., M. K. Woodson, J. Touchin, and E. Davis 2002 A Cultural Resources Assessment of the Casa Blanca Management Area, Pima Maricopa Irrigation Project (P-MIP), Gila River Indian Community, Arizona. P-MIP Report No. 8. Cultural Resources Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona. Elson, M. D. 1986 Archaeological Investigations at the Tanque Verde Wash Site: A Middle Rincon Settlement in the Eastern Tucson Basin. Anthropological Papers No. 7. Institute for American Research, Tucson, Arizona. Evan, C., and B. J. Meggars 1960 A New Dating Method Using Obsidian: Part II. American Antiquity 40:344348. Ezell, P. H. 1961 The Hispanic Acculturation of the Gila River Pimas. Anthropologist 63(5):Part 2, October 1961. Memoir 90. American

1983 History of the Pima. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 9, edited by A. Ortiz, pp. 149160. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

72

1994 Plants Without Water: The Pima-Maricopa Experience. Journal of the Southwest 36:315392. Fagan, B. 1983 Archaeology: A Brief Introduction. Little Brown, Boston, Massachusetts. Feathers, J. K. 1997 The Application of Luminescence Dating in American Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 4:167. 2000 Date List 7: Luminescence Dates for Prehistoric and Proto-Historic Pottery from the American Southwest. Ancient TL 18:5161. 2002 Thermoluminescence Dating of Pottery Sherds from the Sweetwater Site, Gila River Indian Community, Arizona. In Archaeological Investigations at the Sweetwater Site Along State Route 587 on the Gila River Indian Community, edited by M. K. Woodson, pp. 274278. P-MIP Technical Report No. 2002-14. Cultural Resources Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona. Feathers, J. K., and D. Rhode 1998 Luminescence Dating of Geoarchaeology 13:287308. Protohistoric Pottery from the Great Basin.

Feinman, G. M. 1991 Hohokam Archaeology in the Eighties: An Outside View. In Exploring the Hohokam, Prehistoric Desert Peoples of the American Southwest, edited by G. J. Gumerman, pp. 461483. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Fink, T. M. 1991 Paleonutrition and Paleopathology of the Salt River Hohokam: A Search for Correlates. Kiva 56(2):293318. Foley, R. A. 1981 Off-Site Archaeology and Human Adaptation in Eastern Africa: An Analysis of Regional Artefact Density in the Amboseli, Southern Kenya. B. A. R. International Series No. 97. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. Fontana, B. L. 1965 On the Meaning of Historic Sites Archaeology. American Antiquity 31:6165. Fontana, B. L., W. J. Robinson, C. W. Cormack, and E. E. Leavitt Jr. 1962 Papago Indian Pottery. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Ford, J. A. 1962 A Quantitative Method for Deriving Cultural Chronology. Pan American Union Technical Manual No. 1. University of Missouri, Columbia.

73

Foster, M. 2002 Floodwater and Other Water Utilization and Management Techniques. In Prehistoric Water Utilization and Technology in Arizona, edited by M. Foster, M. Woodson, and G. Huckleberry. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Phoenix, Arizona. Fowler, A. P. 1989 Ceramic Types of the Zuni Area. Archaeological Council Ceramics Workshop. Silver City, Nevada. Freter, A. 1993 Obsidian-Hydration Dating: Its Past, Present, and Future Application in Mesoamerica. Ancient Mesoamerica 4:285303. Friedman, I., and R. L. Smith 1960 A New Dating Method Using Obsidian: Part I. The Development of the Technique. American Antiquity 33:149155. Friedman, I., F. W. Trembour, and R. E. Hughes 1997 Obsidian Hydration Dating. In Chronometric Dating in Archaeology, edited by R. Taylor and M. Aitken, pp. 297321. Plenum Press, New York. Friedman, I., F. W. Trembour, F. L. Smith, and G. I. Smith 1994 Is Obsidian Hydration Dating Affected by Relative Humidity? Quaternary Research 41:185190. Fritz, H. C. 1976 Tree Rings and Climate. Academic Press, London. Garrett, B. G., and S. C. Russell 1983 A Model for the Household Complex of the Gila Pima: 18531920. In Alicia: The History of a Pima Homestead, edited by G. E. Rice, S. Upham, and L. Nicholas. Anthropological Field Studies No. 4. Office of Cultural Resource Management, Arizona State University, Tempe. Gasser, R. E., C. K. Robinson, and D.C. Breternitz 1990 Archaeology Of The Ak-Chin Indian Community West Side Farms Project: Subsistence Studies and Synthesis and Interpretation, Vol. 5. Soil Systems, Phoenix, Arizona. Gilpin, D., and D. A. Phillips 1998 The Prehistoric to Historic Transition Period in Arizona, Circa A.D. 1519 to 1692. Report Submitted to the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, Arizona State Parks Board, Phoenix.

74

Gladwin, H. S. 1942 Excavations at Snaketown III: Revisions. Medallion Papers No. 30. Gila Pueblo, Globe, Arizona. 1948 Excavations at Snaketown IV: Reviews and Conclusions. Medallion Papers No. 38. Gila Pueblo, Globe, Arizona. Gladwin, H. S., E. W. Haury, E. B. Sayles, and N. Gladwin 1937 Excavations at Snaketown: Material Culture. Medallion Papers No. 25. Gila Pueblo, Globe, Arizona. Graybill, D. A. 1989 Aspects of Climate, Streamflow, and Geomorphology Affecting Irrigation Systems in the Salt River Valley. In The 1982-1984 Excavations at Las Colinas: Environment and Subsistence, edited by C. A. Heathington and D. A. Gregory, pp. 3958. Archaeological Series No. 162. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. Graybill, D. A., D. A. Gregory, G. S. Funkhouser, and F. L. Nials 1999 Long-Term Streamflow Reconstructions, River Channel Morphology, and Aboriginal Irrigation Systems Along the Salt and Gila Rivers. In Environmental Change and Human Adaptation in the Ancient Southwest, edited by J. S. Dean and D. E. Doyel, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Grayson, D. K. 1993 The Deserts Past: A Natural Prehistory of the Great Basin. Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Smithsonian

Greenspan, R. L. 2003 Zooarchaeological Studies on the Gila River Indian Community, Arizona. P-MIP Technical Report No. 03-01. Cultural Resource Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona. Gregory, D. A. 1987 The Morphology of Platform Mounds and the Structure of Classic Period Hohokam Sites. In The Hohokam Village: Site Organization and Structure, edited by D. E. Doyel, pp. 183210. Southwestern and Rocky Mountain Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. 1988 Appendix B: The Chronology and General History of the Occupation. In The 19821984 Excavations at Las Colinas: The Site and Its Features, edited by D. A. Gregory, W. L. Deaver, S. K. Fish, R. Gardiner, R. W. Layhe, F. L. Nials, and L. S. Teague, pp. 319 332. Archaeological Series No. 162. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson.

75

1991 Form and Variation in Hohokam Settlement Patterns. In Chaco and Hohokam: Prehistoric Regional Systems in the American Southwest, edited by P. L. Crown and W. J. Judge, pp. 159194. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 1999 Data Integration and Synthesis. In Excavations in the Santa Cruz River Floodplain: The Middle Archaic Component at Los Pozos, edited by D. A. Gregory, pp. 85123. Anthropological Papers No. 20. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. 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. 237254. Anthropological Papers No. 21. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. 2001b Variation and Trend During the Early Agricultural Period. In Excavations in the Santa Cruz River Floodplain: The Early Agricultural Period Component at Los Pozos, edited by D. A. Gregory, pp. 255280. Anthropological Papers No. 21. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. Griffith, C. 1987 A Study of Historic Trade Networks in Tempe, Arizona. Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. Gumerman, G. J., and E. W. Haury 1979 Prehistory: Hohokam. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 9, edited by A. Ortiz, pp. 7590. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Hackbarth, M. R. 1992 Prehistoric and Historic Occupation of the Lower Verde River Valley: The State Route 87 Verde Bridge Project. Northland Research, Flagstaff, Arizona. 1995 Integration of the MTS Data with the Late Classic Period Hohokam. In Archaeology at the Head of the Scottsdale Canal System, Volume 3: Case Studies and Synthesis, edited by M. R. Hackbarth, T. K. Henderson, and D. B. Craig, pp. 173195. Anthropological Papers No. 95-1. Northland Research, Flagstaff, Arizona. Hackenberg, R. A. 1955 Economic and Political Change Among the Gila River Pima Indians. Unpublished manuscript on file, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. Hall, S. A. 1985 Quaternary Pollen Analysis and Vegetational History of the Southwest. In Pollen Records of Late-Quaternary North American Sediments, edited by V. M. Bryant and R. G. Holloway, pp. 95123. American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists Foundation, Dallas, Texas.

76

Hantman, J. S. 1983 Social Networks and Stylistic Distributions in the Prehistoric Plateau Southwest. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. Harris, E. 1989 Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy. 2nd edition. Academic Press, London. Harry, K. G., P. R. Fish, and S. K. Fish 2002 Ceramic Production and Distribution in Two Classic Period Hohokam Communities. In Ceramic Production and Circulation in the Greater Southwest: Source Determination by INAA and Complementary Mineralogical Investigations, edited by D. M. Glowacki and H. Neff, pp. 99110. Monograph 44. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Haury, E. W. 1937 Pottery Types. In Excavations at Snaketown: Material Culture, edited by H. S. Gladwin, E. W. Haury, E. B. Sayles, and N. Gladwin, pp. 168195. Medallion Papers No. 25. Gila Pueblo, Globe, Arizona. 1950 The Stratigraphy and Archaeology of Ventana Cave. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 1976 The Hohokam: Desert Farmers and Craftsmen--Excavations at Snaketown, 19641965. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Haynes, C. V. 1987 Curry Draw, Cochise County, Arizona: A Late Quaternary Stratigraphic Record of Pleistocene Extinction and Paleo-Indian Activities. In Geological Society of America Centennial Field Guide, Cordilleran Section, pp. 23-28. Geological Society of America, Tucson, Arizona. Haynes, C. V., D.C. Gregory, and A. Long 1971 Arizona Radiocarbon Dates VIII. Radiocarbon 13:118. Heidke, J. M., and A. Ferg 2001 Ceramic Containers and Other Artifacts of Clay. In Excavations in the Santa Cruz River Floodplain: The Early Agricultural Period Component at Los Pozos, edited by D. A. Gregory, pp. 163194. Anthropological Papers No. 21. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. Henderson, T. K. 1986 Site Structure and Development at La Ciudad: A Study of Community Organization. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe.

