Hohokam to Akimel O’Odham: Obsidian Acquisition at the Historic Period Sacate Site (GR-909), Gila River Indian Community, Arizona

Abstract

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

Flaked-stone projectile point serration: A controlled experimental study of blade margin design

“…Analyses of these data within southern Arizona suggest that regional prehistoric and historic populations were not closely politically unified (Hoffman, 1997;Loendorf et al, 2013;Simon and Gosser, 2001). Concurrently, long-term patterning in point design suggests cultural continuity over a remarkable period of time within locations such as the Casa Blanca area along the middle Gila River.…”

“…Both ethnohistorical and archeological data document the arrival of immigrants who settled on the margins of the Casa Blanca area during the historic period, and some of these people came from regions where serration is prevalent, such as the San Pedro river (Loendorf, 2014;Loendorf et al, 2013;Seymour, 2011;Vint, 2005;Wilson, 2014).…”

Projectile Point Reworking: An Experimental Study of Arrowpoint Use Life

“…In order to test the performance of flaked-stone points, it is necessary to define the tasks that they were designed to perform (Knecht 1997). Extensive ethnographic and archaeological evidence suggests that flaked points were primarily made for use in large game hunting or conflict with other people, and, because of their different selection criteria, stone points were sometimes designed differently for these two tasks (Ahler 1992; Ellis 1997; Keeley 1996:52; Loendorf 2012; Loendorf et al 2015a; Mason 1894; Stevens 1870:564; Whittaker 2016).…”

“…As a result of these physical constraints, effective projectile design is a tradeoff between projectile mass and velocity. Because potential velocity is constrained by the launching mechanism technology (e.g., arm, atlatl, bow, firearm), projectiles theoretically were designed to have only sufficient mass for the level of kinetic energy necessary to effectively penetrate the large game or human targets for which they were intended (Loendorf 2012). It is possible to improve the performance of launching mechanisms such as the atlatl by altering their length, flexibility, and weight distribution; however, more dramatic improvements are possible with different designs like the bow and arrow.…”

“…These varied factors can be grouped into three general lines of inquiry: design characteristics, raw material constraints, and reworking. Point design variables include both stylistic expressions (e.g., serrations) that do not substantially change point performance as well as intentional modifications (e.g., side notching of triangular points) that do significantly alter point function, and, therefore, are potentially related to differences in the intended use (Ahler 1971; Bettinger and Eerkens 1999; Bonnichsen and Keyser 1982; Buchanan et al 2011; Christenson 1997; Ellis 1997; Hughes 1998; Knecht 1997; Loendorf 2012; Loendorf et al 2015a, 2015b, 2017; Lyman et al 2009; Mason 1894; Mesoudi and O'Brien 2008; O'Brien et al 2014; Sedig 2014; Shott 1996, 1997; Sisk and Shea 2009; Sliva 2015; Thomas 1978; Tomka 2013; VanPool 2003; Whittaker 1994, 2016; Wood and Fitzhugh 2018). The second general category includes the distribution and nature of raw materials on the landscape, which has been shown to substantially constrain lithic industries (Ahler 1971; Andrefsky 2005, 2006; Lerner et al 2007; VanPool 2003; Whittaker 1994).…”