Archaeological models of early Uto-Aztecan prehistory in the Arizona-Sonora borderlands, JB Mabry, JP Carpenter, G Sanchez

Tags: American Southwest, Jonathan B. Mabry, Uto-Aztecan, Anthropology, New Mexico, Mexico, Colorado Plateau, Anthropological Papers, American Antiquity, Arizona, B.C., John P. Carpenter, Southwest, Archaeology, ed, Salt Lake City, Tucson, Jesse D. Jennings, San Jose, University of Utah Press, Oxford University Press, Southern Arizona, Arizona State University, Great Basin, University of Texas Press, International Journal of American Linguistics, maize pollen, San Pedro, California, point, points, Eastern New Mexico University, Smithsonian Institution Press, University Press, D. D. Fowler, Michael S. Berry, Annual Review of Anthropology, Michael S. Foster, Guadalupe Sanchez, Arizona-Sonora, University of Washington, linguistic boundaries, PUA, southern California coast, American Anthropologist, California Coast, Jonathan E., Anasazi Prehistory, Jane H. Hill, Handbook of North American Indians, D. Fowler, University of Utah Anthropological Papers, Northern New Mexico, R. Jane Sliva, California Archaeology, Thomas R. Hester, Francis E. Smiley, Western North America, University of Arizona, Northwestern Mexico, B.P., Universidad de Sonora, University of California Press, Berkeley, B. J. Vierra, David Hurst, North American, Jonathan Mabry, Department of Anthropology, Guadalupe Sanchez D. Fowler, Desert Research Institute Publications, Richard S. Levy, Florence M. Voegelin, Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, Mesoamerican Formative Period Water Management Technology, Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory, Hermosillo, Sonora, Prehistoric North America, Desert Research Institute
Content: 9 ArchAeologicAl Models of eArly Uto-AztecAn Prehistory in the ArizonA-sonorA BorderlAnds Jonathan B. Mabry, John P. Carpenter, and Guadalupe Sanchez A number of researchers have attempted to follow a trail of linguistic clues back to the origins of the Uto-Aztecan language family, unusual both for its large northsouth geographical range spanning the boundary between tropical and temperate environments and for the large variety of subsistence adaptations and social structures represented among its contemporary speakers. But while some linguistic detectives are convinced the Arizona-Sonora borderlands at the juncture of the southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico were the homeland of foragers who were the first speakers of the ancestral Uto-Aztecan "proto-language" (Campbell 1977; Fowler 1983; Hale and Harris 1979; Lamb 1958; Miller 1983b; Romney 1957; Suбrez 1979), others argue that this region was a frontier of northward expansion by the original Uto-Aztecan speakers, who may have been the first farmers in the highlands of Mexico (Bellwood 1997, 1999; Hill 1996, 2001, 2003). For archaeologists, these linguistic models of culture history are intriguing, but they raise a perennial question in their own field of study: How can a pre-literate culture, its members speaking a common language, be recognized in the archaeological record? The assumption that sets of material culture traits represent "cultures" and the postulation of migrations to explain the appearance of new sets of traits in 155
Jonathan B. Mabry, John P. Carpenter, and Guadalupe Sanchez the archaeological record were givens for generations of archaeologists emphasizing cultural-historical classification (Willey and Sabloff 1982). These conventions have come under criticism as overly simplistic in the correlation of ethnicity with material remains and as underestimating the role of internal cultural changes (Thompson 1958; Adams, Van Gerven, and Levy 1978; but see Anthony 1990). The result of these reappraisals is a growing recognition among archaeologists that while some material traits will cluster in relation to ethnicity, it is not certain which traits might do so in a particular case (Sutton 1991). In this chapter we evaluate linguistic models of early Uto-Aztecan history in the light of archaeological data, focusing on evidence from the critical region of the Arizona-Sonora borderlands. We interpret temporal-spatial patterns in the archaeological record in terms of material culture "complexes" representing, simultaneously, cultural traditions and communication networks (Mabry 1998). In this perspective a set of artifact styles and feature types overlapping in time and space to form a complex could have spread through (1) migration, involving an actual movement of people; (2) diffusion, involving slow transmission across cultural-linguistic boundaries or rapid dispersal within a cultural-linguistic continuum; or (3) a combination of migration and diffusion processes. On the basis of ethnographic and historical studies, we assume that certain aspects of material culture, particularly "passive styles" and "technological styles," are useful cultural markers because they unconsciously represent cultural identity. Here, we focus on these aspects of style expressed by projectile points, direct radiocarbon dates on cultigen remains, and other archaeological data to infer (1) the diffusion of maize to indigenous cultural groups either before or after the arrival of Proto-Uto-Aztecan peoples in the Arizona-Sonora borderlands; (2) a series of subsequent diffusions, migrations, or both from the south that introduced other Mesoamerican cultigens and material culture traits; (3) the extent of the Proto-Uto-Aztecan continuum prior to its breakup into northern and southern groups; and (4) the timing of that divergence. (Editor's note: Interested readers are also referred to LeBlanc [Chapter 7] for a different approach to this topic.) LINGUISTIC MODELS Uto-Aztecan is one of the largest and most widely distributed language families in the Americas, extending from the Shoshoneans in southern Idaho south to the Pipil in Nicaragua. Based on more than 100 sets of cognates that exhibit sound correspondence and similarities in meaning, the numerous linguistic members of the Uto-Aztecan family have been demonstrated to comprise a genetic unit, meaning that in the remote past there existed a single linguistic community in which a common ancestral language, Proto-Uto-Aztecan (PUA), was spoken. Suggestions for the center of origin for Uto-Aztecan languages--the PUA homeland--vary widely, although most scholars support a northern origin in western North America, ranging anywhere from the Columbia Plateau (Hopkins 1965), northern California (Nichols 1981), the Great Basin (Goss 1977), or the northern Rockies (Taylor 1961) 156
Archaeological Models of Early Uto-Aztecan Prehistory in the Arizona-Sonora Borderlands south to the foothills of the Mogollon Highlands and the Sierra Madre (Fowler 1983; Romney 1957), the deserts of the Arizona-Sonora borderlands (Lamb 1958), or southern California (Miller 1995). Catherine Fowler (1983) identified twentyseven cognates for plants and animals that were presumably part of the folk biological knowledge of PUA and that she suggested placed them in the mid-elevation, mixed woodland-grassland zone of the northern Sierra Madre foothills in northern Mexico and the Basin and Range Province of southern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico. Jane Hill (2003) argues for a PUA homeland somewhere at the northwestern edge of Mesoamerica, in an upland region where the set of flora and fauna reconstructed by Fowler (1983) can be found, as in the present-day Mexican states of Jalisco, Nayarit, Durango, Zacatecas, and Aguascalientes. Linguistic geography and degree of internal differentiation suggest that UtoAztecan is younger than Hokan, Penutian, or Algic in western North America but nevertheless indicative of considerable antiquity. Glottochronological analyses have arrived at estimates ranging between 8,000 and 3,000 years to account for the degree of internal differentiation in the Uto-Aztecan stock. Romney (1957) estimated the time depth of the PUA community at about 3,000 years, although the data on which his estimate was based remain unpublished. Later studies yielded estimates of 4,000 years (Hale 1958) and 4,700 years (Swadesh 1960). Fowler (1983) uses a figure of 5,000 years as a minimum age for the Proto-Uto-Aztecan dialect chain. The figure of 6000 B.C. that appeared in a widely cited publication by Miller (1983b) is almost certainly a misprint (i.e., it should probably be B.P.), as the author elsewhere referred to 5,000 (Miller 1984) and 4,000 (Miller 1995) years of time depth. Most linguists today accept 5,000 to 6,000 years as a minimum age for the proto-language, thus establishing a baseline between approximately 4000­3000 B.C. Hale (1958) and Voegelin and colleagues (1962) suggested that the Proto-UtoAztecan stock subsequently split into northern and southern substocks, the northern developing into the Shoshonean and Sonoran branches and the southern into the Nahuatlбn branch. Today, many place the Sonoran languages in the southern group (Campbell and Longacker 1978; Fowler 1983; Heath 1977; Hill 1996; Manaster Ramer 1992), with the Tepiman languages representing the northernmost subgroup (Shaul and Hill 1993). Bascom's (1965) reconstruction of Proto-Tepiman includes a cognate for saguaro cactus, which is not found in other Uto-Aztecan languages. This suggests to Fowler (1983) that Tepehuan speakers spread southward from a Proto-Tepiman homeland in the Sonoran Desert; she attributes the locations of the Tarahumara and Cahitan groups that interrupt the distribution of Piman languages to subsequent movements of these groups toward the west Mexican coast. This contrasts with her earlier suggestion that the southern languages began to diverge from PUA in the Sonoran foothills of the Sierra Madre, perhaps in the Rнo Sonora and Rнo Yaqui basins (Fowler 1972). Shaul and Hill (1993) argue that Proto-Tepiman was in contact with Yuman languages and thus forward a northern center of development for this subgroup of the southern Uto-Aztecan languages. 157
