A CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

OF THE

HOHOKAM


By
Joel J. Rane

©11 June 1993


Dedicated to
Dr. Emil W. Haury (1904-1992)
and
Dr. Cheryl Metoyer-Duran


You will run to the four corners of the universe:
To where the land meets the sea;
To where the sky meets the land;
To where the home of winter is;
To where the home of rain is;
Run there!  Run strong!
You are the mothers of a people.
				— Apache prayer


AUTHOR'S PREFACE

	Unlike my previous effort, a bibliography of works on the 
Hisatsinom , this work is far more personal and represents part of my 
small attempt to argue for the unique place the Southwest United States 
holds in human culture.  The Southwest is one of Earth's extraordinary 
places, not only for its mystically stark beauty, but for the remarkable 
peace and stability its inhabitants enjoyed up until the incursion of the 
Spanish and Americans in the sixteenth century CE.  Although the great 
cultures of the Hisatsinom, Mogollon and Hohokam eventually collapsed, 
they lived together in peace for well over a thousand years, and in many 
nearby places their Indian descendants continue to live, maintaining the 
perpetual lifeway of the Southwest on a chronology rarely matched in this 
world for longevity.  I believe that this changeless quality of the land 
makes it both relaxing to the spirit and yet energizing to the body, to both 
visitors and immigrants, as well as the natives.
	My mother's family settled in the valley of the Salt River near 
Phoenix before the turn of the century, when that great city held only a 
few thousand souls under the terrible sun.  They lived on land that the 
Hohokam irrigated with their great canals a millennium before, and were 
active in the rediscovery of Arizona's past as well as in the creation of its 
dubious future, digging out the ancient canals for their ranchos.  A 
century later I found myself caught up in the dispute fomented by the 
United States regarding the boundary of the Hopi and Navajo 
Reservations.  A Navajo, who had no good reason to treat me with 
anything but contempt (as I had just stated an opinion quite contrary to 
his concerning the land dispute) said I had no right to refer to myself as a 
native of the Southwest; such a claim would constitute a "linguistic 
negation" of the true natives, meaning himself.  I could have replied that 
the Hopi consider the Navajo as illegitimate upon their land as the Navajo 
did the Spanish, and the Spanish shortly thereafter did the Americans, 
which would have begged the argument.  Perhaps I should have sought 
sympathy because my grandfather was half-Cherokee, which would have 
been absurd, considering that I feel about as Cherokee as I feel Italian, 
Russian, Irish or any of the other cultures lurking in my blood.  In 
retrospect I found it odd that I contained myself, patience not being an 
epidemic virtue in my family tree; but I understand the anger of the 
Navajo, as I sometimes look upon the newcomers to Los Angeles, as the 
Los Angelenos of years past surely looked upon us.  We stoke the anger of 
the nomad, those who cannot stay put, and therefore occasionally bump 
into another of their kind, the drifters, who avoid their reflection in the 
mirror and the company of others.  Our anger is the anger of a people 
who think that three generations in the same town is a dynasty.  It is an 
anger that consumes the Southwest, where we live in the shadow of 
nature's overwhelming dominion, where a hundred miles is a short trip 
and a popular hobby is simply sitting around, watching the "strangers" 
drift in and out of town.  Perhaps this habit began four-hundred and fifty 
years ago, when Cabeza de Vaca wandered into the Pueblos of the Rio 
Grande.  It is an anger born of wanting to possess a land that is 
unpossessable, and even the Indians must surely know a touch of this 
anger during the endless droughts and the vicious monsoons.
	When I travel through the small reservation capitals of Sells or 
Sacaton, politely acknowledging a member of the Pima or the Tohono 
O'Odham nation, I wonder why they inevitably are looking right back at 
me, anticipating my glance.  Mainly for them, I have written this work, for 
they are the real natives of this land, the descendants of the Hohokam.  To 
them we are all but short-lived invaders.  In another way my work is for 
all of us, to overcome our anger in the years to come, when our lovely 
Southwest will come under siege from every corner of America, when the 
concept of "American" will crumble and the nation will try to strip us of 
everything we are once again, and destroy the fragile balance of man and 
nature.  I am not an Indian, but I am a Southwesterner, and unlike our 
government, I believe that a person's nature intimately connects them to 
the place where they are born, not to some false national boundaries.  To 
know the past of the land, then, is to know our past, for in that aspect we 
are all the old ones, the Hohokam.
							Los Angeles, California
							22 September 1993



A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE HOHOKAM

	The Hohokam, when Europeans settled their ancient homeland, 
were originally thought of as a distant, peripheral branch of the 
Hisatsinom, who had constructed the huge ruins around the Four Corners 
area of the Southwest.  Archaeologist Harold Gladwin proved their 
distinction in the late 1920s by examined pottery and construction 
methods.  Later scientists discovered that the Hohokam existed in two 
branches:  the "River Branch" living in the lower Gila and Salt Valleys 
around Phoenix, and the less urbanized "Desert Branch" in the area of the 
Tohono O'Odham (formerly Papago) Reservation.  Some trace the 
Hohokam back to the original paleoindians of Southern Arizona, usually 
referred to as the O'Otam, while most archaeologists postulate that the 
Hohokam migrated from Mexico; these travelers displaced and absorbed 
the O'Otam around 300 BCE, with the Desert Branch people remaining 
more O'Otam in culture.   All scientists do agree that the Hohokam, more 
than any other tribe in the United States, came under the influence of 
Mexican cultures.  The Hohokam gradually dispersed between 1250 and 
1650, to be replaced by the more primitive and traditional O'Otam culture.
	The Hohokam began irrigation of their lands in earnest 
immediately upon arrival, around 300 BCE, although maize did not 
become a staple until the Mogollon people popularized it around 500 CE  
At this point the Hohokam began their most famous endeavor, the
construction of literally hundreds of miles of large irrigation canals along 
the intermittent rivers of Arizona, some up to sixty feet wide. 
	The Hohokam lived in what probably served as a classic 
Southwestern society, which is still common to this day, in groups of large 
extended families competing amongst themselves for labor and existing in 
relative self-sufficiency.  They had no kivas like the Hisatsinom, but 
instead used the ceremonial ball courts made famous by the Mayans and 
Toltecs, and later built primitive mounds like the pyramids of these same 
peoples in the practice of their religion.  Although the nature of the 
religion is not known, the structure probably looked similar to the modern 
Pima, except for the funerals, which involved large funerary pyres and the 
smashing of valuable goods in honor of the dead.  Some status ranking of 
families and individual leaders of families did occur, but on the whole the 
Hohokam lived in a very egalitarian society; no one family dominated a 
village, and the largest funerals were those given by the entire village for 
dead teenagers. 
	The ruins reveal the Hohokam, living under poor desert conditions, 
did not become as wealthy as the Hisatsinom, yet the Hohokam were 
amply-provided.  Their pottery still is without equal, the famous red-on-
buff which they traded to the south for copper bells and parrots, to the 
northeast for turquoise, and to the west for shells.   Eventually, the 
Hohokam may have served as the central traders for the entire North 
American continent, facilitating the transfer of goods from as far away as 
the Yucatan and Illinois.  Between 1300 and 1500 CE came the rise of the 
"Great Houses" in central Arizona, with about twenty or twenty-five 
pueblo towns being built; the only one remaining is at Casa Grande near 
Coolidge.  This period marks a time of great changes in Southwestern 
culture, with many three- and four-story adobe structures in the Gila and 
Salt Valleys, numerous contiguous houses or pueblos, the use of boards to 
ritually deform the skull, a new sort of pottery, the common appearance 
of burial instead of cremation and the disappearance of ball courts.  For all 
these reasons it was often believed that the Sinagua people, a cultural mix 
of the Hisatsinom and Hohokam from the area around Flagstaff, and then 
the Salado, a mix of Mogollon and Hisatsinom peoples from the upper 
Gila and Little Colorado Rivers, both descended into the Hohokam lands 
in great numbers around this time and absorbed the Hohokam.  This 
period does certainly come a century after the final collapse of the 
Hisatsinom civilization in Northwestern New Mexico in 1200 CE, and the 
subsequent migration of Hisatsinom peoples to the east and southwest.
	Some archaeologists now give the Hohokam more credit as a 
distinct culture, postulating that while some immigration was possible 
(due to this decline of Hisatsinom culture around 1250 CE), it is just as 
likely that the Hohokam themselves urbanized enough to shed some of 
their agrarian habits by this time, especially after the earlier Sinagua 
influence.  The important evidence for this theory is the difference 
between the contents of the "Great Houses" and the surrounding houses, 
which indicate a significant class difference rather than an all-out invasion 
by a different culture.  Like many other cultures, the immigration of the 
Salado may simply have caused some wealthy Hohokam to develop a 
desire for foreign goods and luxuries, rather than adopt them out of need.  
In addition, the system of canals encouraged year-round agriculture and 
thus urbanization.  Eventually overpopulation destroyed the stability of 
the agrarian, egalitarian society and created a society more typical of our 
own. 
	As the conditions grew harsher still, evidence shows more and 
more consumption of wild saguaro fruit and mesquite beans, so the 
agricultural system obviously had started collapsing.  (Mesquite beans 
are, from the author's experience anyway, the least desirable of desert 
staples.)  By 1500 CE all of the desert cultures had collapsed to near their 
present state.  The remnants of the Hisatsinom people concentrated on the 
Hopi mesas, in Zuni or in the Rio Grande Valley.  The Mogollon seemed 
to have disappeared entirely, while the various Patayan tribes of Western 
Arizona remained along the lower Colorado River.  The Hohokam 
remained in place, with the River and Desert Branches evolving into the 
Pima and Tohono O'Odham tribes, respectively.  (Though this 
supposition is by no means certain; the O'Odham refuse presently to 
allow archaeological expeditions into their reservation, so the matter 
remains unproved.)  There have been many reasons postulated for this 
decline, none of which alone seem satisfactory.  Some say the weather 
declined, causing food production to no longer sustain the swollen 
populations.  As the Hisatsinom environment was depleted and also 
culturally exhausted, their migrating populations put additional stress on 
the Mogollon and the Hohokam.  It is also certain that flooding damaged 
the Hohokam canals several times shortly before their collapse.  The Gila 
and Salt Rivers are normally dry, however, the occasional devastating 
effects of the rivers (even with upriver dams) were visible to the author on 
his most recent trip to Tucson; the Gila had come many feet out of its 
banks, destroying most of the bridges in the Pima Reservation, and 
apparently came very near to undermining the Interstate 10 bridge itself.  
The canals were centuries old at this point, and already needed 
considerable labor to keep them clear of silt.
	Finally, and all too familiar, came conflict between different desert 
tribes, conflict between the desert tribes and the raiders from tribes being 
driven north by the opportunistic Aztecs in Mexico, and especially the 
still-active conflict between the desert tribes and the northern raiders, who 
now make up the dominant tribes of the area, the Shoshone, the Apache, 
and the Navajo.  Disease may also have played a part, as displaced 
migrants crowded into the pueblos from the open country.  Whatever the 
case, the destruction was a fairly slow process, certainly with some 
moments of drama, but by the time the first Spaniards (with Cabeza de 
Vaca) wandered through the Southwest in late 1535, the Hohokam, the 
Mogollon and the Hisatsinom were nothing but a recent memory. 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

