HOHOKAM TO AKIMEL O’ODHAM: OBSIDIAN ACQUISITION AT … · important component of prehistoric archaeologi-cal research throughout the Southwest and other parts of North America,

This study examines Akimel O’Odham (i.e.,Pima) socioeconomic interactions throughanalyses of Protohistoric (ca. A.D.

1500–1693) and Historic period (A.D. 1694–1962)obsidian acquisition patterns at the Sacate site (GR-909) in south-central Arizona. Until recently,comparatively few archaeological data were avail-able from the Akimel O’Odham settlement areaalong the Middle Gila River portion of the Ho-hokam core area in the Phoenix Basin (Figure 1).However, as part of the Pima-Maricopa IrrigationProject, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC)

created a Cultural Resource Management Programthat has conducted a full-coverage archaeologicalsurvey of nearly 57,000 ha within the communi-ty (Darling 2011; Darling et al. 2004; Loendorf2012; Loendorf and Rice 2004; Ravesloot 2007;Waters and Ravesloot 2000, 2001; Wells 2006;Wells et al. 2004; Woodson 2010). These inves-tigations included recording efforts at Sacate, anextensive historical village located on the south sideof the Middle Gila near the center of the GRIC.Prehistoric remains are uncommon at Sacate,and therefore it is possible to study indigenously

HOHOKAM TO AKIMEL O’ODHAM: OBSIDIAN ACQUISITION AT THE HISTORIC PERIOD SACATE SITE (GR-909), GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY, ARIZONA

Chris R. Loendorf, Craig M. Fertelmes, and Barnaby V. Lewis

Obsidian provenance studies within the Phoenix Basin of south-central Arizona have become increasingly comprehensiveduring the last four decades. As a result, broad regional and temporal trends have been defined regarding Preclassic (ca.A.D. 650–1150) and Classic period (ca. A.D. 1150–1450) socioeconomic interactions in the Hohokam core area. However,Historic period patterns are still poorly understood, and these data are essential for understanding the relationship betweenthe prehistoric Hohokam and historical Akimel O’Odham. The association between the Akimel O’Odham and Hohokamhas been debated since Euro-Americans first visited the area in the late 1600s, yet this issue is still not fully resolved. Thisarticle presents analyses of historical obsidian from the Sacate site that suggest that long-term trends in cultural patternswithin the Phoenix Basin continued unbroken into the Historic period. These continuities provide another line of evidencethat the Akimel O’Odham are the direct cultural descendants of the Hohokam.

Los estudios sobre las fuentes de origen de la obsidiana dentro de la Cuenca de Phoenix en la región sud-central de Arizonahan llegado a ser cada vez más completos durante las últimas cuatro décadas. Como resultado, amplios patrones espacio-temporales han sido definidos con respecto a los periodos Pre-Clásico (ca. d.C. 650–1150) y Clásico (ca. d.C. 1150–1450)destacando las interacciones socioeconómicas en el núcleo de la cultura Hohokam. Sin embargo, las interacciones duranteel período Histórico todavía no son claras, y estos datos son esenciales para comprender la relación entre los Hohokam prehis-tóricos y los Akimel O’Odham históricos. La asociación entre los O’Odham y los Hohokam ha sido debatida desde que losprimeros Euroamericanos visitaron la región al final de los 1600; no obstante, este tema todavía no está resuelto completa-mente. Este trabajo resume los resultados del análisis de obsidiana histórica del sitio Sacate, lo que sugiere que a largo plazolos patrones culturales dentro de la Cuenca de Phoenix continuaron intactos durante el período Histórico. Esta continuidades fuerte evidencia de que los Akimel O’Odham son los descendientes de los Hohokam.

Chris R. Loendorf � Cultural Resources Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, AZ 85147([email protected])Craig M. Fertelmes � Cultural Resources Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, AZ 85147([email protected])Barnaby V. Lewis � Tribal Historic Preservation Office, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, AZ 85147([email protected])

American Antiquity 78(2), 2013, pp. 266–284Copyright © 2013 by the Society for American Archaeology

266

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 64.

16.5

7.4

Fr

iday

, Apr

il 19

, 201

3 1:

20:3

9 PM

OBSIDIAN ACQUISITION AT THE SACATE SITE 267

produced historic artifacts in a setting that large-ly lacks intermixing of earlier materials.

Despite repeated attempts to obtain firearms, thehistorical Akimel O’Odham possessed few guns.Instead, bows and arrows were commonly used un-til the end of the nineteenth century (Bancroft1886:520; Grossman 1873:416; Mason 1894;Russell 1908:111). In contrast to many eastern and

Plains groups, Native Americans along the Mid-dle Gila rarely employed metal arrowpoints, andthey continued to make projectile tips from stone,including obsidian, until roughly A.D. 1880 (Ban-croft 1886; Ferg and Tessman 1997:259–261;Grossman 1873). Written descriptions of AkimelO’Odham settlement locations, technological tra-ditions, socioeconomic interactions, and subsistence

Figure 1. Map showing the location of Sacate (GR-909), physiographic features, Late Historic tribal territories (follow-ing Ortiz 1983), and historically mapped village locations (following Ezell 1961; Wilson, forthcoming).

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 64.

16.5

7.4

Fr

iday

, Apr

il 19

, 201

3 1:

20:3

9 PM

practices began in the late 1600s and continued overthe course of the Historic period (DeJong 2009,2011; Ezell 1961; Fewkes 1912; Hackenberg1974; Russell 1908; Seymour 2011; Wells 2006;Wilson, forthcoming). Thus, the situation along theMiddle Gila offers an important opportunity tocompare spatial and temporal patterning among ob-sidian artifacts with historically documented so-cioeconomic interactions, projectile technology, andother cultural practices (Loendorf 2012).

For multiple reasons, obsidian has properties thatare ideally suited for studying exchange and in-teraction in southern Arizona (Ballenger and Hall2011; Bayman 1995; Fertelmes et al. 2012; Loen-dorf 2010, 2012; Marshall 2002; Mitchell and Fos-ter 2011; Mitchell and Shackley 1995; Peterson etal. 1997; Rice et al. 1998; Shackley 1988, 1990,1995, 2005). First, raw materials necessary for man-ufacturing retouched tools are uncommon in thePhoenix Basin, and obsidian is a desirable stone forproducing arrowpoints. Second, because obsidiandoes not occur naturally within the Phoenix Basin,all of the material at archaeological sites must havebeen culturally transported from elsewhere. Third,obsidian sources are generally abundant and lo-calized deposits. Fourth, obsidian has geochemi-cal properties that allow source locations to be ob-jectively identified with a high degree of precision.It is therefore possible to examine the nature of ex-change interactions between the core area and sur-rounding populations, as well as relationshipsamong communities within the Phoenix Basin.

Obsidian source provenance studies are also animportant component of prehistoric archaeologi-cal research throughout the Southwest and otherparts of North America, including the PacificNorthwest, California, the Great Basin, andMesoamerica. Although archaeologists have de-voted considerable effort to analyzing precontactassemblages, obsidian from Historic period con-texts has rarely been considered (but see Millhauseret al. 2011; Silliman 2005). This lack of researchdoes not result from an absence of obsidian at his-torical indigenous sites but, instead, occurs becausearchaeologists who study postcontact sites generallyhave not considered the research potential of theseremains (Silliman 2005:75). The following analy-ses explore the broader implications of these ar-tifacts, and this investigation illustrates how ob-sidian data can be used to improve our under-

standing of associations among prehistoric and his-torical indigenes.

The relationship between the late prehistoric in-habitants of the Middle Gila (i.e., Classic Ho-hokam) and the Akimel O’Odham has been debatedsince Spanish missionaries first visited the PhoenixBasin in the late 1600s (Fewkes 1912:33; Russell1908). Despite centuries of speculation and argu-ment, the association between the precontact andpostcontact populations remains unresolved (Ezell1983:149–150; Gilpin and Phillips 1998:28–43;Seymour 2011; Wells 2006). Data from the Pro-tohistoric and Early Historic periods (A.D.1694–1820) are critical for assessing the Hohokamcollapse as well as the continuum of populations.However, Akimel O’Odham archaeological re-mains from this time are largely restricted to theGRIC, where until recently little research has oc-curred (Wells 2006:1–2).

Relationships among the Hohokam and con-temporary groups are of considerable importanceto the Akimel O’Odham, and this issue has mod-ern sociopolitical ramifications in a region wherehighly contested water rights are based on prior us-age (DeJong 2011:17–21). While the AkimelO’Odham continue to maintain detailed oral tra-ditions regarding their past, these social memorieshave been extensively ignored or misunderstood.Not only does this matter affect these peoples’ per-ceptions of their past, it also impacts their lives inother ways. These include issues of cultural pat-rimony and repatriation cases where AkimelO’Odham perspectives are still sometimes un-dervalued or dismissed.

