Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:12:55.599Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Social and Economic Contexts of Lithic Procurement: Obsidian from Classic-Period Hohokam Sites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jane Peterson ,
Douglas R. Mitchell  and
M. Steven Shackley
Jane Peterson
Affiliation:
Department of Social and Cultural Sciences, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI 53201–1881
Douglas R. Mitchell
Affiliation:
SWCA, Inc., 2512 East Thomas Road, Suite 4, Phoenix, AZ 85016
M. Steven Shackley
Affiliation:
Phoebe Hearst Museum of Anthropology, 103 Kroeber Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3712
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The social and economic organization of obsidian procurement has been a topic of particular interest in southwestern archaeology as a result of recent work identifying and characterizing a number of sources throughout Arizona, New Mexico, and northern Mexico. Recent studies have attempted to explain temporal and spatial variability of obsidian distribution in the larger contexts of regional exchange networks, socially bounded territories, and elite redistributive efforts. This study reviews the current state of research as reflected in three models. Patterns in obsidian source diversity and reduction stage data are assessed relative to model expectations and an analysis of obsidian acquisition and distribution. The likelihood of elite members of an increasingly formalized socioeconomic system playing a role in these processes should be considered, while at the same time noting that kin-based raw material procurement and ritual item mobilization may explain many of the obsidian patterns. The emerging perspective suggests that obsidian moved in a variety of spheres, concurrently serving a number of social and economic purposes. This study highlights the importance of modeling individual, nonlocal commodities before attempting to generate monolithic exchange models.

La organizatión económica-social de la adquisición de obsidiana ha sido un tópico de particular interés en la arqueología del Suroeste como resultado de la reciente identificatión y caracterización de numerosas fuentes en Arizona, Nuevo México, y México septentrional. Estudios recientes han intentado explicar la variabilidad espacial y temporal de la distributión de obsidiana en amplios contextos de redes de intercambio regionales, territorios limitados socialmente, y esfuerzos de redistributión de la élite. Este estudio presenta los resultados de una investigatión en progreso que se enfoca en conjuntos de varias ocupaciones del periodo Clásico en el sur de Arizona. Se describen los avances de esta investigatión, enfocando particularmente tres modelos que exploran posibles condiciones y mecanismos de circulatión de obsidiana. Se evalúan los patwnes de diversidad de fuentes y datos sobrefases de reductión en relatión con estos modelos. Se debe considerar elpapel que los miembros de la élite en un sistema socioeconómico de formalizatión creciente jugaron en estos procesos. Al mismo tiempo, es importante notar que la adquisición de materia prima por grupos de parentesco y la circulatión de artefactos rituales también puede explicar algunos patwnes de obsidiana. La obsidiana podría haber circulado en varias esferas sociales y servido diferentes propósitos sociales y económicos. Este estudio destaca la importancia de modelar ciertos bienes de intercambio individualmente antes de que se generen modelos monolíticos.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 62 , Issue 2 , April 1997 , pp. 231 - 259
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Abbott, D. R. 1985 Spheres of Intra-Cultural Exchange and the Ceramics of the Salt-Gila Aqueduct Project. In Proceedings of the Hohokam Symposium, Part II, edited by Dittert, A. E., Jr. and Dove, D. E., pp. 419–38. Occasional Paper No. 2. Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix.Google Scholar
Abbott, D. R. 1994 The Pueblo Grande Project, Volume 3: Ceramics and the Production and Exchange of Pottery in the Central Phoenix Basin. Soil Systems Publications in Archaeology No. 20. Soil Systems, Inc., Phoenix.Google Scholar
Bayman, J. M. 1995 Rethinking “Redistribution” in the Archaeological Record: Obsidian Exchange at the Marana Platform Mound. Journal of Anthropological Research 51: 37–63.Google Scholar
Bernard-Shaw, M. 1984 Stone Tool Assemblages of the Salt-Gila Aqueduct Project Sites. In Hohokam Archaeology along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project. Volume 111 Material Culture, edited by Teague, L. S. and Crown, P.L. pp. 373–62. Archaeological Series No. 150. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.Google Scholar