Jonathan B. Mabry, John P. Carpenter, and Guadalupe Sanchez We have previously followed the borderlands homeland model in arguing that the introduction of maize into northwestern Mexico and the southwestern United States could be attributed either to (1) the movement of agricultural ProtoSouthern-Uto-Aztecans (PSUA) out of a presumed homeland in the coastal plain, the serrana of the Sierra Madre Occidental surrounding the region where Sonora, Chihuahua, Durango, and Sinaloa merge, or both (Carpenter, Mabry, and Sanchez 2001; Carpenter, Sanchez, and Villalpando 2002, 2005), or to (2) diffusion across a previously established continuum of Proto-Uto-Aztecan speakers spanning these regions (Mabry 2005a; see also Mabry and Doolittle, Chapter 4, this volume). As part of the first model, we have also suggested that the timing of the initial bifurcation of Uto-Aztecan into northern and southern branches (circa 6000 B.P.) could be explained by the abandonment of the Sonoran Desert region as a result of changing climatic conditions during the Middle Holocene interval of higher temperatures (the Altithermal period). Likewise, the subsequent diversification of PSUA beginning at approximately 4000­3000 B.P. could be attributed to the re-population of the desert areas (which remained a largely empty niche) by agricultural peoples following a return to more amenable conditions with the onset of the Late Holocene. In the second model, PUA groups first arrived in the thinly populated borderlands at the beginning of the Late Holocene, before the arrival of maize, and all this linguistic diversification occurred subsequently. Recently, Hill (2001) has challenged some of the conventional linguistic models of Uto-Aztecan prehistory (which she herself had long upheld)--both the one that envisioned PUA speakers to be foragers who later adopted agriculture and the one that held that their homeland was in the Arizona-Sonora borderlands. Based on linguistic data, with some references to radiocarbon dates on cultigens from archaeological sites, Hill elaborated on Bellwood's (1997, 1999) model that agriculture was introduced to the U.S. Southwest by a migration of Uto-Aztecan speakers from central Mexico. Specifically, Hill's (2001) major propositions are that (1) maize was introduced to the Southwest by a single northward migration of Proto-Uto-Aztecan agriculturalists who originated in central Mexico, (2) the PUA community included the domesticators of maize, (3) the initial expansion of Proto-Uto-Aztecans into the Southwest occurred between about 4,000 and 3,000 years ago, (4) the PUA expansion into the Southwest occurred in a leapfrog pattern from oasis to oasis, (5) the PUA community practiced irrigation, (6) the PUA community began to break up between the arrival of maize and beans, and (7) the historically non-agricultural Uto-Aztecan peoples in the extreme north abandoned agriculture during prehistoric time. This new model is important because of its fresh perspective and breadth of interpretation, and it has forced both linguists and archaeologists to rethink their positions on early Uto-Aztecan prehistory. In the rest of this chapter, we explore whether the linguistic and archaeological data converge to provide a coherent picture of early Uto-Aztecan speakers in the Arizona-Sonora borderlands, including their role in the arrival of agriculture in this region.1 158
Archaeological Models of Early Uto-Aztecan Prehistory in the Arizona-Sonora Borderlands POSSIBLE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF THE ARRIVAL OF EARLY UTO-AZTECANS IN THE SOUTHWEST Projectile Points To identify the material traces of a population movement from a specific homeland during the pre-pottery period of prehistory, we first turn to projectile points, "the only artifacts that are routinely discovered at Archaic sites that have the potential to inform us about the movement of information, ideas, and perhaps even people over the landscape that is now the Southwest" (Huckell 1996:3). But like pots, points do not necessarily equal peoples. The types of variations in projectile points that are most likely related to cultural identities need to be identified on the basis of ethnoarchaeological, historical, and technological studies. An ethnoarchaeological study in southwestern Africa has shown that variations in the shapes of projectile point blades may consciously express social differences within the same ethnic group and so are examples of "active style" (Weissner 1983). This conscious expression of difference is often related to the need to mark boundaries between groups that are in constant contact, even among those that are culturally and linguistically related. Among nineteenth-century Numic-speaking bands in the Great Basin, variations in arrow shaft decorations, rather than arrowhead shapes, were expressions of different group identities, and shaft decoration varied the most between closely interacting groups (Sinopoli 1991). Decorated Basketmaker dart foreshafts and mainshafts found in caves in the Southwest (Cosgrove 1947) and the Great Basin (Harrington 1933) display great variability in decorative elements and may be similar expressions of group identities among a population using the same hafting technique. Clearly, active style variations in projectile point blades, foreshafts, and mainshafts may be useful signs of differences between cultural subgroups and possibly between unrelated cultures, but they are not necessarily markers of cultural differences. In contrast, the less visible, more conservative, and largely unconscious variations in projectile designs are examples of "passive style" and reflect shared enculturative backgrounds even more strongly (Weissner 1983). What, then, are the aspects of passive style represented in the designs of Archaic and Early Agricultural projectiles of the southwestern United States and Mexico? Hafting designs, the techniques used to attach points to shafts, may or may not be related to cultural identities. Rather, they represent "technological traditions" that may have crossed cultural boundaries (Musil 1988). The temporal-spatial distribution of a particular hafting design represents a time and an area of shared technology that was a product of information flow among groups in frequent contact because they were exploiting the same environment (Holmer 1986). However, the geographical limits and temporal continuities of such technological traditions allow some conclusions about whether they are indigenous or introduced. The best examples of passive style in projectile points are the less visible variations within each hafting design tradition: the variations in the shapes and dimensions of projectile point stems, bases, notches, and necks. These were largely 159
Jonathan B. Mabry, John P. Carpenter, and Guadalupe Sanchez obscured from direct view by sinew bindings and may have been unconscious reflections of cultural identity because they were culturally specific, alternative solutions to the same technological problems. Here, several dart point types representing different hafting technological traditions and their passive style variations are discussed in terms of their possible associations with the earliest farming cultures between the borderlands and central Mexico. POINT TYPES REPRESENTING DISTINCT HAFTING DESIGNS Contracting stem points. The contracting stem dart point represents a unique hafting design that may have originated in Mexico. Based on the residues found on a large proportion of contracting stem points in the Southwest and the Great Basin, it has been suggested that these points were glued into the socketed or split ends of foreshafts with adhesives such as asphaltum and pine pitch and that this is a hafting tradition that originated south of the other hafting traditions in North America, probably in Mesoamerica (Holmer 1986). Known by various names, contracting stem points appeared between about 5000 and 4000 B.P. in the lower Rio Grande and Pecos valleys (Almagre and Langtry types) (Marmaduke 1978), the Southwest (Gypsum Cave, Agustнn, and Pelona types) (Berry and Berry 1986), and the southern Great Basin (Elko Contracting Stem and Gatecliff Contracting Stem) (Holmer 1986; Thomas 1981). Similar points (including examples with adhesive residues) appeared along the southern California coast and the Channel Islands (Harrington 1933:117­118; Koerper and Drover 1983:10; Orr 1968) as early as 4500 B.P. (Justice 2002:194). However, the contracting stem point variants in southern coastal California may have developed independently from earlier leaf-shaped points (Justice 2002:194). Similarly shaped points appeared in the central highlands of Mexico, within the Coxcatlбn phase in the Tehuacбn Valley (MacNeish, Nelken-Terner, and Johnson 1967), associated with maize radiocarbon dated to about 4700 B.P. (circa 3500 B.C. calibrated) (Long et al. 1989). This is among the earliest maize yet identified in the central highlands, although maize dating to about 5400 B.P. (circa 4200 B.C. calibrated) has been found in the southern highland region of Oaxaca (Piperno and Flannery 2001). Similar contracting stem point types have also been reported from non-agricultural sites in Coahuila and Tamaulipas in northeastern Mexico, estimated to date between roughly 6000 and 3500 B.P. (circa 4900­1800 B.C. calibrated) (MacNeish 1958; Taylor 1966). At only two sites north of Mexico has this point type been found in association with possible maize remains. At the Keystone Dam site near El Paso, contracting stem points were found in a stratum bracketed by charcoal dates between 4100 and 3300 B.P. (circa 2600­1600 B.C. calibrated) and containing small, circular pit structures, storage pits, roasting pits, fire-cracked rock hearths, grinding tools, and probable maize pollen (O'Laughlin 1980). In Bat Cave, contracting stem points occur together with expanding stem Bat Cave points and side-notched Chiricahua points 160
Archaeological Models of Early Uto-Aztecan Prehistory in the Arizona-Sonora Borderlands in the deepest stratum (Dick 1965), which has provided a maize radiocarbon date of 3740 ± 70 B.P. (circa 2150 B.C. calibrated) (Wills 1988). When this date was published, it was suggested that it may be unreliable because of possible contamination with a preservative, but that was an attempt to explain a data outlier that seemed implausible at the time. Today, this date closely matches the earliest direct dates on maize in several parts of the Southwest (see references in Mabry 2005b). Expanding stem points. Representing a different, probably indigenous southwestern hafting design are expanding stem points, of which the best known are the San Jose variants. These have narrow, usually serrated blades and either a straight stem with a concave base (sometimes with shoulders) or an expanding stem with concave sides and base. Both forms were included in the original definition of the San Jose complex (Bryan and Toulouse 1943), but Irwin-Williams (1973) called the first San Jose and the second Armijo and believed the latter developed from the former. Obsidian hydration dates support this interpretation (Moore 1994). A variant of the Pinto point resembles the first variant, which has sometimes been referred to as San Jose­Pinto (Bayham et al. 1986; Berry and Berry 1986; Huckell 1996). The Bat Cave point (Dick 1965:fig. 23c­h) appears to be an unserrated, straight-based version of the second variant (Justice 2002). These variants, glossed here as expanding stem points, are found only in the Southwest, in both possible and definite associations with maize. In northwestern New Mexico, San Jose points were found in association with maize pollen at