Ethnohistorical and Ethnographic Background

The following section presents descriptions of pro-jectile design and hunting practices, which are em-ployed to infer functional aspects of historical pro-jectiles. These observations suggest that histor-ical flaked-stone arrowpoints were largely if notexclusively produced for use in warfare. Next, in-tergroup conflicts that substantially impactedAkimel O’Odham socioeconomic interactions aredescribed. Finally, historical descriptions of ex-change relationships are used to generate ex-pectations for obsidian acquisition patterns atSacate.

268 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 78, No. 2, 2013

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 64.

16.5

7.4

Fr

iday

, Apr

il 19

, 201

3 1:

20:3

9 PM

Akimel O’Odham Projectile DesignContrary to a common assumption, a stone pro-jectile tip is not necessary to “balance” the shaft.Instead, prehistoric and historical projectiles com-monly had organic tips such as bone, antler, orwood (Mason 1894). In a cross-cultural study ofover 100 societies, Ellis (1997) found that differ-ent types of projectile tips were employed for sep-arate purposes. Stone points were almost invari-ably associated with hunting large game animals(> 40 kg) and/or warfare, while organic tips werefar more commonly employed in small-game (<40 kg) hunting.

By the 1800s, the Akimel O’Odham rarely hunt-ed large animals (Ezell 1961; Rea 1998; Russell1908). Prehistoric sites below 800 m elevation insouthern Arizona generally have low incidencesof large faunal remains, while habitations abovethis elevation commonly have evidence for greaterreliance on ungulates (Szuter 1991). The nearestextensive areas above 800 m are roughly 30 kmaway from the Middle Gila in the mountains to thenorth and east, but these locations were occupiedby the Nnēē (i.e., Apache) and Gōōn (i.e., Yava-pai) during the Historic period (see Figure 1).

The Akimel O’Odham instead primarily hunt-ed locally available small game, and the arrows theyused for this purpose lacked stone tips. Arrows de-signed for use in warfare, however, had flaked-stonepoints attached (Bancroft 1886:520; Grossman1873:416; Mason 1894; Russell 1908). For exam-ple, Bancroft said that the Akimel O’Odham “wingtheir war arrows with three feathers and point themwith flint, while for hunting purposes they have onlytwo feathers and wooden points” (1886:520).Conflict

While the nature and intensity of warfare variedover time and space, conflict was endemic amongSouthwestern Historic populations (Basso 2004;Burns 2012; Ezell 1961; Jacoby 2008; Kroeber andFontana 1986; Rice 2001; Russell 1908; Shaw1994:10–14; Spier 1933; Webb 1959:22–25).The Nnēē and Gōōn regularly raided Akimel O’Od-ham villages along the Middle Gila. Although in-dividual attacks were generally minor, conflict withthese groups caused the aggregation of AkimelO’Odham populations, which resulted in theabandonment of extensive former habitation areas

(Ezell 1961; Hackenberg 1974). These conflicts ef-fectively circumscribed Akimel O’Odham so-cioeconomic interactions, because interveningNnēē and Gōōn populations restricted trade withother groups, including Pueblo populations to thenorth and east (Russell 1908; see Figure 1).Socioeconomic InteractionsBy the nineteenth century the Pee Posh (i.e., Mari-copa) and Tohono O’Odham (i.e., Papago) werethe primary indigenous exchange partners for theAkimel O’Odham (Russell 1908:93). Prior toroughly A.D. 1830, Pee Posh from the Gila Bendarea came at harvest time to exchange goods withthe Akimel O’Odham (Russell 1908:93). After thePee Posh moved from farther west along the Gilato the area immediately adjacent to the AkimelO’Odham villages, the Tohono O’Odham weretheir primary nonlocal exchange partners. Althoughthe Tohono O’Odham lived in more arid desert en-vironments to the south, in addition to salt they alsobrought food and a wide variety of other items forexchange (Russell 1908:93; Webb 1959:65).

The Akimel O’Odham also sold items to orbartered with Mexican populations to the south,and by the 1850s they traded or sold largeamounts of goods with settlers and others whotraveled through the area (DeJong 2009, 2011).The Akimel O’Odham also “sent well-armedbands through the Apache cordon to trade at theSpanish and Mexican settlements of Sonora” (Rus-sell 1908:94). In addition, an annual fair was heldalong the Middle Gila that was “attended by ‘mul-titudes’ of people from the towns and presidios ofTucson, Tubac, Santa Cruz, and the San IgnacioRiver” (Ezell 1961:30).

For much of the Historic period, the items theAkimel O’Odham produced for trade consistedlargely of “baskets and woven goods— belts, hairbands, and above all else cotton blankets” (Ezell1961:29). By the 1850s they also grew large sur-pluses of commodities that they sold or barteredto the U.S. military, and previously they were ableto provide food to other communities in times ofneed (DeJong 2009; Ezell 1961). These socioe-conomic interactions were not exclusively basedon kinship ties or simple reciprocal relationships,and Russell listed the late 1800s exchange rates asfollows:

Loendorf et al.] OBSIDIAN ACQUISITION AT THE SACATE SITE 269

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 64.

16.5

7.4

Fr

iday

, Apr

il 19

, 201

3 1:

20:3

9 PM

A gourd was equivalent to a basket; a metate,a small shell necklace, or the combination ofa basket and a blanket and a strand of blue glassbeads was equivalent to a horse; a string of blueglass beads 4 yards long was equivalent to abag of paint; and a basket full of beans or cornto a cooking pot [1908:92].While the Akimel O’Odham used Euro-Amer-

ican glass beads for exchange, they expressedstrong preferences for particular types of orna-ments, especially those made from marine shell andstone. For example, Bartlett observed that someAkimel O’Odham had

long strings of sea-shells or parts of shells,which are highly prized. I tried to buy some ofthem; but the only man at all disposed to sellasked me five dollars [equivalent to roughly$130 today] or a pair of blankets for a fewstrings, a price so extravagant that I declinedto make the purchase [1854:231].

Glass beads had relatively limited worth by the sec-ond half of the nineteenth century, and the valueof items changed over the course of the Historicperiod based on factors of supply and demandalong the Middle Gila (Ezell 1961:31). Audubon,for example, observed in A.D. 1850 that “the ex-travagance of the Americans who have passedthrough has made it difficult for anyone to makereasonable bargains with either Pimos [AkimelO’Odham] or Maricopas [Pee Posh]” (1906:150).Audubon goes on to say:

Many who came to trade had already made uptheir minds only to do so for some particulararticle, and in those cases it was not of the leastavail to offer anything else. . . . Jewelry hadno value to them, fancy beads were worthless,stone beads however they traded for eagerly,but we had none [1906:150].In aggregate, these observations suggest that the

Akimel O’Odham chose to adopt Euro-Americangoods that fit within previously existing socioe-conomic interaction patterns along the Middle Gila.Furthermore, until the Akimel O’Odham becamemore fully incorporated into the American eco-nomic system in the 1900s, Euro-Americans andthe Akimel O’Odham also valued goods differently,such that items considered valuable by the formerhad little worth to the latter and vice versa.

Sacate Site DescriptionSacate (GR-909) is a roughly 3-km-long and .8-km-wide habitation where 204 features, includingki-kuh (traditional Akimel O’Odham round hous-es), other areas with structural remains, extensivemidden deposits, and three cemeteries were iden-tified (Figure 2). Obsidian artifacts analyzed in thisstudy were derived from systematic surface col-lections undertaken by GRIC Cultural ResourceManagement Program field crews between Marchand August 2000. All identified diagnostic remains,including any obsidian or projectile points, werecollected. A total of 184 quantitative units, which


Figure 2. Map showing feature locations, cemeteries, and site segments at Sacate (GR-909).

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 64.

16.5

7.4

Fr

iday

, Apr

il 19

, 201

3 1:

20:3

9 PM

consisted of 3.14-m2 areas where all artifacts wererecovered, were also collected (Wells et al. 2004).

Darling (2011) describes a process wherebyAkimel O’Odham villages drift over time, andanalyses of nonindigenous artifacts and projectilepoint data from Sacate support this model (Dar-ling et al. 2004; Loendorf 2012:83–89; Spier1933:22). Temporal shifts among segments of thesite appear to have resulted from historical and en-vironmental events such as immigration, movementof the Gila River channel, flooding, the constructionof transportation routes, and other Euro-Americaninteractions (Darling 2011). Although the precisedating of site segments is uncertain, there is con-siderable evidence that occupation of Sacatespans the Protohistoric to Modern periods, and sub-stantial differences in the artifact collections andfeature types in site segments suggest relative dif-ferences in the age of habitation.