77

1987 Structure and Organization at La Ciudad. Management, Arizona State University, Tempe.

Office of Cultural Resource

1989 Prehistoric Agricultural Activities on the Lehi-Mesa Terrace: Excavations at La Cuenca del Sedimento. Northland Research, Flagstaff, Arizona. 2001 Chronology. In The Grewe Archaeological Research Project. Volume 1: Project Background and Feature Descriptions, edited by D. Craig, pp. 163207. Anthropological Papers No. 99-1. Northland Research, Flagstaff, Arizona. Henderson, T. K., and M. R. Hackbarth 2000 What is Going on at the Hohokam Village? A Fourteenth and Fifteenth Century Perspective. In The Hohokam Village Revisited, edited by D. E. Doyel, S. K. Fish, and P. R. Fish, pp. 287316. Southwestern and Rocky Mountain Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Fort Collins, Colorado. Howard, J. B. (editor) 1985 Courtyard Groups and Domestic Cycling: A Hypothetical Model of Growth. In Proceedings of the 1983 Hohokam Symposium: Part I, edited by A. Dittert and D. Dove, pp. 311326. Occasional Paper No. 2. Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix. 1987 The Lehi Canal System: Organization of a Classic Period Community. In The Hohokam Village: Site Structure and Organization, edited by D. E. Doyel, pp. 211221. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. 1988 Excavations at Casa Buena: Changing Hohokam Land Use along the Squaw Peak Parkway. 2 Vols. Publications in Archaeology No. 11. Soil Systems, Phoenix, Arizona. Howell, T. L. 1993 Archaeological Investigations at Los Guanacos: Exploring Cultural Changes in Late Hohokam Society. Northland Research, Flagstaff, Arizona. Huckell, B. B. 1984a The Archaic Occupation Of The Rosemont Area, Northern Santa Rita Mountains, Southeastern Arizona. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1984b Sobaipuri Sites in the Rosemont Area. In Miscellaneous Archaeological Studies in the ANAMAX-Rosemont Land Exchange Area, edited by M. D. Tagg, R. G. Ervin, and B. B. Huckell, pp. 107146. Archaeological Series No. 171. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1995a The Ventana Complex: New Dates and New Ideas on Its Place in Early Holocene Western Prehistory. Paper presented at the 60th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

78

1995b Of Marshes and Maize, Preceramic Agriculture 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. Prehistory 10:305371. Journal of World

Huckleberry, G. 1993 Surficial Geology of the Middle Gila River Area, North-Central Pinal County, Arizona. Open-File Report No. 93-3. Arizona Geological Survey, Tucson. 1996 Historical Geomorphology of the Gila River. Arizona Geological Survey, Tucson. Open-File Report No. 96-14.

1999 Stratigraphic Identification of Destructive Floods in Relict Canals: A Case Study from the Middle Gila River, Arizona. Kiva 65:735. Hull, K. L. 2001 Reasserting the Utility of Obsidian Hydration Fading: A Temperature-Dependent Empirical Approach to Practical Resolution with Archaeological Obsidians. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:10251048. Huntington, F. W. 1986 Archaeological Investigations at the West Branch Site. An Early and Middle Rincon Occupation in the Southern Tucson Basin. Anthropological Papers No. 5. Institute for American Research, Tucson, Arizona. Huntley, D. J., and M. Lamothe 2001 Ubiquity of Anomalous Fading in K-feldspars and the Measurement and Correction for it in Optical Dating. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 38:10931106. Irwin-Williams, C. 1967 Picosa: The Elementary Southwestern Culture. American Antiquity 32:441457. 1973 The Oshara Tradition: Origins of Anasazi Culture. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 5(1). Paleoindian Institute, Portales. 1979 Post-Pleistocene Archaeology, 70002000 B.C. In Handbook on North American Indians, Vol. 9, edited by A. Ortiz, pp. 3142. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Jennings, J. D. 1956 The American Southwest: A Problem in Cultural Isolation. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology No. 11. Society for American Archaeology, Salt Lake City, Utah.

79

1957 1973

Danger Cave. Anthropological Papers No. 27. University of Utah, Salt Lake City. The Short Useful Life of a Simple Hypothesis. Tebiwa 16:19.

Johnson, L. 1972 Introduction to Imaginary Models for Archaeological Scaling and Clustering. In Models in Archaeology, edited by D. L. Clark, pp. 309379. Methuen, London. Jones, G. T., and C. Beck 1992 Chronological Resolution in Distributional Archaeology. In Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes, edited by J. Rossingnol and L. Wandsnider, pp. 167192. Plenum Press, New York. 1999 Paleoarchaic Archaeology in the Great Basin. In Models for the Millennium: Great Basin Anthropology Today, edited by C. Beck, pp. 8395. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Kintigh, K. W. 1985 Social Structure, the Structure of Style, and Stylistic Patterns in Cibola Prehistory. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by B. A. Nelson, pp. 362385. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Kneale, A. H. 1935 Irrigation of Pima Lands. Indians at Work 2:3437. 1950 Indian Agent. Caxton Printers, Caldwell, Idaho. Dating: A Pilot Experiment.

Koho, Y. 1991 The Reliability of Thermoluminescence Geoarchaeology 6:367374.

Lalou, C., and G. Valladas 1989 Thermoluminescence Dating. In Nuclear Methods of Dating, edited by E. Roth and B. Poty, pp. 235273. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dortrecht, Germany. Lane, A. M. 1989 The Grand Canal Ceramic Assemblage: Ceramic Type Descriptions. In Archaeological Investigations at the Grand Canal Ruins: A Classic Period Site in Phoenix, Arizona, edited by D. R. Mitchell, pp. 249293. Publications in Archaeology No. 12. Soil Systems, Phoenix, Arizona. Lascaux, A., and J. C. Ravesloot 1993 Developmental History of the Site. In The Maricopa Road Site: A Pre-Classic Hohokam Village, edited by J. C. Ravesloot and A. Lascaux, pp. 2737. Anthropological Field Studies No. 28. Office of Cultural Resource Management, Arizona State University, Tempe.

80

Layhe, R. W. (editor) 1986 Archaeological Investigations at AZ U:14:75 (ASM): A Turn-of-the-Century Pima Homestead. Archaeological Series No. 172. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. LeBlanc, S. A. 1975 Micro-Seriation: A Method for Fine Chronological Differentiation. Antiquity 40:2238. American

1999 Prehistoric Warfare in the American Southwest. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah. Libby, W. F. 1955 Radiocarbon Dating. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. Loendorf, C., and G. E. Rice 2003 Projectile Point Typology, Gila River Indian Community, Arizona. Gila River Indian Community Anthropological Research Papers No. 2. Cultural Resources Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona. Long, A., and B. Rippeteau 1974 Testing Contemporaneity and Averaging Radiocarbon Dates. American Antiquity 39:205215. Mabry, J. B. (editor) 1997 Archaeological Investigations of Early Village Sites in the Middle Santa Cruz Valley: Site and Feature Descriptions. Anthropological Papers No. 18. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. 1998 Archaeological Investigations of Early Village Sites in the Middle Santa Cruz Valley: Analysis and Synthesis, Part II. Anthropological Papers No. 19. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. McCartney, P. H., O. Lindauer, G. E. Rice, and J. C. Ravesloot 1994 Chronological Methods. In Archaeology of the Salado in the Livingston Area of Tonto Basin: Roosevelt Mound Platform Study, Report on the Livingston Management Group, Pinto Creek Complex, Part I, edited by D. Jacobs, pp. 2135. Anthropological Field Studies No. 32. Office of Cultural Resource Management, Arizona State University, Tempe. McGlade, J. 1995 Archaeology and the Ecodynamics of Human-Modified Landscapes. 69:113120. McGregor, J. C. 1965 Southwestern Archaeology. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Antiquity

81

McGuire, R. H. 1982 Problems in Culture History. In Hohokam and Patayan: Prehistory of Southwestern Arizona, edited by R. H. McGuire and M. B. Schiffer, pp. 153222. Academic Press, New York. McKenna, J. A., and J. K. Swarthout 1984 An Archaeological Reconstruction of Piman Households in the Gila Butte-Santan Area. Report No. 62. Office of Cultural Resource Management, Arizona State University, Tempe. Majewski, T., and M. J. OBrien 1987 The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth-Century English and American Ceramics in Archaeological Analysis. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 11, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 97209. Academic Press, San Diego, California. Marmaduke, W. S., and T. K. Henderson 1995 Archaeology in the Distribution Division of the Central Arizona Project: Thoughts on the History of the Hohokam Culture of Southern Arizona, and on the Practice of Archaeology in the 1990's. Northland Research, Flagstaff, Arizona. Marquardt, W. H. 1978 Advances in Archaeological Seriation. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 1, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 257314. Academic Press, New York. Masse, W. B. 1981 A Reappraisal of Protohistoric Sobaipuri Indians of Southeastern Arizona. In The Protohistoric Period in the North American Southwest, A.D. 1450-1700, edited by D. R. Wilcox and W. B. Masse, pp. 2856. Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. 1982 Hohokam Ceramic Art: Regionalism and the Imprint of Societal Change. In Southwestern Ceramics: A Comparative Review, edited by A. H. Schroeder, pp. 71106. The Arizona Archaeologist No. 15. Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix. Matson, R. G. 1991 The Origins of Southwestern Agriculture. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Matson, R. G., and D. L. True 1974 Site Relationships at Quebrada Tarapaca, Chile: A Comparison of Clustering and Scaling Techniques. American Antiquity 39:51-74. Mazer, J. J., C. M. Stevenson, W. L. Ebert, and J. K. Bates 1991 The Experimental Hydration of Obsidian as a Function of Relative Humidity and Temperature. American Antiquity 56:504-513.