THE NATURE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL LITERATURE

	First of all, I should assert that the Hohokam are a "dead" culture, 
notwithstanding the rich culture of their descendants, the Pima, and so the 
entirety of their culture comes under the heading of archaeology.  I can 
say this because I consider other cultures, like the Soviet Union or the 
ante-bellum South, to also be dead and open for scientific exploration.  
Very rarely a poet or writer will compose some sort of ode 
("Ozymandius") that cannot properly be considered an archaeological 
text, but there is only one example in this bibliography of such work.  All 
of the other works on the Hohokam fall into three general categories of 
archaeological literature.
	The most common, though often least useful, are the popular 
works, which usually consist of "coffee-table" books of lovely pictures or 
tour books; one attractive aspect of the desert cultures is the loveliness of 
the surrounding landscape and their tourist appeal.  The Hohokam, as a 
separate culture, left only two significant ruins that remain today, that of 
Casa Grande and Pueblo Grande; therefore they are not well-represented 
in the popular literature.
	The second type of archaeological literature are the general or 
topical works.  During the early days of archaeology in the Southwest, the 
area became almost a training ground for American archaeology and 
several important theorists rose up at local institutions.  Much of the great 
archaeological works were written by these few figures who tower above 
the field, larger than life.  There was Hodge, the director of the new 
Southwest Museum in Los Angeles, founded by the writer Charles 
Lummis; Amsden, his secretary; Bandelier, the great explorer who saw 
literally dozens of major ruins during the first major archaeological 
expedition into the Southwest; Cummings, the influential head of the 
Department of Archaeology at the University of Arizona; Cushing, an 
eccentric traveler and honorary Zuni who led the first expedition into the 
Hohokam heartland; Fewkes, director of the Bureau of American 
Ethnology at the Smithsonian; the Gladwins, who centered research on the 
Hohokam at their offices in Gila Pueblo (near Globe); and finally Haury, 
the primary theorist on the Hohokam, who practically set the direction of 
research from the University of Arizona.
	One effect that this early domination of archaeology by specific, 
notable personalities has on the literature is a tremendous variance in 
styles, particularly in the oldest works, where the weight of a scientific 
argument had to depend upon persuasion as much as upon evidence.  The 
writings of Hewett, for example, lose a great deal of credence because of 
the parochial attitude they take towards the Pueblo Indians; many 
anthropologists, to their discredit, had difficulty accepting that the Indians 
of the Southwest were responsible for the ruins found there.  (The conflict 
between anthropologists and archaeologists in the Southwest is a 
fascinating one, but well beyond the scope of this bibliography.)  Haury's 
influence on research in the Hohokam is almost certainly related to his 
easygoing style and his popularity at the University of Arizona.  There 
are, of course, many exceptions, especially in recent research.  George 
Gumerman has written and edited some extremely dense, jargon-laden 
texts on each of the desert cultures, difficult for the layperson, but his 
work still has tremendous impact because of his thoroughness and 
precision.  To an extent not known in many other scientific endeavors, 
however, early archaeological literature centers on great writers as well as 
great topics.
	The bulk of research on the Hohokam began late.  There are, as a 
consequence, many fewer studies of Hohokam sites than the Hisatsinom, 
even though the number of sites is not much less.  Emil Haury himself 
wrote that research on the Hohokam in 1978 was at the same point such 
studies on the Hisatsinom had reached in 1940.   The list of original 
expeditions to Hohokam ruins pales in comparison to the Hisatsinom 
cities, such as Chaco Canyon and Mesa Verde; Bandelier saw some of the 
Hohokam sites during his initial reconnaissance of the Southwest from 
1880 to 1885, Cushing excavated Los Muertos and other Phoenix sites 
from 1886 to 1888, Mindeleff surveyed the Verde Valley in 1891, Fewkes 
dug at Casa Grande during 1906 to 1908, Hands explored the Tucson area 
in 1927, and Judd surveyed the Hohokam canals in 1930, but no 
concentrated work began on the Hohokam until Tanner dug in Tucson 
and the Gladwins began excavating Snaketown (near Maricopa) in 1937. 
	The effect on the research delay on the general works is overall 
positive; though not as colorful as those early works on the Hisatsinom, 
the general works on the Hohokam tend to be collections of various 
archaeologists' work rather than letting one point of view dominate.  The 
opposite effect is true of the last major type of archaeological literature, 
the site report.  The site report, in its various incarnations and sizes, is the 
primary source of contemporary archaeology, the listing and collection of 
data.  As archaeology has become more concerned with theory and 
historical synthesis than just simple data, the language of the site reports 
has become more specialized and difficult.  Some site reports make an 
effort to be more like general works in their appeal, but they are the 
exception to the rule.
	One special type of site report is the salvage archaeology report, 
which is usually three to five times as detailed and large as a regular site 
report.  Unlike a normal site report, a salvage project usually forms part of 
an environmental impact report for some highway or pipeline; so 
completeness is necessary both to satisfy the government and also to 
carefully document sites that in all likelihood are about to be damaged if 
not totally destroyed.  Most of these reports include information on the 
geology, environment, and a sketch history of a site, from paleoindian to 
present day.  For this reason they are dense, tedious, and almost 
unreadable; their one advantage is that they tend to examine large areas 
rather than single sites, and the amount of data collected is often 
unbelievable.  (They also provide a considerable amount of work for 
archaeologists; a large percentage of the digs conducted since the early 
1970s in Arizona are salvage expeditions.)  Unfortunately, the salvage 
report has become the major outlet of American archaeology, the reflexive 
knee-jerk as opposed to a planned expedition.
	Now that I have examined the general nature of literature on the 
Hohokam, I turn to the amount.  Why have the Hohokam attracted less 
attention than the Hisatsinom?  For one thing, the Hisatsinom ruins are 
more numerous and certainly more spectacular.  The Hohokam, however, 
were an older culture, and participated in far more trade with the great 
cultures of Mesoamerica; one theory, still debated, believes that the 
Hohokam, through trade, served as the catalysts for the great cultural 
renaissance that created Chaco in the first place.  The Hohokam, however, 
lived in the deserts of Southern Arizona, and so did not have easy access 
to stone and wood like the Hisatsinom; so their adobe structures eroded 
far faster that the Hisatsinom masonry.  In addition, nearly all of the 
Hohokam pueblos (along the banks of the Gila and Salt Rivers) were 
destroyed by the urbanization of Phoenix and Tucson.  It could also be 
said that the surrounding desert country was not as beautiful or 
conducive to tourism.  Therefore less interest was evinced from the public 
as for the dramatic cliff-dwellings of Mesa Verde.
	In ever more wide-reaching terms, one may point out that the 
accomplishments of the Hohokam seem fairly minor in comparison to 
contemporary societies in other parts of the globe.   But the Hohokam 
stand out in two ways:  they managed to not merely survive, but prosper 
in what was even then a harsh desert, and they continued to survive there 
in relative peace, with only minor setbacks, for almost 2500 years, an 
accomplishment that is duplicated in few places.  In other words, from the 
time of Alexander the Great to the present day, the Hohokam and the 
Pima have lived without any great upheaval in their lifeway.
	As a final example, the remaining two desert cultures, the 
Mogollon and the Patayan (often referred to as the Hakataya) are 
practically unrepresented in any literature.  These two cultures were the 
least advanced and most agrarian, so produced few ruins.
	In the remainder of this essay I will concentrate on specific works; 
while I consider most of them to be the essential works on the Hohokam, 
some of the site reports and topical works were chosen at random, 
because frankly there is very little to distinguish one from another in the 
majority.


GENERAL WORKS ON THE HOHOKAM

	I do not consider it appropriate to comment here on the quality of 
very general books on archaeology, whether that be world archaeology, 
North American archaeology, or even some of the larger works on 
Southwestern archaeology (as I did in my previous bibliography on the 
Hisatsinom.)  This task is handled far better by Dean Snow's superior 
bibliography [233], part of the Newberry Library Series, which my own 
work is but a pale imitation of.  Although many of these larger works 
have information of great interest on the Hohokam, it is not of the quality 
I believe a user of a specialized bibliography such as this would be 
seeking.  There is, of course, one prominent exception.  The Smithsonian 
Institution's Handbook of North American Indians, even in its present 
incomplete form, is far and away the finest encyclopaedic compilation of 
articles available to the layperson or scholar on any Indian subject.  Of 
particular interest to us is the Southwest volume [243].
	I should, however, recommend one book rarely seen and then 
discommend two books that show up in collections more often than they 
should.  Gladwin's History of the Ancient Southwest [94], though almost 
forty years old, is still one of the best introductions to both the prehistory 
and the history of investigation in the Southwest, based on his extensive 
research in Arizona.  As a historical point, Gladwin was also a prominent 
force in the early history of Hohokam research.  Kidder's Southwestern 
Archaeology [168] does a thorough job of delineating the boundaries of 
the desert cultures and the extent of their ruins, but the term "Hohokam" 
was not even in use when it was written in 1924, and even the later 
revision is sadly outdated.  Kidder did recognize, however, significant 
differences between the ruins of the lower Gila and the Hisatsinom ruins 
farther north, and prepared a useful list of questions for later study, as 
well as interesting information on methodology, but the work is still 
hopelessly outdated.  Byron Cummings also wrote a general work on the 
Southwest [37], which unfortunately describes all of the desert cultures as 
a homogeneous mass, treating the differences between them as minor 
exceptions to a golden rule; admittedly the book was written in 1953 for 
high school students, but is still practically useless.
	A good example of an overview of the desert cultures is Those Who 
Came Before [170], by the esteemed archaeologists Robert and Florence 
Lister.  In terms meant for the layperson, they give an excellent summary 
of the local geography, its prehistory, and then the development of the 
Hohokam, Mogollon and Hisatsinom cultures, following the conventional 
period divisions, and then discuss their trade relations with the 
neighboring cultures in the Great Plains and Mexico.  But then the Listers 
add a unique synthesis (based on the Smithsonian Handbook [243]), 
breaking the Southwest down not by culture and period, but by level of 
urbanization and terrain, which shows the ebb and flow of Southwestern 
history as a whole.  The majority of this book studies each individual 
National Park and Monument in the Southwest, placing each in a 
historical perspective and detailing the chronology of excavation and 
investigation at the included sites.  Although very light on specific facts or 
reference, this is an excellent starter for any collection; I consider it a 
general introduction rather than a popular work because of the amount of 
useful information condensed into it.
	A more conventional textbook approach is undertaken by Martin 
and Plog in The Archaeology of Arizona [171].  Though somewhat dated, 
this book is well-detailed and written at about the college level, dividing 
up each of the desert cultures (each of whom had significant footholds in 
Arizona) both chronologically and regarding certain important subjects, 
such as agriculture and architecture.  Like the Listers, Martin (Chairman 
of the Field Museum in Chicago) and Plog (a professor at the State 
University of New York) are members of the "new" school of archaeology, 
a group that is interested not so much in digging as in synthesizing 
history from the results of digging.  They do this synthesis well, as well as 
also providing a very competent and accessible compendium of facts and 
statistics on all of the desert cultures.
	A third type of general work is a compilation of one archaeologist's 
efforts.  The last large book by Haury, edited by his protègès J. Jefferson 
Reid and David Doyel, is his Prehistory of the American Southwest [142]; 
although an interesting overview, this is a special case; it is a collection of 
Haury's best reports with commentary by some of the many 
archaeologists who studied with him at the University of Arizona.  I 
particularly like it because it has general introductions to each of the 
desert cultures, along with specific examples of each type of literature 
common in archaeology, such as the different sorts of site reports, 
chronologies, memoirs, and synthetic histories.  It is, however, an unusual 
type of work, more of an ode than a good general introduction to any 
particular subject on the Hohokam.
	Edited collections and the results of symposiums, while often too 
technical or scattered in focus to be appropriate for the layperson, 
sometimes have a tremendous amount to offer on current thought in 
archaeology.  One of the best is a series of papers inspired by a 
conversation under a tree in Pecos, New Mexico, which eventually grew 
to include almost every important archaeologist studying the Hohokam at 
the time [62].  Doyel and Plog were the editors and also contributors to 
this monograph, which covers topics as diverse as social organization, 
trade, regional diversity, and colonization.
	Three more recent collections, however, are better organized.  I 
should emphasize now that, in my opinion, these are the ESSENTIAL 
works on the Hohokam, and the basis for any collection on the subject.  
Although many people hold up Haury's work The Hohokam [140] as a 
critical work, it is more of a site report on Snaketown and somewhat out-
of-date.  My favorite works are Chaco & Hohokam [35], edited by Crown 
and Judge, Exploring the Hohokam [115], edited by Gumerman, and 
Hohokam and Patayan [182], edited by McGuire and Schiffer.
	Chaco & Hohokam [35] is both a recent and "hot" book, 
concentrating on topics of current interest rather than a broad overview 
on the Hohokam.  Such topics include the destruction of Hohokam society 
by flood damage, specific manifests and routes for trade, and the social 
interaction between rural and urban parts of the Hohokam nation.  There 
is also considerable discussion, as the title implies, of the relations 
between the Hohokam and the center of the Hisatsinom nation in Chaco 
Canyon (half of the book is essays on Chaco, which may or may not be an 
advantage depending on one's needs; the thrust of the book, however, is 
the comparison of the two cultures.)  The work follows the latest fashion 
in looking at the Hisatsinom, which is by regions rather than as a whole 
nation.
	Exploring the Hohokam [115] demonstrates less interest in hot 
topics than deep, thorough essays on the major aspects of Hohokam life, 
such as subsistence, social organization and trade.  This book, then, could 
be considered almost the single great stand-alone volume on the 
Hohokam.  It is, however, slightly too general and too thick with jargon 
(like all of Gumerman's works.)  It is also, unfortunately, poorly 
illustrated (although none of the more technical archaeological books can 
claim to be well-illustrated.)
	Hohokam and Patayan [182], restricted to the remote southwestern 
part of the Hohokam nation (the home of the Desert or O'Otam Branch, 
known as the Papaguería), is fairly tough to read in parts, but other parts 
seem written especially for the layperson.  This book also, unlike the other 
two, discusses the variations in general Hohokam theory taught by 
individual archaeologists and summarizes the findings of many previous 
expeditions; in fact, it is the only book I have seen on the Southwest to do 
any historiography thoroughly.  The research also addresses two other 
unique topics:  charting the "boundary" of the Hohokam nation and the 
Patayan tribes, and offering different theories on the Hohokam-Pima 
transition, a matter of great controversy which centers on this part of 
Arizona.  There is also some discussion of the Sierra Pinacate (Northern 
Baja), which while neither Hohokam or Patayan, included elements of 
both, as well as such intriguing finds as large intaglio figures, like the ones 
on Peru's Altiplano Nazca.


