Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 555–567

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate / jas rep

Obsidian in the Casas Grandes world: Procurement, exchange, andinteraction in Chihuahua, Mexico, CE 1200–1450

Sean G. Dolan a,⁎, Michael E. Whalen b, Paul E. Minnis c, M. Steven Shackley d

a Environmental Stewardship Group, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USAb Department of Anthropology, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK 74104, USAc Department of Anthropology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019, USAd Geoarchaeological XRF Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM 87113, USA

⁎ Corresponding author.E-mail address: sgdolan@lanl.gov (S.G. Dolan).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.12.0402352-409X/Published by Elsevier Ltd.

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 10 August 2016Received in revised form 12 December 2016Available online 9 January 2017

The Casas Grandes area in Chihuahua, Mexico and the site of Paquimé was the center of one the largest regionalsystems in the U.S. Southwest andMexican Northwest (SW/NW) during theMedio period (CE 1200–1450). Peo-ple participated in local and distant exchange networks with groups in the SW/NW, Mesoamerica, and WestMexico. Our knowledge of which obsidian sources people used in Casas Grandes is limited, despite how obsidiancould have derived frommany different places. We examine how the use of specific obsidian sources may relateto broader political and economic relationshipswithin the CasasGrandes regional systemand its associationwiththe Mimbres and Animas regions of the SW/NW.We sourced 116 artifacts using EDXRF spectrometry from foursites that neighbor Paquimé. Results demonstrate people used obsidian from Chihuahua, Sonora, and NewMexico. There were varying levels of social interaction and regional integration because there is diversity insource use at the site level, and Casas Grandeswere more connected to the Animas region thanMimbres regard-ing obsidian resource procurement.

Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords:Casas GrandesU.S. Southwest/Mexican NorthwestRegional systemObsidianX-ray fluorescence analysis

1. Introduction

The UNESCO World Heritage Site of Paquimé in Casas Grandes,Chihuahua, Mexico was one of the largest and most socially complexpolities of the prehispanic U.S. Southwest and Mexican Northwest(SW/NW). Paquiméwas the center of a political, economic, and ceremo-nial regional system during the Medio period (CE 1200–1450), in partbecause there is evidence for the long-distance exchange and procure-ment of copper, marine shell, turquoise, scarlet macaws, cacao, iconog-raphy, and pottery from the SW/NW, Mesoamerica, and West Mexico(Bradley, 1999; Crown et al., 2015; Di Peso, 1974; Di Peso et al., 1974;Minnis et al., 1993; Vargas, 1995; Vokes and Gregory, 2007). CharlesDi Peso partially excavated the site between 1958 and 1961, and dueto the high amount of exotica, as well as Mesoamerican-style platformeffigy mounds and ball courts, he argued that elite Mesoamerican mer-chants (pochteca) who belonged to high-status families foundedPaquimé as the northern-most Mesoamerican outpost by controllingthe distribution of goods and services over a vast distance (Di Peso,1974; Di Peso et al., 1974). Early studies provided evidence for highlevels of social stratification and differential access to resources (e.g.,Ravesloot, 1988), but this was based on research exclusively at Paquimésince no other sites were thoroughly investigated until decades later.

Later research including a revised chronology and field work helped torefute the establishment of Paquimé through Mesoamerican actors,and refine the extent of the Casas Grandes regional system in the SW/NW (Dean and Ravesloot, 1993; Kelley et al., 2012; McGuire, 1980,1993; Minnis, 1984; Whalen and Minnis, 1999, 2001a, 2001b, 2003,2009a).

Casas Grandes archaeologists have primarily focused their researchon exotics, ceramics, ritual architecture, and religion and iconography(VanPool and VanPool, 2015; Whalen, 2013; Whalen and Minnis,1996; Woosley and Olinger, 1993). While these material studies arecritical for understanding Medio period life, archaeologists have yet toincorporate the geochemical source provenance of chipped stone rawmaterials to investigate the scope and scale of social and regional inter-action and integration in northwestern Chihuahua. The availability andcirculation of lithic raw materials are important for how groupsmanufactured and used stone tools on the landscape. Consequently,by studying which materials people used and where they acquiredthem from is central for gaining perspective into larger anthropologicalquestions concerning social interaction. Obsidian played a small role inlithic manufacture in most parts of the SW/NW, but this highlyknappable and extremely sharp volcanic glass can be accurately and re-liably sourced to its primary outcrop to connect people, places, andthings through time and across space. As a result, determining thesource of obsidian artifacts is a major component of contemporary ar-chaeological research around the world.

556 S.G. Dolan et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 555–567

Unlike the Ancestral Pueblo, Hohokam, and Mimbres Mogollon re-gions to the north of Casas Grandeswhere obsidian sourcing is common(Arakawa et al., 2011; Duff et al., 2012; Ferguson et al., 2016; Fertelmeset al., 2012; Graves, 2005; Mills et al., 2013; Putsavage, 2015:240–282;Taliaferro et al., 2010; VanPool et al., 2013), sourcing studies are limitedfor northwestern Chihuahua (Darling, 1998; Dolan, 2016; Vierra, 2005).This is despite how archaeologists have circulated in the literature thatobsidian at Medio period sites comes fromMesoamerica, West Mexico,and New Mexico without providing geochemical sourcing data or howmany artifacts were sampled (Di Peso, 1974:2:631; Fish and Fish,1999:39–40; VanPool et al., 2000:171). Because there are many obsidi-an sources in the SW/NW (Fig. 1), Mesoamerica, and West Mexico(Cobean, 2002; Glascock et al., 2010; Shackley, 2005), and there is doc-umented interaction between these three regions (Riley, 2005), peoplein Casas Grandes could have obtained obsidian from many differentsources and from diverse cultural groups. Therefore, the precise geo-chemical source identification of Medio period obsidian artifacts is in-valuable information for understanding social interaction and regionalintegration with groups near and far.

Our goal for this paper is twofold, but ourmain contribution is to putthe geographic extent of the Casas Grandes regional system into per-spective using obsidian sourcing data. First, we sourced 116 obsidian ar-tifacts from four Medio period sites that neighbor Paquimé usingenergy-dispersive X-ray fluorescence (EDXRF) spectrometry. Withthese data, we report on which sources people used to help answer ifelites controlled and circulated obsidian from a limited number ofsources to outlying communities, or if communities were autonomous

Fig. 1.Map of the North American Southwest and Mexican Northwest with known obsidian sdiscussed in text are labeled.

and acquired obsidian from a variety of sources. Since archaeologistsdo not understand the obsidian exchange and procurement networksconnecting Casas Grandes with the rest of the SW/NW, our secondgoal is to examine the geographic range of the Casas Grandes regionalsystem to the north by comparing obsidian sourcing data from sites dat-ing to CE 1200–1450 in the Mimbres and Animas regions of southwest-ern NewMexico. We examine how the use of specific obsidian sourcesmay relate to broader political and economic relationships within theCasas Grandes regional system and its association to Mimbres and An-imas. There are material and ideological connections between CasasGrandes, Mimbres, and Animas, but the magnitude to which groupsinteracted with one another during the thirteenth through mid-fif-teenth centuries is debated (Carpenter, 2002; DeAtley and Findlow,1982; Douglas, 1995, 2007; Fish and Fish, 1999; LeBlanc, 1980;Lekson, 2000;Minnis, 1984; Putsavage, 2015).We suggest that if peoplein all three regions used similar obsidian sources, then theywould be in-volved in possibly the same obsidian trade and procurement networks.Although if there is variation between the groups, thenwemight expectthe occurrence of different trading networks and partnerships, thusinfluencing the extent of the regional system.

2. Background

2.1. The Casas Grandes regional system

The dispersal and circulation of, for example, shared iconography,architecture, and the production and exchange of pottery over a large

ources in relation to the Ancestral Pueblo, Hohokam, and Mogollon regions. Only sources

557S.G. Dolan et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 555–567

geographic region can be considered a regional system. The materialand cultural practices within a regional systemwill not be homogenous,however, since people will participate differently as a result of theirunique histories (Pauketat, 2001). Chaco Canyon in northwestern NewMexico, Hohokam in southern Arizona, and Casas Grandes are thethree largest regional systems in the SW/NW (Crown and Judge, 1991;Neitzel, 2000; Whalen and Minnis, 2001a, 2001b), but Casas Grandesis the least studied. Archaeologists define the Casas Grandes regionalsystem by the distribution of Ramos Polychrome and other Chihuahuanceramics, ball courts, and earthen ovens, but other artifact types and fea-tures are also involved (Carpenter, 2002; Fish and Fish, 1999; Rakita andCruz, 2015;Whalen andMinnis, 1996, 1999, 2001a, 2009a;Whalen andPitezel, 2015).

One question surrounding the Casas Grandes regional system is, didelites control the production and circulation of craft goods throughoutthe SW/NW, or were the organization a result of localized individualfamily units who were economically autonomous and not influencedby elites (Rakita and Cruz, 2015)? Di Peso's work at Paquimé indicatedelites had a high degree of uniform control and regional integrationover a large portion of the SW/NW including all of northwesternMexico, and parts of Arizona and New Mexico, but archaeologists didnot understand regional models of social interaction outside the pri-mate center because other Medio period sites were not fully investigat-ed until the 1980s (Whalen and Minnis, 1999, 2001a). Whalen andMinnis established three zones of interaction within the Casas Grandesregional system by examining the frequencies of certain artifact types(e.g., pottery, macaw cage door stones), earthen ovens, and architectureacross the Chihuahuan landscape (Whalen and Minnis, 2001a, 2001b,2009a). The zones include the Core Zone, Middle Zone, and OuterZone (Fig. 2).Whalen andMinnis's survey and excavation data revealedelites had less control as the distance from the center at Paquimé in-creased, and there is little support for integration beyond a 30 km radi-us. The regional systemmaynot have extendedmuchbeyond 130 linearkm north of Paquimé, and this distance is much smaller than what DiPeso envisioned (Minnis, 1984; Whalen and Minnis, 2001a, 2001b,2009a; Whalen and Pitezel, 2015). Instead, this distance is more akinto the extent of the Chacoan and Hohokam regional systems (Crownand Judge, 1991). We briefly summarize the Core, Middle, and OuterZones starting in the next paragraph, but we refer readers to Whalenand Pitezel (2015) for an extended discussion.