82

Meighan, C. W. 1970 Obsidian Hydration Rates. Science 3953:99100. 1976 Empirical Determination of Obsidian Hydration Rates from Archaeological Evidence. In Advances in Obsidian Glass Studies, edited by R. Taylor, pp. 106119. Noyes Press, Park Ridge, New Jersey. Michels, J. W., and I. S. T. Tsong 1980 Obsidian Hydration Dating: A Coming of Age. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 3, edited by M. Schiffer, pp. 405444. Academic Press, New York. Miksa, E. J., and S. Castro-Reino 2001 An Updated Sand Petrofacies Model for the Middle Gila River Basin. Petrographic Report No. 2001-02. Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. Mitchell, D. R. (editor) 1988 Excavations at La Lomita Pequea: A Santa Cruz/Sacaton Phase Hamlet in the Salt River Valley. Publications in Archaeology No. 10. Soil Systems, Phoenix, Arizona. 1994 The Pueblo Grande Project. Volume 2: Feature Descriptions, Chronology, and Site Structure. Publications in Archaeology No. 20. Soil Systems, Phoenix, Arizona. Morganstein, M. E., C. L. Wicket, and A. Barkatt 1999 Considerations of Hydration-rind Dating of Glass Artifacts: Alteration Morphologies and Experimental Evidence of Hydrogeochemical Soil-zone Pore Water Control. Journal of Archaeological Science 26:11931210. Morris, D. H. 1969 Red Mountain: An Early Pioneer Period Hohokam Site on the Salt River Valley of Central Arizona. American Antiquity 34:4053. Neitzel, J. E. 1984 The Regional Organization of the Hohokam in the American Southwest: A Stylistic Analysis of Red-on-buff Pottery. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. Nelson, B. A. 1991 Ceramic Frequency and Use-Life: A Highland Maya Case in Cross-cultural Perspective. In Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology, edited by W. Longacre, pp. 162181. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

83

Nelson, R. S. 1986 Pochtecas and Prestige: Mesoamerican Artifacts in Hohokam Sites. In Ripples in the Chichimec Sea: New Considerations of Southwestern-Mesoamerican Interactions, edited by F. J. Mathien and R. H. McGuire, pp. 154182. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. Newman, L., and M. K. Woodson 2002 Ceramics. In Archaeological Investigations at the Sweetwater Site Along State Route 587 on the Gila River Indian Community, edited by M. K. Woodson, pp. 121160. P-MIP Technical Report No. 2002-14. Cultural Resources Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona. Newman, L., and S. Eiselt 2003 P-MIP Ceramics Procedures Manual. P-MIP Technical Report No. 2003-09. Cultural Resources Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona. Nials, F. L., D. A. Gregory, and D. A. Graybill 1989 Salt River Streamflow and Hohokam Irrigation Systems. In The 1982-84 Excavations at Las Colinas; Environment and Subsistence, edited by D. A. Graybill, D. A. Gregory, F. L. Nials, S. K. Fish, R. Gasser, C. Miksicek, and C. Szuter, pp. 5976. Archaeological Series No. 162. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. Ortiz, A. 1973 The Gila River Piman Water Problem: An Ethnohistorical Account. In The Changing Ways of Southwestern Indians, A Historic Perspective, edited by A. H. Schroeder, pp. 245258. Rio Grande Press, Glorieta, New Mexico. Orton, C. 2000 Sampling in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Plog, F. 1973 Diachronic Anthropology. In Research and Theory in Current Archaeology, edited by C. L. Redman, pp. 181198. Wiley, New York. 1980 Explaining Culture Change in the Hohokam Preclassic. In Current Issues in Hohokam Prehistory: Proceedings of a Symposium, edited by D. E. Doyel and F. Plog, pp. 422. Anthropological Research Papers No. 23. Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. Plog, S., and J. L. Hantman 1986 Multiple Regression Analysis as a Dating Method in the American Southwest. In Spatial Organization and Exchange: Archaeological Survey on Northern Black Mesa, edited by S. Plog. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.

84

Ravesloot, J. C., and J. S. Czaplicki 1988 Dating and Site Development. In Hohokam Archaeology along Phase B of the Tucson Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project. Volume 2: Excavations at Fastimes (AZ AA:12:384), Rillito Phase Site in the Avara Valley, edited by J. S. Czaplicki and J. C. Ravesloot. Archaeological Series No. 178. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. Ravesloot, J. C., and A. Lascaux (editors) 1993 The Maricopa Road Site: A Pre-Classic Hohokam Village, AZ T:16:13 (ASU), Pinal County Arizona. Anthropological Field Studies No. 28. Office of Cultural Resource Management, Arizona State University, Tempe. Ravesloot, J. C., A. Lascaux, and J. H. Thiel (editors) 1992 Archaeological Studies of an Early Twentieth Century Pima Site: AZ U:9:44 (ASM), Maricopa County, Arizona. Anthropological Field Studies No. 27. Office of Cultural Resource Management, Arizona State University, Tempe. Ravesloot, J. C., C. Loendorf, M. R. Waters, and K. R. Adams 2003 Archaic Wells: Gila River Indian Community. Poster presented at the 68th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Ravesloot, J. C., and M. R. Waters 2003 Geoarchaeology and Archaeological Site Patterning on the Middle Gila River, Arizona. Journal of Field Archaeology, in press. Ravesloot, J. C., and S. M. Whittlesey 1987 Inferring the Protohistoric Period in Southern Arizona. In The Archaeology of the San Xavier Bridge Site (AZ BB:13:14) Tucson Basin, Southern Arizona, edited by J. C. Ravesloot, pp. 8198. Archaeological Series No. 171. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. Reff, D. T. 1990 Contact Shock and the Protohistoric Period in the Greater Southwest. In Perspectives on Southwest Prehistory, edited by P. E. Minnis and C. L. Redman, pp. 276288. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Regan, M. H. 2001 Physical Anthropology Research Design, Gila River Indian Community, Arizona. P-MIP Technical Report No. 01-03. Cultural Resource Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona. Rice, G. E. 1998 Structuring the Temporal Dimension for Tonto Basin Prehistory. In A Synthesis of Tonto Basin Prehistory: The Roosevelt Archaeological Studies, 1989 to 1998, edited by G. E. Rice, pp. 1132. Anthropological Field Studies No. 41. Office of Cultural Resource Management, Arizona State University, Tempe.

85

2001 Warfare and Massing in the Salt and Gila Basins of Central Arizona. In Deadly Landscapes: Case Studies in Prehistoric Southwestern Warfare, edited by G. Rice and S. A. LeBlanc. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2003 Archaic Research Design for the Gila River Indian Community, Arizona. P-MIP Technical Report No. 2002-10. Cultural Resources Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona. Rice, G. E., and J. C. Ravesloot 2001 Who Used the Areas between Villages? The Role of Camps, Activity Areas and Fields in the Study of Prehistoric Landscapes. P-MIP Technical Report No. 01-09. Cultural Resource Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona. 2003 A Design for the Archaeology of Public Architecture and Settlement Complexes. PMIP Technical Report No. 03-13. Cultural Resource Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona. Rice, G. E., S. Upham, and L. Nicholas (editors) 1983 Alicia, The History of a Piman Homestead. Anthropological Field Studies No. 4. Office of Cultural Resource Management, Arizona State University, Tempe. Ridings, R. 1996 Where in the World Does Obsidian Hydration Dating Work? American Antiquity 61:136-148. Riley, C. L. 1987 The Frontier People: The Greater Southwest in the Protohistoric Period. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Roberts, H., and R. V. N. Ahlstrom 1997 Malaria, Microbes, and Mechanisms of Change. Kiva 63:117135. Rodrigues, T. L., and C. Loendorf 2003 Bioarchaeology Research Design, Gila River Indian Community, Pinal County, Arizona. P-MIP Technical Report No. 03-08. Cultural Resource Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona. Roney, J. R., and R. J. Hard 2000 Una investigacin arquelgica de los sitios cerros con trincheras del arcico tardo en Chihuahua, Mxico, las investigaciones del campo de 1999. Special Report No. 26-S. University of Texas, Center for Archaeological Research, San Antonio. Roth, B., and B. B. Huckell 1993 Cortaro Points and the Archaic of Southern Arizona. The Kiva 57:353370.

86

Rowe, J. H. 1959 Archaeological Dating and Cultural Process. Anthropology 15:317-324.

Southwestern Journal of

Ruscavage, S. M. 1992 Ceramic Variability and Refuse Disposal Patterns at the Verde Bridge Sites. In Prehistoric and Historic Occupation of the Lower Verde River Valley: The State Route 87 Verde Bridge Project, edited by M. R. Hackbarth, pp. 145184. Northland Research, Flagstaff, Arizona. Russell, F. 1908 The Pima Indians. Twenty-Sixth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 19041905. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Sayles, E. B. 1983 The Cochise Cultural Sequence in Southeastern Arizona. Anthropological Papers No. 42. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Sayles, E. B., and E. Anteves 1941 The Cochise Culture. Medallion Papers No. 29. Gila Pueblo, Globe, Arizona. Schacht, R. M. 1984 The Contemporaneity Problem. American Antiquity 49:678695. Schiffer, M. B. 1982 Hohokam Chronology: An Essay on History and Method. In Hohokam and Patayan: Prehistory of Southwestern Arizona, edited by R. H. McGuire and M. B. Schiffer, pp. 299344. Academic Press, New York. 1986 Radiocarbon Dating and the Old Wood Problem: The Case of the Hohokam Chronology. Journal of Archaeological Science 13:1330. 1987 Formation Processes and the Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Schroeder, A. H. 1953 The Bearing of Architecture on Developments in the Hohokam Classic Period. American Antiquity 9:174193. Seymor, D. 1989 The Dynamics of Sobaipuri Settlement in the Eastern Pimera Alta. Journal of the Southwest 31:205222. Shennan, S. 1990 Quantifying Archaeology. Academic Press, San Diego, California.