REPORTS ON HOHOKAM SITES

	The meat of literature on the Hohokam, surely, is in the site reports.  
One of the earliest descriptions of the Hohokam ruins came during 
Fewkes' visit to Casa Grande in 1891 as part of the second Hemenway 
Expedition [77]; he proceeded to measure and illustrate the various rooms 
of the "Great House", but contributed nothing on its builders other than a 
poor interpretation of some Pima legends.  The first scientific survey of 
Casa Grande was prepared by Harold Gladwin in 1927, Excavations at 
Casa Grande [90], with rather brief, detailed descriptions of the sites and 
the typical pottery of the area.  Gladwin, who became a major figure in 
archaeology in Southern Arizona and the mentor of Emil Haury, then 
relied on ideas from Kidder to develop the first historical synthesis on the 
Hohokam.  Around this time, A.E. Douglass (with Haury as an assistant) 
had managed to close the tree-ring gap in Showlow, Arizona; up until 
1929, tree-ring patterns used to date ruins had a gap in them before 1250 
CE, and by closing it, suddenly every ruin built before this time could be 
properly dated.  Archaeology in the Southwest exploded into life and 
Haury came south to work with Gladwin at Gila Pueblo (a restored 
Mogollon ruin), his new research center in Globe.  Their first major digs 
commenced at Snaketown.
	Gladwin's work at Snaketown was the bread and butter of 
Hohokam research until the 1970s.  Although Haury's own later 
expedition [140] created a better historical synthesis, Gladwin's team 
provided a major catalogue of this large Hohokam town, suddenly 
flooding the study of Arizona prehistory with data; it could be compared 
to the Voyager spacecraft's effect on studies of the outer planets.  
Gladwin, unlike his predecessors, was well-prepared, having already 
done several surveys of various sites across Arizona.  The Excavations at 
Snaketown fills four volumes; the first [96] is a detailed description of all 
the artifacts and ruins at the site, with far more illustrations than most 
contemporary reports.  The remaining three [91-93] use this data to draw 
conclusions about the Hohokam and their relations with the Mogollon 
and Hisatsinom.
	The archaeologists of Gila Pueblo went on to major universities and 
created the programs which began to gather enormous amounts of data 
on the Hohokam.  None was more prolific than Emil W. Haury, who went 
on to the University of Arizona.  Haury wrote many site reports; one of 
the first is Roosevelt:9:6 [125], a very fact-oriented description of a small, 
isolated village in the White Mountain Apache Reservation.  Even then, 
however, Haury would squeeze history from every possible bit of 
material.  He even reexamined old data, a rare happenstance in 
archaeology, but in the Excavation of Los Muertos [132], a detailed study 
with profuse illustrations and many site plans, he summed up and 
reevaluating the evidence collected by the first Hemenway Expedition 
some thirty years earlier.  This famous expedition was Frank Cushing's 
first major foray into the desert of southern Arizona, and the major ruins 
at Los Muertos (near Tempe) had subsequently been destroyed by 
farming.  Cushing's "Preliminary Notes" [38] on Los Muertos, of course, 
are also of some interest, although he was more of an adventurer than a 
scientist and at the time of the expedition the culture of the Hohokam still 
seemed a mystery.  It was at Los Muertos and the surrounding sites in the 
Phoenix area where the incursion of the Salado, the cultural mix of the 
Hisatsinom and the Mogollon which dramatically affected the Hohokam 
in the twelfth century, was first recognized by Haury; he also noted the 
true extent of their amazing canals.
	But one of Emil Haury's later site reports, The Hohokam [140], 
became a true classic of both the general and specific archaeological texts.  
Much of this four-hundred page tome is a broad overview of all aspects of 
Hohokam life:  architecture, subsistence, material culture, art and trade.  
Simultaneously Haury backs up his suppositions with an intensely 
detailed and illustrated report of his 1964 excavation of Snaketown, the 
largest and oldest Hohokam town unmolested by civilization outside of 
Casa Grande.  The book itself, although now almost twenty years out of 
date, remains the standard reference work on Snaketown, although in the 
general discussion it says very little about the other Hohokam ruins.  
Perhaps the most important result of the new digs at Snaketown, outside 
of refining the chronology of the Hohokam, was awakening the Pima to 
the presence of ancestors underfoot that they had only heard of 
previously in myths.  However, it must be noted that many of Haury's 
theories about the social organization of the Hohokam are now mostly 
outmoded.  He did, however, single-handedly inspire an entire generation 
of young archaeologists, who went on to dig furiously all over the 
Southwest.
	A good contemporary site report is Weaver's study of the 
Westwing Site [264], which describes the site, the materials found there, 
and then offers a synthetic history for both the site and the entire general 
area (in this instance, the Agua Fria Valley north of Phoenix.)  Greenleaf's 
Excavations at Punta de Agua [105], a larger report, shows how some 
archaeologists suit their style to a more general readership; although the 
site (near the famous Mission San Xavier del Bac in Tucson) is not much 
larger than Westwing, he tries to place it within the context of the Tucson 
Basin and the Hohokam as a whole, not by providing a section of 
synthetic history, but by incorporating a historic context for nearly every 
house or bit of pottery found at the site.  (This work is often cited almost 
like a general work on the Hohokam in the Tucson region, as are some of 
Haury's works.)  Again personality plays a role; Weaver was a young 
archaeologist at the time he excavated Westwing, while Greenleaf was a 
seasoned archaeologist who had already spent many years in mining and 
in the military, and seems to write like a old scout spinning a yarn.
	Masse's Excavations at Gu Achi [174], while recent, is a 
compromise; like Greenleaf in that he attempts to be thorough, and like 
Weaver in creating a synthetic history for the entire area of the 
Papaguería.  Masse is not, unfortunately, nearly the writer that Greenleaf 
is, but he does present a tremendous amount of data and suggests a 
number of possible interpretations (unlike a salvage report, which tends 
only to collate data.)  An even more ambitious project is undertaken by 
Henderson and Rodgers in their study of Cave Creek [152], built upon 
Weaver's work at Westwing [264]; this work, however, covers several 
dozen sites, and undertakes the difficult task of creating a history for the 
"upland" Hohokam, the more mountainous and little-studied branch of 
the Hohokam that reached towards the trading center of Wupatki near 
Flagstaff.  This study also, then, includes information on the Sinagua, the 
cultural mix of Hisatsinom and Hohokam centered on Flagstaff.
	A second type of site report, unfortunately, also became common in 
Hohokam study during the 1970s:  the salvage report.  As Phoenix 
exploded and Tucson slowly bloomed, the Hohokam heartland was 
suddenly put under siege by freeways, high-tension lines, pipelines, 
aqueducts, golf courses, and the like.  Many archaeologists were called in 
to survey the Hohokam sites in harm's way, to either salvage the valuable 
artifacts or, rarely, reroute the projects.  John Antieau's work around the 
Palo Verde Nuclear Plant [6] is a fine example; unlike some other reports, 
Antieau includes a very well-conceived synthesis of the area's history, 
with many illustrations and a fairly decent organizational scheme.  Other 
good, general salvage reports include a survey along the Gila River near 
Snaketown [209], which leans heavily on maps; a brief preliminary study 
of the Salt-Gila Aqueduct [44], noting areas for future research; and the 
excellent report along a highway near Globe by Doyel [56], which is near 
the Hohokam-Mogollon-Hisatsinom border and so goes into great detail 
on the resultant Salado hybrid culture, who later made incursions into the 
central Hohokam nation.
	A third type of site report includes the series of smaller books that 
fill the range between conventional site reports and general works on the 
Hohokam; most of these are published by the University of Arizona or the 
government, and sold as souvenirs for the more sophisticated tourists at 
Pueblo Grande or Casa Grande.  Archaeology in the City [9] by Bartlett 
and The Hohokam Indians of the Tucson Basin [110] by Gregonis are both 
excellent versions of this type of pamphlet.  Bartlett illustrates the research 
at Las Colinas (in central Phoenix), but in layperson's language discusses 
the history of the Hohokam, methods of urban archaeology and how 
history is synthesized from artifacts at length, with copious drawings.  
Gregonis' work is similar, but with even less space devoted to a specific 
site, instead devoting much of her work to a general overview of sites in 
the Tucson area.  Now how can we relate these small books to the great 
overviews of Haury [140] or Crown and Judge [35]?  Although Haury and 
Judge are certainly more thorough, the level of detail often exceeds what 
the average Arizonan might find useful.  Gladwin [94] and Haury both 
render perfect examples of general works based on their own research 
which incorporate what are essentially enormous site reports on 
Snaketown.  In contrast, of course, are the collections of Crown, Judge and 
Gumerman [115], which do not describe specific sites but speculate on 
macroscopic issues and historical synthesis.  Outside of the encyclopaedic 
entries, there really is no general handbook on the Hohokam designed for 
the layperson.  (The work by the Listers [170] could be considered close, 
but does not go into the depth I have in mind.)  These small pamphlets fill 
that gap as well as can be expected; unlike the Hisatsinom, who had a 
greater variety of sites and environmental conditions, it is quite possible to 
sum up Hohokam archaeology in fifty pages and desirable for the novice.
	Any site report, although the bulk of the literature on the 
Hohokam, is not meant to be an easy read.  Especially recently, some 
archaeologists seem to be working hard at making their results 
unintelligible to anyone but another archaeologist.  Although merely my 
opinion, I might go so far as to say that the older site reports, even though 
out-of-date, are of a much higher quality and some a pleasure to read.  
Perhaps because so little was then known about the Hohokam, the early 
studies like Gladwin's [90] are less confusing and probably more 
educational than the later ones.  Although the smaller reports make some 
effort to appeal to the curious layperson, for the most part trying to learn 
about the Hohokam through ordinary site reports is an arduous task.


REPORTS ON TOPICS IN HOHOKAM CULTURE

	Some extremely specific works on the Hohokam have been written 
on certain topics, particularly concerning the symmetry and quality of 
their art and the relatively high quality of their agricultural expertise.  The 
Gladwins, again, were early contributors in this research, which actually 
predates most of the digging and site reports on the Hohokam.  The 
Gladwins were fascinated with the study of ceramic types and designs, 
and some of their earliest papers at Gila Pueblo used the samples of 
pottery found at different sites to determine the chronology and then 
boundaries for the desert cultures.  Indeed, the Method for Designation of 
Cultures [100], which collates the data for seven-thousand sites in tabular 
form, is probably the seminal work which first distinguished and 
enumerated the characteristics of the Hisatsinom, Mogollon, Patayan and 
Hohokam cultures, along with their various branches (Chacoan, Mesa 
Verdean, Mimbres, Tucson, and so on.)  The Gladwins then applied their 
own method with vigor to practical field archaeology, producing several 
reports like Eastern Range of the Red-on-Buff Culture [101] that chart 
precise motions of the desert cultures in space and time, using even the 
smallest sherds of pottery as evidence.  Charles Amsden, then the 
secretary at the Southwest Museum, simultaneously wrote An Analysis of 
Hohokam Pottery Design [4], which approaches the pottery from an 
artistic rather than archaeologic perspective.
	Later ceramic studies went into greater detail.  A brief but 
surprisingly readable study of the sophisticated mathematical formulae 
and knowledge the Hohokam integrated into their ceramic decorations is 
Pattern Mathematics and Archaeology [290] by Zaslow and Dittert, which 
Zaslow later expanded into another work [289] using patterns to establish 
cultural links from the Hohokam to Central Mexico.  Schwabe did a study 
of clay figurines in Southern Arizona [229], which is exceptionally 
comprehensive, though unfortunately written in German.  (A fairly 
significant number of studies on the Hohokam have been done by German 
archaeologists; although I have no firm evidence as to why, I suspect the 
interest is due in part to the close relationship between the Hohokam and 
Mesoamerica.  The German interest in Mexican archaeology is well-
known.)
	Other such studies, like Molitor's The Hohokam-Toltec Connection 
[191], provide evidence for and discuss the well-established connection 
between the Hohokam and the Mesoamerican tribes of central Mexico; 
this particular work has the authors going to something of an extreme to 
prove their point.  Crown and Judge's Chaco & Hohokam [35], though 
mentioned before as an excellent general work, does do some comparison 
and study of the trade between the Hohokam and the Hisatsinom to the 
northeast.  Such study is important because many works establish the 
connection between the Hisatsinom and the Mexican cultures (particularly 
in astronomical knowledge) without identifying the Hohokam as the 
conduit for such knowledge.
	Many of these topical works also have a site report as their seed, 
much like some of general works (e.g. Haury's The Hohokam [140].)  Such 
a book is McGuire's Death, Society, and Ideology [180], a close and 
important study of Hohokam burial practices, which includes a report on 
McGuire's digs at La Ciudad, in central Phoenix.  The great majority of 
this book, however, is on human burials and how Hohokam social 
organization can be determined from them.
	In general, the topical works on the Hohokam tend to study 
subjects peculiar to the Hohokam, such as irrigation and trade.  For a 
subject like archaeoastronomy, a very hot subject right now, most of the 
available works cover all of the Southwest or even all of North America, 
so I have not listed them here.  One exception I located was a glib, but 
interesting little article in Arizona Highways [68].  But the reader should be 
cautioned to examine some very general works on certain subjects of 
interest to find information on the Hohokam.  Such works are also 
covered by my comprehensive bibliography on the Hisatsinom.


POPULAR AND EPHEMERAL WORKS

	Unlike the Hisatsinom again, the Hohokam have inspired almost 
no fictional or ephemeral works.  Some of the poetic works which refer to 
"Hohokam" are using the word in its more popular, generic sense, which 
refers to all of the desert cultures in toto.  A brief poem about the 
Hohokam was written by Richard Shelton [232], one of the most 
important contemporary writers in Southern Arizona.  There are also 
many children's books on the Pima and Tohono O'Odham which talk 
about the Hohokam in passing.  Perhaps the fact that the Hohokam did 
not "disappear" like the Hisatsinom, and left no mysterious cliff-dwellings 
to fire the imagination, explains their absence in this type of literature.  
(For a list of fiction and children's books on the Hisatsinom, once again, 
see my Hisatsinom bibliography.)
	The Hohokam have also inspired very few of the so-called "coffee-
table" books, which is due entirely to the lack of spectacular ruins other 
than Casa Grande.  There are a few general works which include 
significant amounts of information on the Hohokam, such as the overview 
of the Listers [170].  Many of these books are simple travelogues, with 
descriptions and photographs of each ruin, although these books usually 
cover the prehistory of the Southwest rather vaguely, and only the 
National Parks and Monuments.  One exception is Prehistoric Arizona 
[234], by Ernest Snyder, which divides Arizona by each particular culture, 
describing all of the ruins, petroglyph sites and exhibits for each culture.  
On this point it is unique and very handy.  (He does, however, include 
those sites such as Snaketown, which I should warn the reader, are on the 
Tohono O'Odham or Gila River Reservations and not open to visitors 
presently.  Rumors of either tribe opening some sort of historical parks 
abound; check in advance before packing your walking stick.)
	I do not feel sadness for the lack of these books, which are 
essentially for tourists, as much as I do the lack of good children's books.  
Hopefully more of these sort of books will be written so that everyone can 
be more exposed to the prehistory of Arizona, which is, after all is said 
and done, the backbone of our culture and the purpose of this 
bibliography.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

	The following list includes all of the documents described above 
(marked by a * before the author's name), as well as other documents of 
significant interest to students of the Hohokam lifeway.  The numbers 
preceding a document will correspond to the numbers in the text.  The 
initial printing of this work, the first 290 entries, are in alphabetical order 
by author; as I continue to research the subject, additional entries will not 
be so arranged, since the numbers are more important for reference than 
the list as a whole.  The numbers in the index, of course, refer to these item 
numbers and not to page numbers.
	The type of documents specifically excluded include Master's 
theses, unpublished papers (such as those delivered at conferences), 
papers included in collections with less than 50% of the material 
specifically on the Hohokam (EXCEPT for important early works included 
in conference proceedings), and works with only ephemeral treatment of 
the Hohokam (such as works primarily on the Pima or the Mogollon, 
neighboring the Hohokam either in space or in time.)  The reasons for this 
are numerous, since this bibliography is not intended to be 
comprehensive, but they are mainly a question of access and of usefulness.  
As time and resources improve I may alter my attitude about this 
selectivity.


