INTERACTION AND INTEGRATION ON THE NORTHERN AZTATLÁN

FRONTIER IN SINALOA

John Carpenter (Centro INAH Sonora) and Guadalupe Sánchez (ERNO-UNAM)

Ponencia invitada para el simposio “Reassessing the Aztatlán World: Cultural

Dynamics in Postclassic Northwest Mesoamerica (AD 900-1450),” organizado por
M. Mathiewitz y J. Pohl para la 79ava Reunión de la Sociedad Americana de
Arqueología, a celebrarse en Austin, Texas,

Abstract: Utilizing data derived predominantly from investigations at El Ombligo,

Mochicahui and Rincón de Buyubampo, we examine the northernmost extension of
the Aztatlán archaeological tradition incorporating the Culiacán region along with
the evidence of integration and interaction with the neighboring Huatabampo and
Serrana traditions in northern Sinaloa and southern Sonora. We propose that the
Culiacán region played an instrumental role in Aztatlán interaction with the
Guadiana branch of the Chalchihuites tradition in Durango and suggest that the
transmission of objects and ideology beyond the northern Aztatlán frontier was
facilitated and enhanced by the existence of a shared Cahitan language continuum
that extended along the western slope of the Sierra Madre Occidental from the Río
Piaxtla to the international border.

Resumen: Utilizando datos primordialmente derivados de nuestras

investigaciones en los sitios de El Ombligo, Mochicahui y Rincón de Buyubampo,
examinamos la frontera septentrional de la tradición arqueológica de Aztatlán
incorporando la región de Culiacán junto con las evidencias de integración e
interacción con las tradiciones vecinas de Huatabampo y Serrana ubicadas en el
norte de Sinaloa y el sur de Sonora. Proponemos que la región de Culiacán jugó
un papel instrumental en la interacción con la rama Guadiana de la tradición
Chalchihuites en Durango y sugerimos que la transmisión de objetos e ideología
más allá de la frontera Aztatlanteca fue facilitada y reforzado por la existencia de
un continuo lingüístico Cahita compartido y que extendió por la ladera poniente de
la Sierra Madre Occidental desde el río Piaxtla hasta la frontera internacional.
Introduction

The roots of the Aztatlán tradition seemingly extend into the Gavilán phase at
Amapa, in northern Nayarit, and the Tierra del Padre phase at Chametla, in the Río
Baluarte region of southern Sinaloa, and are dated to between 250 and 500 CE.
Between 700 and 900 CE, the Aztatlán tradition expanded to incorporate an area
extending from Bahía de Banderas, Jalisco, and north to the Río Mocorito, in the
vicinity of Guamúchil, Sinaloa.

By circa 900 CE, the proto-Aztatlán/Aztatlán tradition had reached its

maximum expansion to the north, incorporating the region surrounding Culiacán,
with the Rio Mocorito recognized as the northern frontier (Figure 1). With respect to
the numerous Aztatlán materials that have been documented east of the Sierra
Madre Occidental, we note that, during the earliest periods, these items appear to
have a provenance in the Chametla or Amapa regions, whereas the majority of late
period artifacts appear to have originated from within the Culiacán region, and
most likely indicate the result of transverse exchange with the Guadiana branch of
the Chalchihuites tradition, probably via the Río Tamazula to Topia and, not
coincidently, the same route taken by the Ibarra expedition from Durango to
Culiacán (Figure 2).

Figure 1. Extension of the Aztatlán Tradition

1
 Figure 2. The Topia Road linking Culiacán and Tepehuanes
(from West and Parsons 1942:407)

At the time of Spanish contact in the 16th C., the region between the Río
Piaxtla and the Río Mocorito was occupied by the Tahue—the southernmost of the
Cahita-speaking groups—and who were also acknowledged as the northernmost
Mesoamerican societies encountered during Spanish conquest of the Pacific
coastal region (Figure 3). Archaeological data suggest that the Tahue were the
inheritors and biological descendants of the late prehispanic Aztatlán tradition
(Hulse 1945). The northern margins of the Aztatlán frontier was also occupied by
numerous groups of Cahitan-speakers, including the Ahome, Guasave, Ocoroni,
Sinaloa, Tehueco, Zuaque, and Zoe, and who were apparently more closely
affiliated with the Northwest/Southwest cultural traditions, and whose descendants
today comprise part of the Yoreme (Mayo) indigenous community.