87

Shott, M. J. 1992 Radiocarbon Dating as a Probabilistic Technique: The Childers Site and Late Woodland Occupation in the Ohio Valley. American Antiquity 57:202230. Simon, A. W. 2003 Ceramic Research Design for the Pima-Maricopa Irrigation Project (P-MIP). PMIP Technical Report 2003-12. Cultural Resources Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona. Sires, E. W. 1984 Excavations at El Polvorn. In Hohokam Archeology Along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project, Vol. IV, Part II: Prehistoric Occupation of the Queen Creek Delta, edited by L. S. Teague and P. L. Crown, pp. 219354. Archaeological Series No. 150. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. Skibo, J. M. 1994 Pottery Function: A Use-Alteration Perspective. Plenum Press, New York. Smiley, F. E., and R. V. N. Ahlstrom 1998 Archaeological Chronometry: Radiocarbon and Tree-Ring Models and Applications from Black Mesa, Arizona. Occasional Paper No. 16. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. South, S. 1972 Evolution and Horizon as Revealed in Ceramic Analysis in Historic Archaeology. The Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers 1971 6:71-116. 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Spaulding, A. C. 1978 Artifact Classes, Association, and Seriation. In Archaeological Essays in Honor of Irving B. Rouse, edited by R. C. Dunnell and E. S. Hall, pp. 2740. Mouton, The Hague. Spier, L. 1933 The Yuman Tribes of the Gila River. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. Sternberg, R. S. 1989 Secular Variation of Archaeomagnetic Direction in the American Southwest, A.D. 750-1425. Journal of Geophysical Research 94:527546. 1997 Archaeomagnetic Dating. In Chronometric and Allied Dating in Archaeology, edited by R. Taylor and M. Aitken, pp. 323356. Plenum Press, New York.

88

Sternberg, R. S., and R. H. McGuire 1990 Secular Variation in the American Southwest: A.D. 7001450. In Archaeomagnetic Dating, edited by J. Eighmy and R. Sternberg, pp. 199225. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Stevenson, C. M., M. Gottsman, and M. Macko 2000 Redefining the Working Assumptions of Obsidian Hydration Dating. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 22:223236. Stevenson, C. M., J. J. Mazer, and B. E. Scheetz 1998 Laboratory Obsidian Hydration Rates. In Archaeological Obsidian Studies: Method and Theory, edited by M. Shackley, pp. 181204. Plenum Press, New York. Stokes, M. A., and T. L. Smiley 1968 An Introduction to Tree Ring Dating. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Stone, C. L., and T. W. Bostwick 1996 Environmental Contexts and Archaeological Correlates: The Transition to Farming in Three Regions of the Arizona Desert. In Early Formative Adaptations in the Sonoran Southwest, edited by B. J. Roth, pp. 1726. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 25. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Stuiver, M., and B. Becker 1986 High-precision Decadal Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale, A.D. 1950 2500. Radiocarbon 28:863910. Stuiver, M., and G. W. Pearson 1986 High-precision Decadal Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale, A.D. 1950500 B.C. Radiocarbon 28:805838. Stuiver, M., and P. J. Reimer 1993 Extended 14C Database and Revised CALIB Radiocarbon Calibration Program. Radiocarbon 35:215230. Stuiver, M., and H. E. Suess 1966 On the Relationship Between Radiocarbon Dates and True Sample Age. Radiocarbon 8:534540. Suess, H. E. 1965 Secular Variations of Cosmic Ray-produced Carbon-14 in the Atmosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research 70:5937. Szuter, C. R., and F. E. Bayham 1987 Faunal Exploitation During the Late Archaic and Pioneer Periods. Presented at the 1987 Hohokam Conference, Tempe, Arizona. Paper

89

Taylor, R. E. 1987 Radiocarbon Dating: An Archaeological Perspective. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. Teague, G. A. 1980 Reward Mina and Associated Sites, Historical Archaeology on the Papago Reservation. Publications in Anthropology No. 11. Western Archaeological Center, Tucson, Arizona. Teague, L. S., and P. L. Crown 1984 Hohokam Archaeology Along The Salt-Gila Aqueduct CAP. Vol. IX: Synthesis and Conclusions. Archaeological Series No. 150. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. Thomas, D. H. 1975 Nonsite Sampling in Archaeology: Up the Creek without a Site? In Sampling in Archaeology, edited by J. W. Mueller, pp. 6181. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. True, D. L., and R. G. Matson 1970 Cluster Analysis and Multidimensional Scaling of Archaeological Sites in Northern Chile. Science 169:12011203. Wallace, H. D. 1992 Cross-Dating the Gila Butte Phase and a Reconsideration of the Ceramic Type Gila Butte Red-on-buff. In Synthesis and Conclusions. The Rye Creek Project: Archaeology in the Upper Tonto Basin, Vol. 3, edited by M. D. Elson and D. B. Craig, pp. 2954. Anthropological Papers No. 17. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. 2000 Excavations at Valencia Vieja. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona, in preparation. 2001 Time Seriation and Typological Refinement of the Middle Gila Buffware Sequence: Snaketown Through Soho Phase. In The Grewe Archaeological Research Project. Volume 2: Material Culture, Part I: Ceramic Studies, edited by D. R. Abbott, pp. 177 272. Anthropological Papers No. 99-1. Northland Research, Tempe, Arizona. Wallace, H. D., and D. B. Craig 1988 A Reconsideration of the Tucson Basin Hohokam Chronology. In Recent Research on Tucson Basin Prehistory: Proceedings of the Second Tucson Basin Conference, edited by W. H. Doelle and P. R. Fish, pp. 929. Anthropological Papers No. 10. Institute for American Research, Tucson, Arizona. Wallace, H. D., and W. H. Doelle 2001 Classic Period Warfare in Southern Arizona. In Deadly Landscapes: Case Studies in Prehistoric Southwestern Warfare, edited by G. Rice and S. A. LeBlanc. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

90

Wallace, H. D., J. M. Heidke, and W. H. Doelle 1995 Hohokam Origins. Kiva 60:575618. Ward, G. K., and S. R. Wilson 1978 Procedures for Comparing and Combining Radiocarbon Age Determinations: A Critique. Archaeometry 20:1931. Washburn, D. K., and R. G. Matson 1985 Use of Multidimensional Scaling to Display Sensitivity of Symmetry Analysis of Patterned Design to Spatial and Chronological Change: Examples from Anasazi Prehistory. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by B. A. Nelson, pp. 75101. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. Waterbolk, H. T. 1983 The Integration of Radiocarbon Dating in Archaeology. Radiocarbon 25:639644. Waters, M. R. 1986a The Geoarchaeology of Whitewater Draw, Arizona. Anthropological Papers No. 45. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 1986b Geoarchaeological Investigations of the Picacho Study Area. In Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers of South Central Arizona: The Picacho Reservoir Archaic Project, edited by F. E. Bayham, D. H. Morris, and S. Shackley, pp. 1736. Anthropological Field Studies No. 13. Office of Cultural Resource Management, Arizona State University, Tempe. 2001a Surficial Geologic Map of the Gila River Indian Community. P-MIP Technical Report No. 96-1. Cultural Resource Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona. 2001b Geoarchaeological Studies, Gila River Indian Community. P-MIP Technical Report No. 2001-12. Cultural Resources Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona. Waters, M. R., and J. C. Ravesloot 2000 Late Quaternary Geology of the Middle Gila River, Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona. Quaternary Research 54:4957. 2001 Landscape Change and the Cultural Evolution of the Hohokam Along the Middle Gila River and Other River Valleys in Southern Arizona. American Antiquity 66:285 299. 2003 Disaster or Catastrophe: Human Adaptation to High- and Low-Frequency Landscape Processes, A Reply to Ensor, Ensor, and DeVries. American Antiquity 68:400405.

91

Weed, C. S. 1974 Preliminary Report on the Las Colinas Ceramics. Unpublished manuscript on file, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. Wells, E. C. 2003a Protohistoric Settlement in the Gila River Indian Community, Arizona. P-MIP Technical Report No. 2002-14. Cultural Resources Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona. 2003b The Archaeology of Dry-Farming Agrosystems in the Middle Gila River Basin, Central Arizona. P-MIP Technical Report No. 01-07. Cultural Resource Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona. Wells, E. C., and R. L. Greenspan 2002 A Cultural Resources Assessment of the Lone Butte Management Area, PimaMaricopa Irrigation Project, Gila River Indian Community, Arizona. P-MIP Report No. 12. Cultural Resources Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona. Wells, E. C., G. E. Rice, and J. C. Ravesloot 2003 Peopling Landscapes between Villages in the Middle Gila River Valley of Central Arizona. American Antiquity, under review. Whallon, R. 1987 Simple Statistics. In Quantitative Research in Archaeology: Progress and Prospects, edited by M. S. Aldenderfer, pp. 135150. Sage Publications, London. Whittfogel, K. A. 1959 Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. Whittlesey, S. M. 1986 The Ceramic Assemblage. In The 1985 Excavations at the Hodges Sites, Pima County, Arizona, edited by R. W. Layhe, pp. 61126. Archaeological Series No. 170. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1996 Culture History: Prehispanic Narratives for Southern Arizona. In Background and Research Design for Prehistoric Archaeological Resources, edited by C. Van West and S. Whittlesey, pp. 4580. Cultural Resource Management Plan for the Fairfield Canoa Ranch Property Vol. 1. Statistical Research, Tucson, Arizona. Whittlesey, S. M., T. Majewski, J. R. Welch, M. C. Bischoff, and R. Ciolek-Torrello 1998 Euroamerican History, 1540 to the Present. In Vanishing River: Landscapes and Lives of the Lower Verde Valley, the Lower Verde Archaeological Project, edited by S. M. Whittlesey, R. Ciolek-Torrello, and J. H. Altschul, pp. 281336. SRI Press, Tucson, Arizona.

