Archaeobotanical Remains from Frogtown (AZ U:15:61)

American …, 1997

Journal of Arizona Archaeology, 2018

The passage of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the establishment of the Section 106 process played a central role in advancing Hohokam archaeology and the study of prehistoric irrigation in Arizona. Opening research opportunities, the NHPA allowed for the development of both long term research programs and new techniques and methodological approaches. This led to advances in our understanding of the layout and operation of irrigation systems , the geoarchaeology of irrigation features, the development of techniques for paleohydraulic reconstructions, and the dating of irrigation features. This greater understanding of prehistoric irrigation systems, combined with improved chronological control, resulted in new perspectives on Hohokam sociopolitical organization and agricultural success through time. This paper examines the development of Hohokam irrigation studies in the primary agricultural areas, the Salt and Gila river valleys.

Recent Research On Tucson Basin Prehistory: Proceedings of the Second Tucson Basin Conference, 1988

Recently I came across a reference to a paper I gave at the 1986 Second Tucson Basin Conference. My first thought was, "That one was pretty good, I wish I had written it up". I vaguely remember showing a lot of slides of crop - wild relatives in the Arizona - Sonoran Borderlands and talking about levels of Human - Plant Interactions. Turns out I did write it up. In many ways this is a mid-career summary paper, talking about things I had been thinking about up to that point that I still use in my approach to archaeological plant remains. Recent Research On Tucson Basin Prehistory: Proceedings of the Second Tucson Basin Conference. William H. Doelle, Paul R. Fish, Linda Gregonis (1988) pp. 47- 56, Institute for American Research Anthropological Papers No. 10, Tucson. https://core.tdar.org/document/56677/recent-research-on-tucson-basin-prehistory-proceedings-of-the-second-tucson-basin-conference

Laboratory of Anthropology note , 1971

A survey of the vegetation. Report provides a table that delineates the food value and economic significance of each plant. Cultivated plants and terraced agriculture dating to AD 1100-1250 found. Plant remains (Archaeology) Agriculture, Prehistoric Plants, Cultivated AD 1100-1250 Catron County (N.M.) Apache Creek Region (N.M.) LA 4986 LA 4987 LA 4988

Journal of the Houston Archeological Society , 1990

The prehistoric archeology of Southeast Texas has been summarized and reviewed by numerous authors in the recent past. General syntheses include the work of Aten (1983,1984), Patterson (1979,1983), and Story (1981,1990). Many publications have resulted from avocational and professional efforts within the region, yet a definitive synthesis of the inland Southeast Texas area has yet to be published. The present comments focus on the methods used in chronology building in Southeast Texas as well as presentation of a revised projectile point sequence for that region.

1995

Excavations at the large Hohokam ballcourt settlement of Los Morteros, AZ AA:12:57 (ASM), in 1987 and 1988 resulted in the identification of 770 prehistoric cultural features, including 349 structures, an adobe-walled compound enclosure, and at least five discrete cemeteries in the northern and southern portions of the kilometer-long site. Ninety-eight of the structures were fully or partially excavated. Also identified were a historic canal and evidence pointing to the location of the historic Point of the Mountains stage station, the Francisco Ruelas homestead, and a small Yaqui settlement dating to the 1920s. Research focused on the delineation of prehistoric settlement structure over time. The occupation was found to date from the Rillito, Rincon, and Tanque Verde phases of the Tucson Basin sequence. Wallace, Henry D. and Charles H. Miksicek. Plant Remains. In Archaeological Investigations at the Los Morteros Site, AZ AA:12:57 (ASM), and Sites AZ:12:146 (ASM) and AZ AA:12:147 (ASM): Late Colonial through Early Classic Period Occupation in the Northern Tucson Basin. by Henry D. Wallace, C. D. A. Tech. Rep. No. 89-9, Tucson.

American Scientist

In Archaeological Investigations at the Yuma Wash Site and Outlying Settlements, part 2, edited by D. L. Swartz, pp. 915- 948. Anthropological Papers No. 49. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson., 2016