Indigenous ceramic data suggest that Sacatelargely postdates the prehistoric period, as all pre-contact types combined make up only 1 percent ofthe collection (Table 1). Similarly, projectilepoints from the site are also predominately historictypes (Table 2). Based on an analysis of early his-

torical records, Wilson (forthcoming) concludesthat Sacate was documented by the Jesuit mis-sionary Father Kino, who was the first Euro-Amer-ican to visit the Phoenix Basin (see also Ezell1961). This village was labeled “Soación” onKino’s 1695–1696 map of the area. Wilson arguesthat the synonymy of this name suggests that it cor-responds with a village called Sudac-sson or Su-taquisón (Where the water comes up) that wasrecorded by Franciscan missionaries in the eigh-teenth century. As can be seen in Figure 1, therecorded positions for this village all roughly cor-respond with the location of Sacate. It is improb-able that this area was settled immediately beforeKino’s visits, suggesting that Sacate was occupiedat least prior to the mid-1600s.

The relative ages of occupation in different sitesegments can in part be inferred from variation infeature types and nonlocal artifacts. The oldest non-indigenous remains were recovered from the cen-tral segment and consist of one-piece metal but-tons that were manufactured from 1750 to 1812.Other nonlocal artifacts suggest that this segmentwas occupied through at least the late 1800s. Incontrast to the central segment, ki-kuh are less com-


Table 1. Absolute Frequencies of Pottery Sherds Recovered from Sacate by Time Period, Type, and Segment of Site.

Period Ceramic Type Central Expansion Western TOTALHistoric Red on Buff 3659 2965 2724 9348Historic Red on Brown 1588 1403 1197 4188Historic Plain 1534 1556 746 3836Historic Red 1165 769 394 2328Historic Black on Red 176 129 132 437Historic Papago Green Glaze 1 3 - 4Historic Indet. Yellow Ware 1 - 3 4

Subtotal 8124 6825 5196 20145

Prehistoric Plain/Smudged 42 - 4 46Prehistoric Sacaton Red on Buff 8 30 4 42Prehistoric Snaketown Red on Buff 1 25 3 29Prehistoric Gila Butte Red on Buff 5 9 7 21Prehistoric Casa Grande Red on Buff 8 8 - 16Prehistoric Santa Cruz Red on Buff 1 13 1 15Prehistoric Gila Polychrome 6 2 5 13Prehistoric Tanque Verde Red on Brown - - 10 10Prehistoric Red/Smudged 3 - 4 7Prehistoric Cibola White Ware - 1 1 2Prehistoric Tonto Polychrome - - 1 1Prehistoric Indet. Corrugated Plain 1 - - 1Prehistoric Mogollon Brown 1 - - 1

Subtotal 76 88 40 204

TOTAL 8200 6913 5236 20349

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 64.

16.5

7.4

Fr

iday

, Apr

il 19

, 201

3 1:

20:3

9 PM

mon in the expansion segment. A change to oth-er structural types occurred in the 1800s, but ki-kuh were used until at least the 1930s (Sayles1938:61). The comparatively low incidence of ki-kuh in the expansion segment suggests that it wasfirst inhabited more recently than the central seg-ment. Nonindigenous artifacts from the expansionsegment include military buttons and black glass,including one example with an “improved” pon-til scar, suggesting that this segment was used pri-or to the 1880s. Nonindigenous artifacts from thewestern segment differ substantially from those col-lected in the rest of the site, and the incidence ofglass and nonindigenous ceramics as well asmetal items is higher, suggesting that this area hasthe most recent occupation (Randolph et al.2002). Sacate has not been abandoned, and scat-tered houses as well as modern housing subdivi-sions occur in the area. Furthermore, the AkimelO’Odham continue to use the cemetery in the west-ern site segment.

Sacate Projectile Point AnalysisAlmost 100 arrowpoints were recovered fromGR-909 (see Table 2). All of these artifacts are smallisosceles triangular forms that lack notches or ser-ration (Figure 3). Historic point types that have beendefined within southern Arizona are largely trian-gular forms that lack notches, but there is signifi-cant variation in blade shape, degree of basal con-cavity, and particularly serration (Justice 2002; Loen-dorf 2012; Loendorf and Rice 2004; Seymour 2011;Vint 2005; Wells 2006:17). Although 7 percent ofthe arrowpoints from Sacate were classified as Clas-

sic period types, similar unnotched and unserratedpoints were produced during the Classic and His-toric periods, and these artifacts are possibly mis-classified historical remains (Loendorf and Rice2004:60; Ravesloot and Whittlesey 1987:96).While the similar morphological characteristics ofClassic and Historic points complicate the separa-tion of these types, this consistency in design (es-pecially the absence of serration) is also evidencefor continuity in technological practices from pre-history to history (Loendorf 2012:101–106). Detaileddescription of the typological classification system,metric and attribute data, and images of all pointsfrom Sacate are available in Loendorf and Rice 2004.

The incidence of obsidian artifacts variesacross Sacate, and the highest concentration oc-curs in the western segment, which was most re-cently inhabited (Table 3). These observations sug-gest that increased obsidian use occurred over time,which is reflected in the material type proportionsfor points by site segment (Table 4). This appar-ent diachronic trend is supported by the fact thatarrowpoint densities are relatively consistentacross the site, which suggests that patterning inthese data did not result from sampling bias, for-mation, or postdepositional processes.

This trend toward greater reliance on obsidianfor point production appears to be part of a longer-term process that began well before the Historic pe-riod. Along the Middle Gila, Archaic points wereonly occasionally made from obsidian (< 2 percent),but use of this material became common by the Clas-sic period (Loendorf and Rice 2004:4–8). Similartendencies for an increase in obsidian use over timehave been documented within Hohokam collections


Table 2. Absolute Frequencies of Arrowpoints Recovered from Sacate by Time Period, Style, and Segment of Site.

Period Arrow Point Type Central Expansion Western TOTALHistoric Straight Base Triangular 14 9 5 28Historic U-shaped Base Triangular 13 12 13 38

Subtotal 27 21 18 66

Classic Bulbous Base - - 1 1Classic Concave Base Triangular 1 - - 1Classic Long Triangular 4 - - 4Classic Thin Triangular - - 1 1

Subtotal 5 - 2 7

Indeterminate Indeterminate 7 12 4 23

TOTAL 39 33 24 96

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 64.

16.5

7.4

Fr

iday

, Apr

il 19

, 201

3 1:

20:3

9 PM

from elsewhere in southern Arizona (Ballenger andHall 2011:146–148; Bayman and Shackley 1999;Fertelmes et al. 2012; Marshall 2002; Peterson etal. 1997). This continuation of diachronic prehis-toric patterns is also evidence for cultural continu-ity between the Hohokam and Akimel O’Odham.

Obsidian Source Analysis MethodsA total of 131 obsidian artifacts from Sacate weresubjected to energy-dispersive X-ray fluores-

cence (EDXRF) analysis. EDXRF analyses of 13samples were completed by the ArchaeologicalXRF Laboratory, University of California, Berke-ley, using a Spectrace/ThermoNoran QuanX spec-trometer (Shackley and Daehnke 2004). The re-maining 118 artifacts were analyzed by the GRICMaterial Sciences Laboratory (MSL) using aBruker Tracer III-V portable spectrometer.1

In order to compare Berkeley and Tracer III-Vcompositional results, GRIC-MSL reanalyzed 105obsidian artifacts that were previously character-


Figure 3. Arrowpoints from Sacate (GR-909): rightmost top two are man-made glass; rightmost bottom three are obsidian.

Table 3. Absolute Frequencies and Densities (n/ha) for Total Obsidian and Arrowpoints from Sacate by Segment of Site.

Obsidian Arrow Obsidian ArrowSite Segment Count Point Count Hectares Density Point DensityCentral 51 39 53 0.97 0.74Expansion 54 28 50 1.07 0.56Western 105 29 48 2.17 0.60TOTAL 210 96 151 1.39 0.63

Table 4. Absolute and Relative Frequencies of Arrowpoints from Sacate by Raw Material and Segment of Site.

Site Segment Basalt Obsidian Chert Chalcedonay Rhyolite Glass Quartzite TOTALCentral 64% 10% 13% 5% 3% 3% 3% 39Expansion 57% 21% 11% 7% 4% 0% 0% 28Western 17% 38% 38% 0% 3% 3% 0% 29TOTAL 46 21 19 4 3 2 1 96

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 64.