1)	Ackerly, Neal W., Jerry B. Howard, and Randall H. McGuire.  La 
Ciudad Canals:  A Study of Hohokam Irrigation Systems at the 
Community Level.  Anthropological Field Studies, n. 17.  Tempe 
AZ:  Arizona State University, 1987.
2)	Ackerly, Neal, and Anne Rieger.  An Archaeological Overview of 
Southwest Pinal County, Arizona.  Archaeological Series, n. 104.  
Tucson AZ:  Arizona State Museum, 1976.
3)	Amsden, Charles Avery.  "A Prehistoric Rubber Ball."  The 
Masterkey 10 (n. 1, 1936):  7-8.
4)	*--------.  An Analysis of Hohokam Pottery Designs.  Medallion 
Papers, n. 23.  Globe AZ:  Gila Pueblo, 1936.
5)	Andresen, John M.  "Hohokam Murals at the Clan House, Casa 
Grande Ruins National Monument."  The Kiva 48 (n. 4, 1983):  267-
78.
6)	*Antieau, John E.  The Palo Verde Archaeological Investigations:  
Hohokam Settlement at the Confluence.  Research Papers, n. 20.  
Flagstaff AZ:  Museum of Northern Arizona, 1981.
7)	Bahr, Donald M.  "Who Were the Hohokam?  The Evidence from 
Pima-Papago Myths."  Ethnohistory 18 (n. 3, 1971):  245-66.
8)	Bandelier, A.F.  Final Report of Investigations Among the Indians 
of the Southwestern United States.  Papers of the Archaeological 
Institute of America, American Series, n. 4 pt. 2.  Cambridge MA:  
John Wilson and Sons, 1892.
9)	*Bartlett, Michael H., Thomas M. Kolaz, and David A. Gregory.  
Archaeology in the City:  A Hohokam Village in Phoenix, Arizona.  
Tucson AZ:  University of Arizona Press, 1986.
10)	Beals, Ralph L.  "Relations Between Mesoamerica and the 
Southwest."  In El Norte de Mexico y el Sur de Estados Unidos, 
Tercera Reunion de Mesa Redondo Sobre Problemas 
Antropologicos de Mexico y Centro America, 25 Agosto--2 
Septiembre.  Mexico City MEXICO:  Sociedad Mexicana de 
Antropologia, 1943, 245-52.
11)	Bernard-Shaw, Mary.  Prehistoric Canals and Charcos at the Los 
Morteros Site in the Northern Tucson Basin.  Technical Reports, n. 
87/9.  Tucson AZ:  Institute for American Research, 1987.
12)	Berry, Claudia F., and William S. Marmaduke.  The Middle Gila 
Basin:  An Archaeological and Historical Overview.  Flagstaff AZ:  
Northland Research, 1982.
13)	Betancourt, Julio L.  An Archaeological Synthesis of the Tucson 
Basin:  Focus on the Santa Cruz and its Riverpark.  Archaeological 
Series, n. 116.  Tucson AZ:  Arizona State Museum, 1978.
14)	Bohrer, Vorsila L.  "Ethnobotanical Aspects of Snaketown, A 
Hohokam Village in Southern Arizona."  American Antiquity 35 (n. 
4, 1970):  413-30.
15)	--------.  "Paleoecology of Snaketown."  The Kiva 36 (n. 3, 1971):  11-
19.
16)	Bohrer, Vorsila L., Hugh C. Cutler, and Jonathan D. Sauer.  
"Carbonized Plant Remains from Two Hohokam Sites, Arizona."  
The Kiva 35 (n. 1, 1969):  1-10.
17)	Brand, Donald D.  "Credit for the Discovery of Hohokam Culture."  
American Antiquity 5 (n. ?, 1940):  229-31.
18)	Brunson, Judy.  "The Social Organization of the Los Muertos 
Hohokam:  A Reanalysis of Cushing's Hemenway Southwestern 
Expedition Data."  Ph.D. diss., Arizona State University, 1989.
19)	Bryan, Bruce.  "A Hohokam Venus."  The Masterkey 37 (n. 3, 1963):  
85.
20)	Cable, John S., S.L. Henry, and David E. Doyel.  City of Phoenix, 
Archaeology of the Original Townsite, Block 28-North.  Soil 
Systems Publications in Archaeology, n. 2.  Phoenix AZ:  
Professional Service Industries, 1983.
21)	Callahan, Martha M., ed.  Hohokam Settlement Along the Slopes of 
the Picacho Mountains:  Material Culture.  Research Papers, v. 35, 
n. 4.  Flagstaff AZ:  Museum of Northern Arizona, 1988.
22)	Canby, Thomas Y.  "The Search for the First Americans."  National 
Geographic 156 (September 1979):  3330-63.
23)	Canouts, Veletta, Edward Germeshausen, and Robert Larkin.  An 
Archaeological Survey of the Santa Rosa Wash Project.  
Archaeological Series, n. 18.  Tucson AZ:  Arizona State Museum, 
1972.
24)	Chard, C.S.  Distribution and Significance of Ball Courts in the 
Southwest.  Papers of the Excavators' Club, v. 1, n. 2.  Cambridge 
MA:  Harvard University, 1940.
25)	Ciolek-Torrello, Richard S.  Hohokam Settlement Along the Slopes 
of the Picacho Mountains:  The Picacho Pass Sites, Tucson 
Aqueduct Project.  Research Papers, v. 35, n. 3.  Flagstaff AZ:  
Museum of Northern Arizona, 1987.
26)	Ciolek-Torrello, Richard S., Martha M. Callahan, and David H. 
Greenwald.  Hohokam Settlement Along the Slopes of the Picacho 
Mountains:  The Brady Wash Sites, Tucson Aqueduct Project.  
Research Papers, v. 35, n. 2.  Flagstaff AZ:  Museum of Northern 
Arizona, 1988.
27)	Coe, Carol A.  Archaeological Assessment of the Sells Vicinity, 
Papago Indian Reservation, Arizona.  Archaeological Series, n. 131.  
Tucson AZ:  Arizona State Museum, 1979.
28)	Colberg-Sigleo, A.M.  "Turquoise Mine and Artifact Correlation for 
Snaketown Site, Arizona."  Science 189 (n. 4201, 1975):  459-60.
29)	Cordell, Linda S.  Prehistory of the Southwest.  Denver CO:  
Museum of Natural History, 1984.
30)	Cordell, Linda S., and George J. Gumerman, eds.  Dynamics of 
Southwestern Prehistory.  Smithsonian Institution Inquiries in 
Archaeology.  Washington DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press, 
1989.
31)	Crabtree, Don E.  "Experiments in Replicating Hohokam Points."  
Tebiwa 16 (n. 1, 1973):  10-46.
32)	Crown, Patricia L.  "Morphology and Function of Hohokam Small 
Structures."  The Kiva 50 (n. 2-3, 1985):  75-94.
33)	--------.  "Classic Period Hohokam Settlement and Land Use in the 
Casa Grande Ruins Area, Arizona."  Journal of Field Archaeology 14 
(1987):  147-60.
34)	--------.  "The Hohokam of the American Southwest."  Journal of 
World Prehistory 4 (n. 2, 1990):  223-55.
35)	*Crown, Patricia L., and W. James Judge, eds.  Chaco & Hohokam:  
Prehistoric Regional Systems in the American Southwest.  
Advanced Seminar Series, ed. Douglas W. Schwartz.  Santa Fe NM:  
School of American Research Press, 1991.
36)	Cummings, Byron.  "Ancient Canals of the Casa Grande."  
Progressive Arizona 3 (n. 5, 1926):  9-10.
37)	*--------.  First Inhabitants of Arizona and the Southwest.  Tucson 
AZ:  Cummings Publication Council, 1953.
38)	*Cushing, Frank Hamilton.  "Preliminary Notes on the Origin, 
Working Hypothesis and Primary Researches of the Hemenway 
Southwestern Archaeological Expedition."  In Compte-rendu de la 
Septième Session, Congrès International des Américanistes.  Berlin 
GERMANY:  Congrès International des Américanistes, 1888, 151-
94.
39)	Dart, Allen.  "Sediment Accumulation Along Hohokam Canals."  
The Kiva 51 (n. ?, 1986):  63-84.
40)	DiPeso, Charles C.  The Upper Pima of San Cayetano del 
Tumacacori:  An Archaeohistorical Reconstruction of the Ootam of 
Pimeria Alta.  Publications, n. 7.  Dragoon AZ:  Amerind 
Foundation, 1956.
41)	--------.  The Reeve Ruin of Southeastern Arizona:  A Study of a 
Prehistoric Western Pueblo Migration into the Middle San Pedro 
Valley.  Publications, n. 8.  Dragoon AZ:  Amerind Foundation, 
1958.
42)	Dittert, Alfred E., Jr.  "They Came from the South."  Arizona 
Highways 48 (n. 1, 1972):  34-39.
43)	Dittert, Alfred E., Jr., and Donald E. Dove, eds.  Proceedings of the 
1983 Hohokam Symposium.  Occasional Papers, n. 2.  Phoenix AZ:  
Arizona Archaeological Society, 1985.
44)	*Dittert, Alfred E., Jr., Paul R. Fish, and Don E. Simonis.  A Cultural 
Inventory of the Proposed Granite Reef and Salt-Gila Aqueducts, 
Agua Fria River to Gila River, Arizona.  Anthropological Research 
Papers, n. 1.  Tempe AZ:  Arizona State University, 1969.
45)	Doelle, William Harper.  Desert Resources and Hohokam 
Subsistence:  The Conoco Florence Project.  Archaeological Series, 
n. 103.  Tucson AZ:  Arizona State Museum, 1976.
46)	--------.  Archaeological and Historic Investigations at Nolic, Papago 
Indian Reservation, Arizona.  Anthropological Papers, n. 2.  Tucson 
AZ:  Institute for American Research, 1983.
47)	--------.  Excavations at the Valencia Site:  A Preclassic Hohokam 
Village in the Southern Tucson Basin.  Anthropological Papers, n. 3.  
Tucson AZ:  Institute for American Research, 1985.
48)	Doelle, William Harper, and Henry D. Wallace.  Hohokam 
Settlement Patterns in the San Xavier Project Area, Southern 
Tucson Basin.  Technical Reports, n. 84/6.  Tucson AZ:  Institute for 
American Research, 1988.
49)	Doelle, William Harper, Allen Dart, and Henry D. Wallace.  The 
Southern Tucson Basin Survey:  Intensive Survey Along the Santa 
Cruz River.  Technical Reports, n. 85/3.  Tucson AZ:  Institute for 
American Research, 1985.
50)	Dove, Donald E.  "A Site Survey Along the Lower Agua Fria River, 
Arizona."  Arizona Archaeologist 5 (1970):  1-36.
51)	Downum, Christian E.  "The Occupational Use of Hill Space in the 
Tucson Basin:  Evidence from Linda Vista Hill."  The Kiva 51 (n. 4, 
1986):  219-32.
52)	Doyel, David E.  Excavations in the Escalante Ruin Group, 
Southern Arizona.  Archaeological Series, n. 37.  Tucson AZ:  
University of Arizona, 1974.
53)	--------.  "Classic Period Hohokam in the Gila River Basin, Arizona."  
The Kiva 42 (n. 1, 1976):  27-38.
54)	--------.  "Classic Period Hohokam in the Escalante Ruin Group."  
Ph.D. diss., University of Arizona, 1977.  Microfilm.
55)	--------.  Excavations in the Middle Santa Cruz River Valley, 
Southeastern Arizona.  Contributions to Highway Salvage 
Archaeology in Arizona, n. 44.  Tucson AZ:  Arizona State 
Museum, 1977.
56)	*--------.  The Miami Wash Project:  Hohokam and Salado in the 
Globe-Miami Area, Central Arizona.  Contributions to Highway 
Salvage Archaeology in Arizona, n. 52.  Tucson AZ:  Arizona State 
Museum, 1978.
57)	--------.  "The Prehistoric Hohokam of the Arizona Desert."  
American Scientist 67 (n. 5, 1979):  544-54.
58)	--------.  Late Hohokam Prehistory in Southern Arizona.  
Contributions to Archaeology, n. 2.  Scottsdale AZ:  Gila Press, 
1981.
59)	--------.  "From Foraging to Farming:  An Overview of Tucson Basin 
Prehistory."  The Kiva 49 (n. 3-4, 1984):  147-65.
60)	--------.  The Hohokam Village:  Site Structure and Organization.  
Publications, n. 87/15.  Colorado Springs CO:  American 
Association for the Advancement of Science, 1987.
61)	Doyel, David E., and Mark D. Elson.  Hohokam Settlement and 
Economic Systems in the Central New River Drainage, Arizona.  
Publications in Archaeology, n. 4.  Tucson AZ:  n.p., 1985.
62)	*Doyel, David E., and Fred T. Plog, eds.  Current Issues in 
Hohokam Prehistory:  Proceedings of a Symposium.  
Anthropological Research Papers, n. 23.  Tempe AZ:  Arizona State 
University, 1980.
63)	Eighmy, Jeffrey L., and Randall H. McGuire.  Archaeomagnetic 
Dates and the Hohokam Phase Sequence.  Technical Series, n. 3.  
Boulder CO:  Colorado State University, 1988.
64)	--------.  "Dating the Hohokam Phase Sequence:  An Analysis of a 
Large Set of Archaeomagnetic Dates."  Journal of Field Archaeology 
16 (1989):  215-31.
65)	El-Zur, Arieh.  "Soil, Water, and Man in the Desert Habitat of the 
Hohokam Culture."  Ph.D. diss., University of Arizona, 1965.
66)	Elson, Mark D.  Archaeological Investigations at the Tanque Verde 
Wash Site:  A Middle Rincon Settlement in the Eastern Tucson 
Basin.  Anthropological Papers, n. 7.  Tucson AZ:  Institute for 
American Research, 1986.
67)	Elson, Mark D., and William Harper Doelle.  Archaeological Survey 
in Catalina State Park with a Focus on the Romero Ruin.  Technical 
Reports, n. 87/4.  Tucson AZ:  Institute for American Research, 
1987.
68)	*Evans, John, and Harry F. Hillman.  "Casa Grande, an Ancient 
Astronomical Observatory."  Arizona Highways 57 (n. 10, 1981):  32.
69)	Ezell, Paul H.  "An Archaeological Survey of Northwestern 
Papaguería."  The Kiva 19 (n. 2-4, 1954):  1-26.
70)	--------.  "The Archaeological Delineation of a Cultural Boundary in 
Papaguería."  American Antiquity 20 (n. 4, 1955):  367-74.
71)	--------.  "Is There a Hohokam-Pima Culture Continuum?"  American 
Antiquity 29 (n. 1, 1963):  61-66.
72)	Fast, John E., and Louis R. Caywood.  Life Figures on Hohokam 
Pottery.  Special Reports, n. 2.  [Coolidge AZ]:  Southwestern 
Monuments Association, 1936.
73)	Ferdon, Edwin N., Jr.  A Trial Survey of Mexican-Southwestern 
Architectural Parallels.  Monographs, n. 11.  Santa Fe NM:  School 
of American Research, 1955.
74)	--------.  "The Hohokam 'Ball Court':  An Alternative View of Its 
Function."  The Kiva 33 (n. 1, 1967):  1-14.
75)	Ferg, Alan, Kenneth C. Rozen, William L. Deaver, Martyn D. Tagg, 
David A. Philips, Jr., and David A. Gregory.  Hohokam Habitation 
Sites in the Northern Santa Rita Mountains.  Archaeological Series, 
n. 147, v. 2.  Tucson AZ:  Arizona State Museum, 1985.
76)	Ferg, Alan, and Lawrence Vogler.  An Archaeological Survey of 
Route PIR 21:  Kom Vo to Papago Farms, Papago Indian 
Reservation, Arizona.  Archaeological Series, n. 110.  Tucson AZ:  
Arizona State Museum, 1977.
77)	*Fewkes, Jesse Walter.  "A Report on the Present Condition of a 
Ruin in Arizona called Casa Grande."  Journal of American Ethnology 
and Archaeology 2 (1892):  176-93.
78)	--------.  "A Fictitious Ruin in Gila Valley, Arizona."  American 
Anthropologist 9 (1907):  510.
79)	--------.  "Excavations at Casa Grande, Arizona, in 1906-1907."  
Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 50 (n. ?, 1907):  289-329.
80)	--------.  "Prehistoric Ruins of the Gila Valley."  Smithsonian 
Miscellaneous Collections 52 (n. 5, pt. 4, 1909):  403-36.
81)	--------.  Casa Grande, Arizona.  In 28th Annual Report of the Bureau 
of American Ethnology, 1906-1907, 25-179.  Washington DC:  
Smithsonian Institution, 1912.
82)	Fish, Paul R., and Suzanne K. Fish.  Verde Valley Archaeology:  
Review and Perspective.  Research Papers, n. 8.  Flagstaff AZ:  
Museum of Northern Arizona, 1977.
83)	Fish, Suzanne K., Paul R. Fish, Charles Miksicek, and John Madsen.  
"Prehistoric Agave Cultivation in Southern Arizona."  Desert Plants 
7 (1985):  102-12.
84)	Fuller, S.L., A.E. Rogge, and Linda M. Gregonis.  Orme 
Alternatives:  The Archaeological Resources of Roosevelt Lake and 
Horseshoe Reservoir.  Archaeological Series, n. 98.  Tucson AZ:  
Arizona State Museum, 1976.
85)	Fulton, William S., and Carr Tuthill.  An Archaeological Site near 
Gleeson, Arizona.  Publications, n. 1.  Dragoon AZ:  Amerind 
Foundation, 1940.
86)	Gasser, Robert E.  Hohokam Subsistence:  A 2,000 Year Continuum 
in the Indigenous Exploitation of the Lower Sonoran Desert.  
Archaeological Report, n. 11.  Albuquerque NM:  USDA Forest 
Service, 1976.
87)	--------.  "Seeds, Seasons, and Ecosystems:  Sedentary Hohokam 
Groups in the Papaguería."  The Kiva 44 (n. 2-3, 1979):  101-12.
88)	--------.  "Hohokam Use of Desert Food Plants."  Desert Plants 2 
(1982):  216-35.
89)	Gilman, B.I., and K.H. Stone.  "The Hemenway Southwestern 
Expedition."  Journal of American Archaeology and Ethnology 5 (1908):  
229-235.
90)	*Gladwin, Harold Sterling.  Excavations at Casa Grande, Arizona.  
Papers, n. 2.  Los Angeles CA:  Southwest Museum, 1928.
91)	*--------.  Excavations at Snaketown II—Comparisons and Theories.  
Medallion Papers, n. 26.  Globe AZ:  Gila Pueblo, 1937.
92)	*--------.  Excavations at Snaketown III—Revisions.  Medallion 
Papers, n. 30.  Globe AZ:  Gila Pueblo, 1942.
93)	*--------.  Excavations at Snaketown IV—Reviews and Conclusions.  
Medallion Papers, n. 38.  Globe AZ:  Gila Pueblo, 1948.
94)	*--------.  A History of the Ancient Southwest.  Portland ME:  Bond 
Wheelwright, 1957.
95)	--------.  Mogollon and Hohokam A.D. 600-1100.  Medallion Papers, 
n. 36.  Globe AZ:  Gila Pueblo, 1979.
96)	*Gladwin, Harold Sterling, Emil Walter Haury, Edwin B. Sayles, 
