Classic Period Hohokam Settlement and Land Use in the Casa Grande Ruins Area, Arizona Patricia L. Crown Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 14, No. 2. (Summer, 1987), pp. 147-162. Stable URL: hitp://lnks,jstororg/sie?sici=0093-4690% 28 198722%29 14%3A2%3C 147%3ACPHSAL%3E2.0,CO%3B2-1 Journal of Field Archaeology is currently published by Boston University ‘Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at hhup:/www.jstororg/about/terms.huml. JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at hup:/www jstor-org/journals/boston htm Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the sereen or printed page of such transmission, JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support @jstor.org. hupulwww jstor.org/ ‘Tue May 23 17:05:49 2006Classic Period Hohokam Settlement and Land Use in the Casa Grande Ruins Area, Arizona Patricia L. Crown. ‘Southern Methodist University Dallas, Texas Surveys and excavations along the Gila River, Arizona, between Florence and Casa Grande provide sufficient information on habitation-site and agri- ccultural-feature location to permit preliminary assessment of land use and settlement patterning during the Hohokam Classic period (4.C. 1150-1400). A diverse subsistence base supported the inhabitants of this area. Irrigation agriculture, dry farming, and floodwater farming were all practiced by occu- ants of habitation sites located in a zone parallel to the river. Locations of Jields reveal decreasing intensity of land use with increasing distance from the river. Spacing of sites with platform mounds suggests that the population within and around each of these sites constituted a unit of significance in control of water resources. Evidence for centralization of authority in river- wide water management is currently lacking. Introduction ‘The Hohokam occupied the desert of southern Arizona from perhaps as early as 300 B.c. to at least a.c. 1450. Prior to 1974, inadequate and skewed knowledge of site types and locations restricted assessments of Hobokam seitlement-subsistence systems. Most excavations in the Sall-Gila Basin of southern Arizona had concentrated on large, highly visible sites such as Snaketown (Gladwin et al. 1937; Haury 1976), Los Muertos (Haury 1945), Escalante (Doyel 1974), and Las Colinas (Hammack and Sullivan 1981). The irrigation systems of the area, im- pressive to settlers and prehistorians alike, formed the basis for understanding Hohokam subsistence techniques (Midvale 1963, 1965, 1968; Nicholas and Neitzel 1984; Patrick 1903; Turmey 1924, 1929). Research in the last decade, funded largely by federal and state agencies, has provided a more comprehensive data base from which to evaluate both the range of Hohokam subsistence tect niques and the range of settlement types. The study presented here uses current data to identify settlement and land-use patterns, and to infer the degree of control over land and water resources. ‘The settlement-subsistence system found in the Casa Grande Ruins area is used in this discussion (Fi. 1). The area includes two irrigation systems found on opposite banks of the Gila River, habitation sites, and other types of agricultural features found in proximity to these irri ‘gation systems and stretching away from the river on both sides (FIG. 2). This locale was selected for study because surveys and excavations provide unusually com- plete documentation for the range of settlement types and agricultural features contiguous to these two main irrigation canals (Berry and Marmaduke 1982: 264~ 267), Although the entire study area has been investigated over the last century, no single project has covered the whole tract, The intensity with which portions of the study area have been examined, and the information available on sites within these portions of the area, vary. Seven separate, but partially overlapping, systematic surveys have covered the areas north of the northern ‘canal, and south of the southern canal and east of the town of Florence (Crown 1984b; Dart 1983a; Debowski et al. 1976; Dittert, Fish, and Simonis 1969; Doelle 1975, 1976; Doyel 1974; Grady 1973; Kayser and Fiero 1969; Stein 1979; Teague and Crown 1982, 1983a, 1983b). In addition, west of the town of Florence, the boundaries of Casa Grande National Monument have been surveyed intensively and repeatedly (Ambler 1961; Andresen 1985; Fewkes 1908, 1912; Gladwin 1928; Mindeleff 1896; Wilcox and Shenk 1977). The entire study area has been surveyed more casually over a period of 80 years by local amateurs and professional archae- ologisis (Cummings 1926; Fewkes 1909; Midvale 1963, 1965). Finally, the lower bajada! area has received only casual attention on either side of the river, except within the right-of-way of the Salt-Gila Aqueduct where inten- 1. A bajada is along slope formed atthe base of mountain by the coalescing of several alluviaVeolluvial fans atthe surrounding basin148 Hohokam Settlement and Land UselCrown Figure 1. Location ofthe study area ARIZONA sive, systematic survey has been done (Dart 1983a, b; Dittert, Fish, and Simonis 1969; Grady 1973; Kayser and Fiero 1969; Stein 1979; Teague and Crown 1982). ‘There can be little doubt that all platform mound sites in the study area have been located, since they are highly visible. Additional smaller sites may have been de- stroyed by historical activities or may remain unrecorded in the westem portion of the study area south of the southern canal and on the lower bajada. Although there is evidence for earlier occupation in the area, only sites dating between .c. 1150 and 1400 are used in the discussion because the majority of sites ‘and features found in the area are known to date from this period, and because these Classic period sites tend to be more easily recognized and more accurately doc- uumented on survey than are earlier sites. The Classic period has traditionally been viewed as exhibiting the most drastic changes in an otherwise smooth sequence => Recorded inigation ditches {irom Turney 19: 4q ‘Cummings 1926 4 Crown 1884}, ionates ‘of Hohokam occupation in the Salt-Gila Basin (Haury 1945, 1976). Change was believed to have occurred in architecture (from traditional houses in pits to adobe surface structures), settlement patterns (from the dis- persed rancheria type of settlement to aggregated vil lages with contiguous rooms within adobe walls), interaction spheres (with the decline or disappearance of ‘Hohokam traits in areas outside of the Salt-Gila Basin), community structures (with fewer ballcourts, more plat- form mounds, and the construction of the Great House at Casa Grande), material culture (with less decorated pottery, a new polished red ware, and the disappearance of figurines, effigies, palettes, and elaborate projectile points), and burial pattems (with the appearance of in- hhumations in addition to the traditional cremations) (Haury 1945; Doyel 1979). Mechanisms used to explain the changes have included an environmental shift (Doyel 1979; Masse 1981; Plog 1980; Weaver 1972), populationJournal of Field ArchaeologylVol. 14, 1987 149150 Hohokam Settlement and Land UselCrown my CF} odoan BE cower tree Lower bojode SS EZ HE volcanic rocks sto ——— ear DX weciaton wast Figure 3. Location of prehistoric canals and major topographic features in the study area. wash, McClellan Wash, forms the eastern boundary of the study area It is probable that cottonwood, willow, and arrow ‘weed would have characterized the undisturbed vegeta- tion within the floodplain, with mesquite and salt bush on the lower terrace, saguaro and palo verde on the upper terrace, and creosote and bursage on the lower bajada Doelle 1976; Hoover 1929; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation 1979). Agricultural Technology AA variety of agricultural features has been documented in this environment (F1G, 2). Evidence for dating these features comes from associated artifacts and proximity to dated habitation sites. Canals ‘The irrigation network that once existed here has been almost entirely destroyed by modern agriculture. Fortu- nately, a number of researchers have located the canals; their records, combined with aerial photographs and ground checks of the remaining features, provide sub- stantial evidence for the location and morphology of the irrigation system (Crown 1984b; Cummings 1926; Mid- vale 1963, 1965, 1968; Smithsonian Institution Archives nd.; U.S. Department of the Interior, Indian Service 1916). From an engineering standpoint, Hohokam irri- gation systems were relatively simple, consisting of a ‘main canal drawing water from the river, distribution canals feeding field locations, and lateral canals taking water to individual plots (Masse 1981), Only the main canals have been documented in the area under investigation. These canals were the furthest upstream canals on the Gila River in the Salt-Gila Basin ‘They headed at bends in the river, perhaps obviating the need for dams. Both the North Gila Canal and the South Gila Canal are situated on the floodplain of the Gila directly below the lower terraces of the river. Placement of the canals in this location provided optimal irrigation of the rich bottomlands toward the river, but precluded irrigation of any of the terrace lands. Although the few surviving sections have not been trenched, some canal dimensions are recorded, and it is possible to extrapolate ‘rough estimate of potential carrying capacity (TABLE 1). The grade of both canals is close to the “ideal” of 1 m/km (Haury 1976; 142), and the velocity is within theJournal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 14, 1987 151 Table 1. Dimensions and carrying capacity of Gila River canals, Irrigable hectarage Hectarage siven canal Canal Length Width Grade ‘available Velocity (V) Flow (Q) size SouthGila32km 47m LOB mkm 4446 116 misec 6.38 cu m/sec 3646-6380 North Gila Itkm 12m __ 0.81 m/km 1801 1.42 mise 16.33 cum’sec 9331-16330 ideal range for earth canals with a depth of 0.6 m or more, which is 0.6-1.5 misec.