16.5

7.4

Fr

iday

, Apr

il 19

, 201

3 1:

20:3

9 PM


ized by the Archaeological XRF Laboratory as partof several prior investigations (Loendorf and Fer-telmes 2012). GRIC-MSL independently deter-mined source locations for these artifacts, which co-incided with prior results in 104 of the 105 cases.Although differences exist in the elemental con-centrations calculated by GRIC-MSL and Berke-ley, they are not sufficient to affect the accuracy ofsource assignments (Figure 4). These data demon-strate that the precision of the Tracer III-V is suf-ficient to consistently differentiate Southwestern ob-sidian sources (cf. Millhauser et al. 2011:3141).Nonetheless, additional interlaboratory, interin-strument, and intermethod comparisons are nec-essary to fully assess the accuracy of concentrationresults produced by the Bruker calibration software(but see Speakman and Shackley 2013:1438).

Sacate EDXRF ResultsTable 5 lists obsidian source proportions for the 131artifacts that were subjected to EDXRF analysis.Figure 5 shows locations for the obsidian quarriesthat occur in the sample, as well as other knowndeposits. The straight-line distance of sources aloneis a poor predictor of obsidian use (Figure 6; Pear-son’s r = –.42; p = .23), suggesting that other fac-tors also conditioned procurement patterns atSacate. Obsidian from 10 locations was identified

in the sample, but 92 percent of the material wasderived from just four sources. Sauceda obsidian,which is located to the south, is the most commontype and accounts for nearly 65 percent of the col-lection. Vulture obsidian is the next most commontype, and the incidence of this material is higherthan has been previously documented along theMiddle Gila (Loendorf 2012:107–114). LosVidrios, which is located to the south of Sauceda,is the third most common stone and is also morefrequent than previously found in GRIC prehistoriccontexts (Loendorf 2012). Sand Tanks, also to thesouth, is the fourth most common obsidian, and de-spite its close proximity to the Hohokam core area,this material rarely occurs in previously docu-mented prehistoric assemblages, including thosefrom the GRIC (Loendorf 2012:107; Shackley andTucker 2001).

Akimel O’Odham Socioeconomic Interactions

Sacate data suggest that a general trend towardgreater utilization of materials located to thesouth of the Middle Gila occurred over the courseof the Historic period, and 93 percent of the col-lection from the western site segment is from south-ern sources (Sauceda, Sand Tanks, Los Vidrios, andLos Sitios; Figure 7). Materials from the north and

Figure 4. Elemental concentration results for the Berkeley and Gila River Indian Community Material SciencesLaboratory analyses. Includes only sources with more than five examples.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 64.

16.5

7.4

Fr

iday

, Apr

il 19

, 201

3 1:

20:3

9 PM

east of Sacate, including the nearby Superior ob-sidian, are rare or absent. Sources to the west, in-cluding the Tank Mountains and Vulture, declinein the western segment, which has the most recentremains. This possible decrease in materials fromthe west in the latter part of the Historic periodmatches the observation that the Pee Posh, who for-merly lived in this direction, had immigrated to theMiddle Gila by this time. The patterning in thesedata is thus consistent with the ethnohistoricallyand ethnographically documented socioeconom-

ic interactions described above, which suggest thatthe Akimel O’Odham primarily obtained obsidi-an through exchange. Other observations suggestthat these interactions largely involved raw ma-terials rather than completed arrowpoints.

For instance, the patterning in Sacate obsidiandebris and completed points suggests that raw ma-terials were generally acquired rather than finishedproducts (Table 6). If projectile points common-ly were deposited as completed objects, then ma-terial type frequencies for points should differ from


Table 5. Absolute and Relative Frequencies of Obsidian Sources Identified from Sacate by Segment of Site.

Source Direction Central Segment Expansion Segment Western Segment TOTALGovernment Mountain N 5% 4% 0% 4Superior E 0% 2% 0% 1Gwynn Canyon? E 0% 2% 0% 1Antelope Wells E 0% 2% 0% 1Los Sitios del Aqua S 0% 2% 2% 1Los Vidrios S 10% 4% 11% 10Sauceda S 67% 52% 82% 85Sand Tanks S 8% 11% 0% 9Tank Mountains W 0% 4% 3% 3Vulture W 10% 19% 5% 16TOTAL 41 50 40 131

Figure 5. Obsidian locations in the Southwest and archaeological sites with comparative data. Source areas are shadedbased on their overall proportion in the Sacate collection.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 64.

16.5

7.4

Fr

iday

, Apr

il 19

, 201

3 1:

20:3

9 PM

those for manufacturing debris, and waste frompoint production should not be present (Bayman1995:50). However, the most common types(Sauceda and Vulture) do not differ significantly(Fisher’s Exact Test p = .5), and obsidian in var-ious stages of reduction was recovered, includingunmodified nodules, cores, shatter, primary flakes,secondary flakes, and tertiary flakes.

Furthermore, obsidian points are small portionsof complex systems (including the arrow, bow, andarcher) that must be tuned to effectively function(Cotterell and Kamminga 1992; Loendorf 2012).Therefore, it is unlikely that completed projectilepoints or arrows were regularly exchanged, and in-

stead it is more probable that raw materials nec-essary for point manufacture were traded. Pointsmust be the correct size for projectile shafts, whichin turn need to be the proper draw length and stiff-ness for a given bow and archer. Moreover, arrowsof different masses will have different points of im-pact when fired from the same bow, and withoutsome form of standardization in the manufactur-ing process, projectiles will be inaccurate (Mason1894:660). Consequently, customized arrows ofconsistent sizes were carefully produced to matchthe body size of individuals, and arrows or pointsare not freely interchangeable among bows orarchers (Burns 1916; Rea 2007a; Russell 1908:96).


Figure 6. Scatterplot of obsidian proportions and source distances from Sacate (GR-909).

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

South West North East

Central

Expansion

Western

Figure 7. Obsidian frequencies by direction of source and segment of Sacate (GR-909).

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 64.

16.5

7.4

Fr

iday

, Apr

il 19

, 201

3 1:

20:3

9 PM

Previous researchers have suggested that pre-historic populations commonly exchanged finishedprojectile points (Bayman 1995; Bayman andShackley 1999; Shackley 2005). Investigators havealso argued that the presence of completed pointsmade of materials that do not occur in manufac-turing debris is evidence for trade (Bayman 1995;Peterson et al. 1997). Another possibility that couldaccount for these points is that they were depositedas the result of conflict. Although this potential for-mation process is not generally considered by pre-historians, numerous attacks by nonlocal groupswere documented in the Akimel O’Odham calendarstick records (Russell 1908). As an example, a PeePosh village located approximately 3 km west ofSacate was attacked, looted, and burned by theQuechan on August 31, 1857 (Kroeber andFontana 1986). Hypothetically, this event shouldhave resulted in the deposition of completed ar-rowpoints. However, neither of these mecha-nisms appears to have been a primary source forpoints from GR-909. The observations presentedin this section do not rule out the possibility thatpoints were deposited through warfare or trade andinstead only suggest that the majority of the ana-lyzed collection was deposited as a result of var-ious activities undertaken by Sacate residents.

Prehistoric Hohokam Socioeconomic Interaction Patterns

In order to further compare both spatial and tem-poral variation in obsidian use at Sacate, Table 7

presents source proportions for collections fromthe Hohokam region of southern Arizona. As a ge-ographical reference point, the sites and obsidiansources are organized based on distance fromSacate.

At prehistoric sites in southern Arizona, the di-rection of the source has a greater effect on raw ma-terial utilization, and obsidian proportions are weak-ly correlated with source distances (Bayman1995:49; Bayman and Shackley 1999; Loendorf2012:107–115; Mitchell and Shackley 1995:299;Rice et al. 1998). By the Late Classic (ca. A.D.1320–1450), obsidian frequencies differ signifi-cantly between some adjacent areas, such as theMiddle Gila and Lower Salt rivers, suggesting thatdifferent Hohokam communities maintained sep-arate trade contacts during this time (Loendorf2010; Simon and Gosser 2001). This variation sug-gests that Late Classic populations were notclosely economically integrated across the Ho-hokam region of southern Arizona (Simon andGosser 2001). The patterning in obsidian acqui-sition, instead, suggests that the strongest socioe-conomic ties among Classic period communitieswere between sites on the same rivers, and ex-changing food for items such as obsidian provid-ed a mechanism for redistributing water-dependentresources (Loendorf 2012:113).

As can be seen in Table 7, temporal patternsare also apparent in the obsidian from prehistoricsites. These data suggest that diachronic trendsidentified at Sacate began before the advent of theHistoric period (Figure 8). For example, the ten-


Table 6. Absolute and Relative Frequencies of Completed Points and Debitage by Obsidian Sources Identified from Sacate and Segment of Site.

