c
 


 


 

 


‘
When it comes to the study of the prehistoric Southwest in the United States,
having constant debates and opposing ideas promote an adequate learning
environment. In Mexico, a single institution imposes a monopoly in culture, history
and archeology that leaves little or no space for open discussion. It is disappointing
to see the archeological writings and walled pueblo sites, kivas and multi-level
houses, very common in the archeological literature of Arizona and New Mexico,
suddenly disappear when entering Mexico; as if the borderline had always been
there.
‘
To make things worse, the modern inhabitants of Sonora and Chihuahua, probable
descendants of the same cultures linked to the Native Americans of the southwest
U.S., find those archeological cultures as foreign. Very few people of northwest
Mexico know about the existence of Paquime and Trincheras, sites which have
been cast into oblivion by our country's officials who have promoted and instilled a
Mesoamerican origin for all Mexicans. In their continuing effort to create a standard
image of our nation, they have alienated the culture of the northwestern people,
stripping us of our own history and heritage.
‘
In the quest of our roots, I am certain that it is impossible, beyond‘
all reasonable doubt, to demonstrate an affiliation between archeological traditions
and modern tribal groups of the Southwest U.S/Northwest MX. In order to keep an
open debate, I will state some of my personal conjectures and interpretations,
based on the works of many archeologists of the U.S. and Mexico, with whom I
don¶t always agree with, but nonetheless remain thankful for their efforts to uncover
our past.
×




The first missionaries to record about the Sonoran natives wrote about the Ópata,
who‘ inhabited the Sierra Madre of Northern Sonora. In their description of the
tribes, they noted three subgroups within the Ópata, they called them Eudeve,
Tegüima and Jova. In their descriptions, the missionaries portrayed them as highly
developed village dwellers. They seemed to be much more technologically
advanced that their neighbors. They were also described as confident of their own
technology and knowledge, rarely seeking the Spaniards for guidance, as other
tribes did (Nentvig, 1980:60-70).
In almost all the literature that concerns the Ópata, they are described as a single
group, despite the differences in their languages. The classification of these groups
with the general name of Ópata, might have concealed a great deal of possibilities
in the study of the prehistory of the southwestern US and northern Mexico, making
it an imperative task to separate them and study them individually.
Most sources regarding the Ópata, talk extensively about the Eudeve and the
Tegüima, and in accordance with Campbell W. Pennington, the Eudeve or Heve
tribes, should be considered apart from the Ópata. He argues that the cultural and
linguistic differences between the Eudeve and the main Ópata, the Tegüima, are
sufficient enough to classify them as a different ethnic group. (Pennington, 1982: 9
-11)‘
If Pennington is right and the differences between the Eudeve and the Tegüima are
enough to separate them, the differences between the above mentioned and the
Jova are so significant that the Jova language might not be Taracahitan, or even
Uto-Aztecan. Examples of this can be seen in the Grammatical Sketch of the Heve
Language: ‘
‘
³The Jove, having mingled with the Ópata, no longer use their own tongue, except‘
in some instances of the aged. It is one difficult to acquire, and different from any‘
other in the Province.´ (Smith, 1861: 6)‘
In this same manuscript they are clues that reveal that the Jova language has little
association with the Eudeve and Tegüima languages, and probably to the rest of
the languages of the nearby provinces that fall in the Uto-Aztecan linguistic branch.
Perhaps the association of the Jova language is closer to the Zuni, an isolated
language, or with the Hopi language, a unique Uto-Aztecan language. Apart from
of the relationship of the Jova with the Eudeve and the Tegüima, or the lack
thereof, one thing is clear, the Eudeve and Tegüima had close ties with all the
languages in the region, a fact noted in the following quote:‘
³All these nations, save the last, and all others who inhabit the country excepting‘
the Apaches ± including a numerous people in the Gila and on the farther bank of‘
the Colorado ± speak the same language, with so slight differences, say the‘
missionaries, that they who shall have attained the one of the Ópata and the‘
Eudeve with little difficulty will master the rest (Smith, 1861: 7).´
The importance attributed to the Eudeve and Tegüima languages by the
missionaries, suggests similarities with their neighbors, which is true in the case of
other Taracahitan branches of the Uto-Aztecan where they are now classified
(Villalpando, 2001), but are not evident with the Tepiman branch, were the
O¶odham are classified. If the Ópata languages, both the Eudeve and Tegüima,
where in fact used to communicate with Tepiman communities as the missionaries
described, this can be proof of a Lingua Franca, a language used by different
ethno-linguistic groups in order to communicate despite language barriers; a
similar way that English is use today.
Furthermore, two other groups have been identified as Ópata: the Tegüis and
Cogüinachis (Orozco y Berra, 1864), exponentially increasing the possible answers
to archeological questions in the region. Contrary to the holistic view that the Ópata
where a single group moving together and sharing the same history, a division of
each group might help solving the enormous puzzle of the ³Southwest U.S. /
Northwest MX´ archeology.

