A comparison of these three cultures in both interesting and pertinent to ideas which are expressed later in this paper.
The first point to be covered, is the relationship of the people Colton referred to as the Southern Sinagua (Colton 1946:301-5). This writer has a number of reservations in classifying them as Sinaguan, and therefore did not discuss them with the Northern Sinagua. Colton made the classification on the basis of a plainware, which he called Alameda Brown Ware (Colton 1946:303), and effected the dating of the various sites on the basis of his Ceramic Groups (Colton 1946:18, 304). Most of this was based upon surveys (Colton 1946:302).
Mr. Paul Fish was good enough to allow this writer the opportunity to look over some of the pottery and other artifacts which he recovered in the Perkinsville area. Mr. Fish, in turn examined some of the artifacts from the Calderwood Site. We were both interested in the great similarities apparent between the two assemblages.
Mr. Jim Schaeffer, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master's Degree, excavated a site (Ariz U:2:29) on the Verde River immediately below Horseshoe Dam. This writer, as did most Anthropology majors at Arizona State University at the time, contributed labor. While working at the site, one characteristic of the architecture was apparent. That is, the walls were slab based, using slabs or rounded boulders set on end as the basing.
It is not this writer's intention to assign the people previously named by Colton the Southern Sinagua to the Prescott Branch on this evidence, but only to suggest that such a relationship may in fact exist. The likenesses listed above, in artifacts at Calderwood and Perkinsville, and in architecture at Fitzmaurice Ruin, Calderwood, and Ariz U:2:29 do warrant this suggestion and a further study of the matter. Probably a much closer scrutiny of the Calderwood and Perkinsville material together with a comparison with Northern Sinaguan material would do a great deal to settle this question. Also of great importance will be Mr. Schaeffer's final report on Ariz U:2:29.
A second point is the possible relationship of the Salado and Prescott Branches. This relationship is possibly much stronger than has been suspected in the past. The strongest currently in favor of this is in burial forms, particularly in the roofing over of relatively deep shafts with beams. This is accentuated by the apparent lack of this form among the Sinagua.
The major difference between the Salado and Prescott Branches may be the result of the Hohokam splitting the two at a relatively early date and a subsequent independent evolution of the two parts.
On the basis of surveys used by Colton to define the Southern Sinagua, a very evident pattern of site distribution emerged. Along the Verde River we have the Hohokam from about A.D. 700 to A.D. 1125. At much higher elevations a second group of people lived, those called Southern Sinagua. Approximately ten to twelve miles separated the Hohokam near the river from the people living in the highlands (Colton 1946:303-4). If it can be shown that on a pre-A.D. 700 horizon that the Prescott and Salado represented essentially one culture, then the Hohokam up the Verde River could well have divided this group into two groups with from ten to twenty-four miles (up to twenty-four if we are able to count both sides of the river) separating them. This would be in addition to having a people of a different culture, the Hohokam, between them. If the Hohokam were unfriendly the problem of communication between the two groups is compounded. Unfortunately the earlier histories of the Prescott or Salado cultures are at this time a complete blank. Should the Southern Sinagua as defined by Colton in fact turn out to be Sinaguan, then another idea will be required.