and Nora Gladwin.  Excavations at Snaketown I—Material Culture.  
Medallion Papers, n. 25.  Globe AZ:  Gila Pueblo, 1937.
97)	Gladwin, Winifred, and Harold Sterling Gladwin.  The Red-on-Buff 
Culture of the Gila Basin.  Medallion Papers, n. 3.  Globe AZ:  Gila 
Pueblo, 1929.
98)	--------.  The Red-on-Buff Culture of the Papaguería.  Medallion 
Papers, n. 4.  Globe AZ:  Gila Pueblo, 1929.
99)	--------.  The Western Range of the Red-on-Buff Culture.  Medallion 
Papers, n. 5.  Globe AZ:  Gila Pueblo, 1930.
100)	*--------.  A Method for Designation of Cultures and Their 
Variations.  Medallion Papers, n. 15.  Globe AZ:  Gila Pueblo, 1934.
101)	*--------.  The Eastern Range of the Red-on-Buff Culture.  Medallion 
Papers, n. 16.  Globe AZ:  Gila Pueblo, 1935.
102)	Goodyear, Albert C., III.  Hecla II and III:  An Interpretive Study of 
Archaeological Remains from the Lakeshore Project, Papago Indian 
Reservation, South-central Arizona.  Anthropological Research 
Papers, n. 9.  Tempe AZ:  Arizona State University, 1975.
103)	Goodyear, Albert C., III, and Alfred E. Dittert, Jr.  Hecla I:  A 
Preliminary Report on the Archaeological Investigations at the 
Lakeshore Project, Papago Indian Reservation, South-central 
Arizona.  Anthropological Research Papers, n. 4.  Tempe AZ:  
Arizona State University, 1973.
104)	Grebinger, Paul F.  "Hohokam Cultural Development in the Middle 
Santa Cruz River Valley, Arizona."  Ph.D. diss., University of 
Arizona, 1971.
105)	*Greenleaf, J. Cameron.  Excavations at Punta de Agua.  
Anthropological Papers, n. 26.  Tucson AZ:  University of Arizona 
Press, 1975.
106)	--------.  "Excavation of the Gila Bend Fortified Hill Site, Western 
Arizona."  The Kiva 40 (n. 4, 1975):  213-82.
107)	Greenwald, David H.  Investigations of the Baccharis Site and 
Extension Arizona Canal:  Historic and Prehistoric Land Use 
Patterns in the Northern Salt River Valley.  Research Papers, n. 40.  
Flagstaff AZ:  Museum of Northern Arizona, 1988.
108)	Greenwald, David H., and Richard S. Ciolek-Torrello, eds.  
Archaeological Investigations at the Dutch Canal Ruin, Phoenix, 
Arizona.  Research Papers, n. 38.  Flagstaff AZ:  Museum of 
Northern Arizona, 1988.
109)	Gregonis, Linda M.  The Hardy Site at Fort Lowell Park.  
Archaeological Series, n. 175.  Tucson AZ:  Arizona State Museum, 
1988.
110)	*Gregonis, Linda M., and Karl J. Reinhard.  Hohokam Indians of 
the Tucson Basin.  Tucson AZ:  University of Arizona Press, 1979.
111)	Gregory, David A., David R. Abbott, Deni J. Seymour, and Nancy 
M. Bannister.  The 1982-84 Excavations at Las Colinas:  The Mound 
8 Precinct.  Archaeological Series, n. 162, v. 3.  Tucson AZ:  Arizona 
State Museum, 1988.
112)	Gregory, David A., William L. Deaver, Suzanne K. Fish, Ronald 
Gardiner, Robert W. Layhe, Fred L. Nials, and Lynn S. Teague.  The 
1982-84 Excavations at Las Colinas:  The Site and Its Features.  
Archaeological Series, n. 162, v. 2.  Tucson AZ:  Arizona State 
Museum, 1988.
113)	Gregory, David A., Fred L. Nials, Patricia L. Crown, Lynn S. 
Teague, and David A. Phillips, Jr.  The 1982-84 Excavations at Las 
Colinas:  Research Design.  Archaeological Series, n. 162, v. 1.  
Tucson AZ:  Arizona State Museum, 1985.
114)	Gritzner, Charles F.  "Hohokam Culture Origin:  A Geographical 
Interpretation."  Journal of the Arizona Academy of Science 4 (n. 2, 
1966):  134.
115)	*Gumerman, George J., ed.  Exploring the Hohokam:  Prehistoric 
Desert Peoples of the American Southwest.  New World Studies 
Series, ed. Anne I. Woosley, n. 1.  Dragoon AZ:  Amerind 
Foundation, 1991.
116)	Halseth, Odd S.  "Prehistoric Irrigation in Central Arizona."  The 
Masterkey 5 (January 1932):  165-75.
117)	--------.  "Arizona's 1500 Years of Irrigation History."  The 
Reclamation Era 33 (n. 12, 1947):  251-54.
118)	Hammack, Laurens C.  "A Preliminary Report of the Excavations at 
Las Colinas."  The Kiva 35 (n. 1, 1969):  11-28.
119)	--------.  The Peppersauce Wash Project:  A Preliminary Report on 
the Salvage Excavation of Four Archaeological Sites in the San 
Pedro Valley, Southeastern Arizona.  Tucson AZ:  University of 
Arizona, 1971.
120)	Hammack, Laurens C., and Alan P. Sullivan, eds.  The 1968 
Excavations at Mound 8, Las Colinas Ruins Group, Phoenix, 
Arizona.  Archaeological Series, n. 154.  Tucson AZ:  Arizona State 
Museum, 1981.
121)	Hands, E.J.  "Tanque Verde Ruins."  The Kiva 1 (n. 4, 1935):  1-4.
122)	Hastings, Russell.  "Second Preliminary Report on Excavations at 
Casa Grande."  Monthly Report of the Southwestern Monuments 
Associations n.s. (January 1934):  46-48.  [Casa Grande National 
Monument, Mimeographed.]
123)	--------.  "Report of Archaeological Excavations at Casa Grande 
National Monument Under C.W.A. Program 1934."  Monthly Report 
of the Southwestern Monuments Associations n.s. (March 1934):  
Supplement.
124)	Haury, Emil Walter.  "Minute Beads from Prehistoric Pueblos."  
American Anthropologist 33 (n. 1, 1931):  80-87.
125)	*--------.  Roosevelt 9:6, A Hohokam Site of the Colonial Period.  
Medallion Papers, n. 11.  Globe AZ:  Gila Pueblo, 1932.
126)	--------.  "The Snaketown Canal."  The University of New Mexico 
Bulletin 296, Anthropological Series 1 (n. 5, 1936):  48-50.
127)	--------.  "A Pre Spanish Rubber Ball from Arizona."  American 
Antiquity 2 (n. 4, 1937):  282-88.
128)	--------.  "Recent Field Work by the Arizona State Museum."  The 
Kiva 7 (n. 5-6, 1942):  17-24.
129)	--------.  "A Possible Cochise-Mogollon-Hohokam Sequence."  In 
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society v. 86, n. 2.  
Philadelphia PA:  American Philosophical Society, 1943, 260-63.
130)	--------.  "Mexico and the Southwestern United States."  In El Norte 
de Mexico y el Sur de Estados Unidos, Tercera Reunion de Mesa 
Redondo Sobre Problemas Antropologicos de Mexico y Centro 
America, 25 Agosto--2 Septiembre.  Mexico City MEXICO:  
Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologia, 1943, 203-05.
131)	--------.  "Anthropology in the Southwest."  Phi Kappa Phi Journal 24 
(n. 3, 1944):  95-97.
132)	*--------.  The Excavation of Los Muertos and Neighboring Ruins in 
the Salt River Valley, Southern Arizona.  Papers of the Peabody 
Museum, v. 24, n. 1.  Cambridge MA:  Harvard University, 1945.
133)	--------.  "Arizona's Ancient Irrigation Builders."  Natural History 54 
(n. 7, 1945):  300-10.
134)	--------.  "The Problem of Contacts Between the Southwestern 
United States and Mexico."  Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 1 
(1945):  55-74.
135)	--------.  "A Large Pre-Columbian Copper Bell from the Southwest."  
American Antiquity 13 (n. 1, 1947):  80-82.
136)	--------.  "Speculations on Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the 
Southwest."  In Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the New World, 
ed. Gordon R. Willey, 3-10.  Viking Fund Publications in 
Anthropology, n. 23.  New York City NY:  Wenner-Gren 
Foundation for Anthropological Research, 1956.
137)	--------.  "Snaketown:  1964-1965."  The Kiva 31 (n. 1, 1965):  1-13.
138)	--------.  "The Hohokam, First Masters of the American Desert."  
National Geographic 131 (n. 5, 1967):  670-95.
139)	--------.  "Hohokam."  In Encyclopaedia Britannica,  11th ed., 1973.
140)	*--------.  The Hohokam:  Desert Farmers & Craftsmen.  Tucson AZ:  
University of Arizona Press, 1976.
141)	--------.  "Reflections:  Fifty Years of Southwestern Archaeology."  
American Antiquity 50 (n. 2, 1985):  383-94.
142)	*--------.  Emil W. Haury's Prehistory of the American Southwest.  
Edited by J. Jefferson Reid and David E. Doyel.  Tucson AZ:  
University of Arizona Press, 1986.
143)	Hawley, Fred G.  "The Use of Lead Minerals by the Hohokam in 
Cremation Ceremonials."  Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 3 (n. 
1, 1947):  69-77.
144)	Hayden, Julian D.  Excavations, 1940, at University Indian Ruin.  
Technical Series, v. 5.  Globe AZ:  Southwestern Monuments 
Association, 1957.
145)	--------.  "Of Hohokam Origins and Other Matters."  American 
Antiquity 35 (n. 1, 1970):  87-91.
146)	--------.  "Hohokam Petroglyphs of the Sierra Pinacate, Sonora, and 
the Hohokam Shell Expeditions."  The Kiva 37 (n. 2, 1972):  74-83.
147)	Heathington, C.A., and David A. Gregory, eds.  The 1982-84 
Excavations at Las Colinas:  Environment and Subsistence.  
Archaeological Series, n. 162.  Tucson AZ:  Arizona State Museum, 
1989.
148)	Hemmings, E. Thomas.  "Salvage Excavations in a Buried 
Hohokam Site near Tucson, Arizona."  The Kiva 34 (n. 2, 1969):  199-
205.
149)	Henderson, T. Kathleen.  Structure and Organization at La Ciudad.  
Anthropological Field Studies, n. 18.  Tempe AZ:  Arizona State 
University, 1987.
150)	--------.  Field Investigations at the Marana Community Complex.  
Anthropological Field Studies, n. 14.  Tempe AZ:  Arizona State 
University, 1987.
151)	Henderson, T. Kathleen, Glen E. Rice, Ann V. Howard, and Randall 
McGuire.  La Ciudad:  The Excavation of the Site of La Ciudad.  
Tempe AZ:  Arizona State University, 1984.
152)	*Henderson, T. Kathleen, and James B. Rodgers.  Archaeological 
Investigations in the Cave Creek Area, Maricopa County, South-
Central Arizona.  Anthropological Research Papers, n. 17.  Tempe 
AZ:  Arizona State University, 1979.
153)	Herskovitz, Robert M.  The Superstition Freeway Project:  A 
Preliminary Report on the Salvage Excavation of a Dual 
Component Hohokam Site in Tempe, Arizona.  Tucson AZ:  
Arizona State Museum, 1974.
154)	--------.  "AZ U:9:46--A Dual Component Hohokam Site in Tempe, 
Arizona."  The Kiva 47 (n. 1-2, 1981):  1-98.
155)	Hodge, Frederick W.  "Prehistoric Irrigation in Arizona."  American 
Anthropologist 6 (n. 3, 1893):  323-30.
156)	Howard, Jerry B.  Excavations at Casa Buena:  Changing Hohokam 
Land Use Along the Squaw Peak Parkway.  Soil Systems 
Publications in Archaeology, n. 11, pt. 2.  Phoenix AZ:  Professional 
Service Industries, 1988.
157)	Huntington, Frederick W.  Archaeological Investigations at the 
West Branch Site:  Early and Middle Rincon Occupation in the 
Southern Tucson Basin.  Anthropological Research Papers, n. 5.  
Tucson AZ:  Institute for American Research, 1985.
158)	Jennings, Jesse D., ed.  "The American Southwest:  A Problem in 
Cultural Isolation."  In Seminars in American Archaeology:  1955.  
(Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 11.)  American 
Antiquity 22 (n. 2, pt. 2, 1956):  n.p.
159)	Johnson, Alfred E.  "Archaeological Excavations in Hohokam Sites 
of Southern Arizona."  American Antiquity 30 (n. 2, pt. 1, 1964):  145-
61.
160)	Johnson, Alfred E., and William W. Wasley.  "Archaeological 
Excavations near Bylas, Arizona."  The Kiva 31 (n. 4, 1966):  205-53.
161)	Johnson, Ann Stofer.  "Similarities in Hohokam and Chalchihuites 
Artifacts."  American Antiquity 24 (n. 2, 1958):  126-30.
162)	Judd, Neil M.  "Arizona Sacrifices Her Prehistoric Canals."  In 
Explorations and Field-Work of the Smithsonian Institution in 1929, 
177-82.  Washington DC:  Smithsonian Institution, 1930.
163)	--------.  "Arizona's Prehistoric Canals from the Air."  In 
Explorations and Field-Work of the Smithsonian Institution in 1930, 
157-66.  Washington DC:  Smithsonian Institution, 1931.
164)	Kelley, J. Charles.  "North Mexico and the Correlation of 
Mesoamerican and Southwestern Cultural Sequences."  In Selected 
Papers of the Fifth International Congress of Anthropological and 
Ethnological Sciences, edited by Anthony F.C. Wallace, 566-73.  
Philadelphia PA:  University of Pennsylvania Press, 1960.
165)	--------.  "Mesoamerica and the Southwestern United States."  In 
Handbook of Middle American Indians, ed. Robert Wauchope.  V. 
4, Archaeological Frontiers and External Connections, 95-110.  
Austin TX:  University of Texas Press, 1966.
166)	Kelly, Isabel T.  The Hodges Ruin:  A Hohokam Community in the 
Tucson Basin.  Anthropological Papers, ed. Gayle Harrison 
Hartmann, n. 30.  Tucson AZ:  University of Arizona, 1978.
167)	Kelly, William S.  "University Ruin."  The Kiva 1 (n. 8, 1936):  1-4.
168)	*Kidder, Alfred Vincent.  An Introduction to the Study of 
Southwestern Archaeology, with a Preliminary Account of the 
Excavations at Pecos.  Papers of the Phillips Academy 
Southwestern Expedition, n. 1.  New Haven CT:  Yale University 
Press, 1924; reprint, 1962.
169)	Layhe, Robert W., ed.  The 1985 Excavations at the Hodges Site, 
Pima County, Arizona.  Archaeological Series, n. 170.  Tucson AZ:  
Arizona State Museum, 1986.
170)	*Lister, Robert H., and Florence C. Lister.  Those Who Came Before:  
Southwestern Archaeology in the National Park System.  Tucson 
AZ:  University of Arizona Press, 1983.
171)	*Martin, Paul Sidney, and Fred T. Plog.  The Archaeology of 
Arizona.  Garden City NY:  Doubleday, 1973.
172)	Masse, W. Bruce.  The Hohokam Expressway Project:  A Study of 
Prehistoric Irrigation in the Salt River Valley, Arizona.  
Contributions to Highway Salvage Archaeology in Arizona, n. 43.  
Tucson AZ:  Arizona State Museum, 1976.
173)	--------.  "An Intensive Survey of Prehistoric Dry Farming Systems 
near Tumamoc Hill in Tucson, Arizona."  The Kiva 45 (n. 1-2, 1979):  
141-86.
174)	*--------.  Excavations at Gu Achi.  Western Archaeological Center 
Publications in Archaeology, n. 12.  Tucson AZ:  National Park 
Service, 1980.
175)	--------.  "Prehistoric Irrigation Systems in the Salt River Valley, 
Arizona."  Science 214 (n. ?, 1981):  408-15.
176)	--------.  Archaeological Investigations of Portions of the Las 
Acequias-Los Muertos Irrigation System.  Archaeological Series, n. 
176.  Tucson AZ:  Arizona State Museum, 1987.
177)	McDonald, James A., David A. Phillips, Jr., Yvonne Stewart, and 
Ric Windmiller.  An Archaeological Survey of the Tucson Gas and 
Electric El Sol-Vail Transmission Line.  Archaeological Series, n. 53.  
Tucson AZ:  Arizona State Museum, 1974.
178)	McGregor, John C.  "Ball Courts in Northern Arizona?"  Museum of 
Northern Arizona Notes 8 (n. 2, 1936):  n.p.
179)	--------.  Southwestern Archaeology.  2d ed.  Urbana IL:  University 
of Illinois Press, 1982.
180)	*McGuire, Randall H.  Death, Society, and Ideology in a Hohokam 
Community.  Office of Cultural Resource Management Reports, n. 
86.  Tempe AZ:  Arizona State University, 1987; reprint, San 
Francisco CA:  Westview Press, 1992.
181)	McGuire, Randall H., and Ann Valdo Howard.  "The Structure and 
Organization of Hohokam Shell Exchange."  The Kiva 52 (n. 2, 
1987):  113-146.
182)	*McGuire, Randall H., and Michael B. Schiffer, eds.  Hohokam and 
Patayan:  Prehistory of Southwestern Arizona.  San Diego CA:  
Academic Press, 1982.
183)	McGuire, Randall H., and Linda Mayro.  Papago Wells Project:  
Archaeological Surveys near Kaka and Stoa Pitk, the Papago 
Reservation, Arizona.  Archaeological Series, n. 120.  Tucson AZ:  
Arizona State Museum, 1978.
184)	Midvale, Frank.  "Prehistoric Irrigation of the Casa Grande Ruins 
Area."  The Kiva 30 (n. ?, 1965):  82-86.
185)	--------.  "Prehistoric Irrigation in the Salt River Valley."  The Kiva 34 
(n. 1, 1968):  28-32.
186)	--------.  "Prehistoric Ruins and Irrigation in the Eastern Buckeye 
Valley."  Arizona Archaeologist 8 (1974):  37-39.
187)	Mindeleff, Cosmos.  "Casa Grande Ruin."  In Thirteenth Annual 
Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 289-319.  Washington DC:  
Smithsonian Institution, 1896.
188)	--------.  "The Repair of Casa Grande Ruin."  In Fifteenth Annual 
Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 315-49.  Washington DC:  
Smithsonian Institution, 1897.