92

Wilcox, D. R. 1979 The Hohokam Regional System. In An Archaeological Test of the Sites in the Gila Butte-Santan Region, South-Central Arizona, edited by G. Rice, D. Wilcox, K. Rafferty, and J. Schoenwetter, pp. 77116. Anthropological Research Papers No. 18. Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona. 1980 The Current Status of the Hohokam Concept. In Current Issues in Hohokam Prehistory: Proceedings of a Symposium, edited by D. E. Doyel and F. Plog, pp. 236 242. Anthropological Research Paper 23. Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. 1988 The Regional Context of the Brady Wash and Picacho Area Sites. In Hohokam Settlement Along the Slopes of the Picacho Mountains, Tucson Aqueduct Project, Vol. 6: Synthesis and Conclusions, edited by R. Ciolek-Torrello and Dr. R. Wilcox, pp. 244267. Research Paper No. 35. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff. 1991 The Mesoamerican Ballgame in the American Southwest. In The Mesoamerican Ballgame, edited by V. L. Scarborough and D. R. Wilcox, pp. 101125. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. Wilcox, D. R., and W. B. Masse (editors) 1981 The Protohistoric Period in the American Southwest, A.D. 14501700. Anthropological Research Papers No. 24. Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. Wilcox, D. R., T. R. McGuire, and C. Sternberg 1981 Snaketown Revisited: A Partial Cultural Resource Survey, Analysis of Site Structure, and an Ethnohistoric Study of the Proposed Hohokam-Pima National Monument. Archaeological Series No. 155. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona., Tucson. Wilcox, D. R., and L. O. Shenk 1977 The Architecture of Casa Grande and Its Interpretation. Archaeological Series No. 115. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. Wilcox, D. R., and C. Sternberg 1983 Hohokam Ballcourts and Their Interpretation. Archaeological Series No. 160. Arizona State University, Tucson, Arizona. Willig, J. A., and C. M. Aikens 1988 The Clovis-Archaic Interface in Far Western North America. In Early Human Occupation in Far Western North America: The Clovis-Archaic Interface, edited by J. A. Willig and C. M. Aikens, pp. 140. Anthropological Papers No. 21. Nevada State Museum, Carson City, Nevada.

93

Willigen, J. V. 1970 Contemporary Pima House Construction Practices. The Kiva 36:110. Wills, W. H., and B. B. Huckell 1994 Economic Implications of Changing Land-Use Patterns in the Late Archaic. In Themes in Southwest Prehistory, edited by G. J. Gumerman, pp. 3352. School of American Research, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Wilson, J. P. 1999 Peoples of the Middle Gila: A Documentary History of the Pimas and Maricopas, 1500s1945. Unpublished manuscript on file, Cultural Resource Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona. Windes, T. 1977 Typology and Technology of Anasazi Ceramics. In Settlement and Subsistence along the Lower Chaco River: The CGP Survey, edited by C. A. Reher, pp. 279370. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Winter, J. C. 1973 Cultural Modifications of the Gila Pima: A.D. 1697A.D. 1846. Ethnohistory 20:67-77. Wolfman, D. 1984 Geomagnetic Dating Methods in Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 7, edited by M. Schiffer, pp. 353458. Academic Press, New York. Woodson, M. K. 2002 Appendix A: AMS Results. In Archaeological Investigations at the Sweetwater Site Along State Route 587 on the Gila River Indian Community, edited by M. K. Woodson. P-MIP Technical Report No. 2002-14. Cultural Resources Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona. 2003 A Research Design for the Study of Prehistoric and Historic Irrigation Systems in the Middle Gila Valley, Arizona. P-MIP Technical Report No. 03-10. Cultural Resource Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona. Woodson, M. K. (editor) 2002 Archaeological Investigations at the Sweetwater Site Along State Route 587 on the Gila River Indian Community. P-MIP Technical Report No. 2002-14. Cultural Resources Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona. Woodson, M. K., and D. Morgan 2002 Data Recovery Results. In Archaeological Investigations at the Sweetwater Site Along State Route 587 on the Gila River Indian Community, edited by M. K. Woodson, pp. 58120. P-MIP Technical Report No. 2002-14. Cultural Resources Management

94

Program, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona. Wright, C. C. 1935 Marketing Alfalfa and Other Forage Crops by Pasturing Beef Cattle and Making Hay on the Pima Reservation. Indians at Work 3:3741. Zimmer, K. S. 1994 Human Geography and the New Ecology: The Prospect and Promise of Integration. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 84:108125.

95

APPENDIX REFERENCES FOR ARTIFACT ANALYSIS

96

Sources for the Analysis of Prehistoric and Historic Pottery

Abbott, D. R. 1984 A Technological Assessment of Ceramic Variation in the Salt-Gila Aqueduct Area: Toward a Comprehensive Documentation of Hohokam Ceramics. In Hohokam Archaeology along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project, Volume 8, Material Culture, edited by L. S. Teague and P. L. Crown, pp. 3117. Archaeological Series Report No. 150. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. 2000 Ceramics and Community Organization among the Hohokam. Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. University of

Abbott, D. L. (editor) 1994 The Pueblo Grande Project, Volume 3: Ceramics and the Production and Exchange of Pottery in the Central Phoenix Basin. Publications in Archaeology No. 20. Soil Systems, Phoenix, Arizona. Bayman, J. M., and R. M. Ryan 1988 Lower Colorado Buffware and the Protohistoric Period in Southern Arizona. Pottery Southwest 15(1). Beckwith, K. E. 1986 Ceramics. In Archaeological Investigations at AZ U:14:75 (ASM), a Turn-of-thecentury Pima Homestead, edited by R. W. Layhe, pp. 5974. Archaeological Series No. 172. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. Bishop, R. L., V. Canouts, S. P. De Atley, A. Qoyawayma, and C. W. Aikins 1988 The Formation of Ceramic Analytical Groups: Hopi Pottery Production and Exchange, A.C. 1300-1600. Journal of Field Archaeology 15:317337. Carlson, R. L. 1970 White Mountain Redware: A Pottery Tradition of East-Central Arizona and Western New Mexico. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Coinman, N. R. 1981 Pima Ceramics: Analysis and Preliminary Descriptions. Unpublished manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. Colton, H. S. (editor) 1958 Pottery Types of the Southwest. Ceramic Series No. 3D. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

97

Crown, P. L. 1981 Analysis of Las Colinas Ceramics. In The 1968 Excavations at Mound 8, Las Colinas Ruins Group, Phoenix, Arizona, edited by L. C. Hammack and A. P. Sullivan, pp. 87169. Archaeological Series No. 154. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1984 Design Variability in Salt-Gila Aqueduct Red-on-Buff Ceramics. In Hohokam Archaeology along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project, Volume 8, Material Culture, edited by L. S. Teague and P.L. Crown, pp.205248. Archaeological Series No. 150. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1983 Intrusive Ceramics and the Identification of Hohokam Exchange Networks. In Proceedings of the 1983 Hohokam Symposium, edited by A.D. Dittert and D. E. Dove, pp. 439458. Occasional Paper 2. Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix. 1994 Ceramics and Ideology: Salado Polychrome Pottery. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Crown, P. L., and R. L. Bishop 1987 The Manufacture of the Salado Polychromes. Pottery Southwest 4(1). Deaver, W. L. 1990 Native American Ceramics. In Archaeology of the Ak-Chin Indian Community West Side Farms Project, Volume 4: Material Culture and Human Remains, edited by R. E. Gasser, C. K. Robinson, and C. D. Breternitz, pp. 15.115.35. Publications in Archaeology No. 9. Soil Systems, Phoenix, Arizona. Debolt, G. 1994 Debolt's Dictionary of American Pottery Marks: Whiteware & Porcelain. Collector Books, Paducah, Kentucky. Fontana, B., W. J. Robinson, C. W. Cormack, and E. E. Leavitt, Jr. 1962 Papago Indian Pottery. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Franciosi, D., and D. A. Gregory 1994 Historic Pima Ceramics. In An Archaeological Survey in the Blackwater Area, Vol.1, The History of Human Settlement in the Blackwater Area, edited by David A. Gregory and Gary Huckleberry, pp. C.3C.29. Cultural Resources Report No. 86. Archaeological Consulting Services, Ltd., Tempe, Arizona. Haury, E. W. 1937 Pottery Types at Snaketown. In Excavation at Snaketown: Material Culture, by H. S. Gladwin, E. W. Haury, E. B. Sayles, and N. Gladwin, pp. 169229. Medallion Papers No. 25. Gila Pueblo, Globe, Arizona.

