Sobaipuri Archaeology, An Introduction

The natives welcomed him with ceremonies, suggesting that earlier missionaries and native converts from Sonora had prepared the way.
If nothing else, the colorful gifts of ribbons and beads, and functionality of the metal knives made visitation from these strangers
attractive, at least initially. At least the Sobaipuri were consummate diplomats and gracious hosts, showing appropriate levels of courtesy
and celebration--as was common throughout the region during this period.

This visit to this first of the Spanish missions in the Sonoran Desert north of the current international border made this native Sobaipuri
settlement the first mission in southern Arizona, or the first Jesuit mission in Arizona, but, contrary to popular notions, not the first mission
in Arizona--a role that goes to the Hopi pueblo of Awatovi. This original native Sobaipuri settlement of San Cayetano del Tumacacori has
been located archaeologically on the east side of the river (as shown on Kino's historic maps and noted in historic journals), providing
evidence of a densely packed, well-planned, long-occupied village (Seymour 2007a).

Kino then stopped by Guevavi (later referred to as Mission Los Santos Ángeles de Guevavi), which is located to the south along the Santa
Cruz River. Here he later (1701) established a "neat little house and church" which he ordered whitewashed. The location of this native
settlement and this formal church has been identified and excavated (Seymour 1993, 1997, 2008b, 2009). This native settlement later
became the cabecera or head mission for this region. Its occupation survived there until the 1770s. The church, however, was
catastrophically destroyed by fire (before 1716), probably as part of a native uprising, and was rebuilt in nearby locations two more times.

Contrary to popular belief, the Sobaipuris and Apache were not traditional enemies. The Sobaipuri were initially friendly with their
neighbors, including the Apache and the Jocome and Jano (Seymour 2007b, 2008a). They traded with one another and they were cited
sometimes raiding together. They even intermarried, probably creating the unique character of the Sobaipuri or Soba Jipuri, sometimes
referred to as Soba y Puri or Soba y Jipuri. Later many of them sided with the Europeans which stressed and compromised their
relationship with the unconverted tribes because they then went into battle against them.

The last person who self identified as Sobaipuri died in 1932 (Hoover 1935). Others who retained Sobaipuri blood had intermixed with
other O'odham groups and the Apache (Seymour 2007b, 2008a). But this is not the end of the story. Many of the people at San Xavier and
Tucson were Sobaipuri and so were distinguishable from their brethern farther west. They lived along the rivers and farmed which was
an entirely differently way of life than the more moble western O'odham. Even their language is a bit different. When Sobaipuri from
other areas moved in at San Xavier del Bac the Sobaipuri element became even more dominant (although groups from the west did
move into this area as well, at the bidding of the missionaries). Despite the dominance of Sobaipuri or river (Akimel) O'odham in the
Santa Cruz Valley (which included some of those from the San Pedro), San Xavier is considered nowadays to be Tohono (desert, south)
O'odham.

Yet, it is the colonial and government authorities who decided that all the southern O'odham would be part of a single political entity and
therefore all would be considered part of the Tohono O'odham Nation, overseen by a body in Sells. In reality San Xavier is very different,
is composed of people of a different origin and with a different history. Take away this imposed political construct and a very different
image of the San Xavier District can emerge, one of the southern river people whose origins lie in the proud, prosperous, gracious, and
diplomatic Sobaipuri, rather than the docile and obediant converts and servants of the missionary legacy.

DESPELLING SOME MYTHS ABOUT THE SOBAIPURI

With respect to the native settlement at Guevavi Mission, William Robinson (2004:9) recently commented that "I am convinced that no
concentrated "village" ever, in fact, existed." This is contrary to recent research by Seymour which shows that the native settlement near the 1751
mission was in fact the most concentrated of all known Sobaípuri villages. Some houses are spaced no more than 50 cm apart, which violates
earlier Sobaípuri notions of appropriate spacing. This layout seems to have been for defense, although the Franciscans probably believed their
efforts had been successful at civilizing the occupants and creating a town-like plan. Occupation seems to have begun in the Kino period and
extended through, perhaps intermittently, to the end of occupation there, perhaps even into the early nineteenth century.

According to Bourke "the Apaches have among them the Tze-kinne, or Stone-house people, descendants of the cliff-dwelling Sòbaypuris, whom
they drove out of Aravypa cañon and forced to flee to the Pimas for refuge about a century ago" (Jour. Am. Folklore, 114, April - June 1890). This
has been repeated in newspaper articles from the 1930s. The Sobaipuri did not occupy cliff dwellings. As a matter of cultural practice they
occupied riverside settlements. During hunting trips or to hide out from enemies they may have temporarily used rockshelters or abandoned cliff
dwellings built by prehistoric peoples, but this was not their traditional pattern. This is a misleading statement. The Sobaipuri were not
"stone-house people" either.

Bandelier (Arch. Inst. Papers, iii, 102, 1890) states that "the Apaches caused the Sobaypuris to give up their homes on the San Pedro and to merge
into the Pápagos." This is only partially true. Because of Apache pressure they did leave the San Pedro, and then they returned there. Then they
left again. They ultimately merged into few larger Sobaipuri settlements. Some Tohono O'odham had also come to live in these riverside
settlements. Eventually, owing to political factors imposed from the outside, all officially became Papago and then Tohono O'odham.

Contrary to Swanton's suggestion, the Sobaipuri did not seek refuge among the Tohono O'odham (aka Papago). Most Sobaipuri ended up at San
Xavier del Bac or Wa:k (a Sobaipuri settlement) and a few other river O'odham (Akimel O'odham) settlements. Through intermarriage the Tohono
O'odham have become mixed with the Sobaipuri, and the Tohono O'odham came to live with the Sobaipuri in riverside settlements (such as
Guevavi, Tumacacori, San Xavier de Bac), especially in the mid to late 1700s. For larger political reasons the Sobaipuri were subsumed into the
Tohono O'odham Nation, when that nation was formed, owing to dwindling numbers and to the perceived need for a unified political body.
Mexicans and later Americans were trespassing onto their land, and the method chosen to protect the indigneous inhabitants was to form a
reservation with clearly defined boundaries and a single voice. Most Sobaipuri lost their distinct identity for these reasons by the 1930s.

In 1918 Thomas Edwin Farish suggested that "The Sobaipuri, also a Piman tribe, was probably a part of the Papagos..." Contrary to Farish's
statement the Sobaipuri were not part of the Tohono O'odham (aka Papago). The remnant of the tribe contracted into few larger settlements and
then through time they have been subsumed biologically and politically into the Tohono O'odham Nation, but many cultural aspects of the
Sobaipuri survive.

Farish also stated: "At the time of the occupation of Arizona, and its settlement in the latter part of the 18th century by the Spaniards, the
Sobaipuris, as a tribe, were extinct, if, indeed, they ever existed." The Sobaipuri did indeed exist.

Farish also noted: "When Coronado made his journey from Ures through the Wilderness to the headwaters of the San Pedro, he found there the
first Indians, who were supposed to be the Papagos, whose original home was the territory south and southeast of the Gila river, especially south
of Tucson, Arizona, in the main and tributary valleys of the Rio Santa Cruz, and extending west..." In fact, the Indians encountered by Coronado
were probably mobile non-O'odham groups: Jano or Jocome. Moreover, the Papago or Tohono O'odham territory was not "south of Tucson,
Arizona, in the main and tributary valleys of the Rio Santa Cruz..." This was part of Sobaipuri territory. Sobaipuri territory did not end just south of
Casa Grande as some suggest. Their sites extended into Sonora.

Mooney' s (1928) estimate of the number of Sobaipuri (600) in 1680 is seemingly low. At least a couple thousand Sobaipuri were present on both
the Santa Cruz and San Pedro rivers during Kino's time. Certainly this mission-period density was diminished as a result of epidemics; the
population was much higher in the 1540s.

The pottery Charles Di Peso called Sobaipuri Plain and Sobaipuri Red are not Sobaipuri-made. They may not even have originated among the
O'odham, although wares such as these were later made by the O'odham. The pottery diagnostic of the Sobaipuri is Whetstone Plain, as are
some types referred to as early O'odham wares. Plain and decorated trade wares seem to occur on Sobaipuri sites as well.

Tumacacori National Monument, Calabasas, and San Augustin are not the sites of Kino-period missions. This is a fabrication designed to draw
tourists to these locations, to make those Colonial period edifaces relevant to the history of the indigneous occupants, and to substitute for the
perceived lack of data regarding the real native settlements and first missions. Reasonable suggestions have been made for the actual
Kino-period Sobaipuri settlements and these are located in different places than those overseen by the National Park Service and being studied
by various agencies and companies.

Much archaeological work on the Sobaipuri has been done since Di Peso and so most of the ideas advanced by him are outmoded. If he had not
followed Bolton in referring to Santa Cruz de Terrenate Presidio no one today would have made that error. The presidio was said to have been
built at Santa Cruz not Quiburi. Quiburi was never prefaced by the saint's name Santa Cruz.

Similarly if Di Peso had not erred and suggested his Sobaipuri site (AZ EE:8:15) was Santa Cruz de Gaybanipitea no reasonable researcher would
call it such today. Di Peso's site is located on the wrong side of a tributary creek and is located on the wrong landform type according to both
maps and journal entries. He thought there was only one site to choose from for the historically documented location. But in reality there are 25
other sites, including one in the vicinity that is of the right size, on the correct landform, on the correct side of the river, which chronometrically
dates to the correct time period, and has produced glass and metal historical European artifacts. Logic dictates that Di Peso's antiquated ideas be
dismissed and the new data accepted owing to its concordance with the documentary record. Afterall, if one is going to claim to have found a
historically referenced site, it is essential that the references to the occupied settlement match the topographic and other physical and material
descriptions of the archaeological site. Otherwise it is just a site, important in its own right, but just a site, not a historically referenced place.
Archaeologists are held to higher standards of correspondence with on-the-ground evidence than are historians and Native American Studies
scholars.

The Sobaipuri did not live in rectangular adobe-walled houses. They lived in dome-shaped elogate and oval houses, some of which tended
toward rectangular with rounded corners. These were covered by bent-poles and then with mats that were sometimes covered with dirt or mud,
or they were covered by brush. Only in the late 1800s or early 1900s did they make the switch from these dome-shaped houses to the rectangular
adobe-walled houses, although the transition probably occurred over a long period.

Arrow points used by the Sobaipuri do not include the full range of point types presented in Noel Justice's projectile point descriptions. It is an
unfortunate use of the label "Sobaipuri" for these points because many of the illustrated points are actually those made by contemporaneous
mobile groups, such as the Jano, Jocome, Manso, and Suma. These groups collectively are lumped into the archaeological Canutillo complex.
This is one reason it is inappropriate to use ethnic identifers in labels of artifact types. Nomenclature for designating types dictates that
geographic or similar non-cultural labels be used. Points used by the Sobaipuri are designated Huachuca points, after a nearby mountain range.