Source Debitage Projectile TOTALSauceda Mountains 70 64% 15 71% 85Vulture 15 14% 1 5% 16Sand Tanks 9 8% 0 0% 9Los Vidrios 7 6% 3 14% 10Government Mountain 3 3% 1 5% 4Tank Mountains 3 3% 0 0% 3Antelope Wells 1 1% 0 0% 1Superior 1 1% 0 0% 1Gwynn Canyon? 1 1% 0 0% 1Los Sitios del Aqua 0 0% 1 5% 1

TOTAL 110 100% 21 100% 131Source: Data derived from Fertelmes et al. 2012; Loendorf 2012; Loendorf and Fertelmes 2011; Marshall 2002; Mitchell andFoster 2011; Mitchell and Shackley 1995; Peterson et al. 1997; Rice et al. 1998; and Shackley et al. 2011).

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 64.

16.5

7.4

Fr

iday

, Apr

il 19

, 201

3 1:

20:3

9 PM


Table

7. R

elativ

e Freq

uenc

ies of

Obs

idian

Arti

facts

at So

uthern

Ariz

ona A

rchae

ologic

al Sit

es by

Sourc

e.

Saca

te Di

stanc

e (km

)48

8792

120

198

200

221

260

267

239

284

287

Sacat

eSa

ndSa

uced

aLo

sBu

rroTa

nkGo

vernm

ent

RS H

ill/Co

wPa

rtridg

eM

ule/

Unkn

own/

Samp

leCo

llecti

onPe

riod

Dista

nce (

km)

Tank

sSu

perio

rM

tsVu

lture

Vidri

osCr

eekM

tsM

tnSit

greav

esCa

nyon

Creek

Antel

ope

Othe

rSiz

eSa

cate

Histo

ricN/

A7%

1%65

%12

%8%

0%2%

3%0%

0%0%

0%2%

131

*Sna

ketow

nPr

eclas

sic8

1%60

%22

%5%

0%0%

0%2%

2%2%

0%1%

0%29

9*E

LXP

Class

ic11

5%8%

63%

5%7%

1%0%

3%4%

0%0%

0%1%

76*G

R-52

2 Loc

us D

Prec

lassic

190%

51%

15%

3%0%

0%0%

13%

0%0%

0%0%

18%

39*G

R-52

2 Loc

us A

Class

ic22

0%20

%61

%0%

2%0%

0%4%

0%0%

0%2%

12%

51Pu

eblo

Gran

deCl

assic

350%

10%

30%

27%

4%0%

1%22

%0%

0%4%

0%3%

220

Rowl

eyCl

assic

350%

23%

30%

47%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%43

Los C

olina

sPr

eclas

sic38

0%2%

3%27

%4%

0%0%

42%

20%

0%7%

1%0%

73Lo

s Coli

nas

Class

ic38

0%3%

48%

17%

22%

0%0%

6%0%

0%2%

0%3%

103

Crism

onCl

assic

410%

18%

57%

0%0%

0%0%

23%

0%0%

0%0%

1%23

Casa

Gran

deCl

assic

440%

7%46

%1%

0%0%

0%29

%0%

0%0%

14%

2%13

7Gr

ewe

Prec

lassic

470%

95%

1%1%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%1%

2%13

7Ga

tlinPr

eclas

sic66

0%0%

85%

4%1%

3%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%7%

75Br

ady W

ashCl

assic

840%

3%79

%7%

3%0%

0%4%

0%0%

0%1%

1%67

Palo

Verde

Pr

eclas

sic87

0%0%

0%55

%0%

0%0%

31%

11%

1%2%

0%0%

122

Tonto

Arm

Cl

assic

950%

48%

10%

0%0%

0%0%

22%

0%3%

0%16

%2%

91Sa

lt Arm

Cl

assic

107

0%40

%12

%2%

0%0%

0%23

%7%

5%0%

13%

2%99

UIR

Class

ic14

41%

0%13

%0%

14%

0%2%

36%

0%1%

0%31

%0%

214

Midd

le Gi

la Da

ta*A

verag

ePr

eclas

sic13

1%56

%18

%4%

0%0%

0%7%

1%1%

0%0%

9%33

8*A

verag

eCl

assic

163%

14%

62%

3%5%

1%0%

4%2%

0%0%

1%7%

271

*Com

bined

Ave

rage

Both

152%

35%

40%

3%2%

0%0%

5%2%

0%0%

1%8%

609

*Nea

rby si

tes in

clude

d in t

he m

iddle

Gila

avera

ge.

(Data

from

Ferte

lmes

et al.

2012

; Loe

ndorf

2012

; Loe

ndorf

and F

ertelm

es 20

11; M

arsha

ll 200

2; M

itche

ll and

Foste

r 201

1; M

itche

ll and

Shac

kley 1

995;

Peter

son e

t al. 1

997;

Rice

et al

.19

98; S

hack

ley et

al. 2

011.)

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 64.

16.5

7.4

Fr

iday

, Apr

il 19

, 201

3 1:

20:3

9 PM

dency for greater reliance on southern Arizonasources started during the Classic period through-out the Hohokam core area (Fertelmes et al. 2012;Marshall 2002:132–133; Shackley 2005). At thesame time, use of sources located to the north andeast of the Phoenix Basin declined. Superior ob-sidian, for example, was the most common ma-terial (60 percent) identified at the PreclassicSnaketown site within the GRIC, but this stonerarely occurs in Classic contexts along the Mid-dle Gila, when Sauceda obsidian is consistentlymore abundant (Bayman and Shackley 1999;Loendorf 2012; Shackley 2005). Shackley (2005)argues that access to Superior was restricted bythe Salado. However, a similar pattern occurs inthe Tonto Basin, which is considered to be theheartland of the Salado, where use of Superior ob-sidian also declined during the Classic period (Riceet al. 1998). Rice et al. (1998) suggest two ex-planations for this pattern. First, the source wasdepleted. Second, a village appropriated exclusiveuse of the material. The first suggestion is im-probable because substantial obsidian deposits re-main at the source today. While the second is pos-sible, the site that cut off access has not been iden-tified. Another possibility is that hunter-gatherers,such as the Nnēē who occupied the source area

during the Historic period, moved into the area andrestricted access (Loendorf 2010).

Finally, these data also suggest that the AkimelO’Odham did not generally acquire points by col-lecting them at prehistoric sites, as some re-searchers have suggested (e.g., Russell 1908). Ifthe Akimel O’Odham obtained a substantial pro-portion of their points from nearby sites, then ob-sidian frequencies at Sacate should reflect the un-derlying proportions at prehistoric sites where theartifacts were collected. However, the frequenciesfor prehistoric obsidian data differ substantiallyfrom those for the Sacate sample (see Table 7 andFigure 8). In particular, the near-complete absenceof Superior obsidian and high incidence of Sauce-da obsidian are unlikely to have have occurred ifpoints were commonly obtained from prehis-toric sites (Fisher’s Exact Test p < .01).

Hohokam–Akimel O’Odham Continuum Discussion

Until recently, most outside observers who con-sidered the relationship between the Hohokam andthe Akimel O’Odham focused on differences be-tween historical ki-kuh and Classic period adobestructures. Based on this evidence, they concluded


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Tank Mountains

Los Vidrios Vulture Government Sauceda Sand Tanks Superior

Preclassic

Classic

Central

Expansion

Western

Figure 8. Obsidian proportions for the seven most common types by time period and segment of Sacate (GR-909). ThePreclassic category includes data from Snaketown and Locus D of GR-522; Classic period data include ELXP and LocusA of GR-522.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 64.

16.5

7.4

Fr

iday

, Apr

il 19

, 201

3 1:

20:3

9 PM

that the Historic populations were recent migrantsto the Phoenix Basin (Ezell 1961; Fewkes 1912;Russell 1908; Seymour 2011). However, Emoryis an exception; he wrote:

My own impression, and it is stated so in myjournal, is that the many ruins we saw on theGila might well be attributed to Indians of theraces we saw in New Mexico, and on the Gilaitself. I mean by the last, the Pimos [AkimelO’Odham], who might easily have lost the artof building adobe and mud houses. In allrespects, except their dwellings, they appearedto be of the same race as the builders of thenumberless houses now level with the groundof the Gila River [Emory et al. 1848:133].At the time this conclusion was almost univer-

sally rejected, and it was not until the 1960s that thepossibility of a Hohokam and Akimel O’Odhamcontinuum gained more widespread acceptance.Ezell (1963), for example, examined material cul-tural traits and found both similarities and differencesbetween prehistoric and Historic remains. Based onthis review, Ezell (1963:62) provisionally concludedthat the Akimel O’Odham were related to the Ho-hokam. By the 1990s, broader agreement wasreached among Southwestern archaeologists that theAkimel O’Odham are cultural descendants of theHohokam (Gilpin and Phillips 1998:117). Despitethis general consensus, some researchers continueto argue that the Akimel O’Odham are recent mi-grants to the Phoenix Basin (e.g., Rea 2007b), andambiguity regarding the nature of their relationshipremains. For example, Hegmon et al. (2008) sug-gest that although some people remained in thePhoenix Basin after the Classic period, the associ-ation between prehistoric and Historic groups is dif-ficult to trace using archaeological evidence. Mostrecently, based on a comprehensive data review, Sey-mour concludes that historical populations “eitherreplaced the Hohokam, absorbed them, or representa modified form of them” (2011:296).