2
 Figure 3. The Tahue and their Cahita-Speaking Neighbors

Interaction and Integration in Northern Sinaloa

In contemplating the nature of cultural interaction and integration on the Aztatlán

frontier in northern Sinaloa, we offer brief summaries of the results of our
investigations of the El Ombligo (Carpenter 1993, 1995, 1996, 2008) and
Mochicahui funerary mound assemblages (Carpenter et al. 2009, 2010, 2011)
associated with the Huatabampo archaeological tradition as well as at the La
Viuda/Rincón de Buyubampo habitation complex affiliated with the Serrana
(formerly known as the southern branch of Río Sonora) archaeological tradition
(Carpenter et al. 2006; Carpenter and Sánchez 2007; Carpenter et al. 2009)
(Figure 4).

3
 Figure 4. Site locations in northern Sinaloa and southern Sonora

El Ombligo

The El Ombligo funerary mound assemblage (Guasave site) has traditionally

served to mark the northern terminus of postclassic (900 CE to Contact)
Mesoamerican/West Mexican expansion along the North Mexican Coastal Plain
(Figure 5). The site consisted of a low mound measuring approximately 1.5 meters
high and 30 meters in diameter, and which was situated approximately 100 meters
west of an abandoned meander of the Río Sinaloa, some six kilometers to the
southwest of the town of Guasave. Excavation over the course of three field
seasons between 1938 and 1940 indicated that the mound was a formal cemetery,
with the remains of 196 individuals reflecting a varied mortuary program (Ekholm
1939, 1940, 1942). The mortuary practices included extended inhumations with
heads oriented to the north, south, and west, secondary bundle burials of
disarticulated remains, and secondary interment in large funerary ollas (Figure 6).
Tabular-erect cranial deformation was prevalent, and several cases of tooth filing
and staining also were observed.

4
 Figure 5. Northern terminus of postclassic (900 CE to Contact)
Mesoamerican/West Mexican expansion including El Ombligo/Guasave Site

Figure 6. Urn, Extended and Bundle Burials at El Ombligo

5
 Funerary offerings associated with these graves revealed an elaborate
material culture, with several pottery types including red wares, red-on-buff, finely
incised wares and several types of highly detailed polychrome pottery, alabaster
vases, copper implements, shell, pyrite and turquoise jewelry, paint-cloisonné
gourd vessels, ceramic masks, clay smoking pipes, modeled spindle whorls, a
cylinder stamp, prismatic obsidian blades, cotton textiles, bone daggers, human
trophy skulls, and food remains (Ekholm 1942:120) (Figures 7-9).

Figure 7. Copper and Shell Ornaments recovered from El Ombligo

Figure 8. Miscellaneous artifacts recovered from El Ombligo

6
 Figure 9. Culiacán-region Aztatlán vessels from El Ombligo

Taking into account variability in mortuary treatment, depth of interment,

orientation, and grave lots, in conjunction with ten new radiocarbon dates, indicates
two chronological components reflecting a much greater temporal span than
previously recognized (Carpenter 1993, 1995, 1996). The earliest Huatabampo
period occupation is dated to approximately 700/800 CE to 1100 or 1150 CE, with
the subsequent Guasave period placed between approximately 1100/1150 and
1350/1400 CE.

Sometime around 1000 CE, sophisticated polychrome vessels, clay masks

and smoking pipes associated with the Aztatlán complex were either locally
produced or imported from nearby Aztatlán neighbors. These objects are
apparently restricted to funerary contexts and likely functioned within an
ideological/ritual realm. There are relatively few, if any, tangible indications of an
actual Aztatlán occupation at Guasave.