189)	Mitchell, Douglas R.  Archaeological Investigations at the Grand 
Canal Ruins:  A Classic Period Site in Phoenix, Arizona.  Soil 
Systems Publications in Archaeology, n. 12.  Phoenix AZ:  
Professional Service Industries, 1989.
190)	--------.  "An Investigation of Two Classic Period Hohokam 
Cemeteries."  North American Archaeologist 12 (n. 2, 1991):  109-27.
191)	*Molitor, Martha.  The Hohokam-Toltec Connection:  A Study in 
Cultural Diffusion.  Archaeology Series, n. 10.  Greeley CO:  
University of Northern Colorado, 1981.
192)	Mooney, James.  "Recent Archaeologic Find in Arizona."  American 
Anthropologist 6 (n. 3, 1893):  n.p.
193)	Morris, Donald H.  "Red Mountain:  An Early Pioneer Period 
Hohokam Site in the Salt River Valley of Central Arizona."  
American Antiquity 34 (n. 1, 1969):  40-53.
194)	Neitzel, Jill.  "The Regional Organization of the Hohokam in the 
American Southwest:  A Stylistic Analysis of Red-on-Buff Pottery."  
Ph.D. diss., Arizona State University, 1984.
195)	Nelson, Richard S.  "The Role of a Pochteca System in Hohokam 
Exchange."  Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1981.  Microfilm.
196)	Noble, David Grant.  Ancient Ruins of the Southwest.  Flagstaff AZ:  
Northland, 1981.
197)	--------.  The Hohokam:  Ancient People of the Desert.  Santa Fe NM:  
School of American Research Press, 1991.
198)	Patrick, H.R.  The Ancient Canal Systems and Pueblos of the Salt 
River Valley, Arizona.  Bulletin, n. 1.  Phoenix AZ:  Free Museum, 
1903.
199)	Pilles, Peter J., Jr. and E.B. Danson.  "The Prehistoric Pottery of 
Arizona."  Arizona Highways 50 (n. 2, 1974):  2-5, 10-31.
200)	Pinkley, Edna Townsley.  Casa Grande, The Greatest Valley Pueblo 
of Arizona.  Tucson AZ:  Arizona Archaeological and Historical 
Society, 1926.
201)	Pinkley, Frank, and Edna Townsley. Pinkley.  The Casa Grande 
National Monument in Arizona.  Casa Grande AZ:  Privately 
printed, 1931.
202)	Pomeroy, J. Anthony.  "Hohokam Etched Shell."  The Kiva 24 (n. 2, 
1959):  12-21.
203)	Raab, L. Mark.  Archaeological Investigations for the Santa Rosa 
Wash Project:  Phase I Preliminary Report.  Archaeological Series, 
n. 60.  Tucson AZ:  Arizona State Museum, 1974.
204)	--------.  "A Prehistoric Water Reservoir from Santa Rosa Wash, 
Southern Arizona."  The Kiva 40 (n. 4, 1975):  295-307.
205)	--------.  "The Structure of Prehistoric Community Organization at 
Santa Rosa Wash, Southern Arizona."  Ph.D. diss., Arizona State 
University, 1976.
206)	Rafferty, Kevin.  "Sociopolitical Organization in the Desert 
Southwest:  The Hohokam of Gila Butte Region, South-central 
Arizona."  Ph.D. diss., State University of New York, 1982.
207)	--------.  "Hohokam Micaceous Schist Mining and Craft 
Specialization:  An Example from Gila Butte, Arizona."  
Anthropology 6 (n. 1-2, 1982):  199-222.
208)	Reid, J. Jefferson, and David E. Doyel.  Emil Haury's Prehistory of 
the American Southwest.  Tucson AZ:  University of Arizona Press, 
1986.
209)	*Rice, Glen E., David Wilcox, Kevin Rafferty, and James 
Schoenwetter.  An Archaeological Test of Sites in the Gila Butte-
Santan Region, South-Central Arizona.  Anthropological Research 
Papers, n. 18.  Tempe AZ:  Arizona State University, 1979.
210)	Rice, Glen E.  The Hohokam Community of La Ciudad.  Office of 
Cultural Resource Management Reports, n. 69.  Tempe AZ:  
Arizona State University, 1987.
211)	--------.  Studies in the Hohokam Community of Marana.  
Anthropological Field Studies, n. 15.  Tempe AZ:  Arizona State 
University, 1987.
212)	--------.  A Spatial Analysis of the Hohokam Community of La 
Ciudad.  Anthropological Field Studies, n. 16.  Tempe AZ:  Arizona 
State University, 1987.
213)	Robinson, William J.  "Excavations at San Xavier del Bac, 1958."  
The Kiva 29 (n. 2, 1963):  35-57.
214)	Rodgers, James B.  An Archaeological Survey of the Cave Buttes 
Dam Alternative Site and Reservoir, Arizona.  Anthropological 
Research Papers, n. 8.  Tempe AZ:  Arizona State University, 1974.
215)	Rosenthal, E. Jane.  "Aboriginal Land Use in the Southwestern 
Quijotoa Valley, Papago Indian Reservation, Arizona."  The Kiva 43 
(n. 1, 1977):  1-10.
216)	Rosenthal, E. Jane, Douglas R. Brown, Marc Severson, and John B. 
Clonts.  The Quijotoa Valley Project.  Tucson AZ:  National Park 
Service, 1978.
217)	Sauer, Carl, and Donald Brand.  Pueblo Sites in Southeastern 
Arizona.  Publications in Geography, v. 3, n. 7.  Berkeley CA:  
University of California, 1930.
218)	Sayles, Edwin B.  The San Simon Branch:  Excavations at Cave 
Creek and in the San Simon Valley I—Material Culture.  Medallion 
Papers, n. 34.  Globe AZ:  Gila Pueblo, 1945.
219)	Scantling, Frederick H.  "Jackrabbit Ruin."  The Kiva 5 (n. 3, 1939):  
9-12.
220)	Schmidt, Erich F.  Time-Relations of Prehistoric Pottery Types in 
Southern Arizona.  Anthropological Papers, v. 30, pt. 5.  New York 
City NY:  American Museum of Natural History, 1928.
221)	Schroeder, Albert Henry.  "Did the Sinagua of the Verde Valley 
Settle in the Salt River Valley?"  Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 
3 (n. 3, 1947):  230-46.
222)	--------.  "Cultural Implications of the Ball Courts in Arizona."  
Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 5 (n. 1, 1949):  28-36.
223)	--------.  "A New Ball Court Site in the Verde Valley."  Plateau 23 (n. 
4, 1951):  61-63.
224)	--------.  "Snaketown IV vs. the Facts."  American Antiquity 16 (n. 3, 
1951):  263-65.
225)	--------.  "The Bearing of Architecture on Developments in the 
Hohokam Classic Period."  Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 9 (n. 
2, 1953):  174-94.
226)	--------.  The Hohokam, Sinagua, and Hakataya.  Archives of 
Archaeology, n. 5.  Madison WI:  Society for American 
Archaeology, 1960.
227)	--------.  "Unregulated Diffusion from Mexico into the Southwest 
Prior to A.D. 700."  American Antiquity 30 (n. 3, 1965):  297-309.
228)	--------.  "Pattern Diffusion from Mexico into the Southwest After 
A.D. 600."  American Antiquity 31 (n. 5, 1966):  683-704.
229)	*Schwabe, Johannes.  Die Tonfiguren der Hohokam und ihr 
Zeremonieller Kontext.  Stuttgart GERMANY:  Franz Steiner 
Verlag, 1989.
230)	Scott, Stuart D.  "Pottery Figurines from Central Arizona."  The Kiva 
26 (n. 2, 1960):  11-26.
231)	Seymour, Deni J.  "An Alternative View of Sedentary Period 
Hohokam Shell Ornament Production."  American Antiquity 53 (n. 4, 
1988):  812-28.
232)	*Shelton, Richard.  Hohokam.  Tucson AZ:  Sun/Gemini Press, 
1986.
233)	*Snow, Dean R.  Native American Prehistory:  A Critical 
Bibliography.  Newberry Library Center for the History of the 
American Indian Bibliographical Series.  Bloomington IN:  Indiana 
University, 1979.
234)	*Snyder, Earnest E.  Prehistoric Arizona.  Phoenix AZ:  Golden 
West, 1987.
235)	Southworth, Clay H.  "History of Irrigation on the Gila River."  In 
Hearings Before the Committee on Indian Affairs, House of 
Representatives, 66th Cong., 1st sess., v. 2.  Washington DC:  
Government Printing Office, 1919, 103-223.
236)	Spier, Leslie.  Cultural Relations of the Gila River and Lower 
Colorado Tribes.  Publications in Anthropology, n. 3.  New Haven 
CT:  Yale University, 1936.
237)	Spoerl, Patricia, and George J. Gumerman.  Prehistoric Cultural 
Development in Central Arizona Archaeology:  Archaeology of the 
Upper New River Region.  Center for Archaeological Investigations 
Occasional Papers, n. 5.  Carbondale IL:  Southern Illinois 
University, 1984.
238)	Sprague, Roderick.  "Inventory of Prehistoric Southwestern Copper 
Bells:  Additions and Corrections."  The Kiva 30 (n. 1, 1964):  18-24.
239)	Sprague, Roderick, and Aldo Signori.  "Inventory of Prehistoric 
Southwestern Copper Bells."  The Kiva 28 (n. 4, 1963):  1-20.
240)	Stanislawski, Michael B.  "Two Prehistoric Shell Caches from 
Southern Arizona."  The Kiva 27 (n. 2, 1961):  22-27.
241)	Steen, Charlie.  "Excavations in Compound A, Casa Grande 
National Monument, 1963."  The Kiva 31 (n. 2, 1965):  59-82.
242)	Stewart, Kenneth M.  "Excavations at Mesa Grande, a Classic 
Period Hohokam Site in Arizona."  The Masterkey 41 (n. 1, 1967):  14-
23.
243)	Sturtevant, William, ed.  Handbook of North American Indians.  V. 
9, Southwest, ed. by Alfonso Ortiz.  Washington DC:  Smithsonian 
Institution, 1979.
244)	Tanner, Clara Lee Fraps.  "Tanque Verde Ruins."  The Kiva 1 (n. 4, 
1935):  n.p.
245)	--------.  "Blackstone Ruin."  The Kiva 2 (n. 3, 1936):  9-12.
246)	--------.  Prehistoric Southwestern Craft Arts.  Tucson AZ:  
University of Arizona Press, 1976.
247)	Teague, Lynn S., and Patricia L. Crown, eds.  Hohokam 
Archaeology along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project, 
9 v.  Archaeological Series, n. 150.  Tucson AZ:  Arizona State 
Museum, 1984.
248)	Trischka, C.  "Hohokam:  A Chapter in the History of Red-on-Buff 
Culture of Arizona."  Scientific Monthly 37 (November 1933):  417-
33.
249)	Turney, Omar A.  The Land of the Stone Hoe.  Phoenix AZ:  
Privately printed, 1924.
250)	--------.  "Prehistoric Irrigation."  Arizona Historical Review 2 (n. 2, 
1929):  11-52.
251)	Tuthill, Carr.  The Tres Alamos Site on the San Pedro River, 
Southeastern Arizona.  Publications, n. 4.  Dragoon AZ:  Amerind 
Foundation, 1947.
252)	U.S. Congress.  Senate.  Notes of a Military Reconnaissance from 
Fort Leavenworth, in Missouri, to San Diego, in California, 
Including Part of the Arkansas, Del Norte, and Gila Rivers.  Report 
prepared by W.H. Emory.  30th Cong., 1st sess., 1848.  Executive 
Document [7 or 41?].
253)	Valcarce, J.P., and D.W. Kayser.  "Recently Discovered Compounds 
at Casa Grande Ruins National Monument."  The Kiva 35 (n. 1, 
1969):  55-56.
254)	Vivian, R. Gwinn.  "An Archaeological Survey of the Lower Gila 
River, Arizona."  The Kiva 30 (n. 4, 1965):  95-146.
255)	Wallace, Henry D., and James P. Holmlund.  "The Classic Period in 
the Tucson Basin."  The Kiva 49 (n. 3-4, 1984):  167-94.
256)	Wasley, William W.  "A Hohokam Platform Mound at the Gatlin 
Site, Gila Bend, Arizona."  American Antiquity 26 (n. 2, 1960):  244-
62.
257)	Wasley, William W., and Blake Benham.  "Salvage Excavation on 
the Buttes Dam Site, Southern Arizona."  The Kiva 33 (n. 4, 1968):  
244-79.
258)	Wasley, William W., and David E. Doyel.  "Classic Period 
Hohokam."  The Kiva 45 (n. ?, 1980):  337-52.
259)	Wasley, William W., and Alfred E. Johnson.  Salvage Archaeology 
in Painted Rocks Reservoir, Western Arizona.  Anthropological 
Papers, n. 9.  Tucson AZ:  University of Arizona, 1965.
260)	Waters, Michael.  "The Impact of Fluvial Processes and Landscape 
Evolution on Archaeological Sites and Settlement Patterns Along 
the San Xavier Reach of the Santa Cruz River, Arizona."  
Geoarchaeology 3 (1988):  205-19.
261)	Waters, Michael, and John J. Field.  "Geomorphic Analysis of 
Hohokam Settlement Patterns on Alluvial Fans Along the Western 
Flank of the Tortolita Mountains, Arizona."  Geoarchaeology 1 (1986):  
29-35.
262)	Weaver, Donald E., Jr.  "A Cultural-Ecological Model for the 
Classic Hohokam Period in the Lower Salt River Valley, Arizona."  
The Kiva 38 (n. 1, 1972):  43-52.
263)	--------.  "Excavations at Pueblo Del Monte and the Classic Period 
Hohokam Problem."  The Kiva 39 (n. 1, 1973):  75-87.
264)	*--------.  Archaeological Investigations at the Westwing Site, AZ 
T:7:27 (ASU), Agua Fria River Valley, Arizona.  Anthropological 
Research Papers, ed. G.A. Clark, n. 7.  Tempe AZ:  Arizona State 
University, 1974.
265)	--------.  "Salado Influences in the Lower Salt River Valley."  The 
Kiva 42 (n. ?, 1976):  17-26.
266)	--------.  "Investigations Concerning the Hohokam Classic Period in 
the Lower Salt River Valley, Arizona."  Arizona Archaeologist 9 (n. ?, 
1977):  n.p.
267)	Weaver, Donald E., Jr., Susan S. Burton, and Minnabell Laughlin, 
eds.  Proceedings of the 1973 Hohokam Conference.  Contributions 
to Anthropological Studies, n. 2.  Albuquerque NM:  Center for 
Anthropological Research, 1978.
268)	Weed, Carol S.  "The Beardsley Canal Site."  The Kiva 38 (n. 2, 1972):  
57-94.
269)	Weed, Carol S., and Albert E. Ward.  "The Henderson Site:  
Colonial Hohokam in North Central Arizona, a Preliminary 
Report."  The Kiva 36 (n. 2, 1970):  1-12.
270)	Wilcox, David R.  "The Architecture of the Casa Grande and Its 
Interpretation."  Ph.D. diss., University of Arizona, 1977.
271)	--------.  Frank Midvale's Investigation of the Site of La Ciudad.  
Anthropological Field Studies, n. 19.  Tempe AZ:  Arizona State 
University, 1987.
272)	Wilcox, David R., and Richard S. Ciolek-Torrello.  Hohokam 
Settlement Along the Slopes of the Picacho Mountains, Synthesis 
and Conclusions, Tucson Aqueduct Project.  Research Papers, v. 35, 
n. 2.  Flagstaff AZ:  Museum of Northern Arizona, 1988.
273)	Wilcox, David R., and Lynette O. Shenk.  The Architecture of the 
Casa Grande and Its Interpretation.  Archaeological Series, n. 115.  
Tucson AZ:  Arizona State Museum, 1977.
274)	Wilcox, David R., and Charles Sternberg.  Additional Studies of the 
Architecture of the Casa Grande and Its Interpretation.  
Archaeological Series, n. 146.  Tucson AZ:  Arizona State Museum, 
1981.
275)	--------.  Hohokam Ballcourts and Their Interpretation.  
Archaeological Series, n. 160.  Tucson AZ:  Arizona State Museum, 
1983.
276)	Wilcox, David R., Thomas R. McGuire, and Charles Sternberg.  
Snaketown Revisited.  Archaeological Series, n. 155.  Tucson AZ:  
Arizona State Museum, 1981.
277)	Windmiller, Ric.  "Ta-E-Wun:  A Colonial Hohokam Campsite in 
East-Central Arizona."  The Kiva 38 (n. 1, 1972):  1-26.
278)	Withers, Arnold M.  "Excavations at Valshni Village, a Site on the 
Papago Indian Reservation."  American Antiquity 10 (n. 1, 1944):  33-
47.
279)	--------.  "Excavations at Valshni Village, Arizona."  Arizona 
Archaeologist 7 (n. ?, 1973):  n.p.
280)	Woodbury, Richard B.  "The Hohokam Canals at Pueblo Grande, 
Arizona."  American Antiquity 26 (n. 2, 1960):  267-70.
281)	--------.  "A Reappraisal of Hohokam Irrigation."  American 
Anthropologist 63 (n. 3, 1961):  550-60.
282)	Woodward, Arthur.  The Grewe Site.  Occasional Papers, n. 1.  Los 
Angeles CA:  County Museum of History, Science, and Art, 1931.
283)	--------.  "Hohokam Mosaic Mirrors."  In Museum Patrons 
Association Quarterly, n. 4, 7-11.  Los Angeles CA:  City Museum, 
1941.
284)	Wormington, H. Marie.  Prehistoric Indians of the Southwest.  
Popular Series, n. 7.  Denver CO:  Colorado Museum of Natural 
History, 1947.
285)	Yablon, Ronald K.  Archaeological Investigations Along the Vaiva 
Vo-Kohatk Road, Papago Indian Reservation, Pinal County, 
Southern Arizona.  Office of Cultural Resource Management 
Reports, n. 39.  Tempe AZ:  Arizona State University, 1978.
286)	Zahniser, Jack L.  "Late Prehistoric Villages Southeast of Tucson, 
Arizona and the Archaeology of the Tanque Verde Phase.  The Kiva 
31 (n. 3, 1966):  103-204.
287)	Zaslow, Bert.  "Mirror Orientation in Hohokam Designs, and the 
Chronology of Early Hohokam Phases."  The Kiva 45 (n. 3, 1980):  
211-25.
288)	--------.  Pattern Dissemination in the Prehistoric Southwest and 
Mesoamerica.  Anthropological Research Papers, ed. G.A. Clark, n. 
25.  Tempe AZ:  Arizona State University, 1981.
289)	*Zaslow, Bert, and Alfred E. Dittert, Jr.  "The Symmetry and 
Pattern Mathematics Displayed in Hohokam Ceramic Painting."  
Journal of the Arizona Academy of Science 11 (Proceedings 
Supplement, 1976):  9.
290)	*--------.  Pattern Mathematics and Archaeology.  Anthropological 
Research Papers, ed. G.A. Clark, n. 2.  Tempe AZ:  Arizona State 
University, 1977.