However, this analysis has identified continu-ities between prehistoric and historical material cul-ture that suggest that the Akimel O’Odham are thedirect cultural descendants of the Hohokam. Fur-thermore, many additional lines of evidence alsoexist. First, the Akimel O’Odham practiced a dis-persed rancheria settlement pattern that is similarto Preclassic Hohokam strategies (Fish 1989:21;

Seymour 2011:198–209). Second, the AkimelO’Odham made red-on-buff pottery, which hasclose similarities in manufacturing technique(i.e., paddle and anvil), clay, and design with pre-historic ceramics (Ezell 1963). Third, in contrastto other surrounding groups, the Akimel O’Odhamwere dependent on large-scale irrigation agricul-ture, and their canal system shares close corre-spondences with Hohokam agricultural strategies(Ravesloot et al. 2009; Webb 1959:121–126;Woodson 2010:45). Fourth, most Akimel O’Od-ham believe that they are Hohokam descendants(Shaw 1994; Webb 1959:53). Fifth, Classic peri-od sites play a prominent role in Akimel O’Odhamtraditions, and the close similarities between thearchaeological record and these stories are unlikelyto have occurred by coincidence (Loendorf 2012;Teague 1993).

Finally, rather than resulting from the migrationof outside ethnic groups, the architectural changesthat occurred in the Phoenix Basin are consistentwith responses to variation in the raw materialsavailable for construction (Loendorf 2012:123–126). Instead of an abrupt disruption in con-struction techniques, house types that used pro-gressively less wood were built over time from thePreclassic to Classic periods, which suggests thatthe architectural changes were a response to en-vironmental constraints (Abbott and Foster2003:26–30; Ezell 1961:49; Sayles 1938:79–80).Preclassic pithouses were built largely of wood andfrequently had multiple support posts, whereas LateClassic adobe structures used no wood in the wallsand commonly only had one main roof support post(Haury 1976:46–74). A massive down-cutting eventoccurred at the transition between these two pe-riods around A.D. 1150 (Waters and Ravesloot2000, 2001). This event impacted riparian habitatsalong the Gila and Salt rivers, which eliminatedmany of the trees in the area (Waters and Raves-loot 2001:292). Macrobotanical evidence also sug-gests that fewer trees were locally available dur-ing the Classic period (e.g., Kwiatkowski 2003:57).

Waters and Ravesloot (2001:292) have sug-gested that riparian habitats along the Middle Gilarecovered by the Historic period. As a consequence,more trees were available that could have been usedfor construction and other purposes. Historic ki-kuh are similar to Preclassic pithouses, and theyboth require substantially more wood for con-


Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 64.

16.5

7.4

Fr

iday

, Apr

il 19

, 201

3 1:

20:3

9 PM

struction than adobe structures (Ezell 1963; Sayles1938; Seymour 2011:97–138). These similaritiesled Haury to conclude that the “Pima house, in myopinion, represents the retention of the old Ho-hokam architectural idiom, a not insignificant ar-gument in the favor of Hohokam–Pima continu-ity” (1976:72).

ConclusionsMultiple lines of evidence suggest that the AkimelO’Odham primarily obtained obsidian in the formof raw materials acquired through trade with the To-hono O’Odham and Pee Posh. They appear to havelargely employed this obsidian to manufactureflaked-stone points, which were used to tip arrowsdesigned for use in warfare. While some other goodsmay have been more readily traded among differ-ent people, the employment of flaked-stone pointsin warfare is expected to have restricted patternsof exchange for the materials, including obsidian,necessary to manufacture these weapons. Instead,it appears that these items were generally only ex-changed among more closely allied peoples.

Data from Sacate suggest that prehistoric tem-poral trends toward greater reliance on obsidiansources to the south of the Middle Gila culminat-ed during the Historic period, which appears to bethe result of changes in socioeconomic interactionsand the well-documented conflicts that occurredduring this interval. Access to northern and east-ern obsidians including the San Francisco volcanicsand Superior sources was restricted by interven-ing Nnēē and Gōōn populations. Meanwhile, al-liances between the Tohono O’Odham and the PeePosh allowed continued access to raw materials tothe south and west. The fact that the decline of ob-sidian from the north and east begins during theClassic period suggests that the Nnēē or similargroups moved into southern Arizona at this time.This possibility is supported by recent research onNnēē migration, as well as both Nnēē and AkimelO’Odham social memories (Loendorf 2012; Sey-mour 2011).

Examination of Akimel O’Odham obsidian useat Sacate suggests that long-term cultural trendsthat began during prehistory continued unabatedafter the advent of the Historic period in A.D. 1694.These include a general pattern of increasing re-liance on obsidian for point manufacture and con-

sistencies in point design between the Classic andHistoric periods. More important, trends in the in-teraction patterns within southern Arizona continueunbroken between the prehistoric and Historic pe-riods. This continuation of socioeconomic rela-tionships and technological traditions provides ad-ditional evidence that the Historic Akimel O’Od-ham are the cultural descendants of the prehistoricHohokam. This conclusion is supported by mul-tiple lines of evidence including similarities in ar-chitecture, subsistence practices, ceramics, and set-tlement strategies.Acknowledgments. This research was conducted as part of thePima-Maricopa Irrigation Project, which is funded by the De-partment of the Interior, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, underthe Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-413), for thedevelopment of a water delivery system utilizing Central Ari-zona Project water. This article would not have occurred with-out the dedication and support of J. Andrew Darling. His ef-forts resulted in the establishment of the Gila River IndianCommunity (GRIC) Material Sciences Laboratory, and heprovided important comments on this research. We recognizethe hard work of the field crew who recorded Sacate. Theseinvestigations were overseen by John Ravesloot, who also de-veloped the GRIC Cultural Resource Management Program.Brenda Randolph made important contributions to this study.Bruce Kaiser helped design our obsidian methodology, and hisencyclopedic knowledge of energy-dispersive X-ray fluores-cence analysis formed the foundation of our research programat the GRIC Material Sciences Laboratory. Many thanks go toManuel Palacios-Fest for his Spanish translation of the abstractand M. Kyle Woodson for providing insightful input on themanuscript. Comments provided by two anonymous review-ers and E. Christian Wells were essential for improving andclarifying the concepts in this article. Lynn Simon provided in-valuable assistance by making maps and completing geo-graphic information system analyses.

References CitedAbbott, David R., and Michael S. Foster

2003 Site Structure, Chronology, and Population. In Cen-turies of Decline During the Hohokam Classic Period, edit-ed by David R. Abbott, pp. 24–47. University of ArizonaPress, Tucson.

Audubon, John W.1906 Audubon’s Western Journal 1849–1850: Being the Ms.Record of a Trip from New York to Texas, and an OverlandJourney Through Mexico and Arizona to the Gold Fieldsof California. Arthur H. Clark Company, Cleveland.

Ballenger, Jesse A. M., and John D. Hall2011 Obsidian Procurement, Technology, and Exchange in

the Vicinity of Superior, Arizona. In The U.S. 60 Archae-ological Project: Early Agricultural, Formative, and His-torical-Period Use of the Upper Queen Creek Region, edit-ed by Robert M. Wegener, Michael P. Heilen, RichardCiolek-Torello, and John D. Hall, pp. 137–156. TechnicalSeries, 92. Statistical Research, Tucson.


Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 64.

16.5

7.4

Fr

iday

, Apr

il 19

, 201

3 1:

20:3

9 PM

Bancroft, Hubert H.1886 The Native Races of the Pacific States of NorthAmerica, Vol. I: Wild Tribes. A. L. Bancroft and Compa-ny, San Francisco.

Bartlett, John R.1854 Personal Narrative of Explorations and Incidents inTexas, New Mexico, California, Sonora, and Chihuahua.D. Appleton and Company, London.

Basso, Keith H. (editor)2004 Western Apache Raiding and Warfare. From theNotes of Grenville Goodwin. University of Arizona Press,Tucson.

Bayman, James M.1995 Rethinking “Redistribution” in the Archaeological

Record: Obsidian Exchange at the Marana PlatformMound. Journal of Anthropological Research 51:37–63.

Bayman, James M., and M. Steven Shackley1999 Dynamics of Hohokam Obsidian Circulation in the

North American Southwest. Antiquity 73:836–845.Burns, Michael

1916 Indian Troubles. In History of Arizona: Vol. III, edit-ed by Thomas E. Farish, pp. 286–355. Filmer Brothers Elec-trotype Company, San Francisco.