two sites in Chaco Canyon; hearths containing maize pollen yielded four charcoal dates between 3985 and 3560 B.P. (circa 2500­1900 B.C. calibrated) (Simmons 1982, 1986). In this same region, charcoal dates of 3480 ± 95 and 3390 ± 120 B.P. (circa 1800 B.C. and 1700 B.C. calibrated) were obtained from a stratum containing San Jose points and maize pollen in En Medio Shelter (Irwin-Williams and Tompkins 1968). Also in this region, at Atlatl Cave, San Jose­Pinto Basin points were found in the same levels as maize remains (cob fragments?), with an associated charcoal date of 4240 ± 70 B.P. (circa 2900 B.C. calibrated) (Berry and Berry 1986). In southern Arizona, unserrated points with narrow blades, including two tip fragments and a complete example with an expanding stem with a straight base and broad, shallow side notches, were associated with maize dates of 3690 ± 40 and 3650 ± 40 B.P. (circa 2100 B.C. calibrated) at the Clearwater site (Mabry 2006b). Points similar to the complete example from the Clearwater site have been variously called San Jose (Huckell 1977), Bat Cave (Dick 1965), Armijo (Irwin-Williams 1973), Concho (Plog 1981), and Armijo-Concho (Parry, Smiley, and Burgett 1994). Radiocarbon dates are also known from contexts with expanding stem points but no maize. These include dates between about 4300 and 4000 B.P. (circa 3300 B.C. and 2500 B.C. calibrated) from the Buried Dune site in southern Arizona (Bayham et al. 1986) and a date of 3520 ± 60 B.P. (circa 1800 B.C. calibrated) from the Laguna Salada site in the Little Colorado River Valley in northeastern Arizona (Martin and Rinaldo 1960). At sites with these point types, pit structures and storage pits 161
Jonathan B. Mabry, John P. Carpenter, and Guadalupe Sanchez are known at sites both with maize (Clearwater) (Mabry 2006b) and without maize (Collier Dunes) (Irwin-Williams 1973, 1979). The oldest radiocarbon dates associated with expanding stem points (but not maize) are from northwestern New Mexico and indicate that the time span of this point type on the Colorado Plateau extends back into the Middle Holocene, prior to the arrival of maize. Charcoal dates of 6770 ± 240 and 6060 ± 180 B.P. (circa 5600 B.C. and 5000 B.C. calibrated) are reported from San Jose strata at Armijo Tank Shelter in Arroyo Cuervo (Berry and Berry 1986), and charcoal dates of 5680 ± 180 and 5660 ± 270 B.P. (circa 4500 B.C. calibrated) are reported from San Jose sites in the San Juan Basin (Del Bene and Ford 1982). A charcoal date of 6880 ± 200 B.P. (circa 5700 B.C.) from Grants Arroyo Site 1 is from a hearth in a dune deposit containing both San Jose and leaf-shaped, parallel-flaked Yuma points (Agogino and Hester 1958); either both point types were made by the same cultural group (Agogino and Hester 1958), or this date is related to an earlier occupation associated with the leafshaped points (possibly resharpened Bajada points; Justice 2002). Expanding stem points may have an even deeper lineage in the Southwest. While a number of archaeologists have treated the San Jose point as a southwestern variant of the Pinto point of the Great Basin, both Irwin-Williams (1973, 1979) and Justice (2002) have argued that the San Jose type evolved independently from the Bajada point of the Middle Holocene in the Southwest. The Bajada type is reported to date between about 6800 and 5200 B.P. (circa 5600­4000 B.C. calibrated) in northwestern New Mexico (Irwin-Williams 1979) and between about 7800 and 6400 B.P. (circa 6600­5300 B.C. calibrated) in south-central New Mexico (MacNeish 1993). However, its distribution is largely confined to the Colorado Plateau, at elevations above 6,000 feet (Mabry 1998). In northeastern Arizona, San Jose points (including an unserrated variant) were found together with Bajada points at the Hastqin site (Huckell 1977) and at AZ D:11:3063 on Black Mesa (Parry and Smiley 1990); radiocarbon dates on charcoal from hearths at both sites cluster near 8000 B.P. (circa 7000 B.C. calibrated). The temporal priority of expanding stem points in sequences of point types associated with early maize (except possibly the temporally overlapping Chiricahua point, discussed later) is demonstrated in some cave and floodplain sequences. San Jose points occur by themselves in the earliest occupational strata at En Medio Shelter (Irwin-Williams and Tompkins 1968) and Harbison Cave in northern Arizona (Jennings 1971) and then are followed stratigraphically by Armijo, Basketmaker, and San Pedro notched point types in those cave sequences. Bat Cave points cooccur with contracting stem points (Augustнn, Pelona, and other varieties) and triangular and leaf-shaped bifaces in the earliest occupation level at Bat Cave (the top of the Buff Sand) and then appear with these types and also with Chiricahua and Datil points in the next-higher level (Level VI) (Dick 1965). Between about 3700 and 2000 B.P. (circa 2100­50 B.C.) in the floodplain of the middle Santa Cruz Valley in southern Arizona, there was possibly a local evolution from the expanding stem Armijo/Bat Cave­like point, to the straight-stemmed Empire points, then to the 162
Archaeological Models of Early Uto-Aztecan Prehistory in the Arizona-Sonora Borderlands side- to corner-notched San Pedro point, the side-notched Western Basketmaker point, and the corner-notched Cienega point series, with some temporal overlaps between these types and variants (Jane Sliva, personal communication 2006). Straight-stem points. The Empire point, with a straight stem and long, narrow triangular blade, dates to the early San Pedro phase, and its known distribution includes south-central Arizona and northwestern Sonora (Stevens and Sliva 2002). At the Las Capas site in the middle Santa Cruz Valley of southern Arizona, Empire points were found together with San Pedro points in a stratum containing maize radiocarbon dated to 3050­2950 B.P. (circa 1250­1150 B.C. calibrated) (Hesse and Foster 2005; Sliva 2005). At a nearby site in the same valley, a similar point type, but with a shorter and more convex-based stem and resembling the Datil point, has been found in association with San Pedro points and maize radiocarbon dated to 3080­2970 B.P. (circa 1300­1200 B.C. calibrated) (Wцcherl 2005). Jane Sliva (personal communication 2006) has suggested that these stemmed Empire point variants led to a shallow side-notched variant and then to the notched San Pedro, Western Basketmaker, and Cienega point types. Side-notched points. The Chiricahua point was originally identified as "intrusive" in the type-site assemblages of the Chiricahua stage in southeastern Arizona, bracketed between 9,000 and 4,500 years old by geoclimatic correlations (Sayles and Antevs 1941). Since then, this point type has been found at sites radiocarbon dated between about 4800 and 3900 B.P. (circa 3600­2400 B.C. calibrated) and no earlier in this region (Bayham et al. 1986; Huckell 1996). Its currently known distribution, while concentrated in southeastern Arizona, extends to every part of the Southwest except the northern and western Colorado Plateau and the lower Colorado Valley (Huckell 1996) and into northern Sonora and Chihuahua (Irwin-Williams 1967). Huckell (1996) and others have noted similarities among the Chiricahua point, the Northern Side-notched point, and other side-notched types of the Colorado Plateau and eastern Great Basin dating to the Middle Holocene and the initial part of the Late Holocene. The presence of maize cobs in strata that yielded Chiricahua points (along with other Middle Archaic types) and radiocarbon dates on charcoal of about 5900 and 5600 B.P. (circa 4800­4400 B.C. calibrated) in Bat Cave in west-central New Mexico (Dick 1954, 1965) and the presence of maize pollen in a stratum that contained a single Chiricahua point at the Cienega Creek site in southeastern Arizona (Martin and Schoenwetter 1960) have been cited by many (e.g., Haury 1962; Dick 1965; Hunter-Anderson 1986; Sayles 1983) as evidence of the arrival of agriculture in the Mogollon Highlands during the Chiricahua stage. However, the identification of maize pollen in the deepest cultural layer at Cienega Creek is equivocal (Berry 1982), and re-dating of several charcoal samples with the CO2 method bracket this deposit between about 3000 and 2400 B.P. (circa 1200­400 B.C. calibrated) (Wills 1988:137­141). On the other hand, the earliest maize from Bat Cave, thought by 163
Jonathan B. Mabry, John P. Carpenter, and Guadalupe Sanchez Wills (1988) to date no earlier than 3100 B.P. (circa 1300 B.C. calibrated), may be as old as 3740 B.P. (circa 2150 B.C. calibrated) if the oldest direct date is not rejected. Several maize radiocarbon dates averaging about 3700 B.P. (circa 2100 B.C. calibrated) have been obtained from contexts containing Chiricahua points in McEuen Cave in the Gila Mountains of southeastern Arizona (Huckell, Huckell, and Shackley 1999; Steven Shackley, personal communication 2003). Later notched point types definitely associated with early agricultural sites in the Arizona-Sonora borderlands include the San Pedro, Western Basketmaker, and Cienega points. Rather than developing from the earlier Chiricahua point, with its apparent affinities to earlier notched types to the north, these later notched types appear to have evolved locally in the southern Arizona­northern Sonora region from a series of stemmed point types (Jane Sliva, personal communication 2006). The San Pedro point--with a triangular blade, straight to convex base, and shallow side or corner notches--dates to the San Pedro and Cienega phases (3000­2000 B.P.) (circa 1200 B.C.­A.D. 50 calibrated) and has been found in southern and western Arizona, western New Mexico, and northern Sonora (Lorentzen 1998). The Western, or San Juan, Basketmaker II point--with a triangular blade, straight to convex base, and deep side or corner notches--dates to about 2800­1600 B.P. (circa 1000 B.C.­A.D. 400 calibrated) and has been found on the southern and central Colorado Plateau in northeastern Arizona, southeastern Utah, and northwestern New Mexico (Justice 2002); it has also been found recently at sites in the Tucson Basin in Late San Pedro­ and Early Cienega­phase contexts (Mabry 2006b). The Cienega point series--with triangular blades (sometimes serrated, slightly concave, or both), expanding to straight stems, convex stem bases, and deep, wide corner notches--dates to about 2600­1800 B.P. (circa 800 B.C.­A.D. 200 calibrated) and is found in southeastern Arizona, southwestern New Mexico, and northern Sonora; a small early variation is probably an arrowhead, representing the introduction of the bow and arrow to the Southwest (Sliva 1999). Cortaro biface. At the Clearwater (Mabry 2006b) and Buried Dune (Bayham et al. 1986) sites in southeastern Arizona, Armijo/Bat Cave points co-occur with the triangular, concave-based biface type formerly referred to as the Cortaro point, which is now thought to be a multifunctional tool type (Jane Sliva, personal communication 2003). The distribution of Cortaro bifaces includes northernmost Sinaloa and Sonora, southeastern Arizona, and southwestern New Mexico (Carpenter, Sanchez, and Villalpando 2005; Roth and Huckell 1992). In southeastern Arizona they are associated with Armijo/Bat Cave points at the Clearwater site in the Tucson Basin (with maize dates of 3690 and 3650 B.P., or circa 2100 B.C. calibrated; Mabry 2006a) and possibly in McEuen Cave in the middle Gila Valley (with several maize dates averaging about 3700 B.P., or circa 2100 B.C. calibrated; Steve Shackley, personal communication 2003). Cortaro bifaces also co-occur with later San Pedro and Cienega points in the borderlands (Sliva 2005). Two possibilities are apparent: (1) Cortaro bifaces represent a long, Late Holocene technological 164
Archaeological Models of Early Uto-Aztecan Prehistory in the Arizona-Sonora Borderlands tradition among both hunting-and-gathering groups and early farming groups in the Arizona-Sonora borderlands and northwestern Mexico; or (2) they are associated with the initial arrival of maize-bearing Uto-Aztecan­speaking peoples in the borderlands (Carpenter, Sanchez, and Villalpando 2002, 2005). Atlatls Like projectile point hafting designs, the general designs of atlatls represent Archaic technological traditions that probably spread across linguistic and cultural boundaries. However, Ferg and Peachey (1998:188) have noted that the known distribution of "male-type" atlatls, with cylindrical shafts and raised spurs, in the southern Baja Peninsula and mainland Mexico corresponds in part to the geographic distribution of the "Hokaltecan" languages, while the distribution of "mixedtype" atlatls, with troughed flat boards and flush or only slightly raised spurs, corresponds well with the distribution of the Uto-Aztecan languages. Within a set of fifty-six mixed-type whole or partial atlatls found at twenty-nine sites in the U.S. Southwest and northwestern Mexico, flush spurs are the primary type found in the Southwest, while slightly projecting spurs predominate in northwestern Mexico, with an area of overlap in the border area of southern New Mexico, northern Chihuahua, and westernmost Texas (Ferg and Peachey 1998:191, fig. 8). Fiber Artifacts The appearance of new manufacturing techniques for cordage, basketry, san- dals, and other woven items in a region may represent migration, diffusion events, or both. The appearances of bundle-foundation coiled basketry, twill plaiting, final S-twist cordage, and four-warp wickerwork sandals between 3000 and 2500 B.P. (circa 1200­700 B.C. calibrated) in the Jornada Basin of south-central New Mexico are synchronous with the appearance of tropical cultigens in the region (Hyland, Adovasio, and Taylor 1998; Hyland and Adovasio 2000). These new techniques and forms of northern Mexican origin were added to older ones and did not replace them. The retention and addition of technological styles may represent one or more migration and hybridization events, characterized by a merging of immigrant farmers and indigenous hunter-gatherers (Hyland, Adovasio, and Taylor 1998; Hyland and Adovasio 2000). Relevant to future studies of possible clues about cultural identities in the Southern Southwest during the transition to agriculture are the presence of both two-rod-and-bundle foundations and one-rod foundations among the coiled basketry in the cremations at the Cienega Creek site (Haury 1957), now dated to about 2400­1900 B.P. (circa 1200­400 B.C. calibrated) (Wills 1988:137-141). Likewise, the differences in initial direction of cordage spin and in sandal warp and foot-tie treatments among specimens from levels containing early cultigen remains in Fresnal Shelter in the Tularosa Basin of south-central New Mexico (predominately Z-spin 165
Jonathan B. Mabry, John P. Carpenter, and Guadalupe Sanchez cordage and sandal warps that are knotted off) and in Bat Cave, Tularosa Cave, and Cordova Cave in west-central New Mexico (all mostly S-spin cordage and sandal warps that become ties) may indicate ethnic differences (McBrinn 2002, 2005). Water Control Technologies A common heritage among northern and southern Uto-Aztecan languages has also been identified in the way of speaking about the manipulation of water for agriculture, including cognates and semantic parallels for the words "canal," "dam," and "to irrigate." This implies that irrigation was practiced in the Southwest prior to the breakup of the Proto-Uto-Aztecan speech community between 3,000 and 2,500 years ago (Hill 2001). This scenario is supported by recent discoveries of irrigation canals dating between 1500­500 B.C. at Early Agricultural­period sites in the Tucson Basin (Ezzo and Deaver 1998; Mabry 1999, 2006a, 2006b; Mabry, Holmlund, and Nials 2002) and canals dating as early as 1200 B.C. at Basketmaker II sites on the southern Colorado Plateau (Damp et al. 2000). These earliest known canals in the Southwest, which diverted perennial river flows, are older and more complex than the earliest known canals in Mesoamerica--ditches for runoff diversion and drainage built in Guerrero, Oaxaca, Veracrъz, the Basin of Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize during the Early Formative period between 1200­800 B.C. (Doolittle 1990; Neely 2005). Therefore, it seems likely that early southwestern farmers developed irrigation independently, after the arrival of maize and squash from Mexico. Cultigens Like technologies and styles, cultigens can also be introduced to new regions by diffusion and migration processes. Current evidence of the timing of cultigen arrivals and dispersals also suggests there was more than one migration or diffusion event that introduced tropical cultigens to the Southwest (Doolittle and Mabry 2006; Mabry 2005b). The currently available direct dates (see references in Mabry 2005b) suggest that both maize and squash arrived in the southern Basin and Range Province between 4000 and 3700 B.P. (circa 2500­2100 B.C. calibrated). Maize spread rapidly northward, reaching the Mogollon Highlands and the southern Colorado Plateau by 3800­3750 B.P. (circa 2200 B.C. calibrated). Maize did not spread east of the middle Rio Grande Valley until 2900 B.P. (circa 1100 B.C. calibrated), and dispersal farther northward and eastward on the Colorado Plateau did not occur until between 2500 and 2000 B.P. (circa 750­50 B.C. calibrated). Pepo squash reached the Mogollon Highlands and the southern Colorado Plateau between 3000­2900 B.P. (circa 1200­1100 B.C. calibrated). Bottle gourd and common bean arrived in the southern Basin and Range Province between 3000 and 2500 B.P. (circa 1200­750 B.C. calibrated). These currently available data indicate that maize and pepo squash 166
Archaeological Models of Early Uto-Aztecan Prehistory in the Arizona-Sonora Borderlands were the first tropical cultigens to arrive (possibly together, as a crop complex) and that they spread rapidly to all parts of the Southwest, while common bean and bottle gourd arrived about a millennium later and spread gradually northward. DISCUSSION Marmaduke (1978:248) attributes the distribution of the contracting stem point type and its glued hafting design as representing the transmission of a cultural idea (i.e., diffusion of a technological tradition), but Berry and Berry (1986) argue that it indicates population movements from Mesoamerica northward. Holmer (1994) suggests that this point type was part of the Proto-Numic (Proto-NorthernUto-Aztecan) material culture assemblage, which appeared in the archaeological record of the southwestern Great Basin by 5000 B.P. (circa 3800 B.C. calibrated). He interprets radiocarbon dates associated with this point type as indicating its spread north and east, reaching southern Utah by 4400 B.P. (circa 3000 B.C. calibrated) and western Colorado by 3800 B.P. (circa 2200 B.C. calibrated), a pattern he attributes to the expansion of the Numic peoples. The range of this hafting technological tradition in northwestern Mexico and western North America does generally coincide with the distribution of Uto-Aztecan languages, and it is possible that this hafting technology diffused northward along with maize cultivation (Carpenter, Sanchez, and Villalpando 2005). However, the appearance of this hafting design in northeastern Mexico as early as 6000 B.P. (circa 4900 B.C. calibrated) indicates that either this technological tradition was transmitted across ethnic/linguistic boundaries or there was an initial migration of ProtoUto-Aztecans into this region that left no historical linguistic traces. It seems likely that the broad spread of this hafting design in Mexico and western North America between about 6000­4000 B.P. (circa 4900­2500 B.C. calibrated) primarily represents diffusion of a new technology across cultural and linguistic boundaries and among both foraging and farming groups (akin to the later diffusion of bow-andarrow technology, for example) rather than primarily a migration or series of population movements of a specific cultural group at such an enormous scale. However, within this hafting tradition, minor variations in stems (for example, among Gypsum, Agustнn, Pelona, Elko Contracting Stem, and Gatecliff Contracting Stem types) may represent passive stylistic variation between different cultural groups. For example, some Great Basin groups may have adapted this new point type to an indigenous split-end foreshaft design, resulting in a hybrid technology. In the central Great Basin, the Gatecliff Contracting Stem and Gatecliff Split Stem types (which resemble the bifurcate-stemmed Pinto Shouldered type), perhaps representing socketed and split-end foreshaft designs, respectively, co-occur in strata bracketed by charcoal radiocarbon dates between about 5000 and 3300 B.P. (circa 3800­1500 B.C. calibrated) (Thomas 1981). The Gypsum series B and Langtry varieties, with slightly indented bases, which appeared in the southeastern Great Basin by 3600 B.P. (circa 1900 B.C. calibrated) (Fowler, Madsen, and Hattori 1973) and 167
Jonathan B. Mabry, John P. Carpenter, and Guadalupe Sanchez in the lower Rio Grande Valley by 4500 B.P. (circa 3300 B.C. calibrated) (Turner and Hester 1985), may also be modifications to better seat the points in a split-end foreshaft (Justice 2002). Perhaps the most important implication of the wide diffusion of this new hafting technology is that it demonstrates that after a long break in contact in the desert lowlands of the U.S.-Mexico borderlands during the Altithermal of the Middle Holocene, populations came into contact with each other over a continuous area extending from central Mexico to the central Great Basin and from the southern California coast to the Colorado Plateau. Similarly, the broad distribution of mixed-type atlatls across the southwestern U.S. and northern Mexico (Ferg and Peachey 1998) indicates contacts during the early portion of the Late Holocene. Significant to the arguments here is that this return to the Desert Borderlands and establishment of contacts prior to 4000 B.P. (circa 2500 B.C. calibrated) preceded the spread of tropical cultigens northward and that the spread of the glued hafting design through those contacts therefore reflects a combination of migration and diffusion processes. In contrast to the new hafting design of the contracting stem point, expanding stem points and side-notched points represent older hafting designs initially used during the Middle Holocene by indigenous hunting-and-gathering groups on the Colorado Plateau and in the Great Basin. Through migration or diffusion or both processes, these hafting designs spread southward into the desert lowlands at the beginning of the Late Holocene. The simplest explanation is that huntingand-gathering populations from the Colorado Plateau (and possibly the eastern Great Basin) expanded southward as environmental conditions improved in the lowlands, and there some of them adopted maize agriculture after contacts with Proto-Uto-Aztecan farmers in northern Mexico. Then, through regular contacts among groups using these hafting designs, maize rapidly diffused northward to the Mogollon Highlands and the Colorado Plateau. The sequence of dart point styles found at early agricultural sites in southern Arizona suggests continuity between early southwestern cultivators using expanding stem (and possibly side-notched points) and subsequent early farming groups using other notched point types. The Late Holocene appearance of the Cortaro biface, whose distribution is limited to the borderlands region, may represent local development of a new general-purpose tool by the first farmers of this region. Most of the known atlatl specimens in northwestern Mexico and the southwestern United States are not well dated, but the few that have been radiocarbon dated (Ferg and Peachey 1998; Moreno 2000) or dated by their association with temporally diagnostic artifacts were manufactured during the Late Holocene, after the arrival of maize. Therefore, the northern and southern distributions of two slightly different variations in spur designs on mixed-type atlatls may represent passive stylistic variation reflecting ethnic differences between subgroups of UtoAztecans (northern and southern?) that developed after the arrival of Mesoamerican agriculture. 168
Archaeological Models of Early Uto-Aztecan Prehistory in the Arizona-Sonora Borderlands Linguistic data suggest the chronology of tropical cultigen arrivals in the Southwest. Many of the surviving native American languages of the Southwest and Mexico belong to the Uto-Aztecan family of languages, and shared word roots and similarities in grammatical and semantic structures allow linguists to trace these related languages back to a common ancestral language of several thousand years ago. Fowler (1994) and Hill (2001) have shown that maize was cultivated during the time of the Proto-Uto-Aztecan speech community because there is a shared vocabulary for the cultivation and processing of maize between northern Uto-Aztecan languages, such as Hopi (and probably Numic), and the southern languages in this family (such as Nahuatl, the language of the Aztecs). Words for "squash" also show similarities that indicate that this cultigen spread before the breakup of the dialect continuum, while differences in words for "bean" show that it diffused among UtoAztecan speech communities after the breakup. The timing of this breakup is therefore bracketed by the initial dates of squash and bean in the Southwest (Hill 2001), currently 3700 and 2500 B.P. (circa 2100 and 750 B.C. calibrated), respectively. The timing of the appearances of tropical cultigens in the southwestern archaeological record can be reconciled with Hill's (2001) linguistic model by several alternate scenarios: (1) a northward expansion of people who spoke the PUA language brought maize and squash to the Southwest, and then other tropical cultigens spread after the breakup of this PUA speech community; (2) an expansion of PUA speakers (from either north or south) occurred prior to the spread of agriculture as the climate improved at the beginning of the Late Holocene, and then these cultigens diffused in two or more waves across a continuum of linguistically and culturally related hunting-and-gathering groups; or (3) both diffusion and migration processes were at work on the early agricultural frontier in the Southwest, and early agriculturalists in this region included speakers of both the PUA language and indigenous languages (Hokan and possibly Penutian). The rapid dispersal of maize and pepo squash to the Mogollon Highlands and the southern Colorado Plateau may have been a result of either the existence of such an established linguistic-cultural continuum or of northward migrations of farmers from the desert lowlands. The latter scenario best fits the relatively sudden appearance on the central Colorado Plateau of the Western (or White Dog­phase) Basketmaker II archaeological complex (1000 B.C.?­A.D. 500) with maize and pepo squash and provides an explanation for similarities in the material cultures of the Western Basketmaker II and San Pedro complexes (1200­800 B.C.) of the southwestern U.S./northwestern Mexico borderlands. In comparing the assemblage of perishable materials in San Pedro­phase levels of Ventana Cave in southern Arizona with similar materials in Western Basketmaker II cave occupations in the Four Corners area, R. G. Matson (1991, 1999) has argued that these two complexes also have in common some sandal types and coiled basketry with two-rod-and-bundle foundation and uninterlocked stitch. Mabry (2006b) noted that some elements of the San Pedro complex overlap with the Western Basketmaker II complex: Western Basketmaker points, San Pedro points, bone 169
Jonathan B. Mabry, John P. Carpenter, and Guadalupe Sanchez dice, bulbous stone pipes. These shared elements of both nonperishable and perishable materials appear to support models proposing that the sudden appearance of the Western Basketmaker II complex on the Colorado Plateau represents a migration of San Pedro­phase farmers between 850 and 500 B.C. (Berry and Berry 1986; Matson 1991, 1999). This scenario would also account for the spread of the PUA language community to the Northern Southwest before 500 B.C., as reconstructed with linguistic data by Hill (2001, 2003). The long delays in maize dispersal north of the Colorado and San Juan rivers, on the other hand, may have been a result of these rivers becoming the boundaries between PUA farmers and indigenous hunter-gatherer groups who later adopted agriculture (cf. Geib 1996). In contrast to maize and squash, both common bean and bottle gourd spread more slowly from south to north, probably because of their preferences for warm temperatures and long growing seasons and because they had to cross emerging cultural boundaries after the breakup of the PUA speech community. If Proto-Uto-Aztecans brought agriculture with them, or if agriculture spread among them after their arrival in western North America, why did it not persist into historic times among the speakers of northern Uto-Aztecan languages? Romney (1957) was the first to suggest that the historically non-agricultural Uto-Aztecan peoples in the extreme north had abandoned agriculture, referring to archaeological evidence of agriculture in the area of the Great Basin occupied by Shoshoneans, historical evidence of irrigation of wild plants by the Owens Valley Paiute, and the documented practice of broadcast sowing of wild plant seeds by several groups in the basin. Could these features be interpreted as remnants of a past agricultural tradition among Shoshonean people? Hill (2001) reiterated this possibility to explain the presence of agriculture-related word cognates in some northern Uto-Aztecan languages. The irrigation canals recently found at early farming sites in the Southwest, the prehistoric maize cobs and possible canal found in dunes near Lovelock, Nevada (Jensen 1976), and the historical practice of irrigating maize fields in southwestern Nevada (Steward 1938) all suggest that the historical irrigation of wild plants by the Owens Valley Paiute and broadcast sowing of wild plant seeds by other Ute and Shoshonean groups in the western Great Basin represent remnants of an ancient horticultural complex in a region ultimately too marginal for tropical cultigens. Then again, Great Basin agricultural strategies may also be explained by diffusion from adjacent agricultural traditions to the east. The high degree of correspondence between the distribution of Uto-Aztecan language and agriculture, together with the ethnohistoric cultivation practices documented by Steward and others and the linguistic evidence cited by Hill (2001), suggest that agriculture may have been abandoned after the PUA expansion into the Great Basin. However, this does not inform on whether agriculture arrived in the Great Basin by diffusion or migration. The dating of possible archaeological evidence of the arrival of Proto-UtoAztecans in regions beyond the Southwest may help bracket their earlier arrival in 170