INDEXES

PERSONAL NAME INDEX

	This index includes all entries for authors, co-authors, editors, 
series editors and persons whom are either the subject of a work or to 
whom a work is dedicated (not out of friendship or acquaintance, but as 
research that falls within their field of study, for example, Collected 
Papers in Honor of Erik Kellerman Reed.  Numbers refer to ENTRY, not 
page.

Abbott, David R.  111
Ackerly, Neal W.  1, 2
Amsden, Charles Avery  3, 4
Andresen, John M.  5
Antieau, John E.  6

Bahr, Donald M.  7
Bandelier, Adolph Francis Alphonse  8
Bannister, Nancy M.  111
Bartlett, Michael H.  9
Beals, Ralph L.  10
Benham, Blake  257
Bernard-Shaw, Mary  11
Berry, Claudia F.  12
Betancourt, Julio L.  13
Bohrer, Vorsila L.  14, 15, 16
Brand, Donald D.  17, 217
Brown, Douglas R.  216
Brunson, Judy  18
Bryan, Bruce  19
Burton, Susan S.  267

Cable, John S.  20
Callahan, Martha M.  21, 26
Canby, Thomas Y.  22
Canouts, Veletta  23
Caywood, Louis R.  72
Chard, C.S.  24
Ciolek-Torrello, Richard S.  25, 26, 108, 272
Clark, G.A.  288, 290
Clonts, John B.  216
Coe, Carol A.  27
Colberg-Sigleo, A.M.  28
Cordell, Linda S.  29, 30
Crabtree, Don E.  31
Crown, Patricia L.  32, 33, 34, 35, 113, 247
Cummings, Byron  36, 37
Cushing, Frank Hamilton  38
Cutler, Hugh C.  16

Danson, E.B.  199
Dart, Allen  39, 49
Deaver, William L.  75, 112
DiPeso, Charles C.  40, 41
Dittert, Alfred E., Jr.  42, 43, 44, 103, 289, 290
Doelle, William Harper  45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 67
Dove, Donald E.  43, 50
Downum, Christian E.  51
Doyel, David E.  20, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 142, 208, 258

Eighmy, Jeffrey L.  63, 64
El-Zur, Arieh  65
Elson, Mark D.  61, 66, 67
Emory, W.H.  252
Evans, John  68
Ezell, Paul H.  69, 70, 71

Fast, John E.  72
Ferdon, Edwin N., Jr.  73, 74
Ferg, Alan  75, 76
Fewkes, Jesse Walter  77, 78, 79, 80, 81
Field, John J.  261
Fish, Paul R.  44, 82, 83
Fish, Suzanne K.  82, 83, 112
Fuller, Steven L.  84
Fulton, William S.  85

Gardiner, Ronald  112
Gasser, Robert E.  86, 87, 88
Germeshausen, Edward  23
Gilman, B.I.  89
Gladwin, Harold Sterling  90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101
Gladwin, Nora  96
Gladwin, Winifred  97, 98, 99, 100, 101
Goodyear, Albert C., III  102, 103
Grebinger, Paul F.  104
Greenleaf, J. Cameron  105, 106
Greenwald, David H.  26, 107, 108
Gregonis, Linda M.  84, 109, 110
Gregory, David A.  9, 75, 111, 112, 113, 147
Gritzner, Charles F.  114
Gumerman, George J.  30, 115

Halseth, Odd S.  116, 117
Hammack, Laurens C.  118, 119, 120
Hands, E.J.  121
Hartmann, Gayle Harrison  166
Hastings , Russell  122, 123
Haury, Emil Walter  96, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 
135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 208
Hawley, Fred G.  143
Hayden, Julian D.  144, 145, 146
Heathington, C.A.  147
Hemmings, E. Thomas  148
Henderson, T. Kathleen  149, 150, 151, 152
Henry, S.L.  20
Herskovitz, Robert M.  153, 154
Hillman, Harry F.  68
Hodge Frederick Webb  155
Holmlund, James P.  255
Howard, Ann Valdo  151, 181
Howard, Jerry B.  1, 156
Huntington, Frederick W.  157

Jennings, Jesse D.  158
Johnson, Alfred E.  159, 160, 259
Johnson, Ann Stofer  161
Judd, Neil M.  162, 163
Judge, W. James  35

Kayser, D.W.  253
Kelley, J. Charles  164, 165
Kelly, Isabel T.  166
Kelly, William S.  167
Kidder, Alfred Vincent  168
Kolaz, Thomas M.  9

Larkin, Robert  23
Laughlin, Minnabell  267
Layhe, Robert W.  112, 169
Lister, Florence C.  170
Lister, Robert H.  170

Madsen, John  83
Marmaduke, William S.  12
Martin, Paul Sidney  171
Masse, W. Bruce  172, 173, 174, 175, 176
Mayro, Linda  183
McDonald, James A.  177
McGregor, John C.  178, 179
McGuire, Randall H.  1, 63, 64, 151, 180, 181, 182, 183
McGuire, Thomas R.  276
Midvale, Frank  184, 185, 186, 271
Miksicek, Charles  83
Mindeleff, Cosmos  187, 188
Mitchell, Douglas R.  189, 190
Molitor, Martha  191
Mooney, James  192
Morris, Donald H.  193