Bobrowsky, P. T., and Ball, B. F. 1989 The Theory and Mechanics of Ecological Diversity in Archaeology. In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by Leonard, R. D. and Jones, G.T. pp. 4–12. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Bradley, R. J. E. 1996 The Role of Casas Grandes in Prehistoric Shell Exchange Networks within the Southwest. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
Branson, J. 1989 The Social Organization of the Los Muertos Hohokam: A Reanalysis of Cushing 's Hemenway Expedition Data. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Anthropology Department, Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
Castetter, E. F. 1935 Uncultivated Native Plants Used as Sources of Food. Bulletin, Biological Series No. 4(1). University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Castetter, E. F, and Underhill, R. 1935 Ethnobiological Studies in the American Southwest 2: The Ethnobiology of the Papago Indians. Bulletin No. 275, Biological Series No. 4(8). University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Ciolek-Torello, R. (editor) 1988 Hohokam Settlement along the Slopes of the Picacho Mountains: The Picacho Area Sites, Tucson Aqueduct Project. Research Paper No. 35, Vol. 3. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.Google Scholar
Ciolek-Torello, R., Callahan, M. M., and Greenwald, D. H. 1988 Hohokam Settlement along the Slopes of the Picacho Mountains: The Brady Wash Sites, Tucson Aqueduct Project. Research Paper No. 35, Vol. 2. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.Google Scholar
Crown, P. L. 1991 The Role of Exchange and Interaction in Salt-Gila Basin Hohokam Prehistory. In Exploring the Hohokam: Prehistoric Desert Peoples of the American Southwest, edited by Gumerman, G. J., pp. 383—415. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Crown, P. L., and Judge, W. J. 1991 Introduction. In Chaco and the Hohokam: Prehistoric Regional Systems in the American Southwest, edited by Crown, P. L. and Judge, W.J. pp. 1–9. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.Google Scholar
Davis, M. K., Jackson, T. J., Shackley, M. S., Teague, T., 1997 Factors Affecting the Energy-Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Analysis of Archaeological Obsidian. In Archaeological Obsidian Studies: Method and Theory, edited by Shackley, M. S.. Plenum, New York, in press.Google Scholar
Dean, J. S. 1991 Thoughts on Hohokam Chronology. In Exploring the Hohokam: Prehistoric Desert Peoples of the American Southwest, edited by Gumerman, G. J., pp. 61–149. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Doyel, D. E. 1974 Excavations in the Escalante Ruin Group, Southern Arizona. Archaeological Series No. 37. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
Doyel, D. E. 1985 Exchange and Interaction. In Hohokam Settlement and Economic Systems in the Central New River Drainage, Arizona, edited by Doyel, D. E. and Elson, M.D. pp. 715–726. Soil Systems Publication in Archaeology No. 4. Soil Systems, Inc., Phoenix.Google Scholar
Doyel, D. E. 1991a Hohokam Cultural Evolution in the Phoenix Basin. In Exploring the Hohokam: Prehistoric Desert Peoples of the American Southwest, edited by Gumerman, G. J., pp. 231–278. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Doyel, D. E. 1991b Hohokam Exchange and Interaction. In Chaco and the Hohokam: Prehistoric Regional Systems in the American Southwest, edited by Crown, P. L. and Judge, W.J. pp. 225–252. School for American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.Google Scholar
Doyel, D. E. 1993 On Rivers and Boundaries in the Phoenix Basin, Arizona. Kiva 58: 455–474.Google Scholar
Doyel, D. E. 1994 Production and Exchange of Obsidian at the Gatlin Site, Southwestern Arizona. Paper presented at the 59th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Anaheim, California.Google Scholar
Doyel, D. E., Black, A. T., and Macnider, B. S. (editors) 1995 Archaeological Excavations at Pueblo Blanco: The MCDOT Alma School Road Project. Cultural Resources Report No. 90. Archaeological Consulting Services, Tempe, Arizona.Google Scholar
Ebinger, M. H. 1984 An X-Ray Florescence Analysis of Hohokam Lithics. In Hohokam Archaeology along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project. Volume X: Synthesis and Conclusions, edited by Teague, L. S. and Crown, P.L. pp. 445-152. Archaeological Series No. 150. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.Google Scholar