Archaeological Models of Early Uto-Aztecan Prehistory in the Arizona-Sonora Borderlands the Southwest. The arrival of Uto-Aztecan, Takic-speaking peoples on the southern California coast (the so-called Shoshonean wedge that split the previous continuum of Hokan [Yuman]-speaking peoples) is generally associated with regional settlement and subsistence changes that occurred between about 3500 and 3000 B.P. (circa 1800­1200 B.C. calibrated) (Erlandson 1997; Mason, Koerper, and Langenwalter 1997; Moratto 1984) and the appearance of cremations about this time (King 1981). However, it has also been variously proposed that the Uto-Aztecan arrival on the southern California coast is marked by the appearances of flexed inhumations by 6400 B.P. (circa 5400 B.C. calibrated) (Drover and Spain 1972), of Olivella grooved rectangular beads at about 5000 B.P. (circa 3800 B.C. calibrated) (Howard and Raab 1993; King 1990; Vellanoweth 1995), of contracting stem dart points about 4500 B.P. (circa 3300 B.C. calibrated) (Harrington 1933), and of clockwise-coiled basketry about 3800 B.P. (circa 2200 B.C. calibrated) (Bleitz 1991). In the southwestern Great Basin, the arrival of Proto-Uto-Aztecans has been attributed to the appearance of contracting stem dart points about 5000 B.P. (circa 3800 B.C. calibrated) (Holmer 1994), while the apparent continuity in material culture and subsistence strategy in the central Great Basin since about 5000­4500 B.P. (circa 3800­3300 B.C. calibrated) until historic time has been cited as evidence of the long presence of Uto-Aztecans (Aikens and Witherspoon 1986). Although arrivals of Proto-Uto-Aztecans on the southern California coast between 3500 and 3000 B.P. (circa 1800­1200 B.C. calibrated) would fit with a circa 4000 B.P. (circa 2500 B.C. calibrated) arrival of PUA agriculturalists in the ArizonaSonora borderlands region, a date of 5000 B.P. (circa 3800 B.C. calibrated) or earlier for reaching either the Great Basin or the Pacific Coast would imply an arrival in the Southwest prior to the arrival of Mesoamerican cultigens. Acceptance of such a scenario would strengthen the case for a pre-agricultural northward expansion of PUA speakers or would require revisiting the models of PUA origins in the Great Basin or farther north rather than to the south. Regarding Fowler's (1983) newer position that the locations of Tarahumara and Cahitan groups that interrupt the distribution of Piman languages are a result of subsequent movements of these groups toward the west Mexican coast, we believe both linguistic and ethnographic data demonstrate they have been in place for at least 2,000 years, if not more. The Cahitan-speaking groups of the coastal plain have traditionally been considered late arrivals, descending from the Sierra Madre Occidental and displacing presumably Tepiman-speaking peoples (Beals 1932:145; Braniff 1992:217; Sauer 1934:82; Wilcox 1986). However, as discussed by Miller (1983a:333), this interpretation seems to have been based solely on geographical appearances. In considering the linguistic data, Miller and others (1983a, 1983b; D. Shaul, personal communication 1993) have suggested that the Cahitans may have been established on the coastal plain near the beginning of the Christian era. In turn, the Tepimans may likely represent a late (circa twelfth-century) intrusion, perhaps from the north (Hill 1996; Fowler 1980; Miller 1983a:333, 1983b; Shaul and Hill 1993). 171
Jonathan B. Mabry, John P. Carpenter, and Guadalupe Sanchez Long-term in situ development for the lowland Cahitans is also supported by the ethnographic data. Sixteenth-century Population estimates indicate an extremely high density, with figures ranging from 70,000 souls and 5.2 persons per square kilometer for the Tahue to 60,000 Opata with a projected density of 1.5 persons per square kilometer (Sauer 1935:5). Extensive temporal agriculture was carried out along the floodplains of the major drainages, reportedly producing up to three harvests per year for a wide range of cultigens that included maize, beans, squash, cotton, peppers, eggplant, and guavas (Sauer and Brand 1932:52). Some groups also reflect well-developed maritime exploitation of both littoral and deep-water resources (Pйrez de Ribas 1944; Sheridan 1981). In contrast, the Lower Pimans are often described in contact-period documents as occupying largely marginal lands, practicing little or no agriculture, and with little exploitation of coastal resources (Tom Sheridan, personal communication 1993). SUMMARY We argue that current archaeological evidence does not reconcile neatly with Hill's (2001) linguistic model of a Proto-Uto-Aztecan migration from central Mexico that brought Mesoamerican agriculture to the Southwest. Some archaeological data point to the possibility of a pre-agricultural expansion of PUA speakers into the Southwest, creating a linguistic-cultural continuum across which maize and pepo squash later spread. However, a variety of archaeological evidence suggests that the Arizona-Sonora borderlands were reoccupied from both the south and the north at the end of the Middle Holocene and that maize and other early tropical cultigens arrived and spread across the Southwest through a combination of diffusion and migration processes. The implication is that some early farmers in the Southwest spoke indigenous languages while others spoke Proto-Uto-Aztecan. As with maize and squash agriculture, irrigation spread across the Southwest before the breakup of the PUA community, and the historical practice of irrigating wild plants by some Paiute groups in the western Great Basin may reflect a remnant of that early irrigated-farming complex. However, irrigation technology (and most likely ceramics) probably represents independent innovations by early southwestern farmers. NOTE 1. Bellwood (1997, 1999) and Hill (2001) referred to the "rake-like" structure of the Uto-Aztecan language family as an indication of the rapid divergences that would occur with migration and rapid agricultural colonization. However, such a structure could also develop with increasing sedentism and loss of contact between groups and with other processes of ethnogenesis. Miller (1984:20­21) suggested that because the ancestral PUA community was composed of hunter-gatherers in contact with a small number of other groups, a "wave principle" operated, a situation in which there is "a dialect continuum which dissolves into distinct languages and in which newly budded languages reflect the earlier dialect relationships." 172
Archaeological Models of Early Uto-Aztecan Prehistory in the Arizona-Sonora Borderlands With the shift to agriculture and the resulting greater population density and increased sedentism, the geographic area of mutual influence was reduced, but the network included more people. This may have functioned to minimize the wave principle and to maximize a "Family Tree principle" (which Miller preferred) or a rake principle (favored by Bellwood and Hill), in which multiple splits occur in quick succession within a parent language. While the linguistic evidence for multiple splits in rapid succession within Uto-Aztecan presented by Bellwood and Hill represent a rake-like principle, it is possible that the process of language change shifted to this principle after the diffusion of agriculture and increasing sedentism. REFERENCES CITED Adams, William Y., Dennis P. Van Gerven, and Richard S. Levy 1978 The Retreat from Migrationism. Annual Review of Anthropology 7:483­532. Agogino, George, and J. Hester 1958 Comments on the San Jose Radiocarbon Date. American Antiquity 24(2):187­ 188. Aikens, C. Melvin, and Younger T. Witherspoon 1986 Great Basin Numic Prehistory: Linguistics, Archaeology, and Environment. In Anthropology in the Desert West: Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jennings, ed. C. Condie and D. D. Fowler, 7­20. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 110. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Anthony, David W. 1990 Migration in Archaeology: The Baby and the Bathwater. American Anthropologist 92(4):895­914. Bascom, B. W. 1965 Proto-Tepiman (Tepehuan-Piman). Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle. Bayham, Frank E., Donald H. Morris, and M. Steven Shackley (editors) 1986 Prehistoric Hunter Gatherers of South Central Arizona: The Picacho Reservoir Archaic Project. Anthropological Field Studies 13. Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. Beals, Ralph 1932 The Comparative Ethnology of Northwestern Mexico Before 1750. Ibero-Americana 2. University of California Press, Berkeley. Bellwood, Peter 1997 Prehistoric Cultural Explanations for Widespread Linguistic Families. In Archaeology and Linguistics: Aboriginal Australia in Global Perspective, ed. P. McConvell and N. Evans, 123­134. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. 1999 Austronesian Prehistory and Uto-Aztecan Prehistory: Similar Trajectories? University of Arizona Department of Anthropology Lecture Series, Tucson, January 27. Berry, Claudia F., and Michael S. Berry 1986 Chronological and Conceptual Models of the Southwestern Archaic. In Anthropology of the Desert West: Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jennings, ed. C. J. Condie and D. 173
Jonathan B. Mabry, John P. Carpenter, and Guadalupe Sanchez D. Fowler, 253­327. Anthropological Papers 110. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Berry, Michael S. 1982 Time, Space, and Transition in Anasazi Prehistory. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Bleitz, Dana 1991 A Discussion Concerning Evidence of Coiled Basketry from SNI-11 on San Nicolas Island, California. California Anthropologist 18(1):25­27. Braniff, Beatriz 1992 La Frontera Protohistуrica Pima-Opata en Sonora, Mйxico: Proposiciones Arqueolуgicas Preliminares, Volume I. Collecciуn Cientнfica, INAH, Mйxico. Bryan, Kirk, and Joseph H. Toulouse Jr. 1943 The San Jose Non-Ceramic Culture and Its Relation to a Puebloan Culture in New Mexico. American Antiquity 8(3):269­280. Campbell, Lyle 1977 American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native America. Oxford University Press, New YorK. Campbell, Lyle, and Ronald Longacker 1978 Proto-Aztecan Vowels. Parts I, II, III. International Journal of American Linguistics 44:85­102, 197­210, 262­279. Carpenter, John P., Jonathan Mabry, and Guadalupe Sanchez 2001 Arqueologнa de los Grupos Yuto-Aztecas Tempranos. In Avances y Balances de las Lenguas Yuto-Aztecas: Homenaje a Wick R. Miller, ed. Jose Luis Moctezuma and Jane H. Hill, 359­374. Colecciуn Cientнfica 438. INAH-Conaculta, Mйxico. Carpenter, John P., Guadalupe Sanchez, and Elisa Villalpando 2002 Of Migration and Maize: Mode and Tempo in the Diffusion of Zea mays into Northern Mexico and the American Southwest. In Traditions, Transitions, and Technologies: Themes in Southwestern Archaeology, ed. Sarah H. Schlanger, 245­258. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. 2005 The Late Archaic/Early Agricultural Period in Sonora, Mexico. In The Late Archaic across the Borderlands, ed. B. J. Vierra, 13­40. University of Texas Press, Austin. Cosgrove, C. Burton 1947 Caves of the Upper Gila and Hueco Areas in New Mexico and Texas. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 24(2), Cambridge, Mass. Damp, Jonathan E., James W. Kendrick, Donovan Quam, Jeffery Waseta, and Jerome Zunie 2000 Households and Farms in Early Zuni Prehistory: Settlement, Subsistence, and the Archaeology of Y Unit Draw, Archaeological Investigations at Eighteen Sites along New Mexico State Highway 602. Zuni Cultural Resource Enterprise Report 593. Pueblo of Zuni, N.M. Del Bene, Terry A., and Dabney Ford 1982 Archaeological Excavations in Blocks VI and VII, Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, San Juan County, New Mexico. Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology 13. Navajo Tribal Cultural resource management Program, Window Rock, Ariz. 174