* Using these rough estimates, the carrying capacity of the North Gila Canal far exceeds the hectarage that could potentially have been irrigated by the canal, but the carrying capacity of the South Gila Canal may have only been sufficient to water the hectarage available. The carrying capacity and hectarage figures are almost cer- tainly in excess of the amounts of land actually irrigated by the prehistoric inhabitants of the area. For compari- son, it has been estimated that the entire aboriginal Pima population located a few km downstream irrigated only ‘5330 halyear (Hackenberg 1961: II-8). Historic canals that closely paralleled the courses of the prehistoric North and South Gila ditches only irrigated 64 ha north of the Gila and a maximum of 776 ha south of the Gila (Hackenberg 1961: VIII-102). These historic data sug- gest that the actual amount of land farmed may have been considerably less than the amount that could have been watered by the two canals, Dry Farming Rock features and depressions interpreted as being associated with runoff and dry farming are located on the lower and upper terraces (Midvale 1963, 1965; De- bowski et al. 1976: 235-236; Doelle 1976; Dart 19832; Crown 1984b). Rock piles are the most common feature types, consisting of clusters of cobbles occurring in groups of six to more than one hundred piles per terrace. Piles are generally spaced at intervals of a few m in an unaligned pattern and occur in locations of less than 1% slope. The spacing of the features, their presence on 2. Grade was calculated on the basis of surface topography prio to historical disturbance. Velocity was calculated using the Manning ‘equation. The valve of m was set at 035. Cross-sectional areas and ‘weted perimeters were extrapolated from canals located onthe Salt River of comparable width and function. Flow was calculated by the ‘equation Q = A x V. Carrying capacity was calculated using a figure of I-1.75ltessecia. hope that remaining segments of these canals willbe trenched at some time inthe future, permitting a more accurate ‘aleulation of cross-sectional area and weted perimeter. For a dis- ‘cussion and justification ofthese figures, see Busch, Raab, and Busch (1976) and Haury (1976: 144), some areas otherwise barren of cobble-size rocks, and evidence from pollen samples suggest that plants were ‘grown in and between the piles. Roasting pits tend to be found in association with fields of these features. Other portions of these terraces of less than 1% slope were cleared of all gravels and cobbles, apparently also for cultivation, Grid-alignments of rocks forming bordered gardens ‘occur on the upper terraces of the Gila with slopes of 1 to 2%. Rock terraces occurred on seven upper terrace fingers of approximately 8% slope. Check dams retain- ing both soil and water were found across rills at 2 to 8% slope. Four catchment basins consisting of small depressions were excavated into the gravels on upper terrace slopes. The basin capacities were estimated at 500 to 2440 liters. Two of these features had winglike ridges projecting from their lower embankments in order to channel runoff water into the basins (Crown 1984b; Dart 1983). Floodwater Farming Evidence for floodwater farming is indirect, Field- houses were found along minor arroyos on the lower bajada with evidence for agricultural products and field ‘weeds in frequencies found elsewhere only in structures located contiguous to fields. No agricultural features were found in association with the arroyos, and it was concluded that floodwater farming had been practiced along these ephemeral drainages in association with oc- cupation of the fieldhouses. Crops Grown Evidence for crops grown in fields comes from pollen ‘and macrobotanical analysis. Apart from the sampling of dry-farmed fields, data for crops are indirect, based ‘on samples taken from habitation areas. Evidence of domesticated plants in Classic period sites in the study area includes maize, beans, squash, cotton, and tobacco. Plants found that may have been encouraged include little barley, pigweed, Plantago, agave, and ground cherry. Weeds of economic value associated with agri- cultural fields include Chenopodium, Trianthema, globe- ‘mallow, and Boerhaavia (Fish 1984; Miksicek 1984). It152 Hohokam Settlement and Land UselCrown is difficult to evaluate which species were grown using the different farming techniques. There is direct evidence for crops grown in rock-pile fields, since com and cotton pollen were extracted from samples taken in areas be- tween rock piles, and com pollen was found in a sample taken from under a pile of rocks. Corn cupules (Miksicek 1983) and com and cotton pollen (Fish 1983) were also recovered from fieldhouses associated with floodwater farming areas. The recovery of abundant agave remains at habitation sites and the occurrence of roasting pits and tabular knives in association with rock-pile fields, sug- gest strongly that some dry-farmed areas were used to grow agave. Although this area is outside the natural range for native agave species today, these do not require irrigation ‘and would grow well on the rocky terraces above the Gila River (Miksicek 1984). It as been argued that agave was grown by the Hohokam in dry-farmed plots in the Tucson Basin to the south during the same time period (Fish, Fish, and Downum 1984), ‘Apart from the probable exclusive cultivation of agave in dry-farmed areas, evidence from the study area and from other portions of the Hohokam region indicates that particular plant species were not exclusively associated ‘with particular farming techniques or field locations, but that the same range of domesticates was probably grown in fields watered by canals, rainfall, and floodwater, Settlement Types ‘Three broad types of sites present in the study area are defined in the sample: habitation sites with platform ‘mounds, habitation sites without platform mounds, and fieldhouses. A number of habitation sites incorporate at least one platform mound constructed of caliche-rich adobe and believed to have had ritual significance. Few Of the mounds remain today, but documentary evidence exists for six sites within the study area formerly having ad such features: Pueblo Pinal, Florence Pueblo, Adamsville, Pueblo Bisnaga, Casa Grande, and Esca- lante Ruin (Gregory and Nials 1985). The platform mounds at Adamsville (Gladwin 1928), Casa Grande (Fewkes 1908, 1909; Gladwin 1928; Mindeleff 1896; Wilcox and Shenk 1977), and Escalante (Doye! 1974) stand today, and portions of these sites have been ex- cavated. Several altematives for the function of these platform-mound sites in Hohokam culture have been suggested: habitation, perhaps by elite groups (Doyel 1977; Hammack and Sullivan 1981); ceremonial use (Doyel 1977; Gregory 1982; Hammack and Sullivan 1981; Haury 1976; Wasley 1960); or economic control (Teague 1984; Wilcox 1979). Habitation sites without platform mounds contain hab- itation structures but no ceremonial architecture. Fifteen Classic period habitation sites have been found within the study area, and nine of these have been at least partially excavated (Doyel 1974; Teague and Crown 1983b). Fewer such sites are known from the western portion of the area, perhaps due to poor site visibility and more extensive historical development. These hab- itation sites range from a few pit-house structures to adobe-walled compounds of up to 20 rooms. On the basis of excavated data, including the size and substan- tial nature of the structures, presence of burials, and presence of clearly-defined trash-disposal areas (Crown 1983), all habitation sites (with ot without platform mounds) are interpreted as having been occupied year- round, or nearly so. Fieldhouses are structures occupied temporarily in ‘connection with farming activities. Fieldhouse sites ex- hibit small insubstantial structures, evidence for location in or near fields, no burials, and botanical evidence for temporary or seasonal habitation (Cable and Doyel 1985; ‘Crown 1983, 1984b). Only two such sites, AZ AA:3:20 and AZ AA:3:22, have been identified in the study area, although there has been little survey of the lower bajada area where these two are located. Both sites have been excavated and each contained a single insubstantial structure (Dart 19836). Dates from ceramics and archacomagnetic samples demonstrate that the three excavated platform-mound sites in the study area were contemporaneous for at least parts of their occupations, although the dating methods are not sufficiently refined to permit us to state that these sites were constructed, occupied, and abandoned simul- taneously (Doyel 1974; Gladwin 1928; Wilcox and Shenk 1977). The three unexcavated platform-mound sites are only known to be Classic period in date, but dating of platform-mound sites throughout the Salt-Gila Basin would suggest at least partial overlap in the oc- cupation of all of the platform-mound sites in the study area (Gregory and Nials 1985). The smaller sites (those without platform mounds) were probably occupied for only a portion of the time represented by the Classic period and may not all have been occupied at one time. For purposes of this study, the assumption is made that all of the sites are indeed contemporaneous. This is a reasonable assumption for the platform-mound sites, given their longevity. It is felt that the smaller site types and locations are representative of the entire period and that an absence of proof of absolute contemporaneity for these sites does not alter the conclusions of the study. ‘On the basis of proximity and temporal placement, it would appear likely that occupants of habitation sites engaged in agricultural activities in both irrigated and dry-farmed fields. Floodwater farming appears to be as- sociated only with the fieldhouses, but the occupants of these seasonally-occupied sites had their permanentdwellings elsewhere, probably along the Gila River. Eth- nographic data suggest that Piman fields were located no farther than 13 km from permanent settlements, and typically a great deal closer (Castetter and Bell 1942: 126; Fontana 1974: 520). Given that the only known Classic period permanent habitation sites within a 13- km radius of these fieldhouses are those along the Gila River, 3-4 km distant, it seems reasonable to conclude that the occupants of the fieldhouses came from these sites {0 the north. The inhabitants of the permanently- occupied habitation sites thus may have farmed fields watered by three different methods, Land Use and Settlement Location There are two basic questions to be asked concerning the manner in which settlement location relates to the use of land in this area of the Hohokam domain: 1) What is the distribution of settlements and lands farmed by different techniques upland from the river? 2) What is the distribution of settlements and lands farmed by dif- ferent techniques along the river? Distinct patterns emerge from the inspection of settle- ‘ment and field locations upland from the Gila River. The ‘general distribution conforms to the “ribbon strip” pat- tem defined by Willey (Willey et al. 1965; see also Hodder and Orton 1976). No habitation sites are located between each canal and the river, an area used exclu sively for irigated fields. All of the habitation sites (with ‘or without platform mounds) are found on the lower terrace of the Gila, within I km of the canals located in the floodplain. Some of the large sites extend outside of this 1-km limit but are atleast partially within this bound- ary. Since the canals parallel the river, at no point are these habitation sites more than 5 km from the river. Dry-farmed fields are in close proximity to habitation sites but most often not directly contiguous. Where the Upper terrace is pronounced, dry-farmed fields are found along this terrace; where the upper terrace is indistinct but the lower terrace pronounced, dry-farmed fields are situated on the lower terrace. Virtually all of the dry- farming features are within 2 km of the permanent hab- itation sites. The two fieldhouse sites associated with floodwater farming are located just under 4 km from the canal, or about 3-4 km from the nearest known per- ‘manently-occupied habitation sites. Moving away from the river, inferred land use within the study area thus follows a series of zones defined largely according to the potential of the land for inten- sification of use. Closest to the river, land was inten- sively farmed by irrigation. Irrigated land was separated from habitation sites by the canal. Habitation began near the canal and extended primarily within 1 km of that feature. Dry-farmed areas began within this same zone Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 14, 1987 153 and extended beyond it for an additional 2 km. Evidence for floodwater farming suggests that it was restricted to zone beyond this, one essentially undeveloped and probably exploited primarily for natural resources.” Clearly the irrigated lands were restricted by local topography and, in fact, all of the canals were positioned for irrigation of the maximum amount of floodplain Habitation was not restricted by topography, but the use Of the edge of the lower terrace for habitation was prob- ably the result of a number of factors. First, habitation ‘was confined to lands that could not be irrigated due to gradient. Environmental conditions also made the lower terrace a more desirable locale for habitation: it was better drained, protected from flooding, warmer in the winter, and more exposed to breezes in the summer. Habitation locales and the canal formed a barrier limiting access to crops from the outside and afforded better visibility of crops, other settlements, and any outside intruders (Hoover 1929: 48) ‘Where lands have been protected from modern devel- ‘opment, it can be seen that dry-farmed areas were pres- cent, with few exceptions, on pronounced upper- or lower-terrace fingers. The features are located on the cends and sides of these fingers and seem to correlate ‘more with land that is well-drained and of proper slope than with proximity to settlements. Finally, evidence for floodwater farming is found only along minor drainages unsuited for other types of agricultural exploitation. Land use for farming and settlement is thus well adapted to the topographic setting and also conforms to the model described by Chisholm (1979; 23), namely that the in- tensity with which each field is utilized declines as dis- tance from the farmstead increases. Ina situation such as that along the Gila River, where land use was to a large extent limited by topography, settlement location appears to have been prescribed by a need to minimize non-agricultural use of irrigable land while minimizing distance to farmlands of relatively in- tensive use. It seems to have been important to have had access to a range of different topographic situations for different exploitative purposes, although the same crops were apparently grown in these different topographic settings. There are several reasons why maintenance of fields in different locales would have been advantageous, First, cultivation of crops in different locations would provide insurance against the risk of crop failure. The 3. Classic period habitation sites with and without platform mounds do occur along the lower bajada south and north of the Gila River, but only along “major” drainages such as Queen Creek, 25 km to the north, and Brady Wash and McClellan Wash, 17 km to the south [Land ‘and water resources at this distance are felt to have been beyond direct exploitation by occupants of the Casa Grande Ruins aea and re not discussed further here154 Hohokam Settlement and Land UseiCrown Gila was subject to flooding, and crops in higher topo- graphic situations would be protected from destruction by such a location; alternatively, in dry years, only the inrigated crops may have survived. Irrigated lands were limited in extent, and dry-farming and floodwater-farm- ing fields provided useful alternatives, with lower de- velopment and maintenance costs. Finally, as noted, a single crop, agave, may have been grown only in dry- farmed areas, probably increasing the value of such land (Fish, Fish, and Downum 1984: 70) If settlement location was influenced by topography and position relative to farmed lands as distance from the river increased, what influenced settlement location along the river itself? ‘The spacing of habitation sites with platform mounds along the canals reveals remarkable patterning (TABLE 2) (Pinart 1962; Gregory and Nials 1985). Along the North Gila and South Gila canals, the first sites served by the canals were 8 and 9.5 km from the inferred headgates, respectively. Only a single site with a platform mound exists on the North Gila Canal, but five platform-mound sites are located on the South Gila Canal. Distance be- tween four of these is 4.8-5.8 km. Only the distance between Adamsville and Pueblo Bisnaga is less: 2.9 km, ‘This spacing of the sites with platform mounds mirrors the spacing found between platform-mound sites on other irrigation systems within the Hohokam domain (Gregory and Nials 1985), ‘The comparison of the relative amounts of arable land available to each platform-mound site provides a means of evaluating the relationship between the spacing of sites and agricultural potential (Flannery 1976: 177).* Because we do not know how the available arable land wwas divided among the platform-mound sites, the com- parison was made using two different means of division. In the first comparison, the assumption was made that all lands upstream from the site were related to the site, inferring that the mound sites would be concerned pri ‘marily with water distributed up to a point opposite their settlement rather than with the water flowing beyond this point. The second comparison involved dividing the land. between each site equally. In both instances, dry-farmed fields parallel to each canal segment were interpreted as having been farmed in conjunction with that segment. By either means of comparison, the distribution of arable land relative to the platform-mound sites is far from ‘equivalent (TABLE 3). ‘The site at the end of the South 4 Irigated land was calulated using a planimeter and large-scale ‘map to measure all land between the canal andthe river that, onthe tasis of topography, could have been imigated from tat canal. One source of error here isthe changing channel of the Gila an the effet this would have on ou estimation of available lands. Dry-farmed land ‘was calculated as the extent of lad enclosing areas with documented dry farming features. Table 2. Distances (in km) along North Gila and South Gila Canals to habitation sites with platform mounds. River to Escalante 80 Distance from Escalante to end of canal 32 River to Pueblo Pinal 95 Pueblo Pinal to Florence Pueblo 48 Florence Pueblo to Adamsville 58 ‘Adamsville to Pueblo Bisnaga 29 Pueblo Bisnaga to Casa Grande 58 Distance from Casa Grande to end of canal 29 Gila Canal, Casa Grande, has by far the greatest amount of land, a fact noted for Hohokam sites at the ends of other canal systems (Antieau 1981; Gregory and Nials 1985). The only platform-mound site on the North Gila Canal, Escalante, also has a disproportionate amount of potentially-irrigable land when compared to sites south of the Gila, Although differences exist in the amounts of arable land available to each platform-mound site, the 5-km spacing of these sites might pertain to the length of canal system that a single site could maintain successfully. The one site that does not conform to this principle, Pueblo Bisnaga, is located just down-canal from the largest drainage to cross the System, Bogart Wash. The ‘wash would, in all probability, present a problem in the maintenance of the canal system, and location of the site here may have resulted from the presence of this drain- age (Gregory and Nials 1985). Chisholm argues that a distance of more than 3~4 km between a habitation and associated fields would neces- sitate an adjustment in settlement (Chisholm 1979: 127) If platform-mound sites are located in the center of as- sociated lands, no arable land would be more than 2.5 km distant from these major sites. If the sites were at the ends of the associated lands and canal, arable lands ‘would not be greater than 5 km distant. In any event, platform-mound site distribution may then have resulted from the need to position these sites to facilitate main- tenance of a canal segment and travel to irrigated fields It is not clear precisely how this spacing of sites developed. It is possible that the patter seen in the Classic period is the result of site packing and gradual reduction in associated territory over time. Site size is not equivalent among the five sites on the South Gila Canal, but it appears to correspond well with amount of arable land. Thus, Casa Grande is the largest and Pueblo Bisnaga the smallest of the platform-mound sites on the system, if available documentary records are accurate (Fewkes 1909). Site size is probably an indicator of 5. Unfortunately, destraction of the ofthe platform-mound villages and uncertainty regarding the reliability of informants’ measurementsJournal of Field ArchaeologylVol. 14, 1987 155 ‘Table 3. Arable land (in ha) in ‘Sites at ends of ‘Sites in center, ‘canal segment of canal segment Proximity to platform-mound sites Site Irrigated Dry-farmed Total Irrigated Dry-farmed Total Escalante 1801 3518561801 351856 Pueblo Pinal 565 146 TIL (965 1B 1138 Florence Pueblo 806 877 1012 441056 Adamsville 197 30 «827630 9 719 Pueblo Bisnaga 389 59 448320 2 320 Casa Grande 1889 21889 1519 21519 population size, which may correlate with the amount of arable land available. Regardless of the processes that led to the patterning, it appears to have resulted at least in part from the agricultural system undertaken by the sites” inhabitants and not strictly from principles of social distance ‘The patterning found would suggest that the platform- mound sites were involved in the functioning of the agricultural system and were functional equivalents Within this system. The role of the habitation sites with- ‘out platform mounds in the system is not clear, however. ‘The distribution of population between platform-mound sites may have been more or less continuous, but of variable density, and site boundaries as currently defined may have had litle functional reality. The activities that occurred in association with the platform mounds must have drawn surrounding population to such sites or at least affected them (Doyel 1977: 164; Gregory and Nials 1985: 384). The spacing of habitation sites without plat- form mounds is generally closer than the spacing of those with them—as close as 0.5 km—and they tend to be situated closer to the platform-mound sites down-canal than to those up-canal. Dry-farmed areas are almost directly adjacent to all but a few of the habitation sites without platform mounds, ‘The two fieldhouses described here are only 0.36 km apart. With further survey of the lower bajada, more of these structures will undoubtedly be located. In the ‘meantime, both sample size and problems of establishing ‘contemporaneity for seasonally-occupied sites mak terpretation of fieldhouse spacing of questionable utility. In summary, settlement and land use along the Gila River conform to two patterns. Habitation sites, field- houses, and farmland are situated parallel to the river and canal in “ribbon strips,” with increasing intensifi- cation of land use as one moves toward the river. Plat- form-mound sites occur at regular intervals within the habitation site “ribbon strip” or zone. The combination of these patterns results in essentially equivalent access to lands farmed by different methods at any point within for these sites makes a statistical test ofthe relationship between ste ‘size and amount of arable land of questionable validity the habitation zone. The repetitive nature of the spacing ‘of both the platform-mound sites and land-use types suggests that a unit of economic and social significance was represented by the population around each platform ‘mound and raises the question of the means by which water resources were controlled and distributed within this population. Control of Water Resources ‘The Hohokam appear to have dealt with the problems ‘of an unpredictable water source by employing several kinds of water control techniques and farming systems, This type of response was common and successful in the Southwestem environment (Vivian 1974). Nevertheless, water was @ critical resource and social controls over water distribution and use must have existed. Control of water resources by the Hohokam has been a problem of, continuing interest to prehistorians (Ackerly 1982; Doyel 1977; Gregory and Nials 1985; Haury 1976, 1980; Nich- olas and Neitzel 1984; Upham and Rice 1980; Wilcox 1979; Woodbury 1960, 1961; Woodbury and Ressler 1962). There are two dimensions to the management of water resources: control of water in a single canal system and control of a water source, such as the Gila River, supplying multiple individual canal systems. ‘The sites on a single canal system have been termed an inrigation cluster (Wolf and Palerm 1955), irrigation community (Doyel 1977: 164; Mass and Anderson 1978), or platform mound-canal system (Gregory and Nials 1985: 374). The term “irrigation community” will be used here, describing all of the sites located along a single canal network from the headgates to the terminus of the system, It has generally been argued that “where multiple villages depended upon a single canal, some form of intervillage management, including agreements ‘on water allocation, had to be in effect” (Haury 1976: 149). Settlement data certainly support this argument: if such an intervillage management did not exist, we would ‘expect to find a large site (if not the largest site) located at the headgates of each of the canals where the inhab- itants of that site could draw sufficient water for their ‘own needs most effectively and without conflict. Instead,156 Hohokam Settlement and Land UselCrown the largest sites are located at or near the ends of the canals where they would be most vulnerable, unless an overarching management organization insured their share of the water, The nature of the intervillage management is less clear, however. There are a number of tasks that typically ‘must be accomplished with respect to irrigation systems, including: construction and maintenance, allocation of water, accounting, conflict resolution, and organization of ritual (Hunt 1983; Hunt and Hunt 1976: 390-391), Although all of these tasks must be performed, these ray involve different levels within the social structure. ‘Tasks that are performed on an infrequent basis such as construction, defense, repair, and major conflict resolu- tion, tend to involve higher levels within the social struc- ture, while tasks more frequently performed, such as allocation, accounting, maintenance, and minor conflict resolution, tend to involve lower levels within the social structure (Hunt and Hunt 1976). For the Hohokam, it has generally been suggested that the organization of tasks associated with the irrigation system during the Classic period was tied to sociopolit- ical units centered at platform mound sites (Gregory and Nials 1985: 384; Upham and Rice 1980: 86, Wilcox 1979: 108, 110). Given the regular distribution of plat- form-mound sites along the canals, such an involvement in managing the irigation system seems probable. If we accept this inference, then it is apparent that the controls exercised by the personnel engaged at platform mounds were required at regular intervals within the system. Such intervals appear to have involved a S-km stretch ‘of canal and associated irrigated lands. In the only in- stance where an intervening topographic feature, Bogart Wash, necessitated greater frequency of repair and main- tenance on the system, spacing was narrowed. It would appear likely that construction of feeder ditches and maintenance of the relevant canal segment, allocation of water to individuals owning land within that segment, resolution of conflict between individual landowners, ‘and performance of ritual activities appropriate to the irrigation system would be managed at the level of the individual platform-mound community. It is also the case that some sort of overriding orga~ nization would have to coordinate tasks across platform- mound community boundaries along a single canal. Such tasks would include major construction projects, allo- cation of water to individual platform-mound commu- nities, resolution of conflict between these communities, and possibly defense of the system (Gregory and Nials 1985), ‘Although we can confidently state that there would had to have been some type of intervillage management structure for controlling water resources within a single Classic period Hohokam canal system, the nature of the charter of authority for that management structure is difficult to discern. The authority may have been ap- pointed by a centralized political structure, chosen by the water-users themselves, or assumed by an individual instrumental in constructing the system (Hunt 1983) Historically, privately-owned and administered canals either occur in highly industrialized nations or are very small in scale. It is unlikely that in a preindustrial so- ciety, canals the size of those along the Gila River would be privately constructed and managed. For the other two types of management authority, it has effectively been shown in comparisons of irrigation systems that the scale of the irrigation system has litle to do with the type of authority, although the smaller systems tend to exhibit user-chartered authorities (Hunt 1983; Kappel 1974; Mil- Jon 1962: 56-58). The North and South Gila Canal systems both fit into the small end of the size distribution (based on extent of fields in ha) of documented systems in terms of ha that could have been irrigated from each of the two canals (Hunt 1983), suggesting that the charter for the authority probably came from the irrigation com- ‘munities themselves rather than from an outside socio- political body. Both Coward (1978) and Maas. and ‘Anderson (1978) have suggested that indigenous tradi- tional systems are under local users’ control and that outside centralized control manages a system only when there is a need to construct large-scale irrigation works, for when an existing political structure takes over the function of managing a local system. The Hohokam irrigation system did not require the construction of large-scale hydraulic works necessitating concentrations of labor or capital not available at the local level. Fur- thermore, the presence of several platform-mound com- ‘munities on the South Gila Canal argues for coordination ‘of construction and allocation activities by authorities cchosen by the users themselves rather than by a central- ized political structure, (One characteristic of each irrigation community would then be social stratification linked to differential deci- sion-making powers within the system (Hunt and Hunt 1976: 396). The individuals who allocated the water, however, would not necessarily also mediate disputes or control the ritual cycle. Allocation of water and conflict resolution demand particularly delicate balances and in ethnographic situations often involve social structures that change or come into play only when problems arise For instance, allocation principles may change from Ri pparian (Syrian) to Prior Appropriation (Yemenite)* de- 6. Riparan’yrian allocation pinciples view water ihts as inv: ible fom land right. Owners of land thus have access 10 adjoining water sources as needed. By contrat, Prior Appropriation Yemenite locaton principles view water and and rights as separable. PriorityPending on the availability of water (Downing 1974; Glick 1970; Hunt and Hunt 1976; Netherly 1984: 245), In the South Gila system, the largest community and largest amount of arable land were located at the ter- ‘minus of the system. Since this is the most vulnerable location for the receipt of an equal share of water, the interest of this platform-mound site (Casa Grande) in seeing that allocation principles were adhered to must have been particularly acute. Given the size of Casa Grande, its stronger interest in canal-wide adherence to allocation principles, and the presence of a “Great House” there, it seems reasonable to infer that Casa Grande enjoyed hierarchical superiority over other sites along the canal, or at least primus inter pares status. While it will never be possible to define Hohokam allocation principles, itis interesting to note that docu- ‘mented means of allocating water in multi-village irri- gation communities are often intricate and balanced to assure equal access to water regardless of location along the canal. For instance, the aboriginal allocation system practiced on the northern coast of Peru involved tail-to- head irrigation with fields furthest down-canal irrigating first (Netherly 1984: 246). In a system on the island of Luzon, the distribution of land holdings is spread over ‘abroad expanse of the system, and individuals thus have a vested interest in ensuring that water is equitably dis- tributed (Coward 1978), Ultimately, however, no system is absolutely equitable in control of water and land resources. In addition to the inequality caused by the necessity of delegating respon- sibility for decision-making, itis impossible to distribute land equally with respect to productivity and access to ‘water resources. Personnel involved in coordinating the system ate quite likely to receive larger or better parcels, heightening the stratification in the system (Coward 1978: 30; Hill 1936: 586). Indeed, differential access to better land and water resources or to surpluses may be the only incentives for accepting a water-management role within an irrigation community. Hunt and Hunt (1976; 396-397) review several systems in which such water management positions are considered far from desirable Finally, the question remains of a higher degree of centralization across several systems. Here we are inter- ested in whether allocation of water from a single drain- age, in this instance the Gila River, was coordinated for all canals fed by that drainage. In recent years, the in accessing water may be determined by historical precedence, size of land holding, or powerful authorities. Riparian principles tend t0 ‘occur where water resoures are abundant and Prior Appropriation where they are saree: however, allcation principles in any ane locale ‘may alter in respons to fluctuating water availablity (Downing 1974; 117, Hun and Hunt 1976: 390-391, Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 14, 1987 157 presence of a centralized Classic period authority con- trolling water resources in the other major drainage in the Hohokam domain, the Salt, has been debated. Ack- erly (1982) argues for an absence of such authority on the basis of several characteristics of settlement location and system morphology. In particular, he suggests that the higher densities of canals and sites in upstream areas, a lack of correlation between canal/site locations and prime bottomland, and the presence of canals with non- ‘optimal gradients all characterize a system with unreg- ulated competition for river water between individual canal networks. By contrast, Nicholas and Neitzel (1984) argue that until the Classic period, each Salt River canal network was autonomous. During the Classic pe- riod, however, the irrigation systems south of the Salt River lost this autonomy when they became intercon- nected. According to their interpretation, the large plat- form-mound sites dating from this period were dependent on multiple main canals for irigation of their land. They argue then that some type of overriding so- ciopolitical organization must have handled maintenance and allocation for all canals on the river during this period and suggest further that such an organization must have been present during the earlier Sedentary period to initiate the growth during the Classic. ‘Unfortunately, information on system morphology and settlement location is not as complete for the Gila River inrigation systems as it is for the Salt. Several prelimi- nary, and admittedly impressionistic, statements can be ‘made on the basis of current knowledge, however. First, the patterns of settlement and land use along the Salt differ from those along the Gila. Topography constrained the location of canals on the Gila, and in no instance does it currently appear that multiple main canals fed lands tied to a single site. The inhabitants of each site therefore probably cultivated irrigated fields fed by a single main canal only, a situation quite different from that posited by Nicholas and Neitzel for the Salt River area. If it is indeed the case that the interconnectedness of canals on the Salt River points not only to a loss of irrigation community autonomy but to a pre-existing sociopolitical structure capable of constructing and main- taining this system, then neither of these conditions hold for the Gila. Each canal on the Gila River might have had several platform-mound communities that had to ‘cooperate in construction, water allocation, and conflict resolution, but these platform-mound communities were ‘only concerned with a single main canal. Except in times of water scarcity, inhabitants of an irrigation community ‘would have no reason for concer about irrigation activ- ities in any other such community or along any other canal. If unicentric control of water across multiple ir- rigation canals did occur on the Gila River during the158 Hohokam Settlement and Land UselCrown Classic period, we might anticipate greater equivalency in site size and complexity along the river, regardless of location, as proposed by Ackerly. This is not the case, however, as Casa Grande is certainly the largest site along the Gila during this time period and is also situated ‘on the canal located the furthest upstream along the middle Gila ‘There is independent support for the contention that there was little cooperation between irrigation commu- nities within the Hohokam domain, particularly between ‘communities on opposite sides of the drainages. Re- search on exchange in ceramics has suggested that com- munities on opposite sides of each of the two major rivers operated in quite different spheres of interaction with neighboring culture areas (Crown 1984a, 1985), reinforcing the interpretations. based on system mor- phology alone. The results suggest that the homogeneity of Hohokam material culture masks an underlying lack of integration; the groups may have shared a common subsistence base, technology, and style, but ultimately cach irrigation community was probably concerned with its own survival over that of its brethren (Gregory and Nials 1985). As noted by Maass and Anderson (1978: 2), the word “rival” comes from the Latin rivalis, mean- ing “one living on the opposite bank of a stream from another.” For the North and South Gila Canals the absence of mechanisms for regulating use of water from the Gila River for irrigation would have had litle effect, since these irrigation systems were the first located on the Gila River within the Salt-Gila Basin. The drawback to this location was the greater potential for conflict with neigh- bors downstream when water was scarce. ‘Summary ‘The settlement patterning of the Hohokam living in the Casa Grande area during the Classic period was dictated both by topographic constraints and a desire to balance favorable settlement location with optimal use of arable lands for farming. The spacing of platform- ‘mound villages appears to relate, at least in part, to the need to manage water resources. In addition, the sizes of the platform-mound sites and the compounds contain- ing the platform mounds appear to correspond with the amount of irrigable land in the vicinity of the sites, Location of fields as one moves away from the river reveals an attempt to maximize land holdings across topographic and environmental zones. The importance of controlling lands across such zonal gradients would be two-fold. First, it would provide insurance against crop failure in the fields in any single location, particu- larly since non-irrigated fields could be developed and maintained at a relatively low cost to the farmer. Second, 1 specific cultivated plant, agave, was probably exclu- sively grown on the upper and lower terraces since it did not require irrigation and would be protected from flooding during the long years of maturation. In the Casa Grande Ruins area, some form of inter- village management of water resources was necessary along individual main canals, Individual platform- mound sites were probably involved in managing seg- ‘ments of their adjoining canal, with some sort of over- riding organization in charge of coordinating major tasks such as construction, defense, repair, and major conflict resolution among all platform-mound sites along a single main canal. The management structure was probably user-chartered. The largest site on the South Gila Canal, Casa Grande Ruin, probably maintained some form of hierarchical superiority over other sites along this canal. Despite the evidence for intervillage management along, the individual canals, there is no evidence for riverwide centralization of authority or coordination of manage- ‘ment activities among all canal systems feeding off the Gila River. Patterns of settlement and land use along the Salt River are distinct from those along the Gila River above the Casa Grande ruins. This difference can be attributed largely to differences in topography: the absence of sharp terraces allowed irrigation in a wider zone away from the Salt River and diminished the availability of lands suitable for dry farming within close proximity to settle- ‘ments. Thus, both the ribbon strip and vertical gradient aspects of Gila River land use appear to have been absent along most of the Salt River. Interestingly, spacing of platform mounds on the Salt is essentially identical to that on the Gila, reinforcing the conclusion that topo- ‘graphic factors alone did not determine this spacing. Riverwide management of water resources has been pos- ited for the Salt River (Nicholas and Neitzel 1984), although this issue is far from settled. Continued development in the Salt-Gila Basin is rap- idly destroying many of the remaining traces of Hoho- kam settlements and agricultural features. Field and archival research over the last century, however, has provided a substantial body of information for evaluating the former extent of Hohokam occupation in the Basin. Clearly, there is a great deal still to be learned, but through research over the last decade we have gained crucial knowledge about the extent to which the Hoho- kam exploited their environment and the extent to which the environment conditioned their settlement patterns. Acknowledgments ‘The research reported here was carried out under the Salt-Gila Aqueduct Project at the Arizona State Mu-seum, University of Arizona, under contract to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (contract no. 07-0-32-VO101). I ‘would like to thank USBR archaeologists James Maxon and A. Eugene Rogge for providing the support for this study. I am also grateful to David A. Gregory, Dr. Robert C. Hunt, Dr. W. James Judge, and Lynn S. ‘Teague for their encouragement and invaluable criticisms of this work, and I wish to thank Dr. Fred Plog and a number of anonymous reviewers who provided critical ‘comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Charles Stern- berg drafted the figures. John Madsen and Ken Rozen of the Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, provided crucial information on recent surveys and site locations. Any errors of fact or interpretation are my Patricia L.. Crown worked for the Arizona State Mu- seum of the University of Arizona as Project Supervi- sor on the Salt-Gila Aqueduct Project from 1980- 1984. The project involved survey, testing, and exca- vation of 45 sites along a 93-km transect through the Hohokam area. She is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Anthropology at Southern Meth- dist University and directs its field school at the Fort Burgwin Research Center in Taos, New Mexico. Mail- ing address: Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75275. Ackerly, Neal W. 1982 “Irrigation, Water Allocation Strategies, and the Hohokam Collapse,” The Kiva 47: 91-106. Ambler, J. Richard 1961 “Archacological Survey and Excavations at Casa Grande National Monument,” unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson. ‘Andresen, John M. 1985 “Pottery and Architecture at Compound F, Casa Grande Ruins National Monument, Arizona,” in Alfred E. Ditter, Jr., and Donald E. Dove, eds. Proceedings ofthe 1983 Hohokam Symposium. Oc casional Paper 2. Phoenix: Arizona Archaeological Society, 595-640, Antieau, John M/ 1981 “The Palo Verde Archacological Investigations, Hohokam Settlement at the Confluence: Excava: tions along the Palo Verde Pipeline,” Museum of Northern Arizona Research Papers 20. Flagstaff Museum of Northern Arizona Berry, Claudia F., and William S, Marmaduke 1982 The Middle Gila Basin: An Archaeological and Historical Overview. Flagstaff: Northland Re- search, Ine, Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 14, 1987 159 Busch, C. D., L. Mark Raab, and R. C. Busch 1978 “Q= A x V: Prehistoric Water Canals in Southern Arizona,” American Antiquity 41: 531-534, Cable, John S., and David E. Doyel 1985 “Hohokam Land-use Pattems along the Terraces of the Lower Salt River Valley: The Central Phoenix Project,” in Alfred E. Dittert and Donald Dove, eds., Proceedings of the 1983 Hohokam Sympo- sium. Occasional Paper 2. Phoenix: Arizona Ar- chaeological Society, 263-310. ‘Castewer, Edward F., and W. H. Bell 1942 " Piman and Papago Indian Agriculture, Inter-Amer: can Studies 1. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Chisholm, Michaet 1979" Rural Seitlement and Land Use: An Essay on Lo- cation, 3rd edn. London: Hutchinson University Library. Coward, E. Walter, Jr 1978 “Principles of Social Organization in an Indigenous Irrigation System,” Human Organization 38: 28— 36, Crown, Patricia L. 1983 “Introduction: Hohokam Field Houses and Farm- steads in South-central Arizona,” in Lynn S. Tea- gue and Patricia L. Crown, eds., Hohokam Archaeology along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project, Vol. 5, Small Non-riverine Habi- tation Sites. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 150. Tucson: Arizona State Museum, 3-22. 19%4a_ “Ceramic Vessel Exchange in Southern Arizona,” in Lynn S. Teague and Patricia L. Crown, eds., Hohokam Archaeology along the Salt-Gila Aque- duct, Central Arizona Project. Vol. 9, Synthesis ‘and Conclusions. Arizona State Museum Archaeo- logical Series 150. Tucson: Arizona State Museum, 251-304. 1984 “Prehistoric Agricultural Technology in the Salt Gila Basin,” in Lynn S. Teague and Patricia L, Crown, eds., Hohokam Archaeology along the Salt- Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project. Vol. 7, Environment and Subsistence, Arizona State Mu- seum Archaeological Series 150, Tucson: Arizona State Museum, 207-260. 1985 “Intrusive Ceramics and the Identification of Ho- hhokam Exchange Networks,” in Alfred E, Ditter and Donald Dove, eds., Proceedings of the 1983 Hohokam Symposium. Occasional Paper 2. Phot- nix: Arizona Archaeological Society, 439-458, Cummings, Byron 1926 “Ancient Canals of the Casa Grande," Progressive Arizona 35): 9-10. Dart, Allen 1983a “Agricultural Features,” in Lynn S. Teague and Patricia L. Crown, eds., Hohokam Archaeology along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project. Vol. 3, Specialized Activity Sites. Arizona160 Hohokam Settlement and Land UselCrown State Museum Archaeological Series 150. Tucson: ‘Arizona State Museum, 345-574, 1983 “Reach 4 Specialized Activity Sites,” in Lynn S. ‘Teague and Patricia L. Crown, eds., Hohokam Ar- chaeology along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project. Vol. 3, Specialized Activity Sites Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 150. Tucson: Arizona State Museum, 209-326, Debowski, Sharon, A. George, Richard Goddard, and Debo- rah Mullon 1976 An Archaeological Survey of Buttes Reservoir. Ar- ‘zona State Museum Archaeological Series 93. Tuc- son: Arizona State Museum, Ditter, Alffed E., Jr., Paul R. Fish, and Don E. Simonis 1969 A Cultural Inventory of the Proposed Granite Reef and Salt-Gila Aqueducts, Agua Fria River to Gila River Arizona. Arizona State University Anthropo- logical Research Papers |. Tempe: Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University. Doelle, William H. 1975 Prehistoric Resource Exploitation within the CON- 0CO Florence Project. Arizona State Museum Ar- chaeological Series 62. Tucson: Arizona State Museum 1976 Desert Resources and Hohokam Subsistence: The CONOCO Florence Project. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 103. Tucson: Arizona State Museum, Downing, Theodore E. 1974.” “Inrigation and Moisture-sensitive Periods: A Za- ppotec Case,” in Theodore E. Downing and McGuire Gibson, eds., Irrigation’s Impact on Society. An- thropological Papers of the University of Arizona 25, Tweson: University of Arizona Press, 113-122. Doyel, David E. 1974 Excavations at the Escalante Ruin Group, Southern Arizona. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Se- ries 37. Tucson: Arizona State Museum. 1977 “Classic Period Hohokam in the Escalante Ruin Group,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson, 1979 “The Prehistoric Hohokam of the Arizona Desert,” American Scientist 76: 544-554, Fowkes, Jesse W. 1908 “Excavations at Casa Grande, Arizona, in 1906— 1907," Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 50. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 403-436. 1909 “Prehistoric Ruins of the Gila Valley,” Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections $2. Quarterly Issue 5. Washington, D.C.: Goverment Printing Office, 403-436. 1912 "Casa Grande, Arizona,” 281k Annual Report ofthe Bureau of American Ethnology. Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office, 25-180. Fish, Suzanne K. 1983 “Pollen from Reach 4 Small Sites,” in Lynn S. ‘Teague and Patricia L. Crown, eds., Hohokam Ar- cheology along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Ar- izona Project. Vol. 3, Specialized Activity Sites Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 150 ‘Tueson: Arizona State Museum, 327-329, 1984 “Agriculture and Subsistence Implications of the SaltGila Aqueduct Project Pollen Analysis,” in Lynn S. Teague and Patricia L. Crown, eds., Ho: hhokam Archaeology along the Sal-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project. Vol. 7, Environment and Subsistence. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 150, Tueson: Arizona State Museum, 111— 138. Fish, Suzanne K., Paul R. Fish, and Christian Downum 1984 “Hohokam Terraces and Agricultural Production in the Tucson Basin,” in Suzanne K. Fish and Paul R. Fish, eds., Prehistoric Agricultural Strategies in the Southwest. Arizona State University Anthro- ological Research Papers 33, Tempe: Department ‘of Anthropology, Arizona State University, 55-72. Flannery, Kent V. 1976 “Linear Stream Patterns and Riverside Settlement Rules,” in Kent V. Flannery, ed., The Early Me- soamerican Village. New York: Academic Press, 173-179. Fontana, Bernard L. 1974 “Man in Arid Lands: The Piman Indians of the Sonoran Desert,” Desert Biology 2. New York: ‘Academic Press, 489-528. Gladwin, Harold S. 1928" Excavations at Casa Grande, Arizona. Southwest ‘Museum Papers 2. Los Angeles: Southwest Mu- Gladwin, Harold S., Emil W. Haury, E. B. Sayles, and Nora Gladwin 1937 Excavations at Snaketown: Material Culture. Me- dallion Papers 25. Globe, AZ: Gila Pueblo. Glick, Thomas 1970 Irrigation and Society in Medieval Valencia, Cam- bridge MA: Harvard University Press. Grady, Mark 1973 An Archaeological Survey of the Salt-Gila Aque- duct. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 23, Tucson: Arizona State Museum, 1976 “Aboriginal Agrarian Adaptation to the Sonoran Desert: A Regional Synthesis and Research De- sign,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson. Gregory, David A 1982 “The Morphology of Platform Mounds and the Structure of Classic Period Hohokam Sites,” paper presented atthe 47th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Minneapolis. Gregory, David A. , and Fred Nials 1985 “Observations Conceming the Distribution of Clas- sic Period Hohokam Platform Mounds,” in Alfred E, Dittert and Donald Dove, eds. Proceedings of the 1983 Hohokam Symposium. Occasional Paper 2, Phoenix: Arizona Archaeological Society, 373- 389.1961 “Aboriginal Land Use and Occupancy of the Pima- Maricopa Indian Community,” report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. Manuscript on file, ‘Arizona State Museum Library, University of Aric ‘zona, Tucson. Hammack, Laurens C., and Alan P. Sullivan, eds. 1981 The 1968 Excavations at Mound 8, Las Colinas Ruins Group, Phoenix, Arizona. Arizona State Mu- sewm Archaeological Series 154. Tucson: Arizona State Museum, Hastings, James R., and Raymond M. Turner 1965." The Changing Mile. Tucson: University of Arizona Press Haury, Emil W. 1945 The Excavation of Los Muertos and Neighboring Ruins in the Salt River Valley, Southern Arizona, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 24. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press 1976 The Hohokam: Desert Farmers and Craftsmen. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. 1980 “Comments on the Hohokam Symposium,” in David E. Doyel and Fred Plog, eds., Current Issues in Hohokam Prehistory: Proceedings of a Sympo- sium. Arizona State University Anthropological Re- ‘search Papers 23. Tempe: Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, 113-120 Hill, W. W. 1936 “Notes on Pima Land Law and Tenure Anthropologist 38: 586-589. Hodder, lan, and Clive Orton 1976 Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. Cambrid bridge University Press. Hoover, J. W. 1929 “The Indian Country of Southem Arizona,” The Geographical Review 19: 38-60. Hunt, Robert C. 1983 “Organization of Authority and Scale in Canal I rigation,” manuscript on file, Arizona State Mu- seum Library, University of Arizona, Tucson. Hunt, Robert, and Eva Hunt 1976 “Canal Irrigation and Social Organization,” Current Anthropology 17: 389-411 Kappel, Wayne 1974 “Irrigation Development and Population Pressure, in Theodore E. Downing and McGuire Gibson, eds, Irrigation’s Impact on Society. Anthropolog: ical Papers of the University of Arizona 25. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 159-168, Kayser, D. W., and Donald Fiero 1969 “An Archaeological Survey of the Tucson Aque- ducts, Central Arizona Project,” manuseript on file, ‘Arizona State Museum Library, University of Aris zona, Tucson. Maass, Arthur, and Raymond L. Anderson 1978 ‘and the Desert Shall Rejoice: Confit, Growth, and Justice in Arid Environments. Cam bridge, MA: The MIT Press. Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 14, 1987 161 Masse, W. Bruce 1981 “Prehistoric Irrigation Systems in the Salt River Valley, Arizona,” Science 214: 408-415. Midvale, Frank 1963" “The Prehistoric Irrigation of the Casa Grande Ruins Area of the Gila River in Souther Arizona,’ ‘map, manuscript, and site survey records (Map (002025, Planfle 1, Pocket 5, Folder 4L) on file, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona ‘Tucson, 1965 “Prehistoric Irigation of the Casa Grande Ruins Area,” The Kiva 30: 82-86, 1968 “Prehistoric Irigation in the Salt River Valley, Ar- izona,” The Kiva 34: 28-34 Miksicek, Charles H. 1983." “Plant Remains from Reach 4 Small Sites,” in Lynn S. Teague and Patricia L. Crown, eds., Hohokam Archaeology along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project. Vol. 3, Specialized Activity Sites. ‘Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 150. Tucson: Arizona State Museum, 331-338 1984 “Historic Desertification: Prehistoric Vegetation Change and Hohtokam Subsistence in the Salt-Gila Basin,” in Lynn S, Teague and Patricia L. Crown, eds., Hohokam Archaeology along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project. Vol. 7, Envi- ronment and Subsistence. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 150. Tucson: Arizona State Museum, 53-80. Millon, Rene 1962 “Variations in Social Responses to the Practice of Irvigation Agriculture,” Civilizations in Desert Lands. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 62. Salt Lake City: Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, 56-88. Mindeleff, Cosmos 1896 “Casa Grande Ruin,” /3th Annual Bureau of Amer- ican Ethnology Bulletin, 1891-1892. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 289-319. Netherly, Patricia J 1984" “The Management of Late Andean Irrigation Sys- tems on the North Coast of Peru,” American Antig: uity 49; 227-254, Nicholas, Linda, and Jill Neitzel 1984 “Canal Irrigation and Socio-political Organization in the Lower Salt River Valley: A Diachronic Anal- ysis," in Suzanne K. Fish and Paul R. Fish, eds., Prehistoric Agricultural Strategies in the South- west, Arizona State University Anthropological Re- search Papers 30. Tempe: Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, 161-178 Patrick, H.R. 1903 The Ancient Canal Systems and Pueblos of the Salt River Valley. Phoenix Free Museum Bulletin Pinart, Alphonse 1962 Journey to Arizona in 1876 (translated from the French by George H. Whitney). Los Angeles: The Zamorano Club.162 Hohokam Settlement and Land UselCrown Plog, Fred 1980 “Explaining Culture Change in the Hohokam Pre- classic,” in David E. Doyel and Fred Plog, eds., Current Issues in Hohokam Prehistory: Proceed: ings of a Symposium. Arizona State University An- thropological Papers 23. Tempe: Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, 4-22. Sires, Earl W., Je. 1984 “Hohokam Architecture and Site Structure,” in Lynn S. Teague and Patricia L. Crown, eds., Ho- hhokam Archaeology along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project. Vol. 9, Synthesis and Con- clusions. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Se- ries 150. Tucson: Arizona State Museum, 115— 140. Smithsonian Institution Archives ‘nd, “Aerial Photographs of Hohokam Canals in Salt River and Gila River Valleys, Arizona. File 27:1:1/ 3. National Anthropological Archives, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. Stein, Pat 1979 Archaeological Investigations along the Salt-Gila ‘Aqueduct. Phoenix: Arizona Projects Office, United States Bureau of Reclamation ‘Teague, Lynn S. 1984 “The Organization of Hohokam Economy,” in Lynn SS. Teague and Patricia L. Crown, eds., Hohokam Archaeology along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project. Vol. 9, Synthesis and Conclusions. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 150. ‘Tueson: Arizona State Museum, 187-250, ‘Teague, Lynn S., and Patricia L, Crown, eds. 1982 Hohokam Archaeology along the SaltGila Aque- duct, Central Arizona Project. Vol. 2, Supplemen- tal Archaeological Survey. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 150, Tucson: Arizona State ‘Museum. 1983 Hohokam Archaeology along the Salt-Gila Aque- duct, Central Arizona Project. Vol. 3, Specialized Activity Sites. Arizona State Museum Archaeologi- ‘eal Series 150. Tueson: Arizona State Museum, 19836 Hohokam Archaeology along the Salt-Gila Aque- duct, Central Arizona Project. Vol. 6, Habitation Sites on the Gila River. Arizona State Museum Ar- ‘chaeological Series 150. Tucson: Arizona State Museum, Tumey, Omar A 1924 The Land of the Stone Hoe. Phoenix: Arizona Re- publican Print Shop. 1929 Prehistoric Irrigation in Arizona. Phoenix: Office ‘of Arizona State Historian. United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Recla- ‘mation 1979 Final Environmental Statement: Salt-Gila Aqueduct Central Arizona Project. Boulder City, NV: Lower Colorado Region. United States Department of Interior, Indian Service 1916 “Map of Florence District Showing Irrigation Ca- nals Now in Use, Canals Formerly Used, Areas Now under Cultivation, and Areas Formerly Cul- tivated,” on file, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson, Upham, Steadman, and Glen Rice 1980 “Up the Canal Without a Pattern: Modelling Ho- hhokam Interaction and Exchange,” in David E. Doyel and Fred Plog, eds., Current Issues in Ho- hhokam Prehistory: Proceedings of a Symposium. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers 23. Tempe: Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, 78-108. Vivian, R. Gwinn 1974 “Conservation and Diversion: Water-control Sys- tems in the Anasazi Southwest,” in Theodore E. Downing and McGuire Gibson, eds., irrigation’ Impact on Society. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona 25. Tucson: University of ‘Arizona Press, 95-112. ‘Wasley, William W, 1960 “A Hohokam Platform Mound at the Gatlin Site, Gila Bend, Arizona,” American Antiquity 26: 242 262. Weaver, Donald E., Jr. 1972 “A Cultural-ecological Model for the Classic Ho- hhokam Period in the Lower Salt River Valley,” The Kiva 38: 43-52, Wileox, David R 1979 “The Hohokam Regional System,” in Glen Rice, David R. Wilcox, Kevin Rafferty, and James Schoenwette, eds., An Archaeological Test of Sites in the Gila Buste-Santan Region, South-Central Ar- izona. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers 18. Tempe: Arizona State Uni- versity, 77-116, Wilcox, David R.. and Lynette O. Shenk 1977 The Architecture of the Casa Grande and its Inter- pretation. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 115. Tucson: Arizona State Museum. Willey, G. R., W. R. Bullard, Jr., J. B. Glass, and J. C. Gifford 1965 Prehistoric Maya Settlements in the Belize Valley Papers ofthe Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 54. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Woodbury, Richard B. 1960 “The Hohokam Canals at Pueblo Grande, Arizona,” ‘American Antiquity 26: 267-270, 1961 “A Reappraisal of Hohokam Irrigation,” American Anthropologist 63: 550-560. Woodbury, Richard B., and John Q. Ressler 1962 “Effects of Environmental and Cultural Limitations ‘upon Hohokam Agriculture, Souther Arizona,” Civilizations in Desert Lands. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 62. Salt Lake City: De- partment of Anthropology, University of Utah, 41~ 55, Wolf, Eric R., and Angel Palerm 1955 “Inigation in the Old Acolhua Domain, Mexico,” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11: 265~ 281