Neitzel, Jill  194
Nelson, Richard S.  195
Nials, Fred L.  112, 113
Noble, David Grant  196, 197

Ortiz, Alfonso  243

Patrick, H.R.  198
Phillips, David A., Jr.  75, 113, 177
Pilles, Peter J., Jr.  199
Pinkley, Edna Townsley  200, 201
Pinkley, Frank  201
Plog, Fred T.  62, 171
Pomeroy, J. Anthony  202

Raab, L. Mark  203, 204, 205
Rafferty, Kevin  206, 207, 209
Reid, J. Jefferson  142, 208
Reinhard, Karl J.  110
Rice, Glen E.  151, 209, 210, 211, 212
Rieger, Anne  2
Robinson, William J.  213
Rodgers, James B.  152, 214
Rogge, A.E.  84
Rosenthal, E. Jane  215, 216
Rozen, Kenneth C.  75

Sauer, Carl  217
Sauer, Jonathan D.  16
Sayles, Edwin B.  96, 218
Scantling, Frederick H.  219
Schiffer, Michael B.  182
Schmidt, Erich F.  220
Schoenwetter, James  209
Schroeder, Albert Henry  221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228
Schwabe, Johannes  229
Schwartz, Douglas W.  35
Scott, Stuart D.  230
Severson, Marc  216
Seymour, Deni J.  111, 231
Shelton, Richard  232
Shenk, Lynette O.  273
Signori, Aldo  239
Simonis, Don E.  44
Snow, Dean R.  233
Snyder, Earnest E.  234
Southworth, Clay H.  235
Spier, Leslie  236
Spoerl, Patricia  237
Sprague, Roderick  238, 239
Stanislawski, Michael B.  240
Steen, Charlie  241
Sternberg, Charles  274, 275, 276
Stewart, Kenneth M.  242
Stewart, Yvonne  177
Stone, K.H  89
Sturtevant, William C.  243
Sullivan, Alan P.  120

Tagg, Martyn D.  75
Tanner, Clara Lee Fraps  244, 245, 246
Teague, Lynn S.  112, 113, 247
Trischka, C.  248
Turney, Omar A.  249, 250
Tuthill, Carr  85, 251

Valcarce, J.P.  253
Vivian, R. Gwinn  254
Vogler, Lawrence  76

Wallace, Anthony F.C.  164
Wallace, Henry D.  48, 49, 255
Wasley, William W.  160, 256, 257, 258, 259
Waters, Michael  260, 261
Wauchope, Robert  165
Ward, Albert E.  269
Weaver, Donald E., Jr.  262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267
Weed, Carol S.  268, 269
Willey, Gordon R.  136
Wilcox, David R.  209, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276
Windmiller, Ric  177, 277
Withers, Arnold M.  278, 279
Woodbury, Richard B.  280, 281
Woodward, Arthur  282, 283
Woosley, Anne I.  115
Wormington, H. Marie  284

Yablon, Ronald K.  285

Zahniser, Jack L.  286
Zaslow, Bert  287, 288, 289, 290


ALTERNATIVE TITLE INDEX

	This index includes all entries for alternative titles of works, such as 
series titles, collections of reports, multivolume works, and so on.

American Association for the Advancement of Science, Publications  60
American Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers  220
American Philosophical Society, Proceedings  129
Amerind Foundation, New World Studies Series  115
Amerind Foundation, Publications  40, 41, 85, 251
Archaeological Institute of America, Papers  8
Arizona Archaeological Society, Occasional Papers  43
Arizona State Museum, Archaeological Series  2, 13, 23, 27, 45, 52, 75, 76, 
84, 109, 111, 112, 113, 120, 147, 169, 176, 177, 183, 203, 247, 273, 274, 275, 276
Arizona State Museum, Contributions to Highway Salvage Archaeology 
in Arizona  55, 56, 172
Arizona State University, Anthropological Field Studies  1, 149, 150, 211, 
212, 271
Arizona State University, Anthropological Research Papers  44, 62, 102, 
103, 152, 209, 214, 264, 288, 290
Arizona State University, Office of Cultural Resource Management 
Reports  180, 210, 285

Bureau of American Ethnology (Smithsonian Institution), Annual Reports  
81, 187, 188

Center for Anthropological Research, Contributions  267
Colorado Museum of Natural History, Popular Series  284
Colorado State University, Technical Series  63

Encyclopaedia Britannica  139
Excavators' Club (Harvard University), Papers  24

Gila Press, Contributions to Archaeology  58
Gila Pueblo, Medallion Papers  4, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 	98, 99, 100, 101, 125, 
218

Handbook of Middle American Indians  165
Handbook of North American Indians (Smithsonian Institution)  243

Institute for American Research, Anthropological Papers  46, 47, 66, 157
Institute for American Research, Technical Reports  11, 48, 49, 67
International Congress of Americanistics  38
International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, 
Selected Papers  164

Los Angeles City Museum, Quarterly  283
Los Angeles County Museum of History, Science, and Art, Occasional 
Papers  282

Museum of Northern Arizona, Research Papers  6, 21, 25, 26, 82, 107, 108, 
272

National Park Service, Publications in Archaeology  174
Newberry Library, Center for the History of the American Indian, 
Bibliographical Series  233

Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology (Harvard 
University), Papers  132
Phillips Academy Southwestern Expedition, Papers  168
Phoenix Free Museum, Bulletins  198
Professional Service Industries, Soil Systems Publications in Archaeology  
20, 156, 189
Publications in Archaeology  61

School of American Research, Advanced Seminar Series, 35
School of American Research, Monographs  73
Smithsonian Institution, Explorations and Field-Work  162, 163
Smithsonian Institution Inquiries in Archaeology  30
Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologia, Reunion  10, 130
Society for American Archaeology, Archives of Archaeology  226
Southern Illinois University, Occasional Papers  237
Southwest Museum, Papers  90
Southwestern Monuments Association, Special Reports  72
Southwestern Monuments Association, Technical Series  144

United States.  Congress, Hearings  235, 252
USDA Forest Service, Archaeological Reports  86
University of Arizona, Anthropological Papers  105, 166, 259
University of California, Publications in Geography  217
University of Northern Colorado (formerly Colorado State College), 
Archaeology Series  191

Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology  136

Yale University, Publications in Anthropology  236

SUBJECT INDEX

	This index includes all entries for the major descriptors, format or 
subjects of a work, as determined by examination of the work (in the 
bibliographic essay or by review) or of the title (in the complete 
bibliography).  Because of the specificity of this bibliography, these 
subjects DO NOT conform to any previous work of subject authority 
control, such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings.
	As a simple rule, I employ the common archaeological distinction 
between a "ruin" and a "site"; a site is any place of interest, while a ruin is 
specifically an above-ground remnant of a structure.

Acequias, Las (site)  176
Agriculture  see Subsistence, Irrigation
Anasazi (Hisatsinom)  see Cultural Exchange
Archaeological Methodology and History  9, 17, 22, 38, 63, 64, 89, 100, 
128, 131, 141, 151, 188, 252
Architecture  32, 60, 73, 225, 270, 273, 274
Arizona  see Sites
Art (see also Petroglyphs)  4, 5, 72, 246, 287, 288, 289, 290
Artifacts (see also under name of ruin, area of site, type of artifact, etc.)  31
Astronomy  68
Aztecs  see Cultural Exchange

Ballcourts and Balls  3, 24, 74, 127, 178, 222, 223, 275
Basketmakers  see O'Otam
Basketry  246
Beads  see Jewelry
Beardsley Canal (site)  268
Bells  135, 238, 239
Bibliographies  233
Biography  see Archaeological Methodology and History
Blackstone (ruin)  245
Burial  see Ceremony
Bylas (sites)  160

Canals  see Irrigation
Casa Buena (site)  156
Casa Grande Ruins National Monument  5, 33, 36, 68, 77, 79, 81, 90, 122, 
123, 184, 187, 188, 200, 201, 241, 253, 270, 273, 274
Cave Buttes Dam (site)  214
Cave Creek (sites)  152, 218
Ceramics  4, 72, 100, 194, 199, 220, 246, 289, 290
Ceremony (see also Social Organization)  143, 180, 190
Chaco Culture National Historical Park  see Cultural Exchange
Chichimeca (Mexico/Central America)  see Cultural Exchange
Ciudad, La (site)  1, 149, 151, 180, 210, 212, 271
Colinas, Las (ruin)  9, 111, 112, 113, 118, 120, 147
Construction  see Labor, Architecture
Cultural Exchange
	with Chaco (Hisatsinom)  35
	with Chichimeca (Mexico/Central America)  10, 42, 73, 130, 134, 
161, 164, 165, 191, 195, 227, 228
	General/Undefined  61
	with Mogollon  95, 129
	with Patayan  182, 226, 236
	with Salado  56, 265
	with Sinagua  221, 226
Culture  see Ceremony, Social Organization, Subsistence etc.

Dendrochronology  see Archaeological Methodology and History
Design  see Art
Diet  see Subsistence
Dutch Canal (ruin)  108

Escalante (ruin)  52
Ethnobotany  see Subsistence
Expeditions  see Archaeological Methodology and History

Fiction (see also Popular Works)  232
Figurines  19, 229, 230
Food  see Subsistence

Gatlin (site)  see Gila Bend (sites)
Gender  see Social Organization
General Works  29, 30, 34, 35, 43, 57, 58, 62, 94, 115, 136, 138, 139, 140, 142, 
158, 159, 168, 170, 171, 179, 182, 208, 226, 243, 248, 258, 267
Geology  see Paleoenvironment
Gila Bend (sites)  106, 256
Gila Butte (sites)  206, 207, 209, 257
Grand Canal (ruin)  189
Grewe (site)  282
Gu Achi (site)  174
Guidebooks  see Popular Works

Hardy (site)  109
Hecla (ruin)  102, 103
Henderson (site)  269
Hisatsinom  see Cultural Exchange
Hodges (ruin)  166, 169
Hunting  see Subsistence

Irrigation  1, 11, 36, 39, 59, 65, 116, 117, 126, 133, 155, 162, 163, 172, 173, 
175, 176, 184, 185, 186, 189, 198, 204, 235, 250, 268, 280, 281

Jackrabbit (ruin)  219
Jewelry  28, 124, 207, 246, 283

Labor  31, 207
Linda Vista Hill (site)  51
Marana (sites)  150, 211
Mayans  see Cultural Exchange
Mesa Grande (site)  242
Methodology  see Archaeological Methodology and History
Mexico/Central America  see Cultural Exchange
Migrations  41, 42
Mining  see Jewelry
Mirrors  see Jewelry
Mogollon  see Cultural Exchange
Morteros, Los (site)  11
Muertos, Los (site)  18, 38, 132, 176
Myths  see Ceremony
Nolic (site)  46

O'Otam (as ancestors of Hohokam)  37, 40, 114, 129, 145

Painted Rocks Reservoir (sites)  259
Paleoenvironment  15, 147
Palo Verde (sites)  6
Papago Indian Reservation (sites)  see Tohono O'Odham Reservation 
(sites)
Pattern Mathematics  see Art
Peppersauce Wash (sites)  119
Petroglyphs (see also Art)  146
Photography  see Popular Works
Picacho Mountains (sites)  21, 25, 26, 272
Pictographs  see Art
Pima Indians (as descendants of Hohokam)  7, 71
Poetry  see Fiction
Popular Works (see also Fiction)  196, 197, 200, 201, 234, 284
Pottery  see Ceramics
Pueblo del Monte (site)  263
Pueblo Grande (ruin)  280
Punta de Agua (ruin)  105

Red Mountain (site)  193
Reeve (ruin)  41
Religion  see Ceremony
Rock drawings  see Petroglyphs
Romero (ruin)  67
Roosevelt Lake (sites)  84, 125
Ruins  see Sites or specific name of site or ruin

San Simon Branch (sites)  see Cave Creek (sites)
San Xavier del Bac (sites)  48, 213, 260
Shell  146, 181, 202, 231, 240
Sites (see also the specific name of sites or ruins)
	Cochise Basin (Santa Rosa Valley; Southeastern Arizona)  23, 41, 
85, 119, 160, 203, 204, 205, 217, 251
	General/Unspecified (Arizona)  8, 16, 35, 39, 60, 73, 83, 86, 89, 124, 
128, 131, 133, 136, 142, 155, 159, 163, 170, 171, 190, 192, 194, 196, 208, 214, 
225, 234, 240, 252
	Gila Basin (Gila Valley; Central Arizona)  5, 12, 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 
28, 33, 36, 53, 68, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96, 97, 106, 122, 123, 126, 
137, 140, 184, 187, 188, 200, 201, 206, 207, 209, 224, 235, 241, 253, 254, 256, 
259, 270, 273, 274, 276, 282
	Globe Area (Upper Gila and Salt Valleys; Eastern Arizona)  56, 
84, 101, 107, 125, 277
	Papaguería (Southwestern Arizona and Northern Sonora)  27, 40, 
46, 69, 70, 76, 87, 98, 99, 102, 103, 146, 174, 182, 183, 215, 216, 219, 278, 279, 
285
	Phoenix Basin (Salt Valley; Central Arizona)  1, 6, 9, 18, 20, 38, 44, 
50, 108, 111, 112, 113, 116, 118, 120, 132, 147, 149, 151, 153, 154, 156, 162, 
172, 175, 176, 180, 185, 186, 189, 193, 198, 210, 212, 221, 242, 247, 249, 250, 
257, 262, 263, 265, 266, 268, 271, 280
	Prescott Area (Verde, New, and Agua Fria Valleys; North-Central 
	Arizona)  61, 82, 152, 178, 218, 223, 237, 264, 269
	Tucson Basin (Santa Cruz Valley; Southern Arizona)  2, 11, 13, 47, 
48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 59, 66, 67, 75, 104, 105, 109, 110, 121, 144, 148, 150, 157, 
166, 167, 169, 173, 177, 211, 213, 244, 245, 255, 260, 261, 272, 286
Snaketown (ruin)  14, 15, 28, 91, 92, 93, 96, 126, 137, 140, 224, 276
Social Organization (see also Ceremony)  18, 60, 104, 149, 180, 181, 205, 
206
Subsistence  14, 16, 45, 83, 86, 87, 88, 147

Ta-E-Wun (site)  277
Tanque Verde Wash (site)  66, 121, 244, 286
Tempe (site)  153, 154
Tohono O'Odham Reservation (sites)  27, 46, 76, 102, 103, 183, 215, 216, 
278, 279, 285
Tortolita Mountains (sites)  261
Trade  see Cultural Exchange
Tres Alamos (site)  251
Tumamoc Hill (site)  173
Turquoise  see Jewelry

University Indian (ruin)  144, 167

Valencia (site)  47
Valshni Village (site)  278, 279

Weather  see Paleoenvironment
West Branch (site)  157
Westwing (site)  264