2012 The Only One Living to Tell: The Autobiography of aYavapai Indian. Edited by Gregory McNamee. Universi-ty of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Cotterell, Brian, and Johan Kamminga1992 Mechanics of Pre-Industrial Technology. Cambridge

University Press, New York.Darling, J. Andrew

2011 S-cuk Kavick: Thoughts on Migratory Processes andthe Archaeology of O’Odham Migration. In Rethinking An-thropological Perspectives on Migration, edited by Gra-ciela S. Cabana and Jeffrey J. Clark, pp. 68–83. Universi-ty Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Darling, J. Andrew, John C. Ravesloot, and Michael R. Waters2004 Village Drift and Riverine Settlement: Modeling

Akimel O’Odham Land Use. American Anthropologist106:282–295.

DeJong, David H.2009 Stealing the Gila: The Pima Agricultural Economy andWater Deprivation, 1848–1921. University of Arizona Press,Tucson.

2011 Forced to Abandon Our Fields: The 1914 ClaySouthworth Gila River Pima Interviews. University of UtahPress, Salt Lake City.

Ellis, Christopher J.1997 Factors Influencing the Use of Stone Projectile Tips:

An Ethnographic Perspective. In Projectile Technology, edit-ed by Heidi Knecht, pp. 37–74. Plenum Press, New York.

Emory, William H., James W. Abert, Philip St. George Cook, andAbraham R. Johnston

1848 Notes of a Military Reconnaissance from Fort Leav-enworth, in Missouri, to San Diego, in California, IncludingParts of the Arkansas Del Norte, and Gila Rivers. 31st U.S.Congress, 1st Session, Senate Executive Document No. 7(Serial No. 505). Wendell and Van Benthuysen, Washing-ton, D.C.

Ezell, Paul H.1961 The Hispanic Acculturation of the Gila River Pimas.American Anthropologist (N.S.) 63(5), Pt. 2.

1963 Is There a Hohokam–Pima Culture Continuum?American Antiquity 29:61–66.

1983 History of the Pima. In Southwest, edited by A. Ortiz,pp. 149–160. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol.10, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institu-tion, Washington, D.C.

Ferg, Alan, and Norm Tessman1997 Two Archival Case Studies in Western Apache and

Yavapai Archaeology. In Vanishing River: Landscapes andLives of the Lower Verde Valley, the Lower Verde Archae-ological Project, edited by Stephanie M. Whittlesey,Richard Ciolek-Torello, and Jeffrey H. Altschul, pp.214–279. SRI Press, Tucson.

Fertelmes, Craig M., David R. Abbott, and M. Steven Shackley2012 Obsidian Source Characterization at Las Colinas: Shift-

ing Exchange Patterns During the Hohokam Sedentary toClassic Transition. Kiva 77:281–311.

Fewkes, Jesse W.1912 Casa Grande, Arizona. In Twenty-Eighth Report of theBureau of American Ethnology, pp. 25–180. U.S. Gov-ernment Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Fish, Paul R.1989 The Hohokam: 1,000 Years of Prehistory in the

Sonoran Desert. In Dynamics of Southwest Prehistory, edit-ed by Linda. S. Cordell and George J. Gumerman, pp.19–63. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Gilpin, Dennis, and David A. Phillips1998 The Prehistoric to Historic Transition Period in Ari-zona, Circa A.D. 1519 to 1692. Report submitted to the Ari-zona State Historic Preservation Office, Arizona State ParksBoard, Phoenix.

Glascock, Michael G., and Jeffrey R. Ferguson2012 Report on the Analysis of Obsidian Source Samples byMultiple Analytical Methods. Archaeometry Lab, Univer-sity of Missouri, Research Reactor Center, Columbia.

Grossman, Frank E.1873 The Pima Indians of Arizona. In Annual Report of theBoard of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution Showingthe Operations, Expenditures, and Condition of the Insti-tution for the Year 1871, pp. 407–419. U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington, D.C.

Hackenberg, Robert A.1974 Aboriginal Land Use and Occupancy of the Pima-Mari-copa Indians, Vol. II. Garland Publishing Inc., New York.

Haury, Emil W.1976 The Hohokam: Desert Farmers and Craftsmen— Excavations at Snaketown. University of Arizona Press, Tuc-son.

Hegmon, Michelle, Matthew A. Peeples, Ann P. Kinzig,Stephanie Kulow, Cathryn M. Meegan, and Margaret C.Nelson

2008 Social Transformation and Its Human Costs in the Pre-hispanic U.S. Southwest. American Anthropologist110:313–324.

Jacoby, Karl2008 Shadows at Dawn: A Borderlands Massacre and theViolence of History. Penguin Press, New York.

Justice, Noel D.2002 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Southwest-ern United States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Kroeber, Clifton B., and Bernard Fontana1986 Massacre on the Gila— An Account of the Last MajorBattle Between American Indians, with Reflections on theOrigin of War. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Kwiatkowski, Scott M.2003 Evidence for Subsistence Problems. InCenturies of De-cline During the Hohokam Classic Period at PuebloGrande, edited by David R. Abbott, pp. 48–69. Universi-ty of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Loendorf, Chris2010 Regional and Temporal Variation in Obsidian Use With-

in the Hohokam Region. Journal of Arizona Archaeology1:47–59.


Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 64.

16.5

7.4

Fr

iday

, Apr

il 19

, 201

3 1:

20:3

9 PM

2012 The Hohokam–Akimel O’odham Continuum: Socio-cultural Dynamics and Projectile Point Design in thePhoenix Basin, Arizona. Gila River Indian Community An-thropology Research Papers No. 5. University of ArizonaPress, Tucson.

Loendorf, Chris, and Craig M. Fertelmes2011 EDXRF Source Provenance Analysis of Obsidian Ar-tifacts from University Indian Ruin (AZ BB:9:33 [ASM]),Tucson, Arizona. pXRF Technical Report 2011-04. Gila Riv-er Indian Community, Material Sciences Laboratory,Sacaton, Arizona.

2012 Pima-Maricopa Irrigation Project Obsidian SourcingAnalysis: Methodology and Research Design. P-MIPTechnical Report 2010-06. Gila River Indian Communi-ty Material Sciences Laboratory, Sacaton, Arizona.

Loendorf, Chris, and Glen E. Rice2004 Projectile Point Typology: Gila River Indian Com-munity, Arizona. Gila River Indian Community Anthro-pology Research Papers No. 2. University of Arizona Press,Tucson.

Marshall, John T.2002 Obsidian and the Northern Periphery: Tool Manufacture,

Source Distribution, and Patterns of Interaction. In PhoenixBasin to Perry Mesa: Rethinking the “Northern Periphery,”edited by Mark R. Hackbarth, Kelly Hays-Gilpin, and LynnNeal, pp. 121–138. Arizona Archaeologist No. 34. ArizonaArchaeological Society, Phoenix.

Mason, Otis T.1894 North American Bows, Arrows, and Quivers. Gov-

ernment Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Millhauser, John K., Enrique Rodríguez-Algría, and Michael D.

Glascock2011 Testing the Accuracy of Portable X-Ray Fluorescence

to Study Aztec and Colonial Obsidian Supply at Xaltocan,Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:3141–3152.

Mitchell, Douglas R., and Michael S. Foster2011 Salt, Seashells, and Shiny Stones: Prehistoric Hohokam

Resource Exploitation in the Papagueria and Northern Gulfof California. Journal of Arizona Archaeology 1:176–184.

Mitchell, Douglas R., and M. Steven Shackley1995 Classic Period Hohokam Obsidian Studies in South-

ern Arizona. Journal of Field Archaeology 22:291–304.Ortiz, Alfonzo

1983 Key to Tribal Territories (map). In Southwest, editedby A. Ortiz, p. IX. Handbook of North American Indians,Vol. 10, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian In-stitution, Washington, D.C.

Peterson, Jane D., Douglas R. Mitchell, and M. Steven Shackley1997 The Social and Economic Contexts of Lithic Pro-

curement: Obsidian from Classic-Period Hohokam Sites.American Antiquity 62:231–259.

Randolph, Brenda G., J. Andrew Darling, Chris Loendorf, andBonny Rockette

2002 Historic Piman Structure and the Evolution of the SacateSite (GR-909), Gila River Indian Community. In Visible Ar-chaeology on the Gila River Indian Reservation: PapersPresented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Society forAmerican Archaeology, March 21–24, 2002, Denver,compiled by Tom Herrschaft, pp. 166–195. P-MIP ReportNo. 21. Gila River Indian Community Cultural ResourceManagement Program, Sacaton, Arizona.

Ravesloot, John C.2007 Changing Views of Snaketown in a Larger Landscape.