 

 


 

During the period between A.D. 1250 and 1450, a cultural phenomenon can be
appreciate in the archeological records of southern Arizona, this has been called
Salado, because of its geographical location in the Salt River, or Rio Salado in
Spanish. As many other archeological cultures of the region, they seem to
abandoned their lands in the 15th century, and their fate is unknown (Vanpool,
Vanpool, & Phillips, 2007). Some relation can be draw between this phenomenon
and later recognizable tribes, implying an Arizonan Origin for the Ópata and other
Taracahitan tribes.

The architectural record of the Salado is very poor in comparison to other

traditions, but some patterns can be seen in the existent records. Most of their
villages had rectangular designs, typically surrounded by walls. The rooms where
also rectangular and some only had three walls, leaving them open on one side.
The presence of unroofed areas, suggests the existence of open plazas.
Furthermore, their constructions were not as tall as other traditions; many of them
are single story buildings (Morgan, 1994).
In order to compare them to the Ópata, we face a problem. It is not easy to find
original standing structures of the Ópata, mostly because their ancient towns
became the modern towns of Sonora, leaving their architecture under our
constructions. However, we can go back to the descriptions made by historians
and conquistadores, in order to compare them. According to the descriptions of
Manuel Sandomingo and Baltasar de Obregon, there are some similarities, at least
enough to focus in the possible relationship between these two cultures and
promote further study.

A





 


 

 
 
 




 












 





 

 







 
 
 



 




 



 

 







 


(Sandomingo, 1953: 224)1

This description of Manuel Sandomingo can easily fit the structures presented in
the book A





by William N. Morgan as Salado,
where the rectangular architecture and walls seem to be very characteristic. The
description also fits the models of Salado¶s Villages presented in Pueblo Viejo
Escultismo Webpage (Pueblo Viejo Escultismo). (Note the importance of the dog
as a guardian of doorways, idea previously considered by Dody Fugate)

A well known source of descriptions of ancient Sonora are the Chronicles of

Baltasar de Obregón, who visited the region in the 16th century, where he
illustrates some towns in the Sonoran Heartland, his descriptions on the
architecture of the inhabitants may shed some light where we lack physical
evidence.

A
! 

 


 













 




"

 

 


 
 

 
 

 



!
 
 



#


 

 

$ 
"



 


 

 







 






%





$ 

 





&


 
'
( 

 
"
)


 



 


 
)



 


 

 

 
 



" (De Obregón, 1584: 173,174)

‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘
‘
‘ 
‘‘ ‘‘‘å
     
      
  
  
   
  


  J‘
His description of the towns seem to share some similarities with some
archeological traditions of the ³American Southwest´ probably a reason some
believe the Ópata as a single group are the descendent of the Paquimeans.
(Phillips, 2008)

In addition to the architectural and historical records, religious similarities between

some groups in the region and the archeological data might support a Taracahitan
Urheimat in Central Arizona. Taking in consideration that the migrations that
created the Salado Archeological Tradition started just before the emergence of
the Kachina cults in the Anasazi region, we can expect a Proto ± Kachina religion
among those migrants, which would eventually become a Taracahitan Group
and/or influence some other Taracahitan Groups in adopting a similar religion, in
this scenario the migrants might have lost their original language, creating a bunch
of similar languages with different degrees of homogenization (Probably the
Opatan Languages).
The Paskola of the Taracahitan might be a remnant of this
event, as this tradition has been grouped among the original dances of the tribes of
Sonora (Galaviz-Acosta & Beltran-Vega, 1983: 40). Of course this is not a new
idea; an ³Incipient form of Kachina Ritual´ among the Salado has been suggested
in the book ³Religion in the Prehispanic Southwest´ (Vanpool, Vanpool, & Phillips,
2007: 242) if this can be corroborated we might have a link between the Anasazi
and the Sonorans.

It is important to find similarities between modern Taracahitan and Northern Uto-

Aztecan Tribes in order to believe in the Arizonan Urheimat of the Ópata and other
Taracahitan. Similarities that can be easily found in Oral Traditions, where the
depiction of Man ± Eating Giants related to stories of birds, babies and women are
common both in the Taracahitan and in Northern Uto-Aztecan such as the Paiute
(Velarde Verdugo, 1988; Lumholtz, 1981; Farner; Paiute; Mondragón, Tello, &
Valdéz, 1995). This Man- Eating stories might represent historical events such as
the Massacre at Cowboy Wash, where a whole town was raided and cannibalized
in a single event (Billman, 2008). It can be argued that these elements are present
in the whole Uto-Aztecan Family, but there is a lack of Man ± Eating Giants in the
Pima Mythology. (Webb, 1959; Olmos Aguilera, 2005)

Although the belief system of the Ópata was never recorded, we can assume it
shares some similarities with its Taracahitan neighbors. In his work, Manuel
Sandomingo describes dances that represent historic battles and a dancer similar
to a jester, probably a type of Paskola. Other small details such a Yaqui Legend
clearly stating that the Paskola came from the North (Olmos Aguilera, 2005: 218)
and that the symbols on the Paskola dancer¶s face are closely related to the Sun
(Kolaz, 2007) an important aspect of the Pre ± Kachina Chaco are additional
supporters of a link between the Salado and the Tegüima.









  





 
  

A great deal of debate still exists among archeologist about the fate of the
Hohokam. While many believe that the modern O¶odham populations descend
from the Hohokam, others argue that the O¶odham were nomadic groups that
invaded the Hohokam region bringing their demise (Seymour, 2007). It is striking
how most of the researchers have omitted studying the most advanced tribes of
Sonora when they assign identities, being in close proximity to the archeological
records.

The Hohokam emerged around 200 CE in southern Arizona; some important traits
of their culture were the irrigation canals, ball courts, a shell industry and the use of
cremation for the dead. Around 1150 CE, a sudden change in their lifestyle is
recorded; most of them abandoned the use of cremation and lost
quality in their
shell industry. The change was so abrupt, that the Pre-Classic Hohokam (Before
1150 CE) and the Classic Hohokam are usually divided to study each period
independently. (Fish & Fish, 2007)

There seems to be a connection between the Pre Classic Hohokam and the
Trincheras Archeological Culture that lays just south of the Hohokam region, in
northwestern Sonora. Although it appears that the latter Classic Hohokam were not
related to the Trincheras (Fish & Fish, 2007), we cannot exclude Trincheras from
the Hohokam as a whole. In the book A*
 

+ Elisa Villalpando
and Randall McGuire, conclude that the Trincheras were not Hohokam because of
the lack of Tanque Verde Pottery in Trincheras Sites (Villalpando & McGuire, 2009:
365). Even though, this is not sufficient to exclude them from the Pre Classic
Hohokam, it might suggest a schism motivated by the influence of Pueblo
migrations into the Hohokam area, effectively separating them from the Classic
Hohokam.

In the same book Villalpando and McGuire, devote a great deal of effort to explain
the 11 burials found in Cerro de Trincheras, which is not tradition in a population of
at least 2,100 people where there is more evidence of cremation than of burials. It
seems that by exaggerating the importance of these few burials for which no
Carbon Dating is offered, they want us to believe in a link between Trincheras and
the O¶odham (Villalpando & McGuire, 2007). Other people seem to interact with the
Trincheras such as Casas Grandes and Salado, based on the pottery found at
Cerro de Trincheras (Villalpando & McGuire, 2009) perhaps their late influence
might have something to do with those burials.
Cerro de Trincheras was apparently abandoned around the mid 15th Century, but
when the Spaniards arrived in the 17th Century the O¶odham inhabited the region
(Villalpando & McGuire, 2007; 2009). If they were Cerro de Trincheras¶
constructors and still inhabited the region, why wouldn¶t they live on it? Could any
other culture be responsible for the Trincheras Sites in Sonora? I believe the
answer is in the Eudeve. If we consider them a different culture from the rest of the
Ópata as Pennington suggested, and consider the fact that locations among the
Historic Eudeve (Smith, 1861) and the distribution of Trincheras and Hill Sites in
the San Miguel River in Sonora (Fish, Fish, & Villalpando, 2007: Fig I.I) match,
then we should seriously take them into consideration and start studying a possible
relation.