98

1976 The Hohokam: Desert Farmers and Craftsmen. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Hayden, J. D. 1959 Notes on Pima Pottery Making. The Kiva 24(3):1017. Henderson, T. K. 1995 Prehistoric Ceramics. In The Prehistoric Archaeology of Heritage Square. Anthropological Papers No. 3, pp. 79110. Pueblo Grande Museum, Phoenix, Arizona. Kintigh, K. W. 1985 Social Structure, The Structure of Style, and Stylistic Patterns in Cibola Prehistory. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by B. A. Nelson, pp. 362385. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Lehner, L. 1988 Lehner's Encyclopedia of U.S. Marks on Pottery, Porcelain & Clay. Collector Books, Paducah, Kentucky. Majewski, T., and M. O'Brien 1987 The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth-Century English and American Ceramics in Archaeological Analysis. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 11:97209. Rice, P. M. 1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. Rogers, M. J. 1936 Yuman Pottery Making. San Diego Museum Papers No. 2. San Diego Museum, San Diego, California. Schroeder, A. H. (editor) 1982 Southwestern Ceramics: A Comparative Review. The Arizona Archaeologist No. 15. Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix. Simon, A. W. (editor) 1998 Salado Ceramics and Social Organization: Prehistoric Interactions in Tonto Basin The Roosevelt Archaeology Studies, 1989 to 1998. Roosevelt Monograph Series 11, Anthropological Field Studies 40. Office of Cultural Resource Management, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. Skibo, J. M. 1992 Pottery Function: A Use-Alteration Perspective. Plenum Press, New York.

99

Wallace, H. D. 1995 Decorated Buffware and Brownware Ceramics. In Roosevelt Community Development Study, Volume 2: Ceramic Chronology, Technology, and Economics. Anthropological Papers No. 14. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. Walsh-Anduze, M.-E. 1993 The Sourcing of Hohokam Red-On-Buff Ceramics Using Inductively Coupled Plasma Spectroscopy: "Schist Happens". M. A. Thesis, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff. Windes, T. 1977 Typology and Technology of Anasazi Ceramics. In Settlement and Subsistence along the Lower Chaco River: The CGP Survey, edited by C. A. Reher, pp. 279370. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Whittlesey, S. M. 1987 A Stylistic Study of Tanque Verde Red-On-Brown Pottery. In The Archaeology of the San Xavier Bridge Site (AZ BB:13:14), Tucson Basin, Southern Arizona, edited by J.C. Ravesloot, pp. 117147. Archaeological Series No. 171. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. Wood, J. S. 1987 Checklist of Pottery Types for the Tonto National Forest: An Introduction to the Archaeological Ceramics of Central Arizona. The Arizona Archaeologist No. 21. Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix.

100

Sources for the Analysis of Flaked and Ground Stone

Adams, J. L. 1997 Manual for a Technological Approach to Ground Stone Analysis. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. Ahler, S. A. 1971 Projectile Point Form and Function at Rodgers Shelter, Missouri. Missouri Archaeological Research Series Report No. 8. Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia, Missouri. 1989 Mass Analysis of Flaking Debris: Studying the Forest Rather than the Tree. In Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, edited by Donald O. Henry and George H. Odell. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 1. American Anthropological Association, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Amick, D. S. and R. P. Mauldin 1989 Comments on Sullivan and Rozens Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity 54(1):166168. Bamforth, D. B. 1986 Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation. American Antiquity 51:3850. Bleed, P. 1986 The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintainability or Reliability. American Antiquity 51(4):737747. Bostwick, T. W. and J. H. Burton 1993 A Study in Sourcing Hohokam Basalt Ground Stone Implements. The Kiva 58(3):357-372. Callahan, E. 1979 The Basics of Biface Knapping in the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition: A Manual for Flintknappers and Lithic Analysts. Archaeology of Eastern North America 7(1):1180. Collins, M. B. 1975 Lithic Technology as a Means of Processual Inference. In Lithic Technology: Making and Using Stone Tools, edited by E. Swanson. Mouton, The Hague. Crabtree, D. E. 1971 Grinding and Smoothing of Stone Artifacts. Tebiwa 14(1):14. 1972 An Introduction to Flintworking. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State University Museum No. 28. Idaho State University, Pocatello.

101

1973a Experiments in Replicating Hohokam Points. Tebiwa 16(1):1045. 1973b The Obtuse Angle as a Functional Edge. Tebiwa 16(1):19. Del Bene, T. A. 1979 Once Upon a Striation; Current Models of Striation and Polish Formation. In Lithic Use-wear Analysis, edited by B. Hayden. Academic Press, New York. Elson, M., and J. Clark (editors) 1995 The Roosevelt Community Development Study, Volume 1: Stone and Shell Artifacts. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. Elson, M., and J. Gunderson 1992 The Mineralogy and Sourcing of Argillite Artifacts: A Preliminary Examination of Procurement, Production, and Distribution Systems. In The Rye Creek project: Archaeology in the Upper Tonto Basin, vol. 2: Artifact and Specific Analyses. Anthropological Papers No. 11. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. 1994 X-Ray Diffraction Results of the Sourcing of Argillite Artifacts from Pueblo Grande (AZ U:9:7 ASM). In The Pueblo Grande Project, Volume 4: Material Culture, edited by M. S. Foster. Publications in Archaeology No. 20. Soil Systems, Phoenix, Arizona. Ericson, J. E. 1984 Toward the Analysis of Lithic Production Systems. In Prehistoric Quarries and Lithic Production, edited by J. E. Ericson and B. A. Purdy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Flenniken, J. J. and A. W. Raymond 1986 Morphological Projectile Point Typology; Replication Experimentation and Technological Analysis. American Antiquity 51(4):603614. Frison, G. C. 1968 A Functional Analysis of Certain Chipped Stone Tools. American Antiquity 33(2):149155. Goodyear, A. C. 1974 The Brand Site: A Technological Study of a Dalton Site in Northeast Arkansas. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series No. 7. Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Fayetteville, North Carolina.

102

Halbirt, C. D. 1989 Modeling Prehistoric Behavior from the Analysis of Ground-Stone Assemblages. In Hohokam Archaeology along Phase B of the Tucson Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project, Vol. 1: Syntheses and Interpretations, edited by J. S. Czaplicki and J. C. Ravesloot, pp. 439476. Archaeological Series Report No. 178. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. Harbottle, G. 1982 Chemical Characterization in Archaeology. Contexts for Prehistoric Exchange, edited by J. E. Ericson and T. K. Earle. Academic Press, New York. Haury, E. W. 1932 Roosevelt 9:6: A Hohokam Site of the Colonial Period. Medallion Papers No. 11, Gila Pueblo, Globe, Arizona. 1937 Stone: Palettes and Ornaments. In Excavations at Snaketown: Material Culture, by H. S. Gladwin, E. W. Haury, E. B. Sayles, and N. Gladwin. Medallion Paper No. 24(1). Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1945 The Excavation of Los Muertos and Neighboring Ruins in the Salt River Valley, Southern Arizona. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology No. 24(1). Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1950 The Stratigraphy and Archaeology of Ventana Cave. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 1976 The Hohokam: Desert Farmers and Craftsmen. Excavations at Snaketown. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Hayden, B. 1987 Traditional Metate Manufacturing in Guatemala Using Chipped Stone Tools. In Lithic Studies among the Contemporary Highland Maya, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 8 119. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Hayden, B. (editor) 1979 Lithic Use-wear Analysis. Academic Press, New York. Hayden, B., N. Franco, and J. Spafford 1996 Evaluating Lithic Strategies and Design Criteria. In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by G. H. Odell. Plenum Press, New York. Haynes-Peterson, R. 1993 Flaked Stone Collection. In Maricopa Road Site: A Pre-Classic Hohokam Village AZ T:16:13ASU, edited by J. C. Ravesloot and A. Lascaux. Anthropological Field Studies No. 28. Cultural Resource Management Program, Arizona State University, Tempe.

103

Hoffman, C. M. 1985 Projectile Point Maintenance and Typology: Assessment with Factor Analysis and Canonical Correlation. In For Concordance in Archaeological Analysis: Bridging Data Structure, Quantitative Technique and Theory, edited by C. Carr. Westport Publishers, Kansas City, Missouri. 1997 Alliance Formation and Social Interaction During the Sedentary Period: A Stylistic Analysis of Hohokam Arrowpoints. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. Hoffman, T. L. 1985a Ground Stone Tool Production in the New River Basin. In Hohokam Settlement and Economic Systems in the Central New River Drainage, Arizona, edited by D. E. Doyel and M. D. Elson. Publications in Archaeology No.4. Soil Systems, Phoenix, Arizona. 1985b Pecked and Ground Stone Artifacts. In Hohokam Settlement and Economic Systems in the Central New River Drainage, Arizona, edited by D. E. Doyel and M. D. Elson, pp. 565591. Publications in Archaeology No. 4. Soil Systems, Phoenix, Arizona. Hoffman, T. L., and D. E. Doyel 1985a Analysis of Chipped Stone Artifacts. In Hohokam Settlement and Economic Systems in the Central New River Drainage, Arizona, edited by D. E. Doyel and M. D. Elson, pp. 593649. Publications in Archaeology No. 4. Soil Systems, Phoenix, Arizona. 1985b Ground Stone Tool Production in the New River Basin. In Hohokam Settlement and Economic Systems in the Central New River Drainage, Arizona, edited by D. E. Doyel and M. D. Elson, pp. 521-564. Publications in Archaeology No. 4. Soil Systems, Phoenix, Arizona. Holmes, W. H. 1919 Handbook of Aboriginal American Antiquities, Part 1: The Lithic Industries. Bulletin of the Bureau of American Ethnology 60. Washington, D.C.. Kamminga, J. 1979 The Nature of Use-polish and Abrasive Smoothing on Stone Tools. In Lithic Usewear Analysis, edited by B. Hayden. Academic Press, New York. Keeley, L. H. 1980 Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. Kelly, R. L. 1988 The Three Sides of a Biface. American Antiquity 53:717734.