Although there are marked differences between the Huatabampo and

Guasave periods, continuity of occupation is demonstrated by both the mortuary
program and the material culture. In general, the Guasave period burials reflect
variations on practices established in the Huatabampo period. The most notable
difference between periods is the appearance of secondary burials in ollas during

7
the terminal portion of the Guasave period. However, these burials, along with the
other Aztatlán components, do not reflect the long-reaching expansion of
Mesoamerican/West Mexican societies into the northern frontier, but traits adopted
from neighboring communities on the North Mexican Coastal Plain of Sinaloa. The
Aztatlán component at El Ombligo appears to be strongly associated with the
ideological realm, with little evidence for either political or economic integration on
a macroregional scale. However, the manipulation of symbolically or ideologically
important objects may have served both political and economic ends for high
status individuals, and may also have promoted regional interaction within the
Sinaloan coastal plain.

Mochicahui

Mochicahui is located in the lower Río Fuerte Valley some 10 kilometers upriver
from modern-day Los Mochis and, in the 16th C., was described by the Spaniards
as the principal pueblo of the Zuaque, the most powerful of the groups occupying
the valley. At least three funerary mounds have been documented here. In 1988,
Talavera and Manzanilla (1991) recovered 15 burials from the small Los Bajos
funerary mound in Mochicahui. The existence of an additional funerary mound in
Mochicahui was documented in 2008 (Carpenter et al. 2009). Unfortunately, this
component (named the Leyva funerary mound) was thoroughly looted in the late
1970s, producing an estimated 40 to 50 burials along with approximately 120
ceramic vessels, some of which are curated in the museum collections of the
Universidad Autónoma Indigenista de México (UAIM). This assemblage includes
Huatabampo/Guasave red wares, Guasave Red-on-buff, and Aztatlán Red-on-buff
as well as the northernmost documented occurrence of Aztatlán Polychrome
vessels (Figures 10 and 11). A third (Borboa) funerary mound was discovered in
November 2009, and subsequent salvage excavations recovered three burials
(Carpenter et al. 2010, 2011). Along with El Ombligo, these represent all of the
funerary mounds yet documented in Sinaloa; it is likely that El Opochi presented an
unrecognized mound and there is an unconfirmed report of an additional funerary
mound in the vicinity of Guamúchil.

8
Figure 10. Aztatlán Polychrome and Guasave Red-on-buff vessels recovered
from the Leyva Funerary Mound, Mochicahui

Figure 11. Guasave Polychrome bowl recovered from the Borboa Funerary
Mound, Mochicahui

9
 At both the Leyva and Borboa mounds, funerary practices included placing a
large mollusk shell beneath the head as a “pillow”, and placing a small shell in the
mouth. Tabular-erect cranial deformation is evident among the burial population
(Talavera 2005); dental modification was reported by the looter of the Leyva
mound (Carpenter et al. 2010; 2011). As yet, no urn burials have been documented
in the Mochicahui assemblages, and the funerary offerings are much
less elaborate in comparison with the El Ombligo assemblage. Geographical
distribution and the predominance of local materials suggest that these features
can best be considered as an attribute of the Huatabampo tradition (Carpenter and
Sánchez 2011) (Figure 12). Additionally, presumably non-funerary platform
mounds have been documented at the La Playa de Ocoroni site (Carpenter et al.
2009) (Figure 13).

Figure 12. Burial Mound Distribution

10
 Figure 13. Platform Mound at La Playa de Ocoroni

La Viuda/Rincón de Buyubampo

Lastly, recent excavations at the adjacent Serrana tradition sites of La Viuda and
Rincón de Buyubampo, located in the Janalicahui Valley five kilometers south of
the Sonoran border, indicate that this habitation complex reflects a continuous
occupation from approximately 700 to 1700 CE. Artifacts recovered from both sites
indicate that they participated in the Aztatlán long-distance exchange system and
that the production of marine shell ornaments was an important activity. Around
approximately 1200 CE, the population shifted circa 700 meters from La Viuda to
Rincón de Buyubampo, where large multi-room domestic units were constructed
atop trash-filled house mounds--a feature as yet unreported elsewhere in Sinaloa.

At Rincón de Buyubampo, evidence of interaction with the Aztatlán tradition

is indicated by a type 1C1a copper bell, prismatic obsidian blade fragments, a
cylinder seal, Aztatlán spindle whorls and Navolato Polychrome and Tuxpan Red-
on-orange pottery (Carpenter et al. 2006) (Figure 14). Additional intrusive
ceramics include Guasave Red-on-buff, Arivechi Red-on-brown, and Babicora
Polychrome--representing the only documented occurrence of Chihuahuan
polychromes within Sinaloa (Figure 15). Evidence of shell ornament production is
also abundant at the majority of the sites documented in this region (Figure 16).
Figure 14. Obsidian, copper and ceramic objects of Aztatlán origin
recovered from Rincón de Buyubampo

Figure 15. Babicora/Ramos Polychrome recovered from Rincón de

Buyubampo
 Figure 16. Marine Shell Ornament production at Rincón de Buyubampo

Our research in the Sinaloa-Sonora border region suggests that from

Mochicahui the exchange route followed the Río Fuerte upstream to the vicinity of
modern-day El Fuerte, Sinaloa, where we have identified the existence of two
alternate routes between the Río Fuerte Valley and the vicinity of Alamos, Sonora;
one route following the confluence of the Río Cuchujaqui (Arroyo Alamos), and the
other route following the Arroyo Janalacahui, located approximately 20 kilometers
to the northeast (Figure 17). These alternate routes may likely be associated to
competitive control of the local exchange routes between the Tehueco (Río
Cuchujaqui) and Sinaloa (Arroyo Janalacahui). Notably, both routes were
recognized as caminos reales connecting the mining towns of El Fuerte and
Alamos during the 18th C. Considering that Cabeza de Vaca and companions
finally encountered their fellow Spaniards in the vicinity of Sinaloa de Leyva
suggests that they passed along one of these two routes. This, in turn, leads us to
suspect that this same route was utilized in 1539 by Marcos de Niza (having been
guided by Esteban, who had accompanied de Vaca), Francisco Vasquez de
Coronado, in 1540, and by the expedition of Francisco Ibarra, in 1564, and
perhaps explaining the reason for their eventual arrival in Paquimé (Figure 18).
Figure 17. Alternate Arroyo Alamos and Arroyo Janalicahui routes from El
Fuerte to Alamos historically recognized as Caminos Reales

Figure 18. The proposed route taken by Cabeza de Vaca, de Niza, Coronado
and Ibarra (from Di Peso et al. 1974)
Discussion

In the cases of El Ombligo, Mochicahui, and Rincón de Buyubampo, the

acquisition of non-local items more closely resembles a prestige-goods economy
(following Frankenstein and Rowlands 1978 and McGuire 1987), and can be
considered as a consequential, and not causal, factor in the intensification of
indigenous social relations.

While the Aztatlán materials documented at El Ombligo could perhaps be

interpreted as evidence for possible socio-ideological integration (Carpenter 1996),
the data do not support the presence of a significant foreign population or evidence
of politico-economic dominion. At present, there is no evidence suggesting that any
of the late prehispanic communities north of the Río Mocorito were politically
integrated with their adjacent Aztatlán neighbors.

As an alternative to core-periphery models based on politico-economic

exploitation, we suggest that interaction and integration was largely predicated by
the flow of information and materials between sedentary agriculturalists who
occupied the coastal plain and adjacent foothills between southern Sinaloa and the
Arizona border. This model suggests that these prehistoric peoples were members
of the Cahitan language group, which included the Tahue, Comanito, Mocorito,
Mayo, Yaqui, Eudeve, Jova and Opata.

As David Wilcox (1986b, 2000; Wilcox et al. 2008), has previously proposed,
the existence of a linguistic continuum would have facilitated the transmission of
information and goods between West Mexico and the American Southwest.
However, as an alternative to a supposed Tepiman continuum, the North Mexican
Coastal Plain and the adjacent flanks of the Sierra Madre Occidental are described
as a spatially, environmentally and culturally intermediate area where the
prehispanic Cahitan-speaking groups formed a continuous linguistic link extending
between southern Sinaloa and the Arizona border. Importantly, this perspective
turns attention from the imperial role of complex Mesoamerican polities to the
localized selection and adaptation of both material and ideological traits. This
scenario also suggests that the presumed withdrawal of the Mesoamerican frontier
during the 14th century was neither linked to regional abandonment predicated by
shifting ethnic boundaries nor linked to the collapse of politico-economic systems.
Instead, continuity of occupation by Cáhita-speaking peoples in northern Sinaloa
indicates the declining participation in the overt ideological and iconographic
symbols associated with their linguistic kin in the Culiacán region.

Sixteenth century Spanish chroniclers identified at least 20 groups

occupying the coastal plain, foothills and Sierra of northwestern Mexico that are
today recognized as Cahitan-speakers (Miller 1983a, 1983b; Moctezuma 1991)
(Figure 19). Cahitan comprises one of the major linguistic subdivisions of the
Southern (or Sonoran) branch of Uto-Aztecan (Miller 1983a, 1983b; Moctezuma
1991). The Cahitan-speaking groups of the coastal plain and adjacent foothills
have traditionally been considered to represent late arrivals that descended from
the Sierra Madre Occidental, displacing presumably Tepiman-speaking peoples
(Beals 1932:145; Braniff 1992:217; Sauer 1934:82; Wilcox 1986b). However, as
discussed by Miller (1983b:333), this interpretation seems to have been based
solely upon geographical appearances. In considering the linguistic data, Miller and
others (1983a, 1983b; D. Shaul, personal communication, 1993) suggest that the
Cahitans may have been established on the coastal plain near the beginning of the
Christian era. Furthermore, archaeological evidence substantiates cultural
continuity between the Huatabampo tradition and the various Cahitan groups
(including the Guasave, Ocoroni, Zuaque) of the coastal plain, as well as the
related Serrana tradition with both the Tehueco and Sinaloa groups of Cahitan-
speakers. Our research suggests that both the Huatabampo and Serrana
archaeological traditions share a common origin within an Venadito Brown ceramic
horizon (Figure 20); we have also proposed that initial differences between these
traditions may likely be ascribed to differential adaptations to coastal and foothill
environments (Carpenter and Vicente 2009).

Figure 19. Linguistic Map of NW Mexico in the 16th C. (from Moctezuma 1991)
 Figure 20. Proposed Cahita Ceramic Chronology (from Carpenter and Vicente
2009)

The Cahitan region to the north of the Río Mocorito represents an extensive
area where sedentary agriculturalists share closest affinities with the archaeological
communities of the Southwestern U.S. but who also, during various
centuries lived “face-to-face” with traditions related to broader developments in
West Mexico/Mesoamerica (Beals 1974:63). These various Cahitan groups reflect
a cultural diversity that cannot be adequately explained by reference to mainstream
developments in the heartlands of the American Southwest or Mesoamerica.
Instead, much as Ralph Beals proclaimed almost 70 years ago (in 1943, see Beals
1974), this region can be better understood as a complex web of ecological factors
and reciprocal relations between social groups which involved a wide range of
interaction and varying degrees of integration at the regional and interregional
scales.

Both archaeological and ethnohistorical data indicate that northwest Mexico

was not the vast cultural netherworld, separating the Southwestern U.S. from the
complex societies of Mesoamerica. Instead, it appears that, by no later than 250
CE, there were sedentary farming peoples occupying the North Mexican Coastal
Plain and adjacent foothills, forming a continuous link from southern Sinaloa to the
Arizona border. On the basis of both linguistic and archaeological data, we have
proposed that these people were likely the bio-cultural ancestors of the Cahitan-
speaking populations encountered by the Spanish in the first half of the 16th
century. At the southern end of this spectrum are groups identified as fully
Mesoamerican, such as the Tahue, which appear to be the contact-period
descendants of the late prehistoric Aztatlán complex. The Opata, historically the
northernmost Cahitan-speaking peoples, have been identified with both the Rio
Sonora and Casas Grandes traditions (Figure 21).