Archaeological Models of Early Uto-Aztecan Prehistory in the Arizona-Sonora Borderlands Dick, Herbert W. 1954 The Bat Cave Corn Complex: A Note on Its Distribution and Archaeological Significance. El Palacio 61:139­144. 1965 Bat Cave. School of American Research Monograph 27, Santa Fe. Doolittle, William E. 1990 Canal Irrigation in Prehistoric Mexico: The Sequence of Technological Change. University of Texas Press, Austin. Doolittle, William E., and Jonathan B. Mabry 2006 Environmental Mosaics, Agricultural Diversity, and the Evolutionary Adoption of Maize in the American Southwest. In Histories of Maize, ed. John E. Staller, Robert H. Tykot, and Bruce F. Benz, 109­122. Academic, Amsterdam. Drover, Christopher E., and James N. Spain 1972 An Early, Articulated Inhumation from 4-ORA-64: A Discussion. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 8(4):35­44. Erlandson, Jon 1997 The Middle Holocene along the California Coast. In Archaeology of the California Coast during the Middle Holocene, ed. J. M. Erlandson and M. A. Glassow, 1­10. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 4. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Ezzo, Joseph A., and William L. Deaver 1998 Watering the Desert: Late Archaic Farming at the Costello-King Site. Technical Series 68. Statistical Research, Tucson. Ferg, Alan, and William D. Peachey 1998 An Atlatl from the Sierra Pinacate. Kiva 64(2):175­200. Fowler, Catherine S. 1972 Some Ecological Clues to Proto-Numic Homelands. University of Nevada Desert Research Institute Publications in the Social Sciences 8:105­121. 1980 Some Lexical Clues to Uto-Aztecan Prehistory. Paper presented at the UtoAztecan Historical Symposium, Linguistics Institute, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 1983 Some Lexical Clues to Uto-Aztecan Prehistory. International Journal of American Linguistics 49(3):224­257. 1994 Corn, Beans, and Squash: Some Linguistic Perspectives from Uto-Aztecan. In Corn and Culture in the Prehistoric New World, ed. S. Johannessen and C. A. Hastorf, 445­467. Westview, Boulder. Fowler, Don D., David B. Madsen, and Eugene M. Hattori 1973 Prehistory of Southeastern Nevada. Desert Research Institute Publications in the Social Sciences 6. Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nev. Geib, Phil R. 1996 AMS Dating of Plain-Weave Sandals from the Central Colorado Plateau. Utah Archaeology 9(1):35­53. Goss, James A. 1977 Linguistic Tools for the Great Basin Prehistorian. In Models in Great Basin Prehistory, ed. Don D. Fowler, 49­70. Desert Research Institute Publications in the Social Sciences 12. Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nev. 175
Jonathan B. Mabry, John P. Carpenter, and Guadalupe Sanchez Hale, Kenneth 1958 Internal Diversity in Uto-Aztecan I. International Journal of American Linguistics 24: 101­107. Hale, Kenneth, and David Harris 1979 Historical Linguistics and Archeology. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 9, Southwest, ed. Alfonso Ortiz, 170­177. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Harrington, Mark R. 1933 Gypsum Cave, Nevada. Southwest Museum Papers 8, Los Angeles. Haury, Emil W. 1957 An Alluvial Site on the San Carlos Indian Reservation, Arizona. American Antiquity 23(1):2­27. 1962 The Greater American Southwest. In Courses toward Urban Life: Archeological Considerations of Some Cultural Alternatives, ed. Robert J. Braidwood anD Gordon R. Willey, 106­131. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 32. Aldine, Chicago. Heath, Jeffry 1977 Uto-Aztecan Morphophonemics. International Journal of American Linguistics 43:27­36. Hesse, S. Jerome, and Michael S. Foster (editors) 2005 Investigations of Middle Archaic and Early Agricultural Period Components at Las Capas: The Treatment Plant Locus. SWCA Cultural Resources Report 05-165. SWCA, Tucson. Hill, Jane H. 1996 The Prehistoric Differentiation of Uto-Aztecan Languages and the Lexicon of Early Southwestern Agriculture. Paper presented at the 61st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans, La. 2001 Proto-Uto-Aztecan: A Community of Cultivars in Central Mexico? American Anthropologist 103(4):913­934. 2003 Uto-Aztecan Cultivation and the Northern Devolution. In Examining the Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis, ed. P. Bellwood and C. Renfrew, 331­340. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, England. Holmer, Richard N. 1986 Common Projectile Points of the Intermountain West. In Anthropology of the Desert West: Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jennings, ed. C. J. Condie and D. D. Fowler, 89­115. Anthropological Papers 110. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 1994 In Search of the Ancestral Northern Shoshone. In Across the West: Human Population Movement and the Expansion of the Numa, ed. D. B. Madsen and D. Rhode, 179­187. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Hopkins, Nicholas A. 1965 Great Basin Prehistory and Uto-Aztecan. American Antiquity 31:48­60. Howard, William J., and L. Mark Raab 1993 Olivella Grooved Rectangle Beads as Evidence of a Mid-Holocene Southern Channel Islands Interaction Sphere. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 29(3):1­11. 176
Archaeological Models of Early Uto-Aztecan Prehistory in the Arizona-Sonora Borderlands Huckell, Bruce B. 1977 The Hastqin Site: A Multicomponent Site Near Ganado, Arizona. Contribution to Highway Salvage Archaeology in Arizona 61. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1996 Style and Substance: Projectile Points, the Cochise Culture, and the Archaic Prehistory of the Southern Deserts in the American West. Paper presented at the 61st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans, La. Huckell, Bruce, Lisa W. Huckell, and M. Steven Shackley 1999 McEuen Cave. Archaeology Southwest 13(1):12. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. Hunter-Anderson, Rosalind L. 1986 Prehistoric Adaptation in the American Southwest. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hyland, David C., and James M. Adovasio 2000 The Mexican Connection: A Study of Sociotechnical Change in Perishable Manufacture and Food Production in Prehistoric New Mexico. In Beyond Cloth and Cordage: Archaeological Textile Research in the Americas, ed. Penelope Ballard Drooker and Laurie D. Webster, 141­159. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Hyland, David C., James M. Adovasio, and R. E. Taylor 1998 Corn, Cucurbits, Cordage, and Colonization: An Absolute Chronology for the Appearance of Mesoamerican Domesticates and Perishables in the Jornada Basin, New Mexico. Paper presented at the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Seattle, Wash. Irwin-Williams, Cynthia 1967 Picosa: The Elementary Southwestern Culture. American Antiquity 32(4):441­ 457. 1973 The Oshara Tradition: Origins of Anasazi Culture. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 5(1), Portales. 1979 Post-Pleistocene Archaeology, 7000­2000 B.C. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 9, Southwest, ed. Alfonso Ortiz, 31­42. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Irwin-Williams, Cynthia, and S. Tompkins 1968 Excavations at En Medio Shelter, New Mexico. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(2), Portales. Jennings, Calvin H. 1971 Early Prehistory of the Coconino Plateau, Northwestern Arizona. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder. Jensen, A. 1976 Lovelock Dune Corn Cob: A preliminary report. In Nevada Archaeological Survey Reporter, 13­17. Nevada Archaeological Survey, University of Nevada, Reno. Justice, Noel D. 2002 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Southwestern United States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. 177
Jonathan B. Mabry, John P. Carpenter, and Guadalupe Sanchez King, Charles 1981 The Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used in System Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region Before A.D. 1804. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis. 1990 Evolution of Chumash Society. Garland, New York. Koerper, Henry C., and Christopher E. Drover 1983 Chronology Building for Coastal Orange County: The Case from CA-Ora-119-A. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 19(2):1­33. Lamb, Sydney M. 1958 Linguistic Prehistory in the Great Basin. International Journal of American Linguistics 24:95­100. Long, Austin, Bruce F. Benz, D. J. Donahue, A.J.T. Jull, and L. J. Toolin 1989 First Direct Dates on Early Maize from Tehuacбn, Mexico. Radiocarbon 31(3): 1035­1040. Lorentzen, Leon 1998 Common Paleoindian and Archaic Projectile Points of Arizona. Appendix in Paleoindian and Archaic Sites in Arizona, by J. B. Mabry, 137­151. State Historic Preservation Office, Arizona State Parks, Phoenix. Mabry, Jonathan B. 1998 Paleoindian and Archaic Sites in Arizona. State Historic Preservation Office, Arizona State Parks, Phoenix. 1999 Las Capas and Early Irrigation Farming. Archaeology Southwest 13(1):14. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. 2005a Changing Knowledge and Ideas about the First Farmers in Southeastern Arizona. In The Late Archaic across the Borderlands: From Foraging to Farming, ed. Bradley J. Vierra, 41­83. University of Texas Press, Austin. 2005b Diversity in Early Southwestern Farming Systems and Optimization Models of Transitions to Agriculture. In Subsistence and Resource Use Strategies of Early Agricultural Communities in Southern Arizona, ed. Michael W. Diehl, 113­152. Anthropological Papers 34. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. 2006a Radiocarbon Dating of Early Occupations. In Rio Nuevo Archaeology Program, 2000­2003: Investigations at the San Agustin Mission and Mission Gardens, Tucson Presidio, Tucson Pressed Brick Company, and Clearwater Site, ed. J. Homer Thiel and Jonathan B. Mabry, 191­195. Technical Report 2004-11. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. Mabry, Jonathan B. (editor) 2006b Las Capas: Early Irrigation and Sedentism in a Southwestern Floodplain. Anthropological Paper 28. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson (draft). Mabry, Jonathan B., James P. Holmlund, and Fred Nials 2002 Early Canals in Southwestern North America. Paper presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Denver, Colo. MacNeish, Richard S. 1958 Preliminary Archaeological Investigations in the Sierra de Tamaulipas, Mexico. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 48:Part 6. 178
Archaeological Models of Early Uto-Aztecan Prehistory in the Arizona-Sonora Borderlands 1993 Preliminary Investigations of the Archaic in the Region of Las Cruces, New Mexico. Cultural Resources Management Program, Historic and natural resources Report 9. Directorate of Environment, United States Army Air Defense Artillery Center, Fort Bliss, Tex. MacNeish, Richard S., Antoinette Nelken-Terner, and Irmgard W. Johnson 1967 The Prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley, Volume 2. Nonceramic Artifacts. University of Texas Press, Austin. Manaster Ramer, A. 1992 Tubatulabal Aman and the Sub-classification of Uto-Aztecan. California Linguistic Notes 23(2):30­31. Marmaduke, William S. 1978 Prehistoric Culture in Trans-Pecos Texas: An Ecological Explanation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas, Austin. Martin, Paul S., and John B. Rinaldo 1960 Excavations in the Upper Little Colorado Drainage, Eastern Arizona. Fieldiana 51(1):1­127. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. Martin, Paul S., and James Schoenwetter 1960 America's Oldest Cornfield. Science 132:33­34. Mason, Roger D., Henry C. Koerper, and Paul E. Langenwalter II 1997 Middle Holocene Adaptations on the Newport Coast of Orange County. In Archaeology of the California Coast during the Middle Holocene, ed. J. M. Erlandson and M. A. Glassow, 35­60. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 4. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Matson, R. G. 1991 The Origins of Southwestern Agriculture. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 1999 The Spread of Maize to the Colorado Plateau. Archaeology Southwest 13(1):10­11. McBrinn, Maxine E. 2002 social identity and Risk Sharing among the Mobile Hunters and Gatherers of the Archaic Southwest. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder. 2005 Social Identities among Archaic Mobile Hunters and Gatherers in the American Southwest. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 197. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Miller, Wick R. 1983a A Note on Extinct Languages of Northwest Mexico of Supposed Uto-Aztecan Affiliation. International Journal of American Linguistics 49:328­334. 1983b Uto-Aztecan Languages. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 10, Southwest, ed. Alfonso Ortiz, 113­124. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 1984 The Classification of the Uto-Aztecan Languages Based on Lexical Evidence. International Journal of American Linguistics 50(1):1­24. 1995 Prehistoria de las Lenguas Indнgenas del Noroeste de Mйxico. In Sonora: Origen y Destino. XIX Simposio de Historia y Antropologнa de Sonora. Instituto de Investigaciones 179
Jonathan B. Mabry, John P. Carpenter, and Guadalupe Sanchez Historicas de la Universidad de Sonora, Hermosillo, Sonora, Febrero de 1994, Volume 2, 163­171. Universidad de Historia y Antropologнa, Universidad de Sonora, Hermosillo. Moore, Roger A. 1994 Archaic Projectile Point Typology/Chronology in Northern New Mexico and the Four Corners. In Archaic Hunter and Gatherer Archaeology in the American Southwest, ed. B. J. Vierra, 456­475. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 13. Eastern New Mexico University, Portales. Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic, Orlando, Calif. Moreno, Teresa K. 2000 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Dates from McEuen Cave. Kiva 65(4):341­360. Musil, Robert R. 1988 Functional Efficiency and Technological Change: A Hafting Tradition Model for Prehistoric North America. In Early Human Occupation in Far Western North America, ed. J. A. Willig, C. M. Aikens, and J. L. Pagan, 373­387. Anthropological Papers 21. Nevada State Museum, Carson City. Neely, James A. 2005 Mesoamerican Formative Period Water Management Technology: An Overview with Insights on Development and Associated Method and Theory. In New Perspectives on Formative MesoAmerican Cultures, ed. T. G. Powis, 127­146. BAR International Series 1377. Archeopress, Oxford. Nichols, M.J.P. 1981 Old California Uto-Aztecan. In Reports from the Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, ed. A. Schlichter, W. L. Chafe, and L. Hinton, 1:5­41. The Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, Berkeley. O'Laughlin, Thomas C. 1980 The Keystone Dam Site and Other Archaic and Formative Sites in Northwest El Paso, Texas. Publications in Anthropology 8. El Paso Centennial Museum, University of Texas, El Paso. Orr, Phil C. 1968 Prehistory of Santa Rosa Island. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, Calif. Parry, William J., and Francis E. Smiley 1990 Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology in Northeastern Arizona and Southeastern Utah. In Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory, ed. Paul E. Minnis and Charles L. Redman, 47­67. Westview, Boulder. Parry, William J., Francis E. Smiley, and Galen R. Burgett 1994 The Archaic Occupation of Black Mesa, Arizona. In Archaic Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology in the American Southwest, ed. B. J. Vierra, 185­230. Contributions in Anthropology 13(1). Eastern New Mexico University, Portales. Pйrez de Ribas, Andrйs 1944 Historia de los Triunfos de Nuestra Santa Fe entre Gentes las Mбs Bбrbaras y Fieras del Nuevo Orbe (1645). Tres volъmenes. Editorial Layac, Mйxico. 180
Archaeological Models of Early Uto-Aztecan Prehistory in the Arizona-Sonora Borderlands Piperno, Dolores R., and Kent V. Flannery 2001 The Earliest Archaeological Maize (Zea mays L.) from Highland Mexico: New Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Dates and Their Implications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 98(4):2101­2103. Plog, Fred 1981 Cultural Resources Overview: Little Colorado Area, Arizona. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Phoenix. Romney, A. Kimball 1957 The Genetic Model and Uto-Aztecan Time Perspective. Davidson Journal of Anthropology 3:35­41. Roth, Barbara J., and Bruce B. Huckell 1992 Cortaro Points and the Archaic of Southern Arizona. Kiva 57(4):353­370. Sauer, Carl O. 1934 The Distribution of Aboriginal Tribes and Languages in Northwestern Mexico. IberoAmericana 5. University of California Press, Berkeley. 1935 Aboriginal Population of Northwestern Mexico. Ibero-Americana 10. University of California Press, Berkeley. Sauer, Carl O., and Donald Brand 1932 Aztatlбn, Prehistoric Mexican Frontier on the Pacific Coast. Ibero-Americana 1. University of California Press, Berkeley. Sayles, Edwin B. 1983 The Cochise Cultural Sequence in Southeastern Arizona. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona 42. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Sayles, Edwin B., and Ernst Antevs 1941 The Cochise Culture. Medallion Papers 29. Gila Pueblo, Globe, Ariz. Shaul, David L., and Jane H. Hill 1993 Pimans and the Hohokam. Paper presented in the Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. Sheridan, Thomas E. 1981 Prelude to Conquest: Yaqui Population, Subsistence and Warfare during the Protohistoric Period. In The Protohistoric Period in the North American Southwest, ed. D. R. Wilcox and W. B. Masse, 71­93. Anthropological Research Papers 24. Arizona State University, Tempe. Simmons, Alan H. 1982 Chronology. In Prehistoric Adaptive Strategies in the Chaco Canyon Region, Northwestern New Mexico, Volume 3: Interpretation and Integration, assemb. A. H. Simmons, 807­824. Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology 9. Navajo Nation, Window Rock, Ariz. 1986 New Evidence for the Early Use of Cultigens in the American Southwest. American Antiquity 51:73­88. Sinopoli, Carla M. 1991 Style in Arrows: A Study of an Ethnographic Collection from the Western United States. In Foragers in Context, ed. Preston T. Miracle, Lynn E. Fisher, and Jody Brown, 63­87. Michigan Discussions in Anthropology, Volume 10. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 181
Jonathan B. Mabry, John P. Carpenter, and Guadalupe Sanchez Sliva, R. Jane 1999 Cienega Points and Late Archaic Period Chronology in the Southern Southwest. Kiva 64(3):339­367. 2005 Developments in Flaked Stone Technology during the Transition to Agriculture. In Material Cultures and Lifeways of Early Agricultural Communities in Southern Arizona, ed. R. Jane Sliva, 47­98. Anthropological Papers 35. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. Stevens, Michelle N., and R. Jane Sliva 2002 Empire Points: An Addition to the San Pedro Phase Lithic Assemblage. Kiva 67(3): 326. Steward, Julian H. 1938 Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 120. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Suбrez, Jorge 1979 The Mesoamerican Languages. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Sutton, Mark Q. 1991 Approaches to Linguistic Prehistory. North American Archaeologist 12(4):303­ 324. Swadesh, Morris 1960 Estudios sobre Lengua y Cultura. Acta Antropolуgica, segunda йpoca 2(2). Escuela Nacional de Antropologнa y Historia, Sociedad de Alumnos, Mйxico. Taylor, Walter W. 1961 Archaeology and Language in Western North America. American Antiquity 27:71­ 81. 1966 Archaic Cultures Adjacent to the Northeastern Frontiers of Mesoamerica. In Archaeological Frontiers and External Connections, ed. Robert Wauchope, 59­94. Handbook of Middle American Indians, Volume 4. University of Texas Press, Austin. Thomas, David Hurst 1981 How to Classify the Projectile Points from Monitor Valley, Nevada. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3:7­43. Thompson, Raymond H. (editor) 1958 Migrations in New World Culture History. University of Arizona Social Science Bulletin 27, Tucson. Turner, Ellen Sue, and Thomas R. Hester 1985 A Field Guide to Stone Artifacts of Texas Indians. Texas Monthly Press, Austin. Vellanoweth, Renй L. 1995 New Evidence from San Nicolas Island Concerning the Distribution and Manufacture of Olivella Grooved Rectangular Beads. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 31:13­22. Voegelin, Charles F., Florence M. Voegelin, and Kenneth Hale 1962 Typological and Comparative Grammar of Uto-Aztecan: I (Phonology). Indiana University Publications in Anthropology and Linguistics, Memoir 17 of the International Journal of American Linguistics. Waverly, Baltimore. 182
Archaeological Models of Early Uto-Aztecan Prehistory in the Arizona-Sonora Borderlands Weissner, Polly 1983 Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points. American Antiquity 48:253­276. Wilcox, David 1986 The Tepiman Connection: A Model of Mesoamerican-Southwestern Interaction. In Ripples in the Chichimec Sea: New Considerations of Southwestern-Mesoamerican Interactions, ed. Frances Joan Mathien and Randall H. McGuire, 135­154. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. Willey, Gordon R., and Jeremy A. Sabloff 1982 A History of American Archaeology. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco. Wills, W. H. 1988 Early Prehistoric Agriculture in the American Southwest. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe. Wцcherl, Helga (editor) 2005 Archaeological Investigations at the El Taller, AZ AA:12:92 (ASM), and Rillito Fan, AZ AA:12:788 (ASM), Sites along Eastbound I-10 between Sunset and Ruthrauff Roads, as Part of the I-10 Frontage Roads Project, Pima County, Tucson, Arizona. Technical Report 2003-08. Desert Archaeology, Tucson. 183

JB Mabry, JP Carpenter, G Sanchez

File: archaeological-models-of-early-uto-aztecan-prehistory-in-the.pdf
Author: JB Mabry, JP Carpenter, G Sanchez
Published: Thu Dec 3 19:07:59 2015
Pages: 29
File size: 1.12 Mb

, pages, 0 Mb

Modern control systems, 7 pages, 0.43 Mb

Volume 1 Issue, 12 pages, 0.91 Mb

, pages, 0 Mb
Copyright © 2018