104

Luedtke, B. E. 1992 An Archaeologists Guide to Chert and Flint. Archaeological Research Tools No. 7. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Muto, G. 1971 A Technological Analysis of the Early Stages in the Manufacture of Lithic Artifacts. Unpublished Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, Idaho State University, Pocatello. Nelson, M. C. 1991 The Study of Technological Organization. In Archaeological Method and Theory Vol.3, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 57100. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 1996 Technological Strategies Responsive to Subsistence Stress. In Evolving Complexity and Environmental Risk in the Prehistoric Southwest, edited by J. A. Tainter and B. B. Bagley. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, New York. Odell, G. H. 1981 The Morphological Express at Function Junction: Searching for Meaning in Lithic Tool Types. Journal of Anthropological Research 37:319342. Parry, W. J. and R. L. Kelly 1987 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organization of Core Technology, edited by J. K. Johnson and C. A. Morrow, pp. 285304. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Prentiss, W. and E. Romanski 1989 Experimental Evaluation of Sullivan and Rozens Debitage Typology. In Experiments in Lithic Technology, edited by D. Amick and R. Mauldin, pp. 8999. International Series No. 528. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. Purdy, B. 1975 Fractures for the Archaeologist. In Making and Using Stone Tools, edited by E. Swanson. Aldine, Chicago, Illinois. Rozen, K. C. 1984 Flaked Stone. In Hohokam Habitation Sites in the Northern Santa Rita Mountains , Vol. 1, Part 1. Archaeological Series No. 147. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. Sackett, J. R. 1982 Approaches to Style in Lithic Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:59112.

105

Sayles, E. B. 1937 Stone: Implements and Bowls. In Excavations at Snaketown: Material Culture, by H. S. Gladwin, E.W. Haury, E. B. Sayles, and N. Gladwin. Medallion Paper No. 25. Gila Pueblo, Globe, Arizona. Shackley, M. S. 1988 Sources of Archaeological Obsidian in the Southwest: An Archaeological, Petrological, and Geochemical Study. American Antiquity 53(4):752772. 1995 Sources of Archaeological Obsidian in the Greater Southwest: An Update and Quantitative Analysis. American Antiquity 60(3):531551. Shott, M. 1986 Technological Organization and Settlement Mobility: Examination. Journal of Anthropological Research 42:1551. 1997 An Ethnographic

Metric Discrimination of Chipped-Stone Points. American Antiquity 62(1):86102.

Slaughter, M., L. Fratt, Anderson Kirkand, and R. Van Ahlstrom 1992 Making and Using Stone Artifacts: Lithic Sites in Arizona. Archaeological Report No. 92-5. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Tucson, Arizona. Sliva, R. J. 1997 Introduction to the Study and Analysis of Flaked Stone Artifacts and Lithic Technology. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. 1999 Flaked Stone Artifacts. In Excavations in the Santa Cruz River Floodplain: The Middle Archaic Component at Los Pozos, edited by David A. Gregory, pp. 3335. Anthropological Papers No. 20. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. Stahle, D. W. and J. L. Dunn 1982 An Analysis and Application of the Size Distribution of Waste Flakes from the Manufacture of Bifacial Stone Tools. World Archaeology 14(1):8497. Sullivan, A. P. and K. C. Rosen 1985 Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity 50(3):755779. Thomas, D. 1978 Arrowheads and Atlatl Darts: How the Stones Got the Shaft. American Antiquity 43:461472. Tringham, R., G. Cooper, G. Odell, B. Voytek, and A. Whitman 1974 Experimentation in the Formation of Edge Damage: A New Approach to Lithic Analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology 1:171196.

106

Vaughn, P. C. 1985 Use-wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Whittaker, J. C. 1994 Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools. University of Texas Press, Austin. Wilmsen, E. N. 1968 Functional Analysis of Flaked Stone Artifacts. American Antiquity 33(2):156161. Woodbury, R. B. 1954 Prehistoric Stone Implements of Northeastern Arizona: Reports of the Awatovi Expedition. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University 34. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

107

Sources for the Analysis of Historic Artifacts

Albert, A. H. 1976 Record of American Uniform and Historical Buttons: Bicentennial Edition. Boyertown Publishing Co., Boyertown, Pennsylvania. ALPCA 1997 Arizona. ALPCA Newsletter: The Official Publication of the Automobile License Plate Collectors Association 43(3), Boulder, Colorado. Amory, C. 1969 The 1902 Edition of the Sears Roebuck Catalogue. Bounty Books, New York. Anderson, A. 1968 The Archaeology of Mass-Produced Footwear. Historical Archaeology 2:5665. Armstrong, J. R., and P. D. Schulz 1980 Pontil Scars and Snap Cases as Dating Tools for Nineteenth-Century Glass: New Light from Old Sacramento. In Papers on Old Sacramento Archeology, edited by P. D. Schulz and B. J. Rivers, pp. 4548. California Archeology Reports No. 19. Cultural Resource Management Unit, Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California. Barber, E. A. 1904 Marks of American Potters. Cracker Barrel Press, Southampton, New York. Barlow, R. S. 1989 The Antique Tool Collectors Guide to Value. Windmill, El Cajon, California. Barnes, F. C. 1980 Cartridges of the World. 4th ed. DBI Books, Northfield, Illinois. Barnes, M. R., and R. V. May 1979 Mexican Majolica in Northern New Spain. Acoma Books, Ramona, California. [Originally published 1972, Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Occasional Paper No. 2.] Barton, C. M., and S. R. James 1991 The Phoenix Indian School Archaeological Project: Results of the Test Excavations. Anthropological Field Studies No. 25. Office of Cultural Resource Management, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. Bearse, R. 1966 Centerfire American Rifle Cartridges, 18921963. A. S. Barnes, South Brunswick, New Jersey.

108

Berge, D. L. 1968 The Gila Bend Stage Station. Kiva 33:169243. 1980 Simpson Springs Station Historical Archaeology in Western Utah, 19741975. Cultural Resource Series No. 6. Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, UT. Brand Names Foundation 1947 43,000 Years of Public Service. Brand Names Foundation, New York. Brinckerhoff, S. B. 1972 Metal Uniform Insignia of the U.S. Army in the Southwest, 18461902. Museum Monograph No. 3. Arizona Historical Society, Tucson. 1976 Boots and Shoes of the Frontier Soldier, 18651893. Museum Monograph No. 7. Arizona Historical Society, Tucson. Busch, J. 1987 Second Time Around: A Look at Bottle Reuse. Historical Archaeology 21(1):67 80. Clifton, R. T. 1970 Barbs, Prongs, Points, Prickers, and Stickers: A Complete and Illustrated Catalogue of Antique Barbed Wire. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Conn, R. G. 1972 The Pony Bead Period: A Cultural Problem of Western North America. Society for Historical Archaeology Newsletter 5(4):713. Copeland, R. 1980 Spodes Willow Pattern and Other Designs after the Chinese. Rizzoli, New York. Deagan, K. 1987 Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida and the Caribbean, 15001800, Volume 1: Ceramics, Glassware, and Beads. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.. DeBolt, G. 1994 DeBolts Dictionary of American Pottery Marks: Whiteware and Porcelain. Collector Books, Paducah, Kentucky. Di Peso, C. C., J. B. Rinaldo, and G. J. Fenner 1974 Casas Grandes: A Fallen Trading Center of the Gran Chichimeca, Volume 8. Amerind Foundation, Dragoon, AZ, and Northland Press, Flagstaff, Arizona.

109

Dittemore, D. D. 1986 Pima Indian Beaded Baskets in the Arizona State Museum. American Indian Art Magazine 12(1):4653. Dodge, F. 1995 Antique Tins. Collector Books, Paducah, Kentucky. Farris, G. J. 1980 Coins and Tokens of Old Sacramento. In Papers on Old Sacramento Archeology, edited by P. D. Schulz and B. J. Rivers, pp. 2344. California Archeology Reports No. 19. Cultural Resource Management Unit, Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California. Fike, R. E. 1987 The Bottle Book: A Comprehensive Guide to Historic, Embossed Medicine Bottles. Peregrine Smith Books, Salt Lake City, Utah. Felton, D. L., F. Lortie, and P. D. Schulz 1984 The Chinese Laundry on Second Street: Archeological Investigations at the Woodland Opera House Site. In The Chinese Laundry on Second Street: Papers on Archeology at the Woodland Opera House Site, pp. 1120. California Archeology Reports No. 24. Cultural Resource Management Unit, Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California. Fontana, B. L., and J. C. Greenleaf 1962 Johnny Ward's Ranch: A Study in Historic Archaeology. Kiva 28(12). Francis, P. 2002 Asias Maritime Bead Trade from ca. 300 BC to the Present. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Gates, W. R., and D. E. Ormerod 1982 The East Liverpool Pottery District: Identification of Manufacturers and Marks. Historical Archaeology 16(12). Gillio, D., F. Levine, and D. Scott 1980 Some Common Artifacts Found at Historical Sites. Cultural Resource Report No. 31. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Godden, G. A. 1964 Encyclopedia of British Pottery and Porcelain Marks. Bonanza Books, New York. Gurcke, K. 1987 Bricks and Brickmaking: A Handbook for Historical Archaeology. University of Idaho Press, Moscow.

110

Hagan, T. 1990 Silverplated Flatware: An Identification and Value Guide. 4th ed. Collector Books, Paducah, Kentucky. Herskovitz, R. M. 1978 Fort Bowie Material Culture. Arizona, Tucson. Anthropological Papers No. 31. University of

Hogg, I. V. 1982 The Cartridge Guide. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Huddleson, J. E., and M. S. Watanabe 1990 Pegged Footwear from 1851 San Francisco. In The Hoff Store Site and Gold Rush Merchandise from San Francisco, California, edited by A. G. Pastron and E. M. Hattori, pp. 94100. Society for Historical Archaeology Special Publication No. 7. Hull-Walski, D. A., and J. E. Ayres 1989 The Historical Archaeology of Dam Construction Camps in Central Arizona, Volume 3: Laboratory Methods and Data Computerization. Dames and Moore, Phoenix, Arizona. Israel, F. L. (editor) 1968 1897 Sears Roebuck Catalogue. Chelsea House, New York. Jones, O. 1971 Glass Bottle Push-ups and Pontil Marks. Historical Archaeology 5:6273. Karklins, K., and R. Sprague 1972 Glass Trade Beads in North America: An Annotated Bibliography. Historical Archaeology 6:87101. Kidd, K. E., and M. A. Kidd 1970 A Classification System for Glass Beads for the Use of Field Archaeologists. In Canadian Historic Sites. Occasional Papers in Archaeology and History 1:4589. National Historic Sites Service, National and Historic Parks Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Ottawa, Canada. Lehner, L. 1988 Lehner's Encyclopedia of U. S. Marks on Pottery, Porcelain, and Clay. Collector Books, Paducah, Kentucky. LeVine, T. Y. 1975 Analysis of the Buttons from La Casa Del Rancho Los Cerritos. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 11(3):5974.