Figure 21. Possible Linguistic Connections Between Culiacán and

Paquimé

The Cahitan-speaking groups occupied a region both spatially and

environmentally intermediate between tropical Mesoamerica and the arid American
Southwest. The archaeological data, though limited, similarly suggest a culturally
intermediate position. In this perspective, such seemingly disparate communities
as Culiacán and Paquimé may have been at opposite ends of a single, attenuated
linguistic spectrum. While some polities may have held a vested interest in the
acquisition of goods, the actual exchange mechanism can be explained without
relying upon models based upon politico-economic exploitation. Instead of
concentrating on the distribution of a few isolated traits, future research will prove
more fruitful if we turn attention to the full range of social, political, economic and
ideological behaviors represented in the archaeological record. Only then will we
be able to assess the true nature of Mesoamerican-Southwestern interaction.
 Bibliography

Beals, Ralph
1932 The Comparative Ethnology of Northwestern Mexico Before 1750. Ibero-
Americana:2

1974 Relations Between Mesoamerica and the Southwest. In The Mesoamerican

Southwest: readings in archaeology, ethnohistory, and ethnography, edited by
Basil C. Hedrick, J. Charles Kelley, and Carroll L. Riley, pp. 58-63. Southern Ilinois
University Press, Carbondale.

Braniff, Beatriz
1992 La Frontera Protohistórica Pima-Opata en Sonora, México: Proposiciones
arqueológicas preliminares, Vol I. Colección Científica, INAH, Mexico City.

Carpenter, John
1993 The El Ombligo Burial Mound: Funerary Remains and Cultural Frontiers in
Northern Sinaloa, Mexico. Paper presented at the 26th Annual Chacmool
Conference, November 11-14, 1993, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

1995 Huatabampo y Aztatlán: El montículo funerario de "el Ombligo" y las

fronteras culturales en el norte de Sinaloa, México. In Sonora: Origen y Destino,
Memorias del XIX Simposio de Historia y Antropología de Sonora, Vol. 2, pp. 94-
116. Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas de la Universidad de Sonora,
Hermosillo, México.

1996 El Ombligo en la Labor: Differentiation, Interaction and Integration in

Prehispanic Sinaloa, Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Arizona, Tucson.

2008 El Conjunto Mortuorio de El Ombligo: Análisis e Interpretaciones. In

Excavaciones en Guasave, Sinaloa, México, compilado por Carlos Zazueta
Manjarrez y Cecilia Guerrero Astorga, pp. 149-181. Once Ríos (Siglo
XXI)/INAH/Colegio de Sinaloa, Culiacán.

Carpenter, John, and Guadalupe Sánchez

2007 Nuevos Hallazgos Arqueológicos en La Región del Valle del Río Fuerte,
Norte de Sinaloa. Diario de Campo 93 julio-agosto de 2007, pp.18-29 INAH

2011 Burial Practices in Viejo Cinaloa. Paper presented at the symposium

“Tratamiento Funerario en el Noroeste de México” at the 76th Annual Meeting of
the SAA, Sacramento, CA, March 30-April 3 2011.

Carpenter, John and Julio Vicente

2009 Fronteras Compartidas: La conformación social en el norte de Sinaloa y sur
de Sonora durante el periodo cerámico. Espaciotiempo 3: 82-96.
Carpenter, John, Guadalupe Sánchez, y Haydee Chávez
2006 Informe Final del Proyecto Salvamento Arqueológico Álamo Dorado de la
Minera Corner Bay S.A. de C.V. Informe técnico entregado al Consejo de
Arqueología del INAH, México, D.F.