 


In order to understand the nature of the atom, one must look deeper into subatomic
particles for answers in its behavior, in order to understand the true origin of the
Ópata and their relationship to their neighboring archeological traditions one must
dismember them up. In the 15th century the archeological records of Arizona, New
Mexico, and Paquime disappears, erasing thousands of people in a blink of an eye
(Childs, 2008). While in the Sonora of the Conquistadores, the O¶odham seem to
be divided by the Ópata population, effectively dividing the Pimería Alta and
Pimería Baja. Even stranger some Ópata such as the Eudeve seem to be
separated by the Tegüima in some areas, as if their whole movement was not
uniform. Can this be evidence of migrations from the north and east separating
populations?

To further illustrate the importance of separating each group, the debate of the
descendants of Paquime would rest a good case. Some archeologist think that the
Paquimeans went to Sonora and became the Ópata, while others believe that they
went north to New Mexico becoming part of the Pueblo People, of the Kiowa-
Tanoan and Keresan Language families (Phillips, 2008). By focusing only in the
Jova, instead of the Ópata as a whole, we can argue for a Sonoran Fate of the
Paquimean, because the different Jova language suggest a different history and
cultural traits for this specific group, strengthen by the relationship seen in the map
³Distribución Geográfica de los Ópatas´ (Sandomingo, 1953), and the
archeological ruins that use T- Shape doors seen in Paquime and in Chaco
Canyon that are present in the same region, it is easier to start drawing parallels.

It seems proper to end this insubstantial attempt to vindicate Sonoran Pre-History,

with a quote of Baltasar de Obregon, which has reminded the author of
archeological sites such as Park Creek (a Hohokam/Salado Site) (Morgan, 1994:
117):

A!


 
 
)

 





 


 




 













 


 










 








%
!




 

 








(De Obregón,
1584: 179,180)

As an enthusiast of falsifiable science, the author of this article invites the readers
to prove or disprove the ideas here presented in a responsible way, avoiding the
use of feelings to create arguments. Ending a book such as ³The Hohokam
Millennium´ with arguments based on emotions (Gumerman, 2007), might demerit
the work of fellow researchers mainly because establishing a connection between
the pre-historic Hohokam and contemporary O¶odham based on a group of people
chanting is not science. Just like believing that the Sierra Madre provided a last
stronghold for the Civilized Cultures of the Desert against barbarians from all
directions, is not science either. We must always have in mind that our claims
should be scrutinize by our bi-national community.
 

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘‘

‘‘‘‘‘‘
‘!
‘"‘‘‘‘
‘

‘!
#‘$ ‘%‘$ ‘& ‘' ‘(‘
‘& ‘!)‘   



  


‘ ‘*‘+‘,- ‘ ‘./‘ ‘01
#‘‘2‘
 ‘

! ‘! ‘ ‘å





 !  " 


  
 
#‘
')‘3‘'3/‘‘#‘ ‘

$‘4‘ ‘ * ‘ 

 
 

 

 

! 


$ 

$% ‘ -‘  ‘5 ‘
‘6‘  ‘&‘‘! ‘

7‘ ‘8 ‘% 9‘7+5

‘ ‘
 
  ‘&‘ ‘- ‘

7 ‘: ‘; ‘(‘7 ‘
‘ ‘< ‘‘6

‘‘ ‘  ‘%‘: ‘; ‘7 ‘
‘ ‘
7 ‘(‘8 ‘ ‘

 

  
  ‘ ‘   ‘ /‘ ‘01
#‘
‘2‘
 ‘

7 ‘: ‘; ‘(‘7 ‘
‘ ‘< ‘å  

 #‘:
‘7/‘: ‘‘1‘ ‘

 ‘

7 ‘: ‘ ‘7 ‘
‘ ‘(‘ ‘8 ‘< ‘7‘% % ‘%‘: ‘ ‘7 ‘
‘ ‘7 ‘(‘8 ‘ ‘



 

  
  ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘./‘ ‘01
#‘‘2‘
 ‘

7
‘$ ‘ ‘
‘$ ‘ 
‘''‘=‘ ‘

512+
‘ ‘(‘
+‘0 ‘ -= ‘(
)
 ! 
 

*#‘
6‘:‘">/‘:
‘‘8‘‘$
/‘0‘:8$‘, ‘ ‘‘

5‘5 ‘? ‘< ‘ ‘6 /‘ ‘@ ‘‘

‘@ # ‘%‘: ‘; ‘7 ‘(‘
‘ ‘7 ‘
å  
 ‘ ‘ , ‘:
‘7/‘: ‘‘1‘ ‘
 ‘

;2‘ ‘" ‘< ‘3‘
‘"‘7‘ ‘ ‘!

