The Archaeology of Kinship: Advancing Interpretation and Contributions to Theory

3. The Hohokam

28 CHAPTer THree The Hohokam This chapter provides a general background to Hohokam archaeology for readers unfamiliar with that region. The Hohokam were a major archaeological culture of the Us southwest occupying much of the sonoran desert region in central and southern Arizona. The Phoenix Basin, emphasized here, comprises the lower salt and middle Gila rivers within and near the modern city of Phoenix (figure 3.1). The Holocene floodplains were once lined by riparian vegetation. Along their margins are Pleistocene terraces and low sloping colluvial fans with paloverde-cactus scrub vegetation. Hohokam settlements favored the floodplains but are also found in nearby adjacent upland areas and along tributary rivers. Irrigation agriculture (for corn, beans, and other cultigens) was a major subsistence strategy practiced on floodplains, although there was a diversified subsistence base, including other forms of cultivation and foraging (e.g., Anderson and smith 1994:246; Bayman 1999; Bohrer 1991; fish and nabhan 1991; Miller 1994:202–203; szuter 1991). A variety of raw lithic materials were available in the mountain ranges (e.g., Bostwick and Burton 1993) or from long-distance exchange. An enormous amount of literature on the Hohokam has been produced , thanks to a well-developed cultural resource management industry , high standards of research and reporting, universities emphasizing regional archaeology, archaeologists with long commitments to the region, regional conferences and publication outlets, and good preservation. numerous surveys and extensive settlement excavations provide a wealth of data applicable to a wide range of research topics. There is a welldeveloped chronology, and the range of material culture, from artifacts to structures, has been well documented and researched for all phases. A The Hohokam 29 good number of topical syntheses are available (e.g., Crown and Judge 1991; doyel 1987; doyel and dean 2006; fish and fish 2008; Gummerman 1991; roth 2010; young and Herr 2012). The following overview summarizes research trends, the culture historical sequence, and major problems that can be addressed through kinship analyses. Research Trends Culture historical perspectives were pioneered by Harold Gladwin, emil Haury, and others (see doyel 1986). Hohokam “culture” is still frequently defined by the distribution of culture historical “traits,” for example , red-on-buff pottery and later polychrome pottery, pithouse and later above-ground adobe architecture, ballcourts and later platform mounds, trash mounds, large roasting pits, cremation and later inhumation burials, irrigation agriculture, elaborate nonutilitarian artifacts, and widespread exchange systems. The culture historical reliance on migration to explain changes (e.g., Haury 1976) still leaves its legacy in names for major chronological periods (e.g., “Pioneer” and “Colonial”). However , evidence from the past few decades strongly favors in situ cultural changes. figure 3.1. Major Hohokam sites in the Phoenix Basin 30 chapter three even during the reign of culture history, Haury (1956) also attempted to relate Hohokam developments to subsistence. subsequently, generations of processualist archaeologists elaborated on ecological adaptation to explain settlement patterns, social organization, and change in the region . In addition to bringing advancements in methods and integrated paleobotanical and geoarchaeological approaches, much was learned about subsistence strategies and the extensive irrigation networks (e.g., fish and fish 1984). Accompanying these advancements, environmental and ecological determinism replaced migration to explain Hohokam “evolution” and changing settlement patterns, subsistence, and traits (for recent examples , see doyel and dean 2006; Huckleberry 1999; waters and ravesloot 2001, 2003). Postprocessual perspectives never permeated Hohokam research to a significant degree.Attempts to infuse political economic and agency-oriented perspectives have appeared since the 1990s (e.g., ensor et al. 2000, 2003a; Craig 2004, 2007; Craig et al. 2012; McGuire 1992a, 1992b; McGuire and saitta 1996; seymour 1994) but are still overshadowed by the ecosystem tradition. The ongoing processualist period also encouraged functionalist research on “systems” of social organization, subsistence, exchange, and interaction (e.g., Crown and Judge 1991; doyel 1980, 1987, 1991a, 1991b; Gumerman 1991; McGuire and Howard 1987; seymour 1988, 1994; wilcox and sternberg 1983; wilcox et al. 1981). Interpretations on social hierarchy included egalitarian, “big men,” and ranked or stratified societies (McGuire 1992a:2). There was impressive innovation in frameworks to interpret households and their durations (see below). Questions generated from that period continue to guide more recent research (e.g., Abbott 2000; Bayman 1999; Abbott et al. 2007; fish and fish 2008). whether focusing on environment/ecology, exchange, or “regional systems,” that which is commonly shared is a tendency to view a neoevolutionary-like process whereby certain phases established a normative...