Fish, P. R. 1989 1,000 Years of the Prehistory of the Sonoran Desert. In Dynamics of Southwest Prehistory, edited by Cordell, L. S. and Gumerman, G.J. pp. 19–64. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Fish, P. R. 1992 The Marana Community in the Hohokam World. Anthropological Papers No. 56. University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
Foster, M. S. 1994 Intrusive Ceramics. In The Pueblo Grande Project, Volume 4: Material Culture, edited by Foster, M. S., pp. 119–166. Soil Systems Publications in Archaeology No. 20. Soil Systems, Inc., Phoenix.Google Scholar
Goffer, Zvi 1980 Archaeological Chemistry: A Sourcebook on the Applications of Chemistry to Archaeology. John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Goldstein, L. G. 1980 Mississippian Mortuary Practices: A Case Study of Two Cemeteries in the Lower Illinois Valley. Archaeological Program Scientific Papers No. 4. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.Google Scholar
Gumerman, G. J. 1991 Understanding the Hohokam. In Exploring the Hohokam: Prehistoric Desert Peoples of the American Southwest, edited by Gumerman, G. J., pp. 1–27. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Haury, E. W. 1945 The Excavation of Los Muertos and Neighboring Ruins in the Salt River Valley, Southern Arizona. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 24, No. 1. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Haury, E. W. 1976 The Hohokam, Desert Farmers and Craftsmen. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Hayden, J. D. 1972 Hohokam Petroglyphs of the Sierra Pinacate, Sonora and the Hohokam Shell Expedition. Kiva 37: 74–83.Google Scholar
Henderson, T. K. 1987 Structure and Organization at La Ciudad. Anthropological Field Studies No. 18. Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
Hewlett, H. B., van de Koppel, J. M. H., and Cavalli, L. L. 1982 Exploration Ranges of the Aka Pygmies of the Central African Republic. Man 17: 418–130.Google Scholar
Hoffman, C. M. 1988 Lithic Technology and Tool Production at Casa Buena. In Excavations at Casa .Buena: Changing Hohokam Land Use along the Squaw Peak Parkway, edited by Howard, J., pp. 359-57. Soil Systems Publications in Archaeology No. 11. Soil Systems, Inc., Phoenix.Google Scholar
Hoffman, C. M. 1988 Excavations at Casa Buena: Changing Hohokam Land Use along the Squaw Peak Parkway. Soil Systems Publications in Archaeology No. 11. Soil Systems, Inc., Phoenix.Google Scholar
Huckell, B. B. 1981 The Las Colinas Flaked Stone Assemblage. In The 1968 Excavations at Mound 8 Las Colinas Ruins Group, edited by Hammack, L. C. and Sullivan, A.P. pp. 171–199. Archaeological Series No. 154. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. E. 1988 The Coso Volcanic Field Reexamined: Implications for Obsidian Sourcing and Hydration Dating Research. Geoarchaeology 3(4): 253–265.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. E., and Smith, R. L. 1993 Archaeology, Geology, and Geochemistry in Obsidian Provenance Studies. In Scale on Archaeological and Geoscientific Perspectives, edited by Stein, J. K. and Linse, A.R. pp. 79–91. Special Paper No. 283. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
Kintigh, K. 1984 Measuring Archaeological Diversity by Comparison with Simulated Assemblages. American Antiquity 49: 44–54.Google Scholar
Kintigh, K. 1989 Sample Size, Significance, and Measures of Diversity. In Quantifying Diversity, edited by Leonard, R. D. and Jones, G.T. pp. 25–36. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Landis, D. G. 1989 Chipped Stone Assemblages of the Grand Canal Ruins. In Archaeological Investigations at the Grand Canal Ruins: A Classic Period Site in Phoenix, Arizona, Vol. 1, edited by Mitchell, D. R., pp. 385–441. Soil Systems Publications in Archaeology No. 12. Soil Systems, Inc., Phoenix.Google Scholar
Landis, D. G., and Mitchell, D. R. 1990 The Lithic Assemblages of La Lomita. In The La Lomita Excavations: 10th Century Hohokam Occupation in South-Central Arizona, edited by Mitchell, D. R., pp. 103–126. Soil Systems Publications in Archaeology No. 15. Soil Systems, Inc., Phoenix.Google Scholar
Lepowsky, M. 1993 Fruit of the Motherland. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. J., and Schamber, F. H. 1981 Least-Squares Fit with Digital Filter: A Status Report. In Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectrometry, edited by Heinrich, K. F. J., Newbury, D. E., Myklebust, R. L., and Fiori, E., pp. 273–296. Special Publication No. 604. National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
MacGregor, J. C. 1941 Winona and Ridge Ruin. Part I, Architecture and Material Culture. Bulletin 18. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.Google Scholar
MacGregor, J. C. 1951 The Cohonina Culture of Northwestern Arizona. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
