{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02480752780153978, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01710863986313088, 'mean_word_length': 5.964285714285714, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Rethinking "Redistribution" in the Archaeological Record: Obsidian Exchange at the Marana Platform Mound

Economic concepts of redistribution and reciprocity (e.g., Service 1962; Sahlins 1972; Earle 1977) often play important roles in models of exchange, even though prehistorians are poorly equipped to discriminate between these processes in the archaeological record. Spatial analyses and geochemical characterization (X-ray fluorescence) of obsidian from the Classic period (A.D. 1100-1300) Hohokam multi-site community of Marana in the American Southwest reveal patterns that do not match idealized archaeological expectations of redistribution. These data support an interpretation of restricted obsidian consumption at communal ceremonial gatherings that centered on the platform mound. However, households in the platform mound settlement (the largest site in the community) had roughly equivalent amounts of obsidian, whereas households in settlements away from the mound had highly limited access. This unexpected pattern indicates that normative models of exchange are inadequate for characterizing prehistoric economy in prestate societies like the Hohokam.