Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T18:06:26.729Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE MANUFACTURE AND BURIAL OF HOHOKAM DISK BEADS IN THE TUCSON BASIN

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2018

Jenny L. Adams  and
Mary F. Ownby
Jenny L. Adams
Affiliation:
Desert Archaeology, Inc., 3975 N. Tucson Blvd., Tucson, AZ 84761, USAjadams@desert.com
Mary F. Ownby*
Affiliation:
Desert Archaeology, Inc., 3975 N. Tucson Blvd., Tucson, AZ 84761, USAjadams@desert.com
*
mownby@desert.com, corresponding author
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent examinations of more than 13,000 disk beads from mortuary contexts determined that macroscopic examination was not always enough to distinguish shell, stone, and fired-clay beads. Using replication experiments and scanning electron microscopy energy dispersive spectrometry (SEM-EDS), we update the 80-year-old conclusions of Emil Haury, who defined features distinctive to bead manufacture. With this renewed confidence in materials identification, we analyzed the distributions of disk beads made from shell, stone, and fired clay among Hohokam inhumations and cremations at the Yuma Wash, Honey Bee Village, and Wetlands sites in the Tucson Basin. Not everyone was buried with disk beads, but all age groups were represented among those who were buried with beads. Some people were buried with only stone, or only shell, or only fired-clay beads, although more were buried with beads of some combination of these three materials. In this article, we consider why fired-clay beads were added to the mix and conclude that they were made as acceptable substitutes for stone beads, not for deceptive reasons concerning wealth or status, but rather in imitation of stone to honor a tradition that could not otherwise be efficiently met.

El reciente análisis de más de 13.000 cuentas anulares procedentes de contextos funerarios en tres sitios de la cuenca de Tucson, Arizona, concluyó que un examen macroscópico no era siempre suficiente para distinguir entre cuentas de concha, piedra y arcilla cocida. Utilizando reproducciones experimentales y el microscopio electrónico de barrido con espectroscopía de energía dispersiva (MEB-EDS), hemos actualizado las conclusiones presentadas por Emil Haury hace 80 años acerca de los rasgos distintivos de manufactura y técnicas de perforación. Con confianza reafirmada en nuestra capacidad de identificar los materiales utilizados para producir cuentas anulares, hemos analizado las distribuciones de las cuentas de concha, piedra y arcilla cocida en entierros en los sitios Hohokam de Yuma Wash, Honey Bee Village y Wetlands. Las cuentas anulares fueron enterradas en proporciones siempre mayores con los difuntos, incinerados o inhumados, durante el periodo Preclásico y hasta el periodo Clásico en Honey Bee Village y Yuma Wash. Hay variación en los materiales utilizados para producir las cuentas, pero la mayoría de los muertos fueron enterrados con cuentas hechas de materiales distintos. Algunos tenían sólo cuentas de piedra, de concha o de arcilla cocida. Concluimos que fue importante manufacturar cuentas de arcilla cocida como sustituto aceptable para las cuentas de piedra. Esa práctica no tuvo el fin de engañar en cuanto al nivel de riqueza o posición social, sino de de imitar la piedra para honrar una tradición que no se habría podido perpetuar de otra manera.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 83 , Issue 3 , July 2018 , pp. 536 - 551
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by the Society for American Archaeology 

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

Adams, Jenny L. 2014 Ground Stone Analysis: A Technological Approach. 2nd ed. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Adams, Jenny L., and Falvey, Lauren W. 2016 Technological Traditions at the Yuma Wash Site Reflected by Ground Stone Artifacts and Ecofacts. In Archaeological Investigations at the Yuma Wash Site and Outlying Settlements, edited by Swartz, Deborah L., pp. 659–705. Anthropological Papers No. 49. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson.Google Scholar
Adams, Jenny L., and Stroud, Amanda 2012a Ground Stone Artifacts and Ecofacts Recovered from Honey Bee Village, AZ BB:9:88 (ASM). In Life in the Valley of Gold: Archaeological Investigations at Honey Bee Village, a Prehistoric Hohokam Ballcourt Village, Pt. 1, edited by Wallace, Henry D., pp. 323–432. Anthropological Papers No. 48. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson.Google Scholar
Adams, Jenny L., and Stroud, Amanda 2012b Ground Stone Data Tables. In Archaeological Investigations at Wetlands, AZ AA:12:90 (ASM), and Los Pozos, AZ AA:12:91 (ASM), for the Tucson Water SRT Collector Pipeline Project, Pima County, Arizona: Feature Descriptions and Data Tables, edited by Wöcherl, Helga, pp. 43–49. Technical Report No. 2012–01. Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Cerezo-Román, Jessica I. 2015 Unpacking Personhood and Funerary Customs in the Hohokam Area of Southern Arizona. American Antiquity 80:353–375.Google Scholar
Chapman, John 2000 Fragmentation in Archaeology: People, Places and Broken Objects in the Prehistory of South Eastern Europe. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Chapman, John, and , Bisserka Gaydarska 2007 Parts and Wholes: Fragmentation in Prehistoric Context. Oxbow Books, Oxford.Google Scholar
Curcija, Zachary S. 2016 An Evaluation of Prehistoric Southwestern Disc Bead Manufacturing. Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.Google Scholar
Fertelmes, Craig M., and Loendorf, Chris 2012 EDXRF Analysis of Disk Beads and Turquoise Artifacts from AZ U:9:90 (ASM), Maricopa County, Arizona. Material Science Laboratory, Gila River Indian Community, Cultural Resource Management Program, Sacaton, Arizona. Submitted to EcoPlan Associates, Inc., Mesa, AZ, pXRF Analysis Report No. 2012–04. Copies available from Gila River Indian Community, Cultural Resource Management Program, Sacaton, Arizona.Google Scholar
Freeman, Andrea K. L. (editor) 1998 Archaeological Investigations at the Wetlands Site, AZ AA:12:90 (ASM). Technical Report No. 97-5. Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Gamble, Lynn H. 2011 Structural Transformation and Innovation in Emergent Political Economies of Southern California. In Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology as Historical Process, edited by Sassaman, Kenneth E. and Holly, Donald H. Jr., pp. 227–247. Amerind Studies in Anthropology. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Gamble, Lynn H., Walker, Phillip L., and Russell, Glenn S. 2001 An Integrative Approach to Mortuary Analysis: Social and Symbolic Dimensions of Chumash Burial Practices. American Antiquity 66:185–212.Google Scholar
Gwinnett, A. John, and Gorelick, Leonard 1979 Ancient Lapidary: A Study Using Scanning Electron Microscopy and Functional Analysis. Expedition 22(1):17–32.Google Scholar
Hall, Clarence A. 1975 Latitudinal Variation in Shell Growth Patterns of Bivalve Mollusks: Implications and Problems. In Growth Rhythms and the History of the Earth's Rotation, edited by Rosenberg, Gary D. and Runcon, Stanley K., pp. 163–175. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Hall, Susan D., Whitney, CaraMia R., Copperstone, Chance, Whitaker, April, Margolis, Michael, Swartz, Deborah L., and Lindeman, Michael W. 2015 Human Mortuary Features. In Archaeological Investigations at the Yuma Wash Site and Outlying Settlements, edited by Swartz, Deborah L., pp. 247–538. Anthropological Papers No. 49. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Haury, Emil W. 1931 Minute Beads from Prehistoric Pueblos. American Anthropologist 33:80–87.Google Scholar
Haury, Emil W., and Gifford, Carol A. 1959 A Thirteenth Century “Strongbox.” Kiva 24(4):1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollimon, Sandra E. 2001 Death, Gender, and the Chumash Peoples: Mourning Ceremonialism as an Integrative Mechanism. In Social Memory, Identity, and Death: Anthropological Perspectives on Mortuary Rituals, edited by Chesson, Meredith S., pp. 41–55. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 10. American Anthropological Association, Arlington, Virginia.Google Scholar
Jernigan, E. Wesley 1978 Jewelry of the Prehistoric Southwest. School of American Research, Santa Fe, New Mexico; University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Judd, Neil M. 1954 The Material Culture of Pueblo Bonito. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections Vol. 124. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Keen, A. Myra 1971 Sea Shells of Tropical West America: Marine Mollusks from Baja California to Peru. 2nd ed. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.Google Scholar
Kroeber, Clifton B., and Fontana, Bernard L. 1986 Massacre on the Gila: An Account of the Last Major Battle between American Indians, with Reflections of the Origin of War. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Liu, Robert K. 2001 Deducing Attitude from Artifact. Ornament 24(4):24–31.Google Scholar
Loendorf, Chris, and Fertelmes, Craig M. 2013 Shell, Stone, and Ceramic Beads EDXRF Analysis. In Research Study Proposals: Five Energy Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Analyses of Archaeological Remains from the Gila River Indian Community, Pima-Maricopa Irrigation Project, edited by Loendorf, Chris, Fertelmes, Craig M., Garraty, Chris, and Dybowski, Daniel, pp. 38–40. Material Science Laboratory, Gila River Indian Community, Cultural Resource Management Program, Sacaton, Arizona. Submitted to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Phoenix Area Office, Phoenix, Arizona, pXRF Technical Report 2013–02, P-MIP Technical Report 2013–01. Copies available from Gila River Indian Community, Cultural Resource Management Program, Sacaton, Arizona.Google Scholar
Maniatis, Yannis, and Tite, Michael S. 1981 Technological Examination of Neolithic–Bronze Age Pottery from Central and Southeast Europe and from the Near East. Journal of Archaeological Science 8:59–76.Google Scholar
Mills, Barbara J. 2000 Gender, Craft Production, and Inequality. In Women and Men in the Prehispanic Southwest: Labor, Power, and Prestige, edited by Crown, Patricia L., pp. 301–343. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.Google Scholar
Mills, Barbara J. 2004 The Establishment and Defeat of Hierarchy: Inalienable Possessions and the History of Collective Prestige Structures in the Pueblo Southwest. American Anthropologist 106:238–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, Barbara J. 2008 Remembering while Forgetting: Depositional Practices and Social Memory at Chaco. In Memory Work: Archaeologies of Material Practices, edited by Mills, Barbara J. and Walker, William H., pp. 81–108. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.Google Scholar
Parsons, Elsie Clews 1939 Pueblo Indian Religion. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Rice, Prudence M. 1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Swartz, Deborah L. (editor) 2016 Archaeological Investigations at the Yuma Wash Site and Outlying Settlements, Pts. 1 and 2. Anthropological Papers No. 49. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Tite, Michael S., Freestone, Ian C., Meeks, Nigel D., and Bimson, Mavis 1982 The Use of Scanning Electron Microscopy in the Technological Examination of Ancient Ceramics. In Archaeological Ceramics, edited by Olin, Jacqueline S. and Franklin, Alan D., pp. 109–120. Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Velde, Bruce 1992 Introduction to Clay Minerals: Chemistry, Origins, Uses and Environmental Significance. Chapman & Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vidale, Masimo 1995 Early Beadmakers of the Indus Tradition: The Manufacturing Sequence of Talc Beads at Mehrgahr in the 5th Millennium BC. East and West 45:45–80.Google Scholar
Virden-Lange, Christine H. 2012 Shell Artifact Data Tables. In Archaeological Investigations at Wetlands, AZ AA:12:90 (ASM), and Los Pozos, AZ AA:12:91 (ASM), for the Tucson Water SRT Collector Pipeline Project, Pima County, Arizona: Feature Descriptions and Data Tables, edited by Wöcherl, Helga, pp. 68–71. Technical Report No. 2012–01. Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Vokes, Arthur W. 2012 The Honey Bee Village Shell Assemblage. In Life in the Valley of Gold: Archaeological Investigations at Honey Bee Village, a Prehistoric Hohokam Ballcourt Village, Pt. 2, edited by Wallace, Henry D., pp. 515–567. Anthropological Papers No. 48. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Vokes, Arthur W., and Adams, Jenny L. 2016 Ornaments among Mortuary Contexts, Yuma Wash Site. In Archaeological Investigations at the Yuma Wash Site and Outlying Settlements, edited by Swartz, Deborah L., pp. 751–780. Anthropological Papers No. 49. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Wallace, Henry D. 2012 Honey Bee Village and the Valley of Gold in the Scheme of Things Hohokam. In Life in the Valley of Gold: Archaeological Investigations at Honey Bee Village, a Prehistoric Hohokam Ballcourt Village, edited by Wallace, Henry D., pp. 783–827. Anthropological Papers No. 48. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Wallace, Henry D. (editor) 2012 Life in the Valley of Gold: Archaeological Investigations at Honey Bee Village, a Prehistoric Hohokam Ballcourt Village. Anthropological Papers No. 48. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Wallace, Henry D., and Swartz, Deborah L. 2012 Human Remains and Funerary Practices at Honey Bee Village, AZ BB:9:88 (ASM). In Life in the Valley of Gold: Archaeological Investigations at Honey Bee Village, a Prehistoric Hohokam Ballcourt Village, edited by Wallace, Henry D., pp. 635–689. Anthropological Papers No. 48. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Wallace, Henry D., and Swartz, Deborah L. 2016 Death outside the Door: Investigating the Funerary Practices of Yuma Wash and the Classic Period Tucson Basin Hohokam. In Archaeological Investigations at the Yuma Wash Site and Outlying Settlements, edited by Swartz, Deborah L., pp. 861–914. Anthropological Papers No. 49. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Weiner, Annette B. 1992 Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping-While-Giving. University of California Press, Berkley.Google Scholar
White, Leslie A. 1962 The Pueblo of Sia, New Mexico. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 184. Smithsonian Institution, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Wöcherl, Helga 2012 Extramural Features. In Archaeological Investigations at Wetlands, AZ AA:12:90 (ASM), and Los Pozos, AZ AA:12:91 (ASM), for the Tucson Water SRT Collector Pipeline Project, Pima County, Arizona: Feature Descriptions and Data Tables, edited by Wöcherl, Helga, pp. 23–29. Technical Report No. 2012–01. Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Wöcherl, Helga (editor) 2012 Archaeological Investigations at Wetlands, AZ AA:12:90 (ASM), and Los Pozos, AZ AA:12:91 (ASM), for the Tucson Water SRT Collector Pipeline Project, Pima County, Arizona. Technical Report No. 2012–01. Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Image

Adams and Ownby supplementary material

Adams and Ownby supplementary material 1

Download Adams and Ownby supplementary material(Image)
Image 433.9 KB
Supplementary material: Image

Adams and Ownby supplementary material

Adams and Ownby supplementary material 2

Download Adams and Ownby supplementary material(Image)
Image 2.5 MB
Supplementary material: File

Adams and Ownby supplementary material

Table S1

Download Adams and Ownby supplementary material(File)
File 18.6 KB