‘‘&‘ ‘  

+
 
"
‘‘* ‘

&‘
‘   ‘) 
 ‘

1‘?#‘ *‘ ‘‘'
1‘‘&‘+‘ ‘
@‘‘ ‘5
/‘

/AA))) 
  A7
+6
+&A @
5
+



‘

& 
2‘! ‘ -  ‘,-% .

 / 0


 1‘ ‘  ‘"B>/‘
%


‘'‘%
 ‘

"4‘& ‘ ‘? ‘(‘B2‘ ‘ --* ‘
2 34
5$
   ‘:‘

‘  ‘"B>/‘$4‘5‘‘!
‘
 ‘‘%C ‘

"‘@ ‘' ‘ -- ‘

 
  
#‘
‘ >/‘01
#‘‘ >‘

 ‘
'
1‘? ‘ - ‘,

.
  
 

 "

67&8#9


  


)


#



#‘ ‘./‘ ‘
01
#‘‘2‘
 ‘

‘‘" ‘* ‘, 3!

#,
- 

4 

: 4
 
 
 





-% #‘ D‘
 ! ‘"B>/‘8‘!‘‘‘7
‘'
‘/‘7‘‘
‘&‘!
‘#‘&‘
‘$‘
'
 ‘

2‘#‘‘" ‘ , ‘24




0 -%  





  









 


 
#‘
">/‘% 
‘‘? " ‘‘#‘7 ‘8
 ‘


‘! ‘@ ‘ - ‘( 
,!$
% 
$
% ‘
 ‘, ‘6‘:‘">/‘!
‘‘‘'
‘%'6 ‘

 ‘$ ‘ ‘‘?#‘ ‘;

!
$% #‘
1‘?#‘ ‘‘ 68‘8'$‘7‘
!::‘5'$8:‘
 ‘ 
‘
‘
‘# ‘

‘ ‘&#‘‘! ‘! ‘$‘
/‘7
#‘
3‘
‘
‘?
‘!‘5‘
D
/‘

/AA)))  AE A8++!+5 ‘

‘D‘8
 ‘   ‘ 3,

 ‘
1‘?#‘ ‘ ‘‘:/‘

/AA))) 1D

 A:
‘

8&‘!$8"%‘8:
F& ‘   ‘,( .,+, <=( ‘

1‘?#‘ ‘ ‘‘
$%!!%'%‘$8‘&‘&8'50‘8:
F&‘+‘B‘‘4/‘

/AA  A%A:1

!
G %
H0:I=(&8"I
‘

:‘" ‘ -*= ‘å
  

  

 
‘ ‘  ‘‘

‘:‘
"> ‘

:#‘$ ‘? ‘< ‘‘ ‘
 

1‘‘
‘6 +
‘!
 ‘>

= 
‘*  ‘

:
‘ ‘ ,  ‘2   =å!(


) 
;






 #‘')‘3/‘!#‘
 ‘

 ‘ ‘& ‘ ‘! ‘: ‘(‘
 ‘$ ‘ ‘< ‘ ‘!‘5‘‘:‘
 ‘

%‘ ‘& ‘ ‘! ‘: ‘ ‘(‘$ ‘ ‘
 ‘  



 
‘ ‘=*‘+‘
 ‘& ‘"$/‘
‘
 ‘

‘‘" ‘ ‘ - ‘! ‘‘‘‘

>
‘#J/‘4
‘K)‘#‘#B9B ‘
  +? : 
0

  
‘ ‘6‘:‘">/‘
$ 

‘‘6‘‘‘01‘‘: ‘

 ‘8 ‘  ‘8‘: ‘%‘ ‘‘(2

   ‘ ‘<  ‘!'!0& L‘?‘
 ‘
 ‘8 ‘(‘"5‘ ‘- ‘,

 (:4 


#‘6‘:‘">/‘%'6‘:‘%


‘:‘‘!
 ‘

 ‘8 ‘(‘"5‘ ‘< ‘8>1

‘
‘!‘‘   ‘%‘: ‘; ‘7 ‘
‘ ‘7 ‘(‘
8 ‘ ‘

 

  
  #‘ ‘./‘ ‘01
#‘‘2‘

 ‘

@‘5 ‘ -*- ‘   
#‘ ‘./‘01

#‘‘2‘
 ‘

c
 
 
 

Lic. Jose Daniel Navarro Wilson

Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico
jdnw85@gmail.com
August, 2010



Elvia Edith Corrales Navarro

Omar Rene Navarro Wilson
Esteban Terán Navarro