Martin, M. E. 1986 Hohokam Exchange and Obsidian, Evidence from the Roilley Site AX U: 9: 49 (ASU). Unpublished Master's thesis, Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
McGuire, R. H. 1992 Death, Society, and Ideology in a Hohokam Community. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
McGuire, R. H. 1993 The Structure and Organization of Hohokam Exchange. In The American Southwest and Mesoamerica: Systems of Prehistoric Exchange, edited by Ericson, J. E. and Baugh, T.G. pp. 95–119. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, R. H., and Howard, A. V. 1987 The Structure and Organization of Hohokam Shell Exchange. Kiva 52: 113–146.Google Scholar
McGuire, R. H., and Saitta, D. J. 1996 Although They Have Petty Captains, They Obey Them Badly: The Dialectics of Prehispanic Western Pueblo Social Organization. American Antiquity 61: 197–216.Google Scholar
Mitchell, D. R. 1989 Archaeological Investigations at the Grand Canal Ruins: A Classic Period Site in Phoenix, Arizona. Soil Systems Publications in Archaeology No. 12. Soil Systems, Inc., Phoenix.Google Scholar
Mitchell, D. R. 1991 An Investigation of Two Classic Period Hohokam Cemeteries. North American Archaeologist 12: 109–127.Google Scholar
Mitchell, D. R. 1992 Burials, Households, and Paleodemography at Pueblo Grande. Kiva 58: 89–106.Google Scholar
Mitchell, D. R. 1994a The Pueblo Grande Project, Volume 7: An Analysis of Classic Period Hohokam Mortuary Practices. Soil Systems Publications in Archaeology No. 20. Soil Systems, Inc., Phoenix.Google Scholar
Mitchell, D. R. 1994b The Pueblo Grande Project, Volume 2: Feature Descriptions, Chronology, and Site Structure. Soil Systems Publications in Archaeology No. 20. Soil Systems, Inc., Phoenix.Google Scholar
Mitchell, D. R. 1995 Report on Obsidian Sourcing at the Classic Period Sites of El Polvordn and Las Fosas, Southern Arizona. Report prepared for the Arizona Archaeological and Historical Society. Manuscript on file with the Arizona Archaeological and Historical Society, Tucson.Google Scholar
Mitchell, D. R. 1995 Classic Period Hohokam Obsidian Studies in Southern Arizona. Journal of Field Archaeology 22: 291–304.Google Scholar
Peterson, J. D. 1994 Chipped Stone. In The Pueblo Grande Project, Volume 4: Material Culture, edited by Foster, M. S., pp. 49–118. Soil Systems Publications in Archaeology No. 20. Soil Systems, Inc., Phoenix.Google Scholar
Peterson, J., Mitchell, D. R., and Shackley, M. S. 1994 Obsidian from Pueblo Grande, Arizona: Modeling Social and Economic Patterns in Lithic Procurement. In Archaeometry of Pre-Columbian Sites and Artifacts, edited by Scott, D. A. and Meyers, P., pp. 161–173. Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Pires-Ferreira, J. W. 1976 Obsidian Exchange in Formative Mesoamerica. In The Early Mesoamerican Village, edited by Flannery, K. V., pp. 292–305. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Pires-Ferreira, J. W., and Flannery, K. V. 1976 Ethnographic Models for Formative Exchange. In The Early Mesoamerican Village, edited by Flannery, K. V., pp. 286–292. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Plog, S. 1980 Hohokam Exchange, Subsistence, and Interaction: Some Comments. In Current Issues in Hohokam Prehistory, edited by Doyel, D. E. and Plog, F., pp. 106–112. Anthropological Research Papers No. 23. Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
Reichard, G. 1969 Social Life of the Navajo Indians. AMS Press, New York.Google Scholar
Reid, J. J. 1984 Measuring Social Complexity in the American Southwest. In Chacmool: Current Anthropological Reconstructions, edited by Thompson, M., Thompson, M. T., and Kense, F. J., pp. 161–173. Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. 1977 Alternative Models for Exchange and Spatial Distribution. In Exchanges Systems in Prehistory, edited by Earle, T. K. and Ericson, J.E. pp. 71–90. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Rice, G. E. 1987 Studies in the Hohokam Community of Marana. Anthropological Field Studies No. 15. Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
Russell, F. 1975 The Pima Indians. Reprint of the 1908 Bureau of American Ethnology Annual Report 1904-1905. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Schamber, F. H. 1977 A Modification of the Linear Least-Squares Fitting Method Which Provides Continuum Suppression. In Xray Fluorescence Analysis of Environmental Samples, edited by Dzubay, T. G., pp. 241–257. Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
Schroeder, A. H. 1953 The Bearing of Architecture on Developments in the Hohokam Classic Period. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 9: 174–94.Google Scholar