111

Lief, A. 1965 A Close-up of Closures: History and Progress. Glass Container Manufacturers Institute, New York. Lindauer, O. 1996 Historical Archaeology of the United States Industrial Indian School at Phoenix: Investigations of a Turn of the Century Trash Dump. Anthropological Field Studies No. 42. Office of Cultural Resource Management, Arizona State University, Tempe. Lister, F. C., and R. H. Lister 1974 Majolica in Colonial Spanish America. Historical Archaeology 8:1752. 1982 Sixteenth Century Majolica Pottery in the Valley of Mexico. Papers No. 39. University of Arizona, Tucson. Anthropological

Logan, H. C. 1959 Cartridges: A Pictorial Digest of Small Arms Ammunition. Bonanza Books, New York. Lorrain, D. 1968 An Archaeologists Guide to Nineteenth Century American Glass. Archaeology 2:3544. Historical

Mabry, J. B., J. E. Ayres, and R. L. Chapin-Pyritz 1994 Tucson at the Turn of the Century: The Archaeology of a City Block. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. Majewski, T. 1996 Historical Ceramics. In Three Farewells to Manzanar: The Archaeology of Manzanar National Historic Site, California. Part 3: Appendices and References, by J. F. Burton and others. Publications in Anthropology No. 67. National Park Service, Western Archaeological and Conservation Center, Tucson, Arizona. Majewski, T., and M. J. OBrien 1987 The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth-Century English and American Ceramics in Archaeological Analysis. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 11, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 97209. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. Maxwell, D. B. S. 1993 Beer Cans: A Guide for the Archaeologist. Historical Archaeology 27(1):95113. Martells, J. 1976 The Beer Can Collectors Bible. Ballantine Books, New York.

112

McDougall, D. P. 1990 The Bottles of the Hoff Store Site. In The Hoff Store Site and Gold Rush Merchandise from San Francisco, California, edited by A. G. Pastron and E. M. Hattori, pp. 5874. Society for Historical Archaeology Special Publication No. 7. Meigh, E. 1960 The Development of the Automatic Glass Bottle Machine. 1(1):2550. Glass Technology

Michael, S. 1986 Trade Token Place Names of Arizona. Privately published, Mesa, Arizona. Mirken, A. (editor) 1970 1927 Edition of the Sears, Roebuck Catalogue. Bounty Books, New York. Miller, G., and A. Pacey 1985 Impact of Mechanization in the Glass Container Industry: The Dominion Glass Company of Montreal, A Case Study. Historical Archaeology 19(1):3850. Miller, G., and C. Sullivan 1984 Machine-made Glass Containers and the End of Production for Mouth-blown Bottles. Historical Archaeology 18(2):8396. Munsey, C. 1970 The Illustrated Guide to Collecting Bottles. Hawthorn Books, New York. Newman, T. S. 1970 A Dating Key for Post-Eighteenth Century Bottles. Historical Archaeology 4:70 75. Olsen, S. J. 1963 Dating Early Plain Buttons by Their Form. American Antiquity 28:551554. Olsen, S. J., and J. D. Campbell 1962 Uniform Buttons as Aids in the Interpretation of Military Sites. Curator 5:346-352. Orchard, W. C. 1929 Beads and Beadwork of the American Indians. Museum of the American Indian Contributions No. 11. Heye Foundation, New York. Pastron, A. G., and E. M. Hattori (editors) 1990 The Hoff Store Site and Gold Rush Merchandise from San Francisco, California. Society for Historical Archaeology Special Publication No. 7.

113

Periodical Publishers Association 1934 Trade-Marks. Periodical Publishers Association, New York. Praetzellis, M., B. Rivers, and J. K. Schulz 1983 Ceramic Marks from Old Sacramento. California Archeology Reports No. 22. Cultural Resource Management Unit, Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California. Pyne Press 1971 Whitall, Tatum and Co., 1880: Flint Glassware, Blue Ware, Perfume and Cologne Bottles, Show Bottles and Globes, Green Glassware, Stoppers, Druggist's Sundries. American Historical Catalog Collection, Pyne Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Rainwater, D. T. 1975 Encyclopedia of American Silver Manufacturers. Crown, New York. Randall, M. E. 1971 Early Marbles. Historical Archaeology 5:102105. Riley, J. J. 1958 A History of the American Soft Drink Industry: Bottled Carbonated Beverages, 1807-1957. American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages, Washington, D.C.. Rock, J. 1980 American Bottles: A Few Basics. Klamath National Forest, California. 1984 1987 Cans in the Countryside. Historical Archaeology 18(2):97111. A Brief Commentary on Cans. Coyote Press, Salinas, California.

Rogge, A. E., M. Keane, B. Luckingham, J. E. Ayres, P. Patterson, and T. W. Bostwick 1992 First Street and Madison: Historical Archaeology of the Second Phoenix Chinatown. Intermountain Cultural Resource Services Research Paper No. 9. Dames and Moore, Phoenix, Arizona. Schulz, P. D., B. J. Rivers, M. M. Hales, C. A. Litzinger, and E. A. McKee 1980 The Bottles of Old Sacramento: A Study of Nineteenth-Century Glass and Ceramic Retail Containers, Part 1. California Archeology Reports No. 20. Cultural Resource Management Unit, Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California. Simmons, M., and F. Turley 1980 Southwestern Colonial Ironwork: The Spanish Blacksmithing Tradition from Texas to California. Museum of New Mexico Press, Santa Fe.

114

Simonis, D. 1990 Milk Can Typology for Dating Historical Sites. Unpublished manuscript, Bureau of Land Management, Kingman Resource Area, Kingman, Arizona. Sprague, R. 1985 Glass Trade Beads: A Progress Report. Historical Archaeology 19(2):87105. Stein, P. H. 1988 Homesteading in the Depression: A Study of Two Short-Lived Homesteads in the Harquahala Valley, Arizona. Northland Research, Flagstaff, Arizona. Stein, P. H., and E. J. Skinner 1997 Mining the Big Bug: Archaeological Investigations at Twelve Historic Sites along State Route 69 between Mayer and Dewey, Yavapai County, Arizona. Anthropological Research Paper No. 5. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Flagstaff, Arizona. Suydam, C. R. 1977 U. S. Cartridges and Their Handguns, 1795-1975. Beingeld, North Hollywood, California. Switzer, R. R. 1974 The Bertrand Bottles: A Study of 19th-Century Glass and Ceramic Containers. Publications in Archeology No. 12. US Department of Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.. Thiel, J. H. 1993 Archaeological Investigations of Tucson Block 94: The Boarding House Residents of the Hotel Catalina Site. Technical Report No. 93-5. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. Thrapp, D. L. 1977 An Arizona Collector: Taken with Tokens. Arizona Highways 53(2):211. Toulouse, J. H. 1967 When Did Bottle Blowing Stop? The Western Collector 5(8): 4145. 1969 1971 A Primer on Mold Seams. The Western Collector 7(11):526-535, 7(12):578587. Bottle Makers and Their Marks. Thomas Nelson, New York.

U.S. Patent Office 1890- The Official Gazette of the U. S. Patent Office. Government Printing Office, 1957 Washington, D.C.

115

Utberg, N. S. 1963 Coins of Mexico: 15361963. Privately published, Edinburg, Texas. Ward, A. E. 1977 The Arbuckle Coffee Canister: Unrespectable Artifacts as Dating Devices. El Palacio 83(3):29. Ward, A. E., E. K. Abbink, and J. R. Stein 1977 Ethnohistorical and Chronological Basis of the Navajo Material Culture. In Settlement and Subsistence Along the Lower Chaco River: The CGP Survey, edited by C. A. Reher, pp. 217278. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. White, J. R. 1978 Bottle Nomenclature: A Glossary of Landmark Terminology for the Archaeologist. Historical Archaeology 12:5867. Wilson, J. P. 1979 Artifacts from Historic Sites. In Cultural Resources of the Alamito Coal Lease Area, Northwestern New Mexico, by J. P. Wilson, pp. 341360. Alamito Coal Co., Tucson, Arizona. 1980 Archeological Surveys of Proposed Material Pits and Well-Monitoring Facilities Associated with the Springerville Generating Station, Apache County, Arizona. Report prepared for Tucson Electric Power Company, Tucson, Arizona. 1984 The El Paso Electric Survey, Amrad to Eddy County, Southeastern New Mexico. Submitted to El Paso Electric Company and the Bureau of Land Management, El Paso, Texas. Wilson, R. L. 1981 Bottles on the Western Frontier. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Woodward, A. 1976 Indian Trade Goods. 2nd ed. Binford and Mort, Portland, OR. [Originally published 1965, Oregon Archaeological Society Publication No. 2.] Wyckoff, M. A. 1984 United States Military Buttons of the Land Services, 17871902: A Guide and Classificatory System. McLean County Historical Society, Bloomington, Illinois. Yeoman, R. S. 1964 A Guide Book of United States Coins. 17th ed. Whitman, Racine, Wisconsin.

116

Zumwalt, B. 1980 Ketchup, Pickles, Sauces: 19th Century Food in Glass. California.

Mark West, Fulton,

117