Paquimé had the strongest influence over sites in the Core Zone, anarea within a 30 km radius of the primate center. More precisely, siteswithin 10–15 km of Paquimé are referred to as the Inner Core Zone(Whalen and Pitezel, 2015). The Inner Core Zone defines the limit fordaily contact between communities and is about the distance a personcan travel on foot and return home in one day (Drennan, 1984). Sitesin this zone have the closest link to Paquimé in the form of similar ma-terial culture and elaborate architecture (Rakita and Cruz, 2015;WhalenandMinnis, 2009a;Whalen and Pitezel, 2015). Beyond the limit of dailyinteraction is the Outer Core Zone at 15–30 km from Paquimé. Althoughelites monopolized the political, economic, and ceremonial functions atand near Paquimé, there are higher levels of autonomy beyond this dis-tance that suggests a lack of centralized control. Ball courts, bird cages,and large earthen ovens are found, but without the same pattern seencloser to Paquimé. The Middle Zone is within 60–80 km, and siteshere have similar architectural features and ceramics as the Core Zone,but other features are rare or absent (Whalen and Minnis, 2009a). Theintegrative features and agricultural facilities in the Inner Core Zoneare absent in the Middle Zone. Only one small ball court and nomacaw cage door stones were found in the Middle Zone, and this arealacks features associated with agricultural intensification, which wascommon in the Core Zone (Whalen and Pitezel, 2015).

Finally, the Outer Zone is near the U.S.-Mexico border. RamosPolychrome and other Chihuahuan ceramics, T-shaped doorways, col-lared hearths, and ball courts are present at some Black Mountain (CE1150/1200–1300), Cliff (CE 1300–1450), and Animas phase (CE 1200–

1450) sites in southwestern New Mexico (Carpenter, 2002; Fish andFish, 1999; LeBlanc, 1980; Lekson et al., 2004; Putsavage, 2015). Thepresence of these artifact types and architectural features, however,are variable and sparse. Ramos Polychrome are included in some BlackMountain and Cliff phase assemblages, but there is no evidence forball courts, and other Casas Grandes-like features are rare or absentnear the Mimbres region (Lekson et al., 2004; Putsavage, 2015; Rakitaet al., 2011).

The Animas region is in extreme southwestern New Mexico andsoutheastern Arizona. Material connections between Animas andCasas Grandes include ceramics, T-shaped doorways, platform hearths,and ball courts (Fish and Fish, 1999). However, archaeologists debatethe connections between Animas and Casas Grandes because somesites like Pendleton Ruin are not tightly bounded to Paquimé's influ-ence, but Joyce Well is (Carpenter, 2002; Douglas, 1995, 2007; Minnis,1984). According to Di Peso, Joyce Well was a satellite community toPaquimé (Di Peso, 1974:2:331–332, Di Peso, 1974:3:778), even thoughit is located approximately 130 km north. This distance may be too far,and subsequently, Animas groups were not economically and ceremo-nially dependent on Paquimé (DeAtley and Findlow, 1982; Douglas,1995; Douglas and MacWilliams, 2015; Minnis, 1984; Whalen andMinnis, 1996, 2003). The source provenance of obsidian artifacts hasnot been considered in this discussion, however.

2.2. Obsidian in the Casas Grandes world

Obsidian occurs in very low frequencies in Medio period lithic as-semblages (Di Peso et al., 1974:7:336–416; VanPool et al., 2000;Whalen andMinnis, 2009a:183–196). People seldom used this volcanicglass because nodules from most SW/NW primary sources and cobblesfrom secondary gravel deposits are usually smaller in diameter thanother locally available materials like chert, chalcedony, and basalt(Church, 2000; Shackley, 2005). Obsidian nodules in northwesternMexico range from small “Apache tears” of a few cm in diameter up topossibly 8 cm (Fralick et al., 1998; Kibler et al., 2014). Smaller nodulesize often hinder biface manufacture, and knappers used the bipolarpercussion technique to make stone tools when nodules were only afew cm in diameter, or when non-local or rare materials needed to beconserved (Andrefsky, 1994). When larger nodules were available,knappers used the direct hard hammer percussion method (Parry andKelley, 1987).

According to Di Peso et al. (1974:7:339), a high proportion of the ob-sidianflakes and cores at Paquiméwere utilized orworked, andmanyofthe artifacts had edge retouch or had the surface modified. More than aquarter of the projectile points were made of obsidian (Di Peso et al.,1974:7:389–397), but Di Peso's limited use of screening skewed theseresults, and more points were likely manufactured there. VanPool etal. (2000) compared the chipped stone assemblage at theMedio periodsite of Galeana with Paquimé, and their research indicated that peopleat Paquimé had greater access to obsidianwhich they obtained throughtrade. Of the 1121 cores and debitage recovered at Galeana, only 18 ob-sidian artifacts were present (VanPool et al., 2000:Table 2). VanPool etal. (2000:172) agreed with Whalen and Minnis's (1996) assessmentthat Paquimé's economic and political influence was limited, and elitesdid not redistribute lithic raw materials to sites that were beyond a30 km radius of Paquimé. No Galeana obsidian artifacts were sourcedas part of VanPool et al.'s (2000) study.

2.3. Previous sourcing studies

Less is known about the prehispanic use and geochemistry of obsid-ian in Chihuahua and Sonora compared to Arizona andNewMexico, butresearch is increasing (Darling, 1998; Dolan, 2016; Douglas andQuijada,2005; Fralick et al., 1998; Pailes, 2016; Vierra, 2005). Currently, there arefive known obsidian sources in Chihuahua: Sierra Fresnal, Lago Barreal,Los Jagüeyes, Sierra la Breña, and Ojo Fredrico, and four in Sonora: Los

558 S.G. Dolan et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 555–567

Vidrios, Los Sitios del Agua, Selene, and Agua Fria (Fig. 1) (Kibler et al.,2014; Martynec et al., 2011; Shackley, 2005). Although the primarysource outcrop of AntelopeWells obsidian is in NewMexico, this obsid-ian extends at least 15 to 20 km south into Chihuahua (Findlow andBolognese, 1980; Shackley, 2005:57). There are also unknown sourcesthat the primary source locations are geographically unknown, but thetrace elements are statistically different from known sources. The un-knowns are most likely near the U.S.-Mexico border (Shackley, 2005).

The identification of which obsidian sources people used, and howfar they may have traveled to procure this material directly, or fromwhom they may have traded with substantially contributes to the un-derstanding and maintenance of stone tool manufacture in CasasGrandes. Unfortunately, no geochemical sourcing analyses were

Fig. 2. The Core, Middle, and Outer Zones in the Casas Grandes regional

conducted on obsidian during Di Peso's work at Paquimé. Instead, Mi-chael Spence visually sourced some of the artifacts, and he concludedthat no pieces of green obsidian from central Mexico were present(Spence-Di Peso, correspondence, 1967–1968, photocopies on file,University of Michigan; Di Peso et al., 1974:8:189; Spence, 1978:186,269 fn. 25; see also Darling, 1998:266–267). Based on visual character-istics like color, transparency, and opaqueness, Di Peso believed the ob-sidian came from the Llano Grande obsidian mine in Durango (Di Peso,1974:2:630–631; Di Peso et al., 1974:7:337; Di Peso et al., 1974:8:189).Di Peso was correct in that some of the flakes from Paquimé exhibit aunique color and banding not seen north of the border (Fig. 3), butsince few archaeological obsidian studies have been conducted innorthwesternMexico, researchers have yet to compare themacroscopic

system in relation to sites and obsidian sources mentioned in text.

559S.G. Dolan et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 555–567

appearance of artifacts with the geochemical source, like it has beendone in other parts of the Americas (Braswell et al., 2000; Pierce,2015). It is ill-advised to determine the source based off of visual analy-sis alone because flakes from the same source can vary in appearance(Glascock et al., 1998). The only way to fully confirm which obsidiansources people used at Medio period sites is to use methods likeEDXRF spectrometry.

Before this present study, only Darling (1998) and Vierra (2005)used geochemical methods to source obsidian artifacts from the CasasGrandes area. Darling (1998:264–269, Appendix B.8, C.8) sourced 12 ar-tifacts from Paquimé using EDXRF and neutron activation analysis(NAA). Four artifacts sourced to one unknown group (1B/1G), sevensourced to another unknown group (1C/2G), and one artifact sourcedto Cow Canyon from eastern Arizona which is approximately 400 kmnorthwest of Paquimé. Darling's (1998:269) sample size is small, buthe suggested local systems of distribution and access to obsidian wereput in place at Paquimé, rather than the use of pochteca traders. Vierra(2005) sourced 80 artifacts from the Late Archaic/Early Agriculturalsite of Cerro Juanaqueña, located some 60 km north of Paquimé.EDXRF spectrometry identified 6 sources including Chihuahua Un-known A (n = 36), Lago (Ojo) Fredrico (n = 18), Antelope Wells(n=11), Sierra Fresnal (n=10), Los Jagüeyes (n=3), and ChihuahuaUnknown B (n = 2). The main occupation of Cerro Juanaqueña has amuch earlier date than the Medio period (ca. 1150 BCE), but the sourc-ing results indicate people consumed obsidian from many directionsover a large geographic region. From these two studies, only obsidianfound in the SW/NW were used, and no known sources from Meso-america orWest Mexicowere present like Di Peso suggested. This is as-suming that all unknowns are in the SW/NW and not elsewhere.

3. Materials and methods

3.1. Medio period outlier sites

For this study, obsidian artifacts from the Medio period sites of 204,242, 315, and 317 were sourced using EDXRF spectrometry (Fig. 2).Whalen and Minnis (2001a, 2009a, 2009b) excavated all four sites tounderstand how people lived outside the primate center of Paquimé.

Site 204 is one of the two largest sites near Paquimé. The site is locat-ed some 17 km west of the primate center which is just outside of theInner Core Zone. Other than an estimated 220 rooms at the site, thereis a large mound, an I-shaped ball court, multiple large earthen ovens,and multiple small room blocks (Whalen and Minnis, 2009a). Due tothe architectural elaboration and number of public and ceremonial

Fig. 3. An obsidian flake (CG/1871T) from Paquimé that shows the bluish-gray color andbanding.

features present, elites may have lived there. Thirty-seven obsidian arti-facts from site 204 were used in this analysis. Site 242 is a small Medioperiod community located 27 km southwest of Paquimé which is justinside the Core Zone (Whalen and Minnis, 2009a:33–40). This is thesouthern-most site used in this study, and it has about 20 rooms and ar-chitectural elaboration similar to Paquimé, but on a much smaller scale.A large I-shaped ball court and the only known platformmound outsideof Paquimé is present at site 204. Because of these architectural features,Whalen and Minnis (2009a) suggest this site is an administrative satel-lite to Paquimé. Despite this, obsidian is rare, and only eight artifactswere sourced.