Seymour, D. J. 1988 An Alternative View of Sedentary Period Hohokam Shell Ornament Production. American Antiquity 53: 812–828.Google Scholar
Shackley, M. S. 1987 X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analysis of Obsidian Artifacts from the Marana Hohokam Complex. In Studies in the Hohokam Community of Marana, edited by Rice, G. E., pp. 217–221. Anthropological Field Studies No. 15. Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
Shackley, M. S. 1988 Sources of Archaeological Obsidian in the Southwest: An Archaeological, Petrological, and Geochemical Study. American Antiquity 53: 752–772.Google Scholar
Shackley, M. S. 1989 X-ray Fluorescence of Obsidian Artifacts from.Grand Canal, Casa Buena, and Pueblo Grande Hohokam Sites, Central Arizona. In Archaeological Investigations at the Grand Canal Ruins: A Classic Period Site in Phoenix, Arizona, edited by Mitchell, D. R., pp. 987–992. Publications in Archaeology No. 12. Soil Systems, Inc.. Phoenix.Google Scholar
Shackley, M. S. 1990 Early Hunter-Gatherer Procurement Ranges in the Southwest: Evidence from Obsidian Geochemistry and Lithic Technology. Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Shackley, M. S. 1995a An Energy-Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence (EDXRF) Analysis of Obsidian Artifacts from AZ U: 9: 95 and U: 9: 97 (ASM), Central Arizona. Appendix F. In Archaeological Excavations at Pueblo Blanco: The MCDOT Alma School Road Project, edited by Doyel, D. E., Black, A. T., and Macnider, B. S., pp. F1–F8. Cultural Resources Report No. 90. Archaeological Consulting Services, Tempe, Arizona.Google Scholar
Shackley, M. S. 1995b Sources of Archaeological Obsidian in the Greater American Southwest: An Update and Quantitative Analysis. American Antiquity 60: 531–551.Google Scholar
Shackley, M. S. 1996 Range and Mobility in the Early Hunter-Gatherer Southwest. In Early Formative Adaptations in the Southern Southwest, edited by Roth, B., pp. 5–16. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 25. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Shackley, M. S., and Bouey, P. D. 1988 X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analysis of Obsidian Artifacts from the Tucson Aqueduct Project. In Hohokam Settlement along the Slopes of the Picacho Mountains: Material Culture, edited by Callahan, M., pp. 359–370. Research Paper No. 35, Vol. 4. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.Google Scholar
Sires E., W, Jr. 1983 Archaeological Investigations at Las Fosas (AZ U: 15: 19), A Classic Period Community on the Gila River. In Hohokam Archaeology along the Salt-Gila River Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project. Volume VI: Habitation Sites on the Gila River, edited by Teague, L. S. and Crown, P.L. pp. 493–726. Archaeological Series No. 150. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.Google Scholar
Sires, E. W., Jr. 1984 Excavations at El Polvor6n. In Hohokam Archaeology along the Salt-Gila River Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project. Volume IV: Prehistoric Occupation of the Queen Creek Delta, edited by Teague, L. S. and Crown, P.L. pp. 221–357. Archaeological Series No. 150. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.Google Scholar
Teague, L. S. 1984 The Organization of Hohokam Economy. In Hohokam Archaeology along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project, Vol. IX, Synthesis and Conclusions, edited by Teague, L. S. and Crown, P.L. pp. 187–249. Archaeological Series No. 150. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
Turney, O. A. 1929 Prehistoric Irrigation, Part II. Arizona Historical Review 2(2): 11–52.Google Scholar
Wallace, H. D., Heidke, J. M., and Doelle, W. H. 1995 Hohokam Origins. Kiva 60: 575–618.Google Scholar
Wiessner, P. 1982 Risk, Reciprocity, and Social Influences on IKung San Economics. In Politics and History in Band Societies, edited by Leacock, E., pp. 61–84. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Wilcox, D. R. 1979 The Hohokam Regional System. In An Archaeological Test of Sites in the Gila Butte-Santan Region, South-Central Arizona, edited by Rice, G. E., Wilcox, D., Rafferty, K., and Schoenwetter, J., pp. 77–116. Anthropological Research Papers No. 18. Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
Wilcox, D. R., and Sternberg, C. 1983 Hohokam Ballcourts and Their Interpretation. Archaeological Series No. 160. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
Winter, M. C, and Pires-Ferreira, J. W. 1976 Distribution of Obsidian among Households in Two Oaxacan Villages. In The Early Mesoamerican Village, edited by Flannery, K. V., pp. 306–311. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar