Message #252: From: AzTeC SW Archaeology SIG To: "'Matthias Giessler'" Subject: Polvoron Phase Trade Or Exchange Networks Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 20:29:16 -0700 From: John A. Giacobbe My firm is involved in the synthesis of an excavation of a Polvoron Phase site in central Arizona. This investigation involves a late Classic period (circa A.D. 1325-1450) Hohokam pithouse with multiple associated features. The site appears to have been the locus of a wide range of activities. The lithic assemblage, which includes a high frequency of projectile points and bifaces, indicates a high degree of manufacturing diversity. The core and debitage analysis also suggest that the manufacture of formal tools was an important activity, and may have included tool manufacture of items intended for trade with groups both in the core area and to the north and west. In addition, the prevalence of handstones and basin metates suggest that cultigen processing was not a common activity. These tool types suggest a focus on wild or encouraged foods of smaller grain size. In addition, the presence of unused tool blanks and debitage of coarse vesicular textures may be an indication that ground stone tools were being manufactured for trade or use elsewhere. Generally, Polvoron assemblages indicate there were changes in raw material procurement strategies as compared to earlier periods (Peterson 1994; Sires 1984; Spurr and Greenwald 1994). In addition, there appears to be a pattern of higher amounts of high-quality materials, such as obsidian, on Polvoron phase sites (Peterson 1994; Rubenstein and Doyel 1995). In contrast, the ceramic assemblage is relatively homogeneous, and generally composed of either plain or red wares, with no apparent relationship to feature type. Both red wares and plain wares are characterized by a fine sand temper, and likely produced through local manufacture. Hence, no evidence of trade or exchange networks is suggested by this assemblage. Pollen and macrobotanical evidence suggest that a variety of native resources were available and utilized, but not necessarily intensely exploited. In addition, limited evidence of corn and lack of other cultigen remains suggests crops were grown, but were not an important aspect of subsistence. We have had some difficulty explaining the mechanisms that may have been responsible for these patterns. A common explanation includes the breakdown of Hohokam trade networks in the late Classic period, and the creation of new trade alliances outside the earlier Hohokam sphere of influence that may have been a factor in activity and subsistence patterns. We suspect that an additional factor, if not a primary one, may have involved shifting macro- and micro-environmental conditions, and the subsequent alterations of subsistence patterns and occupation loci decisions that would follow. Information from this occupation phase is few and far between, and we are looking for others who have worked at similar sites of the late Classic Hohokam. If anyone out there has some experience with this phase, please contact me at either one of the addresses below. Thanks for your time, John A. Giacobbe Stantech Consultants, Inc. Phoenix, Arizona catalinus@aol.com jgiacobbe@stantech.com