Carpenter, John, Guadalupe Sánchez y Julio Vicente

2009 Proyecto Arqueológico Norte de Sinaloa. Informe Técnico de la Temporada
2008 entregado al Consejo de Arqueología del INAH, México, D.F.

Carpenter, John, Guadalupe Sánchez, Lizete Mercado, Alejandra Abrego, Ismael

Sánchez y Hugo García
2011 Informe Técnico Final CONACyT del Proyecto Arqueológico Norte de
Sinaloa: Rutas de Intercambio (2008-2011).

Di Peso, Charles C., John B. Rinaldo, and Gloria Fenner

1974 Casas Grandes: A Fallen Trading Center of the Gran Chichimeca. Vol 4-8.
Northland Press, Flagstaff.

Ekholm, Gordon
1939 Results of an Archaeological Survey of Sonora and Northern Sinaloa.
Revista Mexicana de Antropología 3(1):7-11.

1940 The archaeology of Northern and Western Mexico. In The Maya and Their
Neighbors, pp. 307-320. D. Appleton-Century Company, Inc., New York.
1942 Excavations at Guasave, Sinaloa, Mexico. Anthropological Papers of the
American Museum of Natural History, vol. 38, Part II, New York.

Frankenstein, S., and M. J. Rowlands

1978 The internal structure and regional context of Early Iron Age society in
Southwestern Germany. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 15:73-112.

Hulse, Frederick
1945 Skeletal Material. In Excavations at Culiacan, Sinaloa, edited by I. Kelly, pp.
187-198. Ibero-Americana:25.

McGuire, Randall H.
1987 The Greater Southwest as Periphery of Mesoamerica. In Centre and
Periphery: Comparative Studies in Archaeology, edited by T. C. Champion, pp. 40-
66. Unwin Hyman, London.

Miller, Wick R.
1983a Uto-Aztecan Languages. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 10,
edited by A. Ortiz, pp. 113-124. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D. C.

1983b A Note on Extinct Languages of Northwest Mexico of Supposed Uto-

Aztecan Affiliation. International Journal of American Linguistics 49(3):328-335.

20
Moctezuma Zamarrón, José Luis
1991 Las Lenguas Indigenas del Noroeste de México: Pasado y Presente. In El
Noroeste de México: Sus Culturas Etnicas, edited by D. Gutierrez and J. Gutierrez
Tripp, pp. 125-136. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e História, Mexico City.

Sauer, Carl O.
1934 The Distribution of Aboriginal Tribes and Languages in Northwestern
Mexico. Ibero-Americana:5.

Talavera, Jorge Arturo

2005 Usos y costumbres funerarios. In Historia General de Sinaloa, edited by
José Gaxiola and Carlos Zazueta, pp. 91-116. Colegio de Sinaloa.

Talavera, Jorge Arturo, and Ruben Manzanilla Lopez

1991 Proyecto de Investigación y Salvamento Arqueológico en Mochicahui,
Sinaloa. Antropología 34:22-27.

West, Robert C., and James Parsons

1941 The Topia Road: A Trans-Sierra Trail of Colonial Mexico. Geographical
Review, Vol. 31, No. 3 (Jul., 1941), pp. 406-413

Wilcox, David
1986 The Tepiman Connection: A Model of Mesoamerican-Southwestern
Interaction. In Ripples in the Chichimec Sea: New Considerations of Southwestern-
Mesoamerican Interactions, edited by Frances J. Mathien and Randall H. McGuire,
pp. 135-153. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.CHANGE TO 86B

2000 El nexo Tepiman: Un modelo de interacción entre Mesoamérica y el

suroeste norteamericana. In Relaciones: Estudios de Historia y Sociedad 82:59-
84. El Colegio de Michoacán, Zamora, Michoacán.

Wilcox, D., Phil C. Weigand, J. Scott Wood and Jerry B. Howard

2008 Ancient Cultural Interplay of the American Southwest in the Mexican
Northwest. Journal of the Southwest 50, 2 (Summer 2008): 103-206.

21