In The Hohokam Millennium, edited by Suzanne K. Fishand Paul R. Fish, pp. 91–98. School for Advanced ResearchPress, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Ravesloot, John C., J. Andrew Darling, and Michael R. Waters2009 Hohokam and Pima-Maricopa Irrigation Agricultur-

alists: Maladaptive or Resilient Societies? In The Archae-ology of Environmental Change, edited by Christopher T.Fisher, J. Brett Hill, and Gary M. Feinman, pp. 232–245.University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Ravesloot, John C., and Stephanie M. Whittlesey1987 Inferring the Protohistoric Period in Southern Arizona.

In The Archaeology of the San Xavier Bridge Site (AZBB:13:14), Tucson Basin, Southern Arizona, edited by JohnC. Ravesloot, pp. 81–98. Archaeological Series No. 171.Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Rea, Amadeo M.1998 Folk Mammalogy of the Northern Pimas. University

of Arizona Press, Tucson.2007a Wings in the Desert: A Folk Ornithology of the North-ern Pimas. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

2007b The Poorwill in Pima Oral Tradition. ArchaeologySouthwest 21(1):7.

Rice, Glen E., Arleyn W. Simon, and Chris Loendorf1998 Production and Exchange of Economic Goods. InA Synthesis of Tonto Basin Prehistory: The Roosevelt Ar-chaeology Studies, 1989 to 1998, edited by Glen E. Rice,pp. 105–130. Roosevelt Monograph Series, 12; Anthro-pological Field Studies, 41. Arizona State University,Tempe.

Russell, Frank1908 The Pima Indians. Twenty-Sixth Annual Report of theBureau of American Ethnology, 1904–1905. SmithsonianInstitution, Washington, D.C.

Sayles, E. B.1938 Houses. In Excavations at Snaketown: Material Cul-ture, pp. 59–92. Medallion Papers No. 25. Gila Pueblo,Globe, Arizona.

Seymour, Deni J.2011 Where the Earth and Sky Are Sewn Together:Sobaipuri-O’Odham Contexts of Contact and Colonialism.University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Shackley, M. Steven1988 Sources of Archaeological Obsidian in the Southwest:

An Archaeological, Petrological, and Geochemical Study.American Antiquity 53:752–772.

1990 Early Hunter-Gatherer Procurement Ranges in theSouthwest: Evidence from Obsidian Geochemistry and Lith-ic Technology. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Departmentof Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe.

1995 Sources of Archaeological Obsidian in the GreaterAmerican Southwest: An Update and Quantitative Analy-sis. American Antiquity 60:531–551.

2005 Obsidian: Geology and Archaeology in the North Amer-ican Southwest. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Shackley, M. Steven, and Jon Daehnke2004 Source Provenance of Obsidian Artifacts from Vari-ous Contexts on the Gila River Indian Community Land,Central Arizona. Berkeley Archaeological XRF Lab, Uni-versity of California, Berkeley.

Shackley, M. Steven, Elizabeth Eklund, and Caroline Ogasawara2011 Source Provenance of Obsidian Artifacts from Crismon

Ruin, AZ U:9:173 (ASM), Mesa, Arizona: Appendix G. InCrismon Ruin: A Hohokam Settlement at the Head of theLehi Canal System, edited by T. Kathleen Henderson, pp.479–482. Anthropological Papers No. 44. Center forDesert Archaeology, Tucson.

Shackley, M. Steven, and David B. Tucker2001 Limited Prehistoric Procurement of Sand Tank Ob-

sidian. Kiva 66:345–374.


Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 64.

16.5

7.4

Fr

iday

, Apr

il 19

, 201

3 1:

20:3

9 PM

Shaw, Anna M.1994 A Pima Past. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Silliman, Stephen W.2005 Obsidian Studies and the Archaeology of 19th Cen-

tury California. Journal of Field Archaeology 30:75–94.Simon, Arleyn W., and Dennis C. Gosser

2001 Conflict and Exchange Among the Salado of TontoBasin: Warfare Motivation or Alleviation? In DeadlyLandscapes: Case Studies in Prehistoric Warfare, editedby Glen E. Rice and Stephen A. LeBlanc, pp. 219–238. Uni-versity of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Speakman, Robert J., and M. Steven Shackley2013 Silo Science and Portable XRF in Archaeology: A Re-

sponse to Frahm. Journal of Archaeological Science40:1435–1443.

Spier, Leslie1933 The Yuman Tribes of the Gila River. University of Chica-

go Press, Chicago.Szuter, Christine R.

1991 Hunting by Prehistoric Horticulturists in the Ameri-can Southwest. Garland Press, New York.

Teague, Lynn S.1993 Prehistory and the Traditions of the O’odham and Hopi.Kiva 58:435–454.

Vint, James M.2005 An Instance of Violence Along Cienega Creek: TheCienega Creek Burials (AZ EE:2:480 [ASM]) and aStudy of Protohistoric Projectile Technology in SoutheasternArizona. Technical Report No. 2005-101. Center forDesert Archaeology, Tucson.

Waters, Michael R., and John C. Ravesloot2000 Late Quaternary Geology of the Middle Gila River, Gila

River Indian Reservation, Arizona. Quaternary Research45:49–57.

2001 Landscape Change and the Cultural Evolution of theHohokam Along the Middle Gila River and Other River Val-leys in South-Central Arizona. American Antiquity66:285–299.

Webb, George1959 A Pima Remembers. University of Arizona Press,

Tucson.Wells, E. Christian

2006 From Hohokam to O’Odham. The Protohistoric Oc-cupation of the Middle Gila River Valley, Central Arizona.Gila River Indian Community, Anthropological ResearchPapers No. 3. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Wells, E. Christian, Glen E. Rice, and John C. Ravesloot2004 Peopling Landscapes Between Villages in the Middle

Gila River Valley of Central Arizona. American Antiqui-ty 69:627–652.

Wilson, John P.(Forthcoming) Peoples of the Middle Gila: A DocumentaryHistory of the Pimas and Maricopas, 1500s–1945. Gila Riv-er Indian Community Archaeological Research PaperNo. 6. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Woodson, M. Kyle2010 The Social Organization of Hohokam Irrigation in the

Middle Gila River Valley, Arizona. Unpublished Ph.D. dis-sertation, Department of Anthropology, Arizona StateUniversity, Tempe.

Note1. The primary components of the Tracer III-V are an X-

ray tube, an X-ray detector, and a pulse processor. The X-raytube is equipped with a rhodium target, and it emits a colli-mated 4.0-mm-diameter beam. The instrument was set to op-erate at 40 keV and 12 µA using an external power supply. Abeam filter composed of 304 µm of aluminum, 25 µm of tita-nium, and 152 µm of copper was placed between the tube andthe sample. This filter provides efficient detection of the “fin-gerprint” elements (i.e., rubidium, strontium, yttrium, zirco-nium, and niobium) used in obsidian studies (Shackley 1988,1995, 2005). The detector is a Peltier-cooled SiPIN diode sen-sor. This device has a resolution of approximately 170 eVFull Width at Half Maximum for 5.9 keV X-rays (at 1,000counts per second) in an area of 7.0 mm2. The pulse processerpartitions X-ray data into 2,048 channels (20 eV/channel),with each channel counting the number of X-ray pulses gath-ered in that specific energy window during the 180-secondanalysis time. These multichannel data are stored by theS1PXRF software program. Partitioned pulse data were nor-malized using the inelastic (or Compton) peak of the rhodiumbackscatter at 18.2–19.2 keV. Normalized pulse data wereconverted to parts per million values using a calibration pro-gram that incorporates elemental results for 40 reference sam-ples that have a wide range of compositional variation. Con-centration values for the reference obsidian were determinedby the Archaeometry Laboratory, University of Missouri Re-search Reactor, using neutron activation analysis, microwavedigestion inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, andlaser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry(Glascock and Ferguson 2012). Provenance assignments wereassessed through reference to known source samples includinga K-means cluster analysis of the parts per million values forrubidium, strontium, yttrium, zirconium, and niobium. To ex-amine group fitness, elemental concentrations were comparedusing two-way scatterplots. Statistical analyses were com-pleted in PASW Statistics 18 (Release 18.0.0). Source nomen-clature is adopted from Shackley 1988, 1995, 2005 (see alsohttp://www.swxrflab.net/swobsrcs.htm).

Submitted April 24, 2012; Revised June 14, 2012; AcceptedAugust 12, 2012.

284 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 78, No. 2, 2013]

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 64.

16.5

7.4

Fr

iday

, Apr

il 19

, 201

3 1:

20:3

9 PM

Documents

HOHOKAM TO AKIMEL O’ODHAM: OBSIDIAN ACQUISITION AT … · important component of prehistoric archaeologi-cal research throughout the Southwest and other parts of North America,