The Yuma Wash site (AZ BB:13:122, 311, 312, and 314 [ASM]) was a permanently occupied large Classic period (A.D. 1150-1450) Hohokam village situated in the northern Tucson Basin at the juncture of the eastern bajada of the Tucson Mountains with the Santa Cruz River floodplain. The site area was also intermittently used on a much smaller scale during the rest of the Hohokam sequence (A.D. 500-1150) and during the Early Agricultural (ca. 2100 B.C. - A.D. 50) and Early Ceramic (A.D. 50-500) periods, as well as during the Historic period. The project was conducted by Desert Archaeology, Inc. for the Town of Marana prior to and during improvements to Silverbell Road and the construction of the Crossroads at Silverbell Park. Desert Archaeology recorded 1162 cultural features, including 303 human mortuary features. The vast majority of the features dated to the Classic period and the site was intensively occupied during both the Tanque Verde (A.D. 1150-1300) and Tucson (A.D. 1300-1450) phases. Occupation prior to the Classic period is difficult to characterize due to the paucity of features; a total of 235 structures has now been identified at the Yuma Wash site, but fewer than a dozen of these have been found through testing or excavation to date prior A.D. 1150. The early occupation was likely intermittent and of varying function, with the site sometimes permanently inhabited for a few years, sometimes seasonally inhabited, and sometimes likely vacant. There was a hiatus during the Rincon phase (A.D. 950-1150) in the portions of the sites investigated by Desert Archaeology, although there is evidence for a very small Rincon occupation in previous investigations. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the Yuma Wash Project was irregular and consisted largely of a small, primarily linear slice of the site. Due to this, site structure could not be clearly determined. However, several observations could be made for the Classic period occupation. Locus AA:12:122 was occupied only during the Tanque Verde phase (A.D. 1150-1300) and showed clear pithouse courtyard groups with cemeteries to the east or southeast. This pattern was much less visible in the other loci due to the shape of the right-of-way and the dynamic nature of the natural deposits, allowing for Classic period features to originate at numerous levels. Still, several pithouse courtyard groups were found at the other loci; most of the courtyard groups dated to the Tanque Verde phase but several likely dated to the Tucson phase (A.D. 1300-1450). An adobe compound constructed during the Tanque Verde phase and occupied into the Tucson phase contained surface adobe rooms and underlying pit structures. Traces of at least one additional compound were found in previous work at the site, outside of the current right-of-way. It is possible, if not likely, that the Tucson phase courtyard groups were contemporaneous with the adobe compound. The Yuma Wash data support previous archaeological research in the Tucson Basin and the Hohokam area in general suggesting a temporal sequence in architecture, with pithouses transitioning into adobe-walled pitrooms and finally into adobe-walled surface rooms, many within compound walls. While this temporal trend is broadly accurate, the Yuma Wash data indicate all three architectural forms can also be contemporaneous, raising questions about the timing, function, and use of these structures, as well as the nature of the social groups who occupied them. The Yuma Wash data also indicate that architecture alone cannot be used as a basis for temporal placement when reconstructing internal site structure, despite the relatively numerous efforts over the years by archaeologists to do so. The Classic period occupants of the Yuma Wash site were farmers who supplemented their subsistence by gathering nearby wild plants and hunting rabbits and occasionally larger game. At the site, the occupants produced items including ceramic pots, flaked stone and ground stone tools, and some shell jewelry. In exchange, they also received ceramics from other sites within the Tucson Basin and obsidian, shell, and non-local ceramics from sites across the Greater Southwest. The large number of mortuary features at the site included features from all stages of the cremation process as well as primary inhumations. Over 50 percent of the inhumations were infants and these were associated with large group serving vessels more often than expected. Small household-sized cemeteries were located within the courtyards and larger communal cemeteries were located to the east and southeast of residential areas. Patterning of the various types of cremation features and the ages of the individuals was identified in the larger cemeteries. The burial of dogs in what appear to be defined cemeteries often located near the edges of the larger human cemeteries also suggests that dogs were respected and considered to be more than work animals or a source of food -- of the 34 recovered dog burials, none contained evidence for butchering and subsequent consumption. The Santa Cruz River has been divided into irrigation reaches based on bedrock outcrops and other geological factors that indicate ideal locations for canal system headgates, allowing the flow of water from the Santa Cruz River to be monitored and adjusted as needed. The Yuma Wash site was part of the irrigation community associated with the Cañada del Oro Reach of the river. During the Classic period, the Yuma Wash site was the largest site in this reach, as no known platform mound sites are located in this area. The Marana platform mound site and Furrey’s Ranch platform mound site were associated with adjacent reaches at each end of the Cañada del Oro Reach, meaning that the flow of water for these irrigation communities could not be directly regulated by the platform mound villages, nor could the inhabitants of the Yuma Wash site directly regulate the water flow reaching the platform mound villages, except through alliances or force. The two chapters included on this page -- Chapters 14 and 15 -- synthesize data from Desert Archaeology's 2008 excavations and provide interpretative analyses to support our reconstruction of Classic period (ca. A.D. 1150-1450(?)) life on the Santa Cruz River. Whenever possible, the results from the previous work by OPAC are also included to provide a more complete understanding of this large village site. The Hohokam Classic period has long been known to be a period of relatively dramatic change, most visible in the aggregation of a relatively large number of pre-Classic and early Classic period sites into six large platform mound villages, with all but one located on the Santa Cruz River. At the same time, we see a reduction in the size of economic and exchange systems, particularly pottery, which becomes very localized, changing from a relatively widespread network, with most of the decorated pottery in the Tucson Basin originating from only three or four areas (petrofacies) on the Santa Cruz River in central Tucson, to one of smaller subregions with more limited distributions. We interpret the Classic period as a time of stress, both social and almost certainly environmental, with the subregional patterning likely indicative of the importance of knowing one's neighbors, and knowing them well, as a form of alliance and community protection. We suggest that at least in the Tucson Basin, but likely throughout the Southwest U.S., it is time to revive earlier models from the turn of the 20th century through the late 1960s that proposes that conflict, or the threat of conflict, was more of a prime mover in culture change than currently believed. The presence or threat of conflict is suggested by a number of variables: 1) settlement aggregation, and particularly the movement of many sites out of the open floodplain to the terraces above the floodplain; 2) the occupation of defensive site locations, such as trincheras sites or at least nearby areas where the movement of "strangers" could be observed; 3) the construction of platform mounds, which unlike the ballcourts that preceded them, were restricted in access and almost certainly related to status of either the individual leader or the leader's group; and 4) the likely presence of migrant groups from areas both north and south of the Tucson Basin, which is known to put stress on local populations, particularly local populations living in an area with limited precipitation and therefore dependent on irrigation agriculture. Irrigation agriculture at the scale practiced in the Tucson Basin almost certainly would have required leadership, food surplus, and a relatively large amount of cooperation both within, and possibly between, groups. And finally, although not stated in our chapter and admittedly highly subjective and speculative (and also highly subject to criticism, but isn't that what science is for?), the senior author believes that intergroup conflict, or even the threat of conflict, is an important and significant variable in the behavior and survival of human populations, one that is also an important and relatively well-documented variable in the behavior of other higher primates. I find it very interesting, and to me, likely significant, that there is a clear correlation with the loss of "conflict" as a viable hypotheses and the escalation of the Vietnam War. As strongly as we (meaning Anthropologists) are supposedly trained in cultural relativity and objective scientific observation, we are still very much a product of our culture.