Quiburi

Seymour, Deni J., in press Quiburi: The Sobaipuri-O'odham Ranchería of Kino's Conception. Under Reivew at Journal of Arizona History.

Seymour, Deni J., 2007 A Syndetic Approach to Identification of the Historic Mission Site of San Cayetano Del Tumacácori. International Journal of
Historical Archaeology, Vol. 11(3):269-296.

Seymour, Deni J., 2007 Delicate Diplomacy on a Restless Frontier: Seventeenth-Century Sobaipuri Social and Economic Relations in Northwestern New
Spain, Part I. New Mexico Historical Review, Volume 82, No. 4.

Seymour, Deni J., 2007 The Rancheria-People of Kino's Congregation: Sobaípuri-O'odham Contexts of Contact and Colonialism. Book manuscript.

Seymour, Deni J., 2003 Sobaipuri-Pima Occupation in the Upper San Pedro Valley: San Pablo de Quiburi. New Mexico Historical Review 78(2):147-166.

Seymour, Deni J., 1990 Sobaipuri-Pima Settlement Along the Upper San Pedro River: A Thematic Survey Between Fairbank and Aravaipa Canyon. Report
for the Bureau of Land Management. On file at the Arizona State Museum.

Seymour, Deni J., 1989 The Dynamics of Sobaipuri Settlement in the Eastern Pimeria Alta. Journal of the Southwest 31(2):205-222.

The Jesuit priest Father Eusebio Kino and his military escort Captain Juan Mateo Manje visited the Sobaipuri-O’odham ranchería of Quiburi on the San
Pedro River in the 1690s. Following Bolton, Di Peso thought he had found this site at the Spanish period presidio of Terrenate and proceeded with
extensive excavations there. In the process, however, he uncovered no evidence at all of the Sobaipuri or of the Sobaipuri settlement of Quiburi. All
native ceramics are prehistoric or reflect a distinctive late eighteenth-century innovation in pottery. A number of archaeologists and historians have
investigated and evaluated Di Peso's work at Terrenate and have similarly concluded that he was wrong about this indigenous assignment. Yet it was
not until many years later that an alternative location was found. The reason for the delay is that few had looked, no one had looked extensively, and
those few who had made efforts to find the archaeological location looked with the wrong search pattern in mind.

An alternate location for Quiburi has been previously suggested (Seymour 1989, 1990, 2003) based upon extensive survey conducted in the 1980s along
this middle portion of the San Pedro. But even more recent archaeological data have been gathered that require a revision to my previous opinions
(Seymour 2007, 2008, in press). New data include chronometric dates, complete site maps, league distances between the proposed location and other
known settlements, and a record of the correct number of houses (100) for the historically referenced village of this name.

Previous misconceptions about the scattered nature of structures in the Sobaipuri ranchería were one reason why the original interpretation of
placement was off (Seymour in press, 2007). Following Spicer I and others had assumed that houses were widely scattered, sometimes as much as a
half mile or more apart. This inference allowed a number of distinct sites to be collapsed into one, addressing in a vague way the problems with league
distances and number of houses encountered at that time. Yet, mapping of dozens of Sobaipuri sites reveals the falseness of this point of view. Sites
consist of closely spaced structures that are formally arranged with clear and intentional gaps between sites.

Another misconception derives from the fact that Sobaipuri sites consist of thin shallow cultural deposits in surface and near surface contexts. The
implication was that the evidence visible on the surface was a relatively accurate representation of what was below the surface. Some house outlines
were fully exposed presenting the impression that most sites were severely eroded and the suite of features clearly visible. Now that I have excavated
several sites and mapped dozens it is clear that many more structures are usually present than are visible on the surface. Despite the shallow nature of
these sites there is sufficient sediment build up that one must take care in drawing conclusions from surface data alone. It is the occasional site that is
eroded to the point that site structure can be fully mapped without excavation.

Another factor contributing to the misinterpretation of past evidence is that most Sobaipuri scholars were of the impression that Sobaipuri houses were
free-standing single constructions. Additional work has shown me that structures are always paired and that the Sobaipuri have their own unique site
layout. More recent scholars, following my earlier work, continue to suggest that structures are arranged in courtyard groups or loose groupings but in
fact, excavations continually reveal the linear arrangement of structures.

More on Quiburi can be found in the following publications.