Site 315 is a medium-sized residential site that is located only 2 kmwest of Paquimé.

Unfortunately, the site was looted in the past, and according to alocal report, many exotic artifacts were present, and Whalen andMinnis (2009b) also found exotics during their brief excavation. Sixty-five obsidian artifacts from the site 315 were used in this analysis. Site317 is located in themiddle of the broad piedmont slope above the con-fluence of the Piedras Verdes and Palanganas Rivers, approximately19 km west of Paquimé and is just outside of the Inner Core Zone(Whalen and Minnis, 2009a:25–32). This is the smallest of the foursites discussed here, and it consists of a cluster of three small roomblock mounds with two large earthen ovens. Site 317 dates to the latethirteenth century and has evidence for occupation continuing untilthe early sixteenth century. Six obsidian artifacts from the site wereused in this analysis.

3.2. EDXRF spectrometry

EDXRF spectrometry is an established technique to determine the el-emental composition of obsidian. It is one of the most popular methodsbecause it is non-destructive with little sample preparation, many re-search laboratories have EDXRF machines, and it is cost-efficient(Glascock, 2011:Table 8.1). Using this method, archaeologists can com-pare the elemental composition of obsidian artifacts to other obsidiansamples from known primary source locations to connect archaeologi-cal artifacts to sources with a high degree of confidence (Shackley,2011). At the Geoarchaeological XRF Laboratory in Albuquerque, NewMexico, Shackley (2014) analyzed all 116 artifacts using aThermoScientificQuant'XEDXRF spectrometer. For a detailed discussionof instrumentation, methods, and procedures used, see Shackley (2005,2011) and http://swxrflab.net/anlysis.htm. The results presented inAppendix A are quantitative in that they are derived from “filtered” in-tensity values ratioed to the appropriate X-ray continuum regionsthrough a least squares fitting formula rather than plotting the propor-tions of the net intensities in a ternary system (McCarthy and Schamber,1981; Schamber, 1977). In other terms, these data through the analysisof international rock standards, allow for instrument comparisonwith apredictable degree of certainty (Hampel, 1984; Shackley, 2011).

4. Results

Ten obsidian sources were identified from the 116 artifacts sampled(Table 1). Eighty-five artifacts (73.3%) from the assemblage character-ized to a known source either in Chihuahua, Sonora, or New Mexico,but 31 artifacts (26.7%) characterized to a geochemically known butgeographically unknown source. See Appendix A for trace elementalconcentrations for all artifacts analyzed, and Figs. 4 and 5 for plotscomparing Sr, Rb, and Zr of the known and unknown sources in theassemblage.

4.1. Identified obsidian sources

There aremany obsidian sources in the SW/NW, but we only discussthe sources peopled used at sites 204, 242, 315, and 317. All six geo-graphically known sources that were used are located near the Middle

Table. 1Obsidian EDXRF results.

Site Chihuahua Sonora New Mexico Unknown Total

Sierra Fresnal Los Jagüeyes Selene Agua Fria Antelope Wells Mule Creek (Antelope Creek) CH Unk A CH Unk B SN Unk A Unk

204 1 5 4 4 6 11 5 1 37242 1 6 1 8315 25 2 3 5 16 5 6 1 2 65317 1 4 1 6Total 27 7 7 14 28 1 17 11 1 3 116

560 S.G. Dolan et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 555–567

Zone (Sierra Fresnal), Outer Middle Zone (Agua Fria, Selene, and LosJagüeyes), or Outer Zone (Antelope Wells and Mule Creek) (Fig. 2.).Below we give brief source descriptions, but some contain more infor-mation than others because few thorough surveys have occurred innorthwestern Mexico to define and describe the extent of primary andsecondary sources, nodule size, and material quality. Readers shouldconsult Shackley (2005) for a fuller treatment of SW/NW obsidiansources.

4.1.1. Antelope WellsTwenty-eight artifacts from sites 204, 242, and 315 derive from the

Antelope Wells obsidian source. Of the artifacts, 25 are flakes with atotal weight of 16.30 g, one is a bipolar core that weighs 3.4 g, one isan exhausted core that weighs 3.9 g, and one is a triangular projectilepoint (Fig. 6). Antelope Wells is a mid-Tertiary period obsidian sourcelocated in southern Hidalgo County, New Mexico, but extends intoChihuahua (Shackley, 2005:57). According to Whalen and Minnis'smodel (Whalen and Minnis, 2001a, 2001b, 2009a; Whalen and Pitezel,2015), Antelope Wells is considered in the Outer Zone and is approxi-mately 130 km north of Paquimé. This source is an excellent mediumfor chipped stone reduction as it is characterized by a phenocryst-freematrix (Findlow and Bolognese, 1980). Nodules can be up to 10 cm indiameter, but most are half that size (Findlow and Bolognese, 1980;Shackley, 2005). Because AntelopeWells obsidian has a high Fe contentand is a peralkaline source, flakes are often opaque and can appeargreen in transmitted light. The green colormay have confused archaeol-ogists into thinking Paquimé obsidian came from Mesoamerica, sincethe Pachuca source (Sierra Las Navajas) in Hidalgo, Mexico is distinc-tively green (Ponomarenko, 2004). Los Jagüeyes and Chihuahua Un-known B are other peralkaline obsidians that can appear green at times.

Fig. 4. Three-dimensional plot comparing Sr, Rb, and Zr of the known obsidian sources.

4.1.2. Mule Creek (Antelope Creek)One flake weighing 2 g from site 242 characterized to the Antelope

Creek subsource of Mule Creek. Mule Creek is located in west-centralNew Mexico and is close to 400 km north of site 242. This distance farexceeds Whalen and Minnis's Outer Zone. Of the four geochemicallydistinct obsidian sources fromMule Creek (Shackley, 2005:53–55), An-telope Creek is the most used obsidian source in the Mimbres Valley(Dolan, 2016; Putsavage, 2015; Taliaferro, 2004, 2014; Taliaferro et al.,2010). This is the first reported Mule Creek artifact in Chihuahua, andthe presence of one flake from this source is intriguing. The source ofgreen and yellow banded Redrock ricolite (serpentine) is also locatedin west-central New Mexico, and over 100 kg of this material wasimported into Paquimé (Di Peso, 1974:2:630; Lekson, 2000:284,2015:97). Even though Mule Creek obsidian was popular with groupsin southwestern New Mexico, people at Casas Grandes were not inter-ested in using Mule Creek obsidian, even with the mass importation ofricolite.

4.1.3. Sierra FresnalTwenty-seven artifacts from sites 204, 315, and 317 derive from

Sierra Fresnal. Of the artifacts, 26 are flakes with a total weight of24.50 g and one bipolar core that weighs 3.7 g.

The Sierra Fresnal obsidian source is located in northern Chihuahua,and it is the only known primary source in the state (Shackley,2005:83). This source is on the fringes of theMiddle Zone and is approx-imately 60 km north of Paquimé. Nodules have been located from theArroyo Casas Grandes alluvium some 70 km north of Sierra Fresnal, aswell at Arroyo Seco south of Nuevo Casas Grandes and Lago Fredrico.Sierra Fresnal obsidian can be collected at the primary source or in sec-ondary deposits in the Rio CasasGrandes alluviumnear theNewMexico

Fig. 5. Three-dimensional plot comparing Sr, Rb, and Zr of the unknown obsidian sources.

Fig. 6. Projectile points from site 204.

561S.G. Dolan et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 555–567

border, so it is impossible to determine exactly where the rawmaterialwas procured.

4.1.4. Los JagüeyesSeven artifacts from sites 204 and 315 derive from the Los Jagüeyes

obsidian source in northern Chihuahua located near a tributary of theRío SantaMaría. This source is right on the OuterMiddle Zone and is ap-proximately 80 km east of Paquimé. Of the artifacts, two are flakes witha total weight of 3.0 g, one is an exhausted coreweighing 2.20 g, two aremanuports that are heavilywaterworn and tumbledwith a total weightof 4.1 g, and two are projectile points (Fig. 6).

4.1.5. SeleneSeven flakes from sites 204 and 315 with a total weight of 3.90 g de-

rive from the Selene obsidian source in northeastern Sonora. This sourcewas previously identified as Sonora Unknown B, but Kibler et al. (2014)recently published a description of it. They demonstrate the prehistoricuse of this obsidian is relatively uncommon in desert borderlands, eventhough Selene has relatively large marekanites ranging from three to8 cm in diameter, but most are 5 cm and consist of high quality knap-ping material (Kibler et al., 2014). According to Kibler et al.(2014:184), Selene is 120 km west of Paquimé, and this is consideredin-between the Outer Middle Zone and Outer Zone.

4.1.6. Agua FriaFourteen artifacts from sites 204, 242, 315, and 317 derive from the

Agua Fria obsidian source. All artifacts are flakes with a total weight of16.90 g. This Tertiary period source is located approximately 50 kmsouth of the Arizona border (Shackley, 2005:79–80), and is on theboundary of the Outer Middle Zone. Agua Fria nodules are up to 5 cmin diameter and are an excellent quality knapping material because itis aphyric. Flakes are mostly opaque but can be banded.

4.1.7. Chihuahua Unknown A and B, Sonora Unknown A, and UnknownDespite themanydecades of characterizing the trace elements of ob-

sidian to connect archaeological artifacts to sources, there are still recur-ring geographically unknown sources that appear in SW/NWarchaeological contexts (Shackley, 2005). All unknowns describedbelow exhibit elemental concentrations that are different from the

sources presented above, and they do not match the artifacts analyzedin Fralick et al.'s (1998) study that focused on obsidian further southof Casas Grandes in Chihuahua. Similarly, these unknowns do notmatch known or unknown sources fromMesoamerica or West Mexico.

Seventeen artifacts from sites 204, 315, and 317 derive from theChihuahua Unknown A obsidian source. All artifacts are flakes with atotal weight of 12.30 g. Site 204 has the most with 11 artifacts, and be-cause the location of Chihuahua Unknown A is most likely in northernChihuahua, it is difficult to expand this discussion on the connection be-tween this source and the Medio period sites.

Eleven artifacts from sites 204 and 315 derive from the ChihuahuaUnknown B obsidian source. All artifacts are flakes with a combinedweight of 9.70 g. Chihuahua Unknown B has an elemental composi-tion similar to Antelope Wells but with a much lower concentrationof Zr and slightly higher concentration of Nb. It is possible that thiscompositional group is the result of a co-genetic relationship withAntelope Wells, but it is not always found in association with Ante-lope Wells obsidian artifacts. Nevertheless, it is possible ChihuahuaUnknown B is related to Antelope Wells and may be from a smalldome complex nearby that remains undetected.

One flake weighing 0.10 g from site 315 sources to what Shackleyidentifies as Sonora Unknown A (Shackley, 2005:85). This source has arelatively high concentration of Rb and very low Sr. Prehispanic groupsdid not use this source as much as others from southern NewMexico orthe International Four Corners (Shackley, 2005:85). As a result ofDolan's (2016) dissertation research, Shackley reexamined obsidiansamples he collected in the 1980s to see if the Chihuahuan UnknownB source might be located near Antelope Wells in Hidalgo County,New Mexico. While Chihuahuan Unknown B was not present, onemarekanites had the SonoraUnknownA composition. It is certainly pos-sible that the Sonora Unknown A source is located near the AnimasMountains. Future work is planned to expand sampling in the Animasand Peloncillo Mountains area.

Three artifacts are labeled only as unknown. They derive fromsources as yet unlocated, and they have not been seen before in archae-ological or geological samples. These exhibit elemental concentrationsthat are different from the other unknowns above. One of these artifactsis an exhausted core from site 204 thatweighs 2.60 g, and the other twoare flakes from site 315 with a combined weight of 0.40 g.

562 S.G. Dolan et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 555–567

4.2. Results by site

4.2.1. Site 204Thirty-seven obsidian artifacts from site 204were sourced. Of the ar-

tifacts, three are projectile points (Fig. 6;Whalen andMinnis, 2009a:Fig.6.3 a, b), two are exhausted cores, and the remaining artifacts are piecesof chipped stone debitage. The sourcing results indicate eight geochem-ically distinct sources are present. People at the site used ChihuahuaUn-known A the most (n = 11, 30%), but artifacts made from AntelopeWells (n = 6, 16%), Chihuahua Unknown B (n = 5, 14%), Los Jagüeyes(n=5, 14%), Agua Fria (n=4, 11%), Selene (n=4, 11%), Sierra Fresnal(n = 1, 3%), and an unknown source (n = 1, 3%) exist. One of the pro-jectile points is from Antelope Wells, but the other two are from LosJagüeyes. The two exhausted cores are from AntelopeWells and an un-known source.

4.2.2. Site 242Eight obsidian flakes from site 242 were sourced. The sourcing re-

sults indicate three geochemically distinct sources are present. Peoplefrom the site used Antelope Wells obsidian the most (n = 6, 75%), butartifacts made of Agua Fria (n = 1, 13%), and Antelope Creek (MuleCreek) (n = 1, 13%) exist. Site 242 is the southern-most Medio periodsite in this study, and it has the most “exotic” obsidian which is a flakefrom Antelope Creek. Mule Creek is located approximately 400 kmnorth of site 242.

4.2.3. Site 315Sixty-five obsidian artifacts from site 315 were sourced. Of the arti-

facts, two are bipolar cores, one is an exhausted core, and the rest arechipped stone debitage. The sourcing results indicate nine geochemical-ly distinct sources are present. People at the site used Sierra Fresnal ob-sidian the most (n = 25, 38%), but artifacts made from Antelope Wells(n = 16, 25%), Chihuahua Unknown B (n = 6, 9%), Agua Fria (n = 5,8%), Chihuahua Unknown A (n = 5, 8%), Selene (n = 3, 5%), LosJagüeyes (n = 2, 3%), unknown (n = 2, 3%), and Sonora Unknown A(n=1, 2%) exist. The bipolar cores are from Sierra Fresnal and AntelopeWells, and the exhausted core is from Los Jagüeyes.

4.2.4. Site 317Six obsidian flakes from site 317 were sourced. The sourcing results

indicate three geochemically distinct sources are present. People at thesite used Agua Fria themost (n=4, 67%), but artifactsmade from SierraFresnal (n= 1, 17%) and Chihuahua Unknown A (n= 1, 17%) obsidianexist.

5. Discussion

Because few Medio period obsidian artifacts were geochemicallysourced before this study, new insights can be given into obsidian pro-curement, and how these sourcing results impact our understandingof the Casas Grandes regional system locally in Chihuahua and abroadin the Mimbres and Animas regions. Earlier sourcing studies byDarling (1998) and Vierra (2005) yielded similar results reportedhere, but artifacts from sites 204, 242, 315, and 317 exhibit sources pre-viously not identified like Agua Fria, Selene, Mule Creek (AntelopeCreek), and Sonora Unknown A. There was no evidence of Cow Canyonor Ojo Fredrico obsidian which was found at Paquimé and CerroJuanaqueña, respectively. Similarly, the results we present reveal thatnone of the samples derive fromMesoamerica or West Mexico, assum-ing that the unknowns are located in the SW/NW.

5.1. Medio period obsidian

Based on the obsidian sourcing results from the four Medio periodsites given above, people used six known sources located in Chihuahua,Sonora, and New Mexico including Antelope Wells, Mule Creek

(Antelope Creek), Sierra Fresnal, Los Jagüeyes, Selene, Agua Fria, andfour unknown sources including Chihuahua Unknowns A and B, SonoraUnknown A, and an unknown source that are likely near the U.S.-Mex-ico border. There is variation in source use at the site level as people pre-ferred Chihuahua Unknown A at site 204, Antelope Wells at site 242,Sierra Fresnal at site 315, and Agua Fria at site 317, but close to half(47.4%) of the total assemblage characterized to AntelopeWells and Si-erra Fresnal. While there is some evidence for elites distributing somegoods and rawmaterials to outlying Medio period communities, obsid-ian was not part of this system. Rather, outlying groups acted autono-mously regarding the social and economic relationships aboutobsidian consumption, and obsidian sources do not seem to be con-trolled. This is based on the fact that multiple sources were used andconsumed, and source use was not homogenous. Instead, people decid-edwhich sources and trading networks to use independently from eachother, and this is similar to other parts of the SW/NW (Duff et al., 2012;Graves, 2005). Obsidian was not used as much as other lithic materialsat these sites (Whalen andMinnis, 2009a:183–216), but the informalityof the obsidian assemblage and expedient technology could imply thatobsidian was not seen as a rare resource because of access through re-current social relationships and exchanges with people in the SW/NW.Moreover, many of the artifacts exhibit bipolar flaking because the ob-sidian nodules or cobbles were small in size, but there is also some evi-dence for hard-hammer percussion.

People acquired obsidian from both local and non-local sources, butit is unclear how they obtained it. EDXRF spectrometry tells which pri-mary source the artifact wasmade from; it does not tell whether some-one acquired it directly from the primary source, or along alluvialgravels at a secondary location, or through down-the-line exchangenetworks (Hughes, 2011). Similarly, because the location and geograph-ic extent of some sources in Chihuahua and Sonora are still unknown,we acknowledge it is difficult to distinguish between direct/embeddedprocurement and exchange. Lithic materials erode into river systemsand can be carried tens to hundreds of km closer to habitation sites,and obsidian from someof the sources could have been collectednearby(Church, 2000). We caution the use of distance from site to source innorthwesternMexico, because distance-decaymodelsmaynot be as ac-curate in this region compared to other parts of the SW/NW since ar-chaeologists do not fully know where some sources are, but modelscan be used heuristically. Based on the approximate location of theknown obsidian sources, Agua Fria seems to be the closest source tomany of the sites (Table 2), but Sierra Fresnal was the closest usedsource for site 315. Agua Fria is the only source used at all four sites,but this source consists of 12% of the total assemblage. Whether peopleprocured obsidian themselves or acquired it through exchange net-works, Antelope Wells and Mule Creek are the furthest sources used.It seems that people did not always consume the closest availablesource, because the twomost used sources are AntelopeWells and Sier-ra Fresnal, and on average, Antelope Wells is approximately 150 kmnorth of the sites, while Sierra Fresnal is about 80 km west.

5.2. Mimbres and Animas obsidian, CE 1200–1450

We briefly describe which obsidian sources people in the Mimbresand Animas regions used during the thirteenth through mid-fifteenthcenturies to discuss connections with Casas Grandes. Source data werecompiled from four Black Mountain phase sites (Montoya, Walsh, OldTown, Black Mountain) and six Cliff phase sites (Janss, Stailey, Disert,Kipp Ruin, Black Mountain, 76 Draw) in the Mimbres region, andthree Animas phase sites (Joyce Well, Clanton Draw, Box Canyon) inthe Animas region (Dolan, 2016; Putsavage, 2015:240–282; Taliaferro,2014:296–302; VanPool et al., 2013) (Fig. 2). Although source procure-ment varied among all BlackMountain, Cliff, and Animas phase sites, allsourcing data from sites dating to the time period were combined toallow for a more nuanced discussion (Table 3).

Table 2Approximate distance in km from known obsidian source to site.

Source 204 242 315 317Antelope Wells 140 166 150Mule Creek 400Sierra Fresnal 80 72 93Los Jagüeyes 113 90Selene 100 120Agua Fria 72 87 94 80

563S.G. Dolan et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 555–567

Using a large sample size of sourced obsidian artifacts from theMimbres region, archaeologists have shown that Black Mountain andCliff phase groups used 14 sources, but here we focus our discussionon the three most used. The Antelope Creek subsource of Mule Creekis the dominant source during the Black Mountain and Cliff phases,but it is intriguing that the frequency of Antelope Wells decreasesthrough time and Sierra Fresnal increases through time. There wasmovement throughout theMimbres region as a result of social transfor-mations starting in the mid to late twelfth century (Hegmon et al.,1999), and the difference in source use may be a result of changing so-cial networks thatwerefirst focused on theAnimas region, but switchedto northern Chihuahua during the fluorescence of Paquimé (Dolan,2016; Putsavage, 2015). For the Animas region, the sample size issmall (n=36), but 35 artifacts including debitage and projectile pointssourced to AntelopeWells. One projectile point from the Animas phasesite of Clanton Draw, however, sourced to the North Sawmill Creeksubsource of Mule Creek (Dolan, 2016:175). The high frequency of An-telope Wells obsidian at Animas phase sites is not surprising because itis the closest source, but the presence of Mule Creek obsidian in the An-imas region suggests that people had trade relations with groups in theMule Creek area.

5.3. Obsidian in the Casas Grandes regional system

We suggest that if people in the Casas Grandes, Mimbres, and An-imas regions used similar obsidian sources, then they would be part ofobsidian social networks. Although, if they used different sources alto-gether, there would be unique trade relationships which would influ-ence the regional system. There are both similarities and differences insource use from CE 1200 to 1450. Agua Fria, Chihuahua Unknown Aand B, Selene, and Sonora Unknown A are sources present only atCasas Grandes sites. The use of Antelope Wells, Mule Creek, SierraFresnal, and Los Jagüeyes is common to Casas Grandes, Mimbres, andAnimas, although the utilization of these sources is variable.

We argue that the Mimbres and Animas obsidian sourcing resultpartly support both extensive and limited expansion of the CasasGrandes regional system to the north. Most of the obsidian sourcesused byMedio period occupants are not present in theMimbres andAn-imas regions. While Mule Creek obsidian is overwhelmingly used in theMimbres region, it is not essential to the obsidian economy of CasasGrandes and Animas. A connection does exist between Casas Grandesand Mimbres in the use of Antelope Wells and Sierra Fresnal, but wesuggest there is a stronger connection between Casas Grandes and An-imas with the high frequency of Antelope Wells obsidian. The Animasregionwas perhaps themajor obsidian economic node to CasasGrandescommunities because of the high proportion of AntelopeWells obsidianat Medio period outlier sites. This is corroborated by similar ceramic as-semblages, ceremonial architecture, and other features (Fish and Fish,1999). Groups in Casas Grandes likely obtained AntelopeWells throughtrading networks with Joyce Well, and they probably obtained SierraFresnal obsidian throughmore local Casas Grandes networks. The Ante-lope Wells source is 4 km from Joyce Well. Animas groups likely trav-eled south to Casas Grandes to exchange Antelope Wells obsidian tobe part of the Casas Grandes regional system and to learn ceremonies(Walker and Skibo, 2002). Similarly, groups from Casas Grandes

possibly trekked north to acquire obsidian from Joyce Well during em-bedded procurement trips to circulate their ritual knowledge.

5.4. Obsidian connections with Mesoamerica and West Mexico

For decades, archaeologists have discussed thematerial and ideolog-ical connections, or lack thereof, between Casas Grandes, Mesoamerica,andWest Mexico. The obsidian sources people used at Paquimé are stillunknown because wewere unfortunately not able to secure permissionto export the Paquimé obsidian and more artifacts from site 315 out ofMexico for sourcing. Although only SW/NW obsidian is present at thefour sites we examined here, the sites are not as complex or have asmany exotics as Paquimé. We take the conservative stance that it isstill possible that non-SW/NW obsidian is present at Paquimé andotherMedio period sites, butmore sourcing is necessary, and this leavesroom for future work. Given there are scarlet macaws fromMesoamer-ica, and marine shell and copper from West Mexico and archaeologistshave found a few pieces of Pachuca obsidian at Spanish-era sites innorthern New Mexico (Ferguson and Skinner, 2006; Vierra, 1989),what is the significance of no Mesoamerican or West Mexican obsidianto date at prehispanic sites? This question is beyond the full scope of thispaper and warrants additional exploration. However, based on thisstudy, obsidian was not part of the suite of objects and raw materialsthat came from Mesoamerica or West Mexico.

6. Conclusion

To provide new insights into the Casas Grandes regional system lo-cally in Chihuahua, and its connection to the Mimbres and Animas re-gions of southwestern New Mexico from CE 1200–1450, we presentedthe first well-grounded context study for Medio period obsidian pro-curement. This was accomplished by sourcing 116 obsidian artifactsusing EDXRF spectrometry from four sites that neighbor Paquimé. Thesourcing results from sites 204, 242, 315, and 317 indicate people con-sumed Antelope Wells and Sierra Fresnal obsidian the most, but arti-facts made from Mule Creek (Antelope Creek), Los Jagüeyes, Selene,Agua Fria, Chihuahua Unknowns A and B, Sonora Unknown A, and anunknown source were also present. The six geographically knownsources are scattered throughout northern Chihuahua, northeastern So-nora, and southwestern New Mexico.

The results highlight that some of the sources were not locally avail-able and knappers used multiple forms of conveyance to acquire obsid-ian. Similar to other lines of archaeological evidence, there are varyinglevels of social interaction during the Medio period as people at thefour sites used different sources, and obsidian was not a raw materialthat was specialized or controlled. Instead, communities appear tohave acted independently from one another, and source use was notall homogenous. These data provide a window into lithic source pro-curement in anunderstudied region for obsidian studies, and this allowsfor further discussion on political and economic relations with otherparts of the SW/NW. People in the Mimbres region from CE 1200–1450 primarily used obsidian fromMule Creek, but they also consumedAntelopeWells and Sierra Fresnal obsidian. At the same time, groups inthe Animas region overwhelmingly used Antelope Wells obsidian.There seem to be similar obsidian social networks occurring becausegroups in Casas Grandes mostly used AntelopeWells and Sierra Fresnalobsidian, but not Mule Creek, although one piece was found in thisstudy. However, there are differences because many sources that areused in smaller proportions in the Mimbres region do not occur inCasas Grandes, and vice-versa. This comparison has led us to suggestthat Casas Grandes,Mimbres, and Animas groups organized their obsid-ian procurement strategies differently. Antelope Wells and SierraFresnal had an impact on obsidian lithic manufacture in Casas Grandes,Animas, and parts of the Mimbres region and these sources are impor-tant for understanding social and economic exchange and procurementnetworks in the southern SW/NW. When it comes to obsidian in the

Table 3Temporal mesoscale obsidian procurement patterns in Casas Grandes, Mimbres, and Animas regions.

Obsidian source Region

Casas Grandes Mimbres Animas

Medio%

1Black Mountain%

2Cliff%

3Animas%

Cerro Toledo (Jemez) – – 2 –Cerro del Medio (Jemez) – 1 1 –El Rechuelos (Jemez) – 1 2 –Antelope Creek (Mule Creek) 1 49 53 –Mule Mountains (Mule Creek) – – 2 –North Sawmill Creek (Mule Creek) – 1 2 3Gwynn/Ewe – 1 – –Antelope Wells 24 24 10 97Mount Taylor – 1 b1 –Nutt Mountain – 8 1 –Cow Canyon – 1 1 –Sierra Fresnal 23 6 22 –Los Jagüeyes 6 – 2 –Agua Fria 12 – – –Selene 6 – – –Sonora Unknown A 1 – – –Chihuahua Unknown A 15 – – –Chihuahua Unknown B 9 – – –Unknown 3 5 3 –

Note: Souring data is published in 2,3Dolan, 2016; 1,2Putsavage, 2015; 1Taliaferro, 2014; 2VanPool et al., 2013.

564 S.G. Dolan et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 555–567

CasasGrandes regional system, it appears that itwas both extensive andlimited.

Finally, extant artifact collections from Paquimé and other sites inChihuahua are massive. Unfortunately, the technical analyses of theseartifacts have not reached their full potential. EDXRF spectrometry andother methods were not as readily available, reliable, accurate, or cost-effective when Di Peso excavated Paquimé. More samples need to beanalyzed given the close genetic relationship of some obsidians in theInternational Four Corners, and for that reason, conducting special anal-yses on artifacts from sites in Chihuahua is a research priority going for-ward to illuminate future research objectives (Minnis and Whalen,2015:14–15).

Sample Site Ti Mn Fe Rb Sr Y

1 315 751 243 12,804 292 37 612 315 1205 807 21,699 312 13 1623 315 1267 400 11,962 250 79 234 315 901 269 13,409 308 39 675 315 1089 284 13,883 312 41 646 315 744 260 12,864 299 39 657 315 1336 790 21,490 306 12 1628 315 1171 740 20,747 294 13 1579 315 1083 269 13,627 298 39 6710 315 708 256 12,889 290 38 6711 315 1242 403 11,608 173 153 2012-1 315 921 262 13,300 297 40 6412-2 315 1210 796 21,508 302 10 16613 315 1003 681 18,632 299 10 15114-1 315 813 250 13,184 301 36 6214-2 315 820 268 13,165 306 42 6915 315 1236 363 11,621 220 74 2316 315 1081 732 20,628 302 10 15517 315 765 279 13,078 295 36 6118 315 1127 403 11,438 180 158 2219 315 1083 366 11,329 216 62 2620 315 757 268 12,951 301 38 6521 315 984 318 14,229 343 36 7122 315 1203 424 11,750 240 81 24

Appendix A. Elemental concentrations and source assignments for the adard. All measurements in parts per million (ppm).

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Pat Gilman and Katy Putsavagefor their insightful comments and conversations over the yearswhich have greatly improved this paper. The data used here werecollected from a series of excavations led by Whalen at theUniversity of Tulsa and Minnis at the University of Oklahoma.Work in Mexico was authorized by the National Institute ofAnthropology and History (I.N.A.H.) facilitated by the ChihuahuaI.N.A.H. Center. Luis Tena deserves special recognition. Finally, ourthanks to JASR editor Craig Hunt, and anonymous reviewers fortheir time and helpful suggestions.

Zr Nb Ba Pb Th Source

152 18 29 40 Sierra Fresnal, CHIH1242 130 73 29 Antelope Wells/El Berrendo, CHIH139 23 33 33 Chihuahua Unknown A153 20 34 53 Sierra Fresnal, CHIH157 21 37 41 Sierra Fresnal, CHIH157 22 36 47 Sierra Fresnal, CHIH1236 125 72 38 Antelope Wells/El Berrendo, CHIH1174 110 61 25 Antelope Wells/El Berrendo, CHIH150 22 32 43 Sierra Fresnal, CHIH150 17 132 32 40 Sierra Fresnal, CHIH123 10 28 14 Selene, SON155 21 37 50 Sierra Fresnal, CHIH1237 116 65 32 Antelope Wells/El Berrendo, CHIH933 122 66 40 Chihuahua Unknown B151 17 30 37 Sierra Fresnal, CHIH150 24 34 46 Sierra Fresnal, CHIH128 19 377 28 24 Chihuahua Unknown A1217 120 67 25 Antelope Wells/El Berrendo, CHIH150 23 30 44 Sierra Fresnal, CHIH129 12 26 20 Selene, SON168 21 24 17 Agua Fria, SON151 22 30 38 Sierra Fresnal, CHIH161 25 37 50 Sierra Fresnal, CHIH136 23 344 27 36 Chihuahua Unknown A

rchaeological specimens and analysis of USGS RGM-1 obsidian stan-

(continued)

Sample Site Ti Mn Fe Rb Sr Y Zr Nb Ba Pb Th Source

24-1 315 1320 439 11,957 230 63 29 173 23 29 26 Agua Fria, SON24-2 315 820 261 12,763 280 35 61 147 23 29 43 Sierra Fresnal, CHIH25 315 895 747 12,291 363 12 67 199 48 27 22 Sonora Unknown A26 315 933 331 11,019 212 70 26 133 21 388 24 28 Chihuahua Unknown A27 315 1272 802 21,850 315 14 166 1275 130 69 30 Antelope Wells/El Berrendo, CHIH28 315 752 258 12,856 286 37 57 148 22 33 46 Sierra Fresnal, CHIH29 315 1063 682 19,579 294 10 159 1215 120 59 25 Antelope Wells/El Berrendo, CHIH30 315 810 270 13,306 302 39 66 151 23 37 50 Sierra Fresnal, CHIH31 315 1330 718 18,789 311 13 147 768 112 70 33 unknown32 315 1319 366 11,654 209 59 24 168 17 18 14 Agua Fria, SON33 315 1092 776 20,611 305 12 162 1249 125 63 36 Antelope Wells/El Berrendo, CHIH34 315 1326 866 21,457 320 11 160 975 121 75 40 Chihuahua Unknown B35 315 1155 794 21,006 306 13 161 1239 126 67 27 Antelope Wells/El Berrendo, CHIH36 315 1283 373 11,411 209 60 30 162 21 24 29 Agua Fria, SON37 315 662 247 12,528 281 34 61 145 23 27 43 Sierra Fresnal, CHIH38 315 1772 372 11,495 199 64 21 113 15 22 23 Chihuahua Unknown A39 315 998 684 18,206 282 13 147 916 116 62 26 Chihuahua Unknown B40 315 902 266 12,672 273 37 61 143 25 29 48 Sierra Fresnal, CHIH41 315 1322 783 20,284 314 14 149 946 118 76 35 Chihuahua Unknown B42 315 1190 335 13,836 304 43 66 161 22 37 47 Sierra Fresnal, CHIH43 315 1354 735 20,660 293 11 164 1232 126 60 29 Antelope Wells/El Berrendo, CHIH44 315 1516 943 22,760 289 10 164 1492 127 63 28 Antelope Wells/El Berrendo, CHIH45 315 1116 724 19,392 314 15 155 934 125 70 30 Chihuahua Unknown B46 315 1164 271 13,865 319 38 64 149 23 39 46 Sierra Fresnal, CHIH47 315 1542 703 19,402 266 12 144 1077 110 55 18 Antelope Wells/El Berrendo, CHIH48-1 315 1397 447 12,021 193 160 21 130 13 28 15 Selene, SON48-2 315 1029 623 17,878 290 13 148 795 109 68 33 unknown49 315 1546 808 22,011 311 11 163 1220 117 68 33 Antelope Wells/El Berrendo, CHIH50 315 785 257 13,130 292 36 65 153 19 31 41 Sierra Fresnal, CHIH51 315 816 233 12,871 282 35 66 151 22 30 42 Sierra Fresnal, CHIH52 315 1185 386 11,585 215 61 25 163 24 25 25 Agua Fria, SON53 315 1389 795 21,233 306 11 164 1237 119 64 30 Antelope Wells/El Berrendo, CHIH54 315 742 256 12,558 286 35 64 149 20 37 46 Sierra Fresnal, CHIH55-1 315 1067 705 19,081 303 8 150 977 120 69 32 Chihuahua Unknown B55-2 315 1843 1211 27,599 370 11 228 2146 164 64 48 Los Jagüeyes B56 315 985 263 13,332 294 38 65 148 23 31 45 Sierra Fresnal, CHIH57 315 1300 780 20,955 298 12 157 1257 118 68 30 Antelope Wells/El Berrendo, CHIH58 315 1257 751 20,554 290 14 145 1172 116 64 32 Antelope Wells/El Berrendo, CHIH59 315 1296 868 21,389 265 10 156 1460 123 51 27 Los Jagüeyes B60-1 315 761 257 12,594 275 36 62 146 22 33 40 Sierra Fresnal, CHIH60-2 315 885 260 13,320 306 40 67 150 24 35 52 Sierra Fresnal, CHIH1 242 979 340 11,119 212 74 21 127 19 440 26 34 Agua Fria, SON2-1 242 1378 836 19,061 357 9 133 1221 99 47 33 Antelope Wells/El Berrendo, CHIH2-2 242 1384 869 19,497 363 13 136 1195 99 45 39 Antelope Wells/El Berrendo, CHIH3 242 1677 930 20,336 380 13 138 1264 100 45 30 Antelope Wells/El Berrendo, CHIH4 242 1412 857 19,148 354 12 132 1195 96 42 35 Antelope Wells/El Berrendo, CHIH5-1 242 1419 850 18,989 355 15 131 1234 97 42 34 Antelope Wells/El Berrendo, CHIH5-2 242 553 383 11,543 242 21 36 113 25 30 35 Antelope Creek/Mule Creek6 242 1377 790 18,127 334 11 121 1174 92 39 32 Antelope Wells/El Berrendo, CHIH1 204 1876 391 11,477 207 63 19 110 14 290 24 22 Chihuahua Unknown A2 204 1014 655 17,895 280 9 141 904 111 59 23 Chihuahua Unknown B3 204 1065 345 11,251 213 73 23 130 14 28 32 Chihuahua Unknown A4 204 1251 374 11,093 162 140 15 116 15 24 14 Selene, SON5 204 1152 359 11,443 217 68 24 130 19 375 23 23 Chihuahua Unknown A6 204 1121 387 11,528 226 75 25 128 15 342 27 28 Chihuahua Unknown A7-1 204 1182 372 11,393 212 70 27 133 17 394 24 28 Chihuahua Unknown A7-2 204 1230 406 11,387 168 146 16 120 12 25 23 Selene, SON8 204 1409 919 22,126 272 10 158 1510 127 60 26 Los Jagüeyes B9 204 1707 1060 24,175 266 12 158 1625 125 60 25 Los Jagüeyes B10 204 1481 783 18,461 341 13 130 1152 93 43 39 Antelope Wells/El Berrendo, CHIH11 204 1072 695 19,128 299 10 151 957 121 65 31 Chihuahua Unknown B12 204 1248 357 11,445 219 72 26 132 15 408 25 23 Chihuahua Unknown A13 204 1188 374 11,152 166 144 19 124 12 27 19 Selene, SON14 204 1367 427 12,111 234 76 25 130 19 418 30 33 Agua Fria, SON15 204 957 356 10,880 159 143 19 122 11 20 16 Selene, SON16 204 1262 821 20,980 296 15 161 1242 121 70 28 Antelope Wells/El Berrendo, CHIH17 204 1013 312 11,068 249 67 27 119 23 457 21 31 Agua Fria, SON18-1 204 1160 640 17,318 299 39 144 753 120 64 29 unknown18-2 204 1335 757 20,523 295 15 161 1236 121 59 25 Antelope Wells/El Berrendo, CHIH19 204 1105 369 11,255 208 68 22 122 19 411 23 22 Chihuahua Unknown A20 204 1474 905 23,386 320 10 163 1257 122 77 33 Antelope Wells/El Berrendo, CHIH21 204 1088 346 11,356 223 71 23 139 24 434 26 30 Chihuahua Unknown A22 204 1001 326 11,147 214 68 25 134 18 453 27 31 Agua Fria, SON23 204 1178 817 20,485 266 12 151 1446 123 59 25 Los Jagüeyes B24 204 1075 653 18,428 292 9 143 903 115 66 34 Chihuahua Unknown B

(continued on next page)

565S.G. Dolan et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 555–567

(continued)

Sample Site Ti Mn Fe Rb Sr Y Zr Nb Ba Pb Th Source

25 204 1732 1073 26,148 354 15 230 2179 169 59 39 Los Jagüeyes B26 204 821 652 17,837 288 12 148 933 117 65 35 Chihuahua Unknown B27 204 1823 1222 28,153 365 9 231 2226 173 65 43 Los Jagüeyes B28 204 1239 745 20,400 300 9 153 1223 124 65 27 Antelope Wells/El Berrendo, CHIH29 204 1018 332 11,127 216 71 28 135 18 369 24 23 Chihuahua Unknown A30 204 1209 716 19,908 315 12 153 957 115 68 29 Chihuahua Unknown B31 204 1290 819 22,103 309 11 164 1262 122 70 29 Antelope Wells/El Berrendo, CHIH32 204 1058 340 11,175 220 71 27 128 19 436 24 25 Chihuahua Unknown A33-1 204 833 453 11,207 317 8 35 167 39 30 35 Sierra Fresnal, CHIH33-2 204 1119 368 11,404 219 73 22 136 19 409 23 26 Chihuahua Unknown A34 204 1125 351 11,297 222 75 20 132 22 436 27 31 Agua Fria, SON1 317 1320 376 9654 216 60 28 165 22 515 25 18 Agua Fria, SON2 317 1289 348 9566 214 68 23 128 20 410 22 27 Chihuahua Unknown A3 317 1021 252 11,970 287 38 60 145 19 91 31 48 Sierra Fresnal, CHIH4 317 1408 289 9770 210 95 26 162 20 772 25 27 Agua Fria, SON5 317 1416 409 10,333 237 79 27 149 21 537 27 26 Agua Fria, SON6 317 1399 356 9639 207 59 25 163 22 490 22 22 Agua Fria, SONRGM1-S4 1617 283 13,284 151 107 25 214 8 801 19 15 StandardRGM1-S4 1547 289 13,662 144 108 23 212 10 842 22 20 StandardRGM1-S4 1546 278 13,731 149 109 26 218 6 22 23 StandardRGM1-S4 1570 284 13,706 147 107 23 210 14 19 13 StandardRGM1-S4 1636 287 13,646 149 109 23 213 6 18 19 StandardRGM1-S4 1535 275 13,694 148 109 25 214 6 20 22 StandardRGM1-S4 1621 300 13,726 149 107 24 219 5 19 15 Standard

566 S.G. Dolan et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 555–567

References

Andrefsky, W., 1994. The geological occurrence of lithic material and stone tool produc-tion strategies. Geoarchaeology 9, 345–362.

Arakawa, F., Ortman, S.G., Shackley, M.S., Duff, A.I., 2011. Obsidian evidence of interactionand migration from the Mesa Verde region, southwest Colorado. Am. Antiq. 76,773–795.

Bradley, R.J., 1999. Shell exchange within the southwest: the Casas Grandes interactionsphere. In: Schaafsma, C.F., Riley, C.L. (Eds.), The Casas Grandes World. University ofUtah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 213–228.

Braswell, G.E., Clark, J.E., Aoyama, K., McKillop, H.I., Glascock, M.D., 2000. Determining thegeological provenance of obsidian artifacts from the Maya region: a test of the effica-cy of visual sourcing. Lat. Am. Antiq. 11, 269–282.

Carpenter, J.P., 2002. The Animas phase and Paquimé regional differentiation and integra-tion at Joyce Well. In: Skibo, J.M., McCluney, E.B., Walker, W.H. (Eds.), The Joyce WellSite: On the Frontier of the Casas Grandes World. University of Utah Press, Salt LakeCity, pp. 149–166.

Church, T., 2000. Distribution and sources of obsidian in the Rio Grande gravels of NewMexico. Geoarchaeology 15, 649–678.

Cobean, R.H. (Ed.), 2002. A World of Obsidian: The Mining and Trade of Volcanic Glass inAncient Mexico. Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico City (Universi-ty of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania).

Crown, P.L., Judge,W.J. (Eds.), 1991. Chaco and Hohokam: Prehistoric Regional Systems ofthe American Southwest. School of American Research, Santa Fe.

Crown, P.L., Gu, J., Hurst, W.J., Ward, T.J., Bravence, A.D., Ali, S., Kebert, L., Berch, M.,Redman, E., Lyons, P.D., Merewether, J., Phillips, D.A., Reed, L.S., Woodson, K., 2015.Ritual drinks in the pre-hispanic US southwest and Mexican northwest. PNAS 112,11436–11442.

Darling, J.A., 1998. Obsidian Distribution and Exchange in the North-Central Frontier ofMesoamerica. (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). University of Michigan.

Dean, J.S., Ravesloot, J.C., 1993. The chronology of cultural interaction in the GranChichimeca. In: Woosley, A.I., Ravesloot, J.C. (Eds.), Culture and Contact: Charles C.Di Peso's Gran Chichimeca. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque,pp. 83–103.

DeAtley, S.P., Findlow, F.J., 1982. Regional integration of the northern Casas Grandes fron-tier. In: Beckett, P.H. (Ed.), Mogollon Archaeology: Proceedings of the 1980 MogollonConference. Acoma Books, Ramona, California pp, pp. 263–277.

Di Peso, C.C., 1974. Casas Grandes: A Fallen Trading Center of the Gran Chichimeca. Vols.1–3. Amerind Foundation, Dragoon, Arizona (Northland Press, Flagstaff).

Di Peso, C.C., Rinaldo, J.B., Fenner, G., 1974. Casas Grandes: A Fallen Trading Center of theGran Chichimeca. Vols. 4–8. Amerind Foundation, Dragoon, Arizona (NorthlandPress, Flagstaff).

Dolan, S.G., 2016. Black Rocks in the Borderlands: Obsidian Procurement in SouthwesternNewMexico and Northwestern Chihuahua, Mexico, A.D. 1000 to 1450. (UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation). University of Oklahoma, Norman.

Douglas, J.E., 1995. Autonomy and regional systems in the late prehistoric Southwest. Am.Antiq. 60, 240–257.

Douglas, J.E., 2007. Making and breaking boundaries in the hinterlands: the social and set-tlement dynamics of far southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico. In:Sullivan, A.P., Bayman, J.M. (Eds.), Hinterlands and Regional Dynamics in the AncientSouthwest. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 97–108.

Douglas, J.E., MacWilliams, A.C., 2015. Society and polity in the wider Casas Grandes re-gion. In: Minnis, P.E., Whalen, M.E. (Eds.), Ancient Paquimé and the Casas GrandesWorld. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 126–147.

Douglas, J.E., Quijada, C.A., 2005. Di Peso's concept of the northern Sierra: evidence fromthe Upper Bavispe Valley, Sonora, Mexico. Lat. Am. Antiq. 16, 175–291.

Drennan, R.D., 1984. Long-distance transport costs in prehispanic Mesoamerica. Am.Antiq. 86, 105–112.

Duff, A.I., Moss, J.M., Windes, T.C., Kantner, J., Shackley, M.S., 2012. Patterning in procure-ment of obsidian in Chaco Canyon and in Chaco-era communities in New Mexico asrevealed by X-ray fluorescence. J. Archaeol. Sci. 39, 2995–3007.

Ferguson, J.R., Skinner, C.E., 2006. Geochemical evidence of Mesoamerican prismaticblades in the United States. Poster Presented at the 71st Annual Society for AmericanArchaeology Meeting, San Juan.

Ferguson, J.R., Laumbach, K.W., Lekson, S.H., Nelson, M.C., Schollmeyer, K.G., Laumbach,T.S., Miller, M., 2016. Implications for migration and social connections in south-cen-tral New Mexico through chemical characterization of carbon-painted ceramics andobsidian. Kiva 82, 22–50.

Fertelmes, C.M., Abbott, D.R., Shackley, M.S., 2012. Obsidian source characterization at LasColinas: shifting exchange patterns during the Hohokam Sedentary to Classic transi-tion. Kiva 77, 281–311.

Findlow, F.J., Bolognese, M., 1980. An initial examination of prehistoric obsidian exchangein Hidalgo County New Mexico. Kiva 45, 227–251.

Fish, P.R., Fish, S.K., 1999. Reflections on the Casas Grandes regional system from thenorthwestern periphery. In: Schaafsma, C.F., Riley, C.L. (Eds.), The Casas GrandesWorld. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 27–42.

Fralick, P.H., Stewart, J.D., MacWilliams, A.C., 1998. Geochemistry of west-centralChihuahua obsidian nodules and implications for the derivation of obsidian artefacts.J. Archaeol. Sci. 25, 1023–1038.

Glascock, M.D., 2011. Comparison and contrast between XRF and NAA: used for char-acterization of obsidian sources in Central Mexico. In: Shackley, M.S. (Ed.), X-RayFluorescence Spectrometry (XRF) in Geoarchaeology. Springer, New York,pp. 161–192.

Glascock, M.D., Braswell, G.E., Cobean, R.H., 1998. A systematic approach to obsidiansource characterization. In: Shackley, M.S. (Ed.), Archaeological Obsidian Studies:Method and Theory. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 15–66.

Glascock, M.E., Weigan, P.C., Esparza López, R., Ohnersorgen, M.A., Garduño Ambriz, M.,Mountjoy, J.B., Darling, J.A., 2010. Geochemical characterisation of obsidian in west-ern Mexico: the sources in Jalisco, Nayarit, and Zacatecas. In: Kuzmin, Y.V.,Glascock, M.D. (Eds.), Crossing the Straits: Prehistoric Obsidian Source Exploitationin the North Pacific RimBAR International Series 2152. Archaeopress, Oxford,pp. 201–217.

Graves, W.M., 2005. Obsidian procurement among the Jumanos Pueblos, New Mexico,A.D. 1300–1670s. Kiva 71, 7–35.

Hampel, J.H., 1984. Technical considerations in x-ray fluorescence analysis of obsidian. In:Hughes, R.E. (Ed.), Obsidian studies in the Great Basin 45. Contributions of the Uni-versity of California Archaeological Research Facility, Oxford, pp. 21–25.

Hegmon, M., Nelson, M.C., Anyon, R., Creel, D., LeBlanc, S.A., Shafer, H.J., 1999. Scale andtime-space systematics in the post-A.D. 1100 Mimbres region of the North AmericanSouthwest. Kiva 65, 143–166.

Hughes, R.E., 2011. Sources of inspiration for studies of prehistoric resource acquisitionand materials conveyance in California and the Great Basin. In: Hughes, R.E. (Ed.),Perspectives on Prehistoric Trade and Exchange in California and the Great Basin.University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 1–21.

Kelley, J.H., MacWilliams, A.C., Stewart, J.D., Adams, K.R., Cunningham, J.J., Garvin, R.D.,Maillol, J.M., Reimer, P.J., Zborover, D., 2012. The view from the edge: the ProyectoArqueológico Chihuahua (PAC): 1990 to 2010: an overview. Can. J. Archaeol. 36,82–107.

567S.G. Dolan et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11 (2017) 555–567

Kibler, K.W., Hinojosa-Prieto, H.R., Shackley, M.S., Hinojosa-García, H.J., 2014. The Seleneobsidian source (formerly Sonora unknown B) of the Upper Río Bavispe Basin, Sono-ra, Mexico. Kiva 80, 168–192.

LeBlanc, S.A., 1980. The post Mogollon periods in southwestern NewMexico: the Animas/BlackMountain phase and the Salado period. In: LeBlanc, S.A., Whalen,M.E. (Eds.), AnArchaeological Synthesises of Southcentral and Southwestern NewMexico. Universi-ty of New Mexico, Albuquerque, Office of Contract Archeology, pp. 271–316.

Lekson, S.H., 2000. Salado in Chihuahua. In: Dean, J.S. (Ed.), Salado. University of NewMexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 275–294.

Lekson, S.H., Bletzer, M., MacWilliams, A.C., 2004. Pueblo IV in the Chihuahuan desert. In:Adams, E.C., Duff, A.I. (Eds.), The Protohistoric PuebloWorld, A.D. 1275–1600. Univer-sity of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 53–61.

Lekson, S.H., 2015. The Chaco Meridian: one thousand years of political power in the an-cient Southwest. Second ed. Rowman and Littlefield, New York.

Martynec, R., Davis, R., Shackley, M.S., 2011. The Los Sitios del Agua obsidian source (for-merly AZ Unknown A) and recent archaeological investigations along the RioSonoyta, northern Sonora. Kiva 76, 413–429.

McCarthy, J.J., Schamber, F.H., 1981. Least-squares fit with digital filter: a status report. In:Henrich, K.F.J., Newbury, D.E., Myklebust, R.L., Fiori, C.E. (Eds.), Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectrometry Vol. 604. National Bureau of Standards Special Publication, Wash-ington DC, pp. 273–296.

McGuire, R.H., 1980. The Mesoamerican connection in the southwest. Kiva 46, 3–38.McGuire, R.H., 1993. Charles Di Peso and the Mesoamerican connection. In: Woosley, A.I.,

Ravesloot, J.C. (Eds.), Culture and Contact: Charles C. Di Peso's Gran Chichimeca. Uni-versity of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 23–38.

Mills, B.J., Clark, J.J., Peeples, M.A., Haas, W.R., Roberts, J.J., Hill, J.B., Huntley, D.L., Borck, L.,Breiger, R.L., Clauset, A., Shackley, M.S., 2013. Transformation of social networks inthe late pre-Hispanic US Southwest. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110, 5785–5790.

Minnis, P.E., 1984. Peeking under the tortilla curtain: regional interaction and integrationon the northern periphery of Casas Grandes. Am. Archaeol. 4, 181–193.

Minnis, P.E., Whalen, M.E., 2015. Introduction: the Joint Casas Grandes Expedition in his-torical context. In: Minnis, P.E., Whalen, M.E. (Eds.), Ancient Paquimé and the CasasGrandes World. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 3–16.

Minnis, P.E., Whalen, M.E., Kelley, J.H., Stewart, J.D., 1993. Prehistoric macaw breeding inthe North American Southwest. Am. Antiq. 58, 270–276.

Neitzel, J.E., 2000.What is a regional system? Issues of scale and interaction in the prehis-toric southwest. In: Hegmon, M. (Ed.), The Archaeology of Regional Interaction. Uni-versity Press of Colorado, Boulder, pp. 25–40.

Pailes, M.C., 2016. Exchange economies of late prehistoric eastern Sonora, Mexico: a re-evaluation based on provenance data analyses. J. Field. Arch. 41, 587–602.

Parry, W.J., Kelley, R.L., 1987. Expedient core technology and sedentism. In: Johnson, J.K.,Morrow, C.A. (Eds.), The Organization of Core Technology. Westview Press, Boulder,pp. 285–304.

Pauketat, T.R., 2001. Practice and history in archaeology: an emerging paradigm.Anthropol. Theor. 1, 73–98.

Pierce, D.E., 2015. Visual and geochemical analyses of obsidian source use at San FelipeAztatán, Mexico. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 40, 266–279.

Ponomarenko, A.L., 2004. The Pachuca obsidian source, Hidalgo, Mexico: ageoarchaeological perspective. Geoarchaeology 19, 71–91.

Putsavage, K.J., 2015. Social Reorganization in the Mimbres Region of Southwestern NewMexico: The Classic to Postclassic Mimbres Transition (A.D. 1150–1450). (Unpub-lished Ph.D. dissertation). University of Colorado, Boulder.

Rakita, G.F.M., Cruz, R., 2015. Organization of production at Paquimé. In: Minnis, P.E.,Whalen, M.E. (Eds.), Ancient Paquimé and the Casas GrandesWorld. University of Ar-izona Press, Tucson, pp. 58–82.

Rakita, G.F.M., VanPool, C.S., VanPool, T.D., 2011. An introduction to the 76 Draw site, LunaCounty, NewMexico. In: Landreth, M.R. (Ed.), Patterns in Transition: Papers from the16th Biennial Jornada Mogollon Conference. El Paso Museum of Anthropology, ElPaso, pp. 29–64.

Ravesloot, J.C., 1988. Mortuary Practices and Social Differentiation at Casas Grandes, Chi-huahua, Mexico. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona. Vol. 49. Univer-sity of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Riley, C.L., 2005. Becoming Aztlan: Mesoamerican Influence in the Greater Southwest,A.D. 1200–1500. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Schamber, F.J., 1977. A modification of the linear least-squares fitting method which pro-vides continuum suppression. In: Dzubay, T.G. (Ed.), X-ray Fluorescence Analysis ofEnvironmental Samples. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, pp. 241–257.

Shackley, M.S., 2005. Obsidian: Geology and Archaeology in the North American South-west. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Shackley, M.S., 2011. An introduction to X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis in archaeology.In: Shackley, M.S. (Ed.), X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry (XRF) in Geoarchaeology.Springer, New York, pp. 7–44.

Shackley, M.S., 2014. Source Provenance of Obsidian Artifacts from the Casas GrandesOutlier Sites 204, 242, 315, and 317, Northern Chihuahua. Report Prepared for SeanDolan. Department of Anthropology, University of Oklahoma, Norman.

Spence, M.W., 1978. A cultural sequence from the Sierra Madre of Durango, Mexico. In:Riley, C.L., Hendrick, B.C. (Eds.), Across the Chichimec Sea: Papers in Honor of J.Charles Kelley. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, pp. 165–189.

Taliaferro, M.S., 2004. Technological Analysis of the Formal Chipped Stone Tool Assem-blage fromOld Town (LA 1113)With Obsidian Provenance Studies From Selected Ar-chaeological Sites Throughout the Mimbres Valley. Unpublished MA thesis,University of Texas, Austin.

Taliaferro, M.S., 2014. The Black Mountain Phase Occupation at Old Town: An Examina-tion of Social and Technological Organization in the Mimbres Valley of SouthwesternNew Mexico, ca. A.D. 1150–1300. (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). University ofTexas, Austin.

Taliaferro, M.S., Schriever, B.A., Shackley, M.S., 2010. Obsidian procurement, least costpath analysis, and social interaction in the Mimbres area of Southwestern NewMex-ico. J. Archaeol. Sci. 37, 536–548.

VanPool, C.S., VanPool, T.L., 2015. Religion and cosmology in the Casas Grandes world. In:Minnis, P.E., Whalen, M.E. (Eds.), Ancient Paquimé and the Casas Grandes World.University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 83–102.

VanPool, T.L., VanPool, C.S., Cruz Antillón, R., Leonard, R.D., Harmon, M.J., 2000. Flakedstone and social interaction in the Casas Grandes region, Chihuahua, Mexico. Lat.Am. Antiq. 11, 163–174.

VanPool, T.L., Oswald, C.M., Christy, J.A., Ferguson, J.R., Rakita, G.F.M., VanPool, C.S., 2013.Provenance studies of obsidian at 76 Draw. In: VanPool, T.L., McCarthy, E.M., VanPool,C.S. (Eds.), Advances in Jornada Mogollon Archaeology: Proceedings from the 17thJornada Mogollon Conference. El Paso Museum of Archaeology, El Paso, pp. 163–184.

Vargas, V.D., 1995. Copper Bell Trade Patterns in the Prehispanic US Southwest andNorthwest Mexico. Archaeological Series No. 187. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

Vierra, B.J., 1989. Sixteenth-century Spanish campsite in the Tiguex Province. Laboratoryof Anthropology Notes 475. Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe.

Vierra, B.J., 2005. Late stone tool technology across the borderlands. In: Vierra, B.J. (Ed.),The Late Archaic Across the Borderlands: From Foraging to Farming. University ofTexas Press, Austin, pp. 187–218.

Vokes, A.W., Gregory, D.A., 2007. Exchange networks for exotic goods in the southwestand Zuni's place in them. In: Gregory, D.A., Wilcox, D.R. (Eds.), Zuni Origins: Towarda New Synthesis of Southwestern Archaeology. University of Arizona Press, Tucson,pp. 318–357.

Walker, W.H., Skibo, J.M., 2002. Joyce Well and the Casas Grandes religious interactionsphere. In: Skibo, J.M., McCluney, E.B., Walker, W.H. (Eds.), The Joyce Well Site: Onthe Frontier of the Casas Grandes World. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City,pp. 167–176.

Whalen, M.E., 2013. Wealth, status, ritual, and marine shell at Casas Grandes, Chihuahua,Mexico. Am. Antiq. 78, 624–639.

Whalen, M.E., Minnis, P.E., 1996. Ball courts and political centralization in the CasasGrandes region. Am. Antiq. 61, 732–746.

Whalen, M.E., Minnis, P.D., 1999. Investigating the Paquimé regional system. In:Schaafsma, C.F., Riley, C.L. (Eds.), The Casas Grandes World. University of UtahPress, Salt Lake City, pp. 54–62.

Whalen, M.E., Minnis, P.E., 2001a. Casas Grandes and Its Hinterland: Prehistoric RegionalOrganization in Northwest Mexico. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Whalen, M.E., Minnis, P.E., 2001b. The Casas Grandes regional system: a late prehistoricpolity of northwestern Mexico. J. World Prehist. 15, 313–364.

Whalen, M.E., Minnis, P.E., 2003. The local and the distant in the origin of Casas Grandes,Chihuahua, Mexico. Am. Antiq. 68, 314–332.

Whalen, M.E., Minnis, P.E., 2009a. The Neighbors of Casas Grandes: Excavating Medio Pe-riod Communities of Northwest Chihuahua, Mexico. University of Arizona Press,Tucson.

Whalen, M.E., Minnis, P.E., 2009b. Excavaciones en el Sitio 315, Chihuahua. PrimeraTemporada (Technical report submitted to I.N.A.H., Mexico, D.F.).

Whalen, M.E., Pitezel, T., 2015. Settlement patterns of the Casas Grandes area. In: Minnis,P.E., Whalen, M.E. (Eds.), Ancient Paquimé and the Casas Grandes World. Universityof Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 103–125.

Woosley, A.I., Olinger, B., 1993. The Casas Grandes ceramic tradition: production and in-terregional exchange of Ramos polychrome. In: Woosley, A.I., Ravesloot, J.C. (Eds.),Culture and Contact: Charles C. Di Peso's Gran Chichimeca. University of NewMexicoPress, Albuquerque, pp. 105–132.