Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:07:26.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dynamics of Hohokam obsidian circulation in the North American Southwest

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

James M. Bayman  and
M. Steven Shackley
James M. Bayman
Affiliation:
University of Hawai'i, Honolulu HI 96822, USA. [email protected]
M. Steven Shackley
Affiliation:
Phoebe Hearst Museum of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley CA 94720-3712, USA. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Geochemical analyses of obsidian offer unexpected insights on the size and organization of the Hohokam regional system in the North American Southwest. Networks of obsidian circulation enlarged greatly during the Classic period as community centres with monumental architecture acquired non-local obsidian from a vast territory. This pattern confirms that prior models drastically underestimated the geographic scale of the Classic period regional system.

Keywords

archaeologyobsidianexchangeNorth AmericaHohokam
Type
Papers
Information
Antiquity , Volume 73 , Issue 282 , December 1999 , pp. 836 - 845
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 1999

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

Andrefsky, W., Jr. 1999. Lithics: macroscopic approaches to analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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
Bayman, J.M. 1996. Shell ornament consumption in a Classic Hohokam platform mound community center, Journal of Field Archaeology 23(4): 403–20.Google Scholar
Bayman, J.M. 1999. Craft economies in the North American Southwest, Journal of Archaeological Research 7(3): 249–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crown, P.L. 1991a. The role of exchange and interaction in Salt-Gila basin Hohokam prehistory, in Gumerman, G.J. (ed.), Exploring the Hohokam: prehistoric desert peoples of the American Southwest: 231–78. Albuquerque (NM): University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Crown, P.L. 1991b. The Hohokam: current views of the prehistory and the regional system, in Crown & Judge (ed.): 135–57.Google Scholar
Crown, P.L. & Judge, W.J. (ed.). 1991. Chaco & Hohokam: prehistoric regional systems in the American Southwest. Santa Fe (NM): School of American Research Press.Google Scholar
Doouttle, W.E. 1990. Canal irrigation in prehistoric Mexico: the sequence of technological change. Austin (TX): University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Doyel, D.R. 1991. Hohokam exchange and interaction, in Crown & Judge (ed.): 225–52.Google Scholar
Doyel, D.R. 1996 Production and exchange of obsidian artifacts at the Gatlin site, southwestern Arizona, The Kiva 62(1): 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericson, J.E. 1982. Production for obsidian exchange in California, in Ericson, J.E. & Earle, T.K. (ed.), Contexts for prehistoric exchange: 129–48. New York (NY): Academic Press.Google Scholar
Evans, J. & Hillman, H.F. 1981 Casa Grande, an ancient astronomical observatory, Arizona Highways 57(10): 32.Google Scholar
Fewkes, J.W. 1912. Casa Grande, Arizona, in Twenty-Eighth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology: 25–179. Washington (DC): Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Gladwin, H.S. 1928. Excavations at Casa Grande, Arizona. Los Angeles (CA): Southwest Museum. Southwest Museum Papers 2.Google Scholar
Hastings, R. 1934. Report of archaeological excavations at Casa Grande National Monument under C.W.A. Program, monthly report of the Southwestern Monuments Association, March 1934, supplement. Globe (AZ): Gila Pueblo.Google Scholar
Huckell, B.B. 1981. The Las Colinas flaked stone assemblage, in Hammack, L.C. & Sullivan, A.P. (ed.), The 1968 excavations at mound 8 Las Colinas ruins group, Phoenix, Arizona: 171–99. Tucson (AZ): University of Arizona. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 154.Google Scholar
Hughes, R.E. 1998. On reliability, validity, and scale in obsidian sourcing research, in Ramenofsky, A.F. & Steffer, A. (ed.), Unit issues in archaeology: measuring time, space, and material: 103–14. Salt Lake City (UT): University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
Lindauer, O. & Blitz, J.H.. 1997. Higher ground: the archaeology of North American platform mounds, Journal of Archaeological Research 5(2): 169–207.Google Scholar
McGuire, R.H. & Howard, A.V. 1987. The structure and organization of Hohokam shell exchange, The Kiva 52(2): 113–48.Google Scholar
Mindeleff, C. 1896. Casa Grande Ruin, in Thirteenth annual report of the bureau of American Ethnology, 1891–1892. Washington (DC): Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Mitchell, D.R. & Shackley, M.S.. 1995. Classic period Hohokam obsidian studies in southern Arizona, Journal of Field Archaeology 22: 291–304.Google Scholar
Nelson, R.S. 1991. Hohokam marine shell exchange and artifacts. Tucson (AZ): University of Arizona. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 179.Google Scholar
Peterson, J., Mitchell, D.R. & Shackley, M.S.. 1997. The social and economic contexts of lithic procurement: obsidian from Classic-period Hohokam sites, American Antiquity 62(2): 231–59.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. 1977. Alternative models for exchange and spatial distribution, in Earle, T.K. & Ericson, J.E. (ed.), Exchange systems in prehistory: 71–90. New York (NY): Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sahlins, M. 1972. Stone age economics. Chicago (IL): Aldine Publishing.Google Scholar
Shackley, M.S. 1998a. Intrasource chemical variability and secondary depositional processes: lessons from the American Southwest, in Shackley, M.S. (ed.), Archaeological obsidian studies: method and theory: 83–102. New York (NY): Plenum Press. Advances in Archeological & Museum Science 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shackley, M.S. 1998b. An energy-dispersive x-ray fluorescence (EDXRF) analysis of obsidian artifacts from pre-classic contexts at the Grewe Site, central Arizona. Report prepared for Northland Research, Inc., Tempe, Arizona.Google Scholar
Shackley, M.S. 1995. Sources of archaeological obsidian in the greater American Southwest: an update and quantitative analysis, American Antiquity 60: 531–51.Google Scholar
Shackley, M.S. 1988. Sources of archaeological obsidian in the Southwest: an archaeological, petrological, and geochemical study, American Antiquity 53(4): 752–72.Google Scholar
Steen, C. 1965. Excavations in compound A, Casa Grande National Monument, 1963, The Kiva 31(2): 59–82.Google Scholar
Ward, G. 1977. On the ease of ‘sourcing’ artefacts and the difficulty of knowing prehistory, New Zealand Archaeological Society Newsletter 20: 188–94.Google Scholar
White, J.P. & Harris, M.N.. 1997. Changing sources: early Lapita period obsidian in the Bismark archipelago, Archaeology in Oceania 32: 97–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, D.R. & Shenk, L.O.. 1977. The architecture of the Casa Grande and its interpretation. Tucson (AZ): Arizona State Museum. Archaeological Series 115.Google Scholar
Wilcox, D.R. & Sternberg, C.. 1983. Hohokam ball courts and their interpretation. Tucson (AZ): Arizona State Museum. Archaeological Series 160.Google Scholar
Woodward, A. 1931. The Grewe Site. Los Angeles (CA): Los Angeles Museum of History, Science, and Art. Occasional Paper 1.Google Scholar