Jano and Jocome

Many people do not know that the Apache were just one of several mobile peoples who occupied the southern Southwest at and before
Spanish conquest. Although some researchers have suggested that the Jano, Jocome, Manso, and Suma were Apachean (e.g., Forbes
1960, and others), archaeological evidence indicates the presence of another type of group. The archaeological evidence is indicative of
a mobile group, but differs from the Apache evidence. Moreover, what has been found conforms relatively well with documentary data
provided by Spanish explorers who indicated that people with a river-focused adaptation occupied the region. The Apache were known
for their mountain focus. Thus, it should be of little surprise that the complex of archaeolgical traits found in Arizona and southern New
Mexico, that are inferred to be related to the Jano or Jocome, tend to be found near playas (seasonal lakes) and along rivers. The
following text outlines some of this evidence for a newly defined archaeological complex.

Abstract
Early Spanish documentary sources refer to a number of mobile groups in southern Arizona and southern New
Mexico, including but not limited to the Manso, Suma, Jano, and Jocome. These groups have remained
unidentified archaeologically and their history is often conflated with that of ancestral Apachean groups.
Investigations aimed at identifying and distinguishing the suite of mobile and semi-sedentary groups who
occupied the southern Southwest has resulted in the identification of an archaeologically definable complex
that likely belongs to one or more of these historically referenced groups. Brief presentation of this suite of traits
is designed to elevate the evidence of these mobile groups from obscurity and to encourage further
investigations into the distribution and nature of this complex. Absolute dates, artifacts, and features on open
sites and in rockshelters provide the basis for definition of this complex that has remained invisible because of
its general similarity to and mixing with Archaic assemblages. This paper focuses specifically on the expression
of this complex in the southern Southwest.

Bifaces are some of the most distinctive artifacts from this period and
complex. They certainly are the most visible. Yet, in the past these biface
forms have been confused with those from the Archaic period. In fact, the
one on the right is from Ventana Cave and was listed by Sayles and
Haury as relating to the Cochise Culture or Archaic period. The one in
the middle was suggesed by MacNeish to relate to the Archaic
component at Pintada Rockshelter. They are not and even MacNeish had
to throw out numerous protohistoric dates to make this stratum and its
artifacts (including this biface) fit within his conceptualized stratigraphic
and occupational scheme for the rockshelter.

These bifaces are similar to the Harahey knives found on the plains and
hill country of Texas, including in the Trans-Pecos, and in northern
Chihuahua and Sonora.

The three forms depicted here show some of the inherent variation.
There is also another type that has yet to be described because so few
examples have been found. these seem to be most similar to the
Covington blade defined further east.

The projectile points of these groups fall within the small triangular tradition so prevalent in this region in the terminal prehistoric and
historic periods. Most often they have basal indentations and sometimes serrated margins. Minor variations in execution may be indicative
of identity, which has caused considerable confusion in the archaeological literature as archaeologists attempt to figure out which subtle
indices actually have social meaning.

For example the Soto point is highly distinctive for its "Eiffel Tower" shape, with ears flaring outward toward the base. Those points
illustrated here show this attribute rather clearly, but notice that as points are resharpened they take on a different look. These occur in
northern Chihuahua and in the southern and western portion of Texas, but are only rare in the southern Southwest. Some of these overlap
in form with the southern Arizona Huachuca point. Does this mean that there is a continuum of form that is meaningless with respect to
assignment of culture group affiliation? Does it mean that these Huachuca points were not really made by the Sobaipuri but are sometimes
found in Sobiapuri contexts because of later reoccupation of those locations, battles, and intermixing of groups?

These three points were found at the site I refer to as Santa Cruz de Gaybanipitea. This is where a documented battle took place in
1698, thereafter the Sobaipuri abandoned this valley and moved west to Sonoita Creek to avoid hostile encounter with the mobile
groups with whom they had engaged. I have always had as part of my research design for this site to find evidence of this battle in the
projectile points found there.

What is interesting about each of these is that they have individually been referred to as "Sobaipuri" by the individuals who collected
them, including some who were attempting to study the Sobaipuri. Yet, they are not. The one on the far left is side notched and
side-notched point forms are not a Sobaipuri point style. This particular specimen is consistent with forms of Apache points found
elsewhere in the southern Southwest. The middle point has excessively out-flaring ears, a trait that is consistent with Soto points
discussed above and is thought to represent the Suma or related groups. The one on the far right is fully consistent with forms found
among the Conchos, a group who occupied Chihuahua and members of which were later enlisted by the Europeans to fight against the
Apache.

We know that points were lost when used and recovered by others. We know that the Apache and probably others routinely collected
points they found and reused them. We know that points were an important trade commodity. We know that ethnoarchaeological
studies have shown that points of many styles are found in a single quiver.

On the other hand, we know that many different groups occupied the area surrounding the site where these were found. Some
apparently visited this village for trade, and others came with more hostile intentions. When these points are placed beside the
documentary record and combined with evidence that many of the structures at this site show signs of burning a fairly strong case can
be constructed that this site was attacked and that these points likely represent the points tipping the arrows used in this (or an
undocumented) conflict. Archaeological data really do not get better than this, except for in the exceptional site where dead people
with arrows in them were left in the contexts in which they died.

From another site we do have an archaeological example where two individuals were found shot with 125 arrows--some of the
projectile points still lodged in their bones. Skeletal features also show evidence of lance stabbings and also dismemberment of the
hands. Possible trophy taking is also indicated by a short linear incision on the scalp that may be an indication that a small lock of
scalp hair was removed, as is ethnographically documented in this area.

This site is interesting from the standpoint of the flaked-stone assemblage found with these two individuals. Found with these two
victims was an abundant Canutillo complex assemblage, with points and bifaces. Yet even here, one of the points found was side
notched, showing again the tentative relationship between projectile point styles and ethnicity. Yet, most of the point assemblage was
of the small triangular basally indented types found among the mobile groups of the Canutillo complex. These types are commonly
confused with the Huachuca point of the Sobaipuri because there is a continuum of style and perhaps for a number of other reasons
cited above. It is also possible that when Sobaipuri and members of these other groups intermarried the traditions became intermixed
and mobile groups may have traded their points for agricultural produce provided by the Sobaipuri.

The points and bifaces found at this ambush site suggest that the attackers were Canutillo complex mobile groups, although this cannot
be stated with certainty for several reasons. First, some of the points are archetypical Huachuca points, which begs the question as to
whether the Huachuca point really is a Sobaipuri point style or whether such points are simply often found in Sobaipuri contexts and
have been confused. Yet, if "Sobaipuri" really is an amalgamation of many groups, it should not be surprising that there is a mixture of
points and a continuum of point forms.

The majority of points, however, and the bifaces, suggest the attackers were of the Canutillo complex. One additional problem is that
documentary sources occasionally mention an added dimension of humiliation wherein the victim is shot with his own weapons. Thus
we cannot be sure that the points used and the bifaces found are indicative of the attacking group, but in fact, this is the most likely
explanation and the most commonly occurring scenario in historically and ethnographically documented circumstances.

Soto points, however, may not be as rare as we think because there is a continuum of forms between these Soto points and those
attributed to the Sobaipuri on the western edge of our study area. These Huachuca points that in the past have been attributed to the
Sobaipuri are remarcably similar to Soto points, as past researchers have pointed out. But one reason they are perceived as more
similar than they actually are is that Huachuca points have been intermixed by archaeologists with Soto points and other intermediate
forms. Archaeologists who work in southern Arizona do not broaden their studies wide enough to the east and south to understand how
widespread this continuum of forms is and how similar the so-called Sobaipuri form is to forms far soutside the Sobaipuri territory.
Moreover, Texas archaeologists similarly do not expand their studies far enough west to see that similar forms are found among the
Sobaipuri.

Other reasons these are difficult to differentiate is because the groups involved were mobile and their territories encompassed huge
areas, overlapping those territories of many other groups. As a consequence, distributions of mobile group points overlap with those of
other mobile groups and with non-mobile groups. The problem of classification cannot be addressed in ways that are similar to more
sedentary groups. Culture area boundaries (and thus the distribution of material culture) are not as rigid as those of sedentary peoples.

Sobaipuri sites usually have multiple components where points of other groups were introduced at a later time. Also the Sobaipuri
interacted with these other groups, trading and intermarrying with them. Projectile points are known to have been key trade items
between groups throughout the world, and there is no reason to believe any different in this area. In fact, the documentary record
suggests a trade in projectile points. Moreover, there are documented battles between the Sobaipuri and these other groups--is there a
better way for the arrow heads of these other groups to